Jump to content

Roy Moore


new tobie

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, new tobie said:

This is the hidden content, please

Oh Im sorry , he's republican, we were'nt gonna bring this one up

So no comment? And no one from the non-Liberal side tries to stifle debate. You can bring it up, along with any other news story. We will just hammer your analysis (which is sure to be blatantly bias) if you offer one. But I really don't see you giving a detailed analysis. I would be surprised if you even read the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

So no comment? And no one from the non-Liberal side tries to stifle debate. You can bring it up, along with any other news story. We will just hammer your analysis (which is sure to be blatantly bias) if you offer one. But I really don't see you giving a detailed analysis. I would be surprised if you even read the article.

I give whatever i please, and you can't stop me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, new tobie said:

This is the hidden content, please

Oh Im sorry , he's republican, we were'nt gonna bring this one up. just like Bill Oreilly, Roger Ailes and the rest of the fox news bunch that ran Meagan kelly and Gretchen off.

If proven true, he deserves his punishment.  But, it is funny they would wait to now to say something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the hidden content, please

Based on the article, these incidents happened between 1977-1982 (I don't remember seeing that in the H. Post).  So these women decide to just "come forward", after 40 years?  Understand, I'm not condoning this If he did it, I just find an accusation from 40 years ago, just coming to light right before a big election, something that stinks to high heaven.  This smells of typical political tactics, or goldigging.  Stinks to high heaven.

And if Moore was such a sexual predator, why didn't he continue?  Oh, just wait a few days, they'll be lining up to tell their stories, if the money is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

You spend a considerable amount of time on this message board.......just sayin

Someone would have to spend an inordinate amount of time on this message board to notice...just saying. Why do you even attempt to trash talk? You are just so bad at it. Stick with "grab um", at least that one was funny the first 10,000 times you said it.  Maybe resuscitate the "go feed your cats" line. That also typifies and clearly displays the intelligence level of the poster. Attempting the high-brow subtle jabs is just not you...which is clear to pretty much everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, REBgp said:

This is the hidden content, please

Based on the article, these incidents happened between 1977-1982 (I don't remember seeing that in the H. Post).  So these women decide to just "come forward", after 40 years?  Understand, I'm not condoning this If he did it, I just find an accusation from 40 years ago, just coming to light right before a big election, something that stinks to high heaven.  This smells of typical political tactics, or goldigging.  Stinks to high heaven.

And if Moore was such a sexual predator, why didn't he continue?  Oh, just wait a few days, they'll be lining up to tell their stories, if the money is right.

I am with everyone (I think) on this board in condemning such conduct.  And you make an excellent point - the accusations are basically pedophilia, which many think is incurable, and even the most optimistic believe it takes extensive therapy.  I think we all believe victims should come forward and perpetrators punished.  But after 4 decades, how can anyone defend themself other than to say i didn’t do it.  And I am guessing there is no video/audio out there of Judge Moore bragging about groping teenage girls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related matter, some states, including our own, have removed the statute of limitations on these types of offenses.  So in this state, Judge Moore could be charged with this offense 40 years after it allegedly occurred.  I believe most prosecutors wouldn’t go near such a case with a 10 foot pole but one could if they so chose, thanks to the infinite wisdom (and I say this with every bit of sarcasm I can muster) of our representatives in Austin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

On a related matter, some states, including our own, have removed the statute of limitations on these types of offenses.  So in this state, Judge Moore could be charged with this offense 40 years after it allegedly occurred.  I believe most prosecutors wouldn’t go near such a case with a 10 foot pole but one could if they so chose, thanks to the infinite wisdom (and I say this with every bit of sarcasm I can muster) of our representatives in Austin. 

Lmbo!  I'm no english prof so tell me, when the words, infinite wisdom, are applied to a group of politicians (anywhere), wouldn't that be an oxy moron?

On a serious note, I did a little searching on:  Is it a crime not to report a felony.  I was surprised in what little I was able to find (because I'm in remedial computer class), in most States/cases it's not.  My immediate inclination is to say it should be.  I'm pretty sure there's some good reasons why it's not a law, would you please enlighten me.

PS:  I did see (in one state) that it was against the law if police ask you about a felony and you said you didn't see it, and you had.  In most cases, it'd be hard to prove though.  Point is, I don't see much difference.  Again, I'll wait for your opinion on this matter.

 

 

Obviously, this allegation brought this up.  Just me personally, if you don't have reasonable proof, it should be a crime to accuse someone of a crime, that was committed over 5 (10/20?) years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, six burg said:

Doesn't really matter which party affiliation.

You're correct six burg.  My problem, and not just with Moore, but all these guys, including Weinstein, is accusers going back 30-40 years.  I know many probably don't agree with me, but if someone does you wrong, you should accuse them within a few years time frame, unless you have some daming evidence to back up your accusations.  

I laugh watching TV when the police say, "What were you doing the night of Sept 8"?   I'm thinking, I couldn't tell you what I was doing a week ago lol.  Course I'm old and senile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

You're correct six burg.  My problem, and not just with Moore, but all these guys, including Weinstein, is accusers going back 30-40 years.  I know many probably don't agree with me, but if someone does you wrong, you should accuse them within a few years time frame, unless you have some daming evidence to back up your accusations.  

I laugh watching TV when the police say, "What were you doing the night of Sept 8"?   I'm thinking, I couldn't tell you what I was doing a week ago lol. Course I'm old and senile.

We may not always agree but I couldn’t agree more here :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, REBgp said:

Lmbo!  I'm no english prof so tell me, when the words, infinite wisdom, are applied to a group of politicians (anywhere), wouldn't that be an oxy moron?

On a serious note, I did a little searching on:  Is it a crime not to report a felony.  I was surprised in what little I was able to find (because I'm in remedial computer class), in most States/cases it's not.  My immediate inclination is to say it should be.  I'm pretty sure there's some good reasons why it's not a law, would you please enlighten me.

PS:  I did see (in one state) that it was against the law if police ask you about a felony and you said you didn't see it, and you had.  In most cases, it'd be hard to prove though.  Point is, I don't see much difference.  Again, I'll wait for your opinion on this matter.

 

 

Obviously, this allegation brought this up.  Just me personally, if you don't have reasonable proof, it should be a crime to accuse someone of a crime, that was committed over 5 (10/20?) years ago.

In Texas it’s against the law to not report certain felonies and it’s against the law to not report abuse.  Neither would apply to a victim though.  It is also against the law to make a false report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...