2018 Senate (& House)

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    And this allegation (which seems credible) coupled with Moore's admission that he dated teenage girls when he was in his 30s should be enough for people not to support Moore.

    People need to work on their consistency. If this allegation was made about Bill Clinton, how would we react? Would we give Bill the benefit of the doubt? I wouldn't, so how could I give Moore the benefit of the doubt after the guy admits to dating and kissing teenage girls? Sorry, it may be legal to date teenage girls if you aren't having sex with them, but it sure as hell is weird and disturbing.

    Of course, liberals need some consistency too. They give Leigh Corfman credibility and accept her story without question, but most of them never took Juanita Broaddrick's allegations seriously. They were largely dismissed as "not credible" (without much explanation) and too old (even though they were half as old as Leigh Corfman's).

    99 percent of the time, these sorts of claims (including Broaddrick's and Corfman's) are swearing matches - he said, she said. If you believe one and dismiss the other, it's probably because of politics rather than a true outrage of sexual assault.
     
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    D Gene Green (Houston) threw in the towel
     
  3. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 5,000+ Posts

    Never even knew Mr. Green Jeans was into politics.
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Even more shocking is you thinking you are making an insult by pointing out someone does not watch SNL. I had to sit through about 2/3 of that show to get to the Astros' part a couple weeks ago. It was awful. It's so bad it is painful. I suspect you guys know this in your hearts and minds, but pretend its funny only because they are so politically biased. You do it like its your duty. SNL gets the same auto-reflexive laugh track audience Jon Stuart/David Letterman used to get for their bad jokes. You know the type.

    This entire situation makes for a nice contrast in our two sides. Despite the constant bias, no one is trying to get SNL banned from the airwaves. I dont know if you are old enough to remember this but back during the Reign of W, your side was convinced they lost those elections due to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reaily, Sean Hannity and people like this. They were your excuse -- that era's version of "THE RUSSIANS!" It's always something. Anything but the real issue. And so, to fight this, you guys were constantly trying to get them banned or censored or boycotted (you did manage to get Limbaugh tossed off MNF). You guys even tried to revive the "Fairness Doctrine." I was, of course, against that on principle. But it would have been fun watching you guys squirm had it passed. Your side, for some reason, thought it would only apply to Limbaugh, not realizing we would turn around and use it on network news/newspapers + SNL/Letterman.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Wasnt one of those guys a Green Beret?
     
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Not Bob Keeshan (aka Capt. Kangaroo): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Keeshan

    He was a reserve Marine during WW2 but never left the continental US.
     
  7. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 5,000+ Posts

    Joe Fan likes this.
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Looks like Lee Marvin said on the Johnny Carson Show that he fought beside Capt Kangaroo at Iowa Jima. Wasnt true. If you can't trust Lee Marvin, who can you trust?
     
  9. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    I’m not at all shocked that you don’t watch SNL. What was shocking was that you have a limited, biased knowledge base about SNL but you nonetheless talk like you know everything about it.

    I find the first 10-15 minutes of SNL to be funny sometimes, and the rest to be funny on occasion. I usually watch the beginning but I rarely make it deep into the show. When I remember (i.e. when I’m really bored at work), I pull up the list of skits later in the week and watch the ones that seem promising.

    On this, we agree. I do remember the attempts to shut down the conservative media. I thought those attacks were ridiculous and dangerous. Fortunately, there wasn’t nearly enough support to get anywhere with that. It was just the whiny super-liberals making noise.
     
  10. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    You just admitted they pulled punches on Obama
    Taking your logic to its conclusion, you are saying I cannot take your word for this?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    My 2 cents on this. In the progressive world, you guys spend a lot of time doing what you think you are supposed to be doing. Y'all have so many rules to follow, its all very confusing. And it changes so often, I have no idea how you manage to keep up with it.

    Here is one small example of this
    Colbert seeks to make fun of Trump but his audience applauded the wrong thing, not yet realizing that the progressive rules had already changed. They didnt get the update

     
  12. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    SNL is good with parody comedy and political humor....note the word HUMOR. Their Spicey was incredible. I can't struggle through most of the other stuff either.

    They also have some timely monologues. This one was pretty good.
     
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    And it hasnt really changed, has it? The only change is the name of the target for censorship. Since Hannity is the new cable news rating #1, they are full on after him now. To hear him tell it, there are very well-funded operations after him 24/7 (see Media Matters). They want him off the air. It happened to O'Reily who they targeted for a very long time. Clearly his own fault, but at the same time, there was a well-funded push from the other side -- just waiting foe something to jump on. In other words, there are billionaires in this country who are consumed with the idea that "if I could only get rid of that guy, this country's problems would be solved" and so they spend part of their fortune in that pursuit -- the pursuit of personal destruction. Instead of, you know, doing something positive, like directly helping the folks they think deserve help. This is just one small example of why my side thinks your side is filled with hate.
     
    Garmel likes this.
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This is the second time you have done this in a week. Are you trying to catfish me?

    Also, didnt Chappelle take a bunch of crap for that?
     
    OUBubba likes this.
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This issue is a sticky wicket. No pun intended. It's something I attempted to articulate on day one, which you promptly criticized.

    While I agree with the idea we should be consistent, the other side never is. They could give a crap about consistency. I do not think they ever consider it. They laugh at us for this kind of stuff. And, yes, by doing so, you might be able to maintain a level of moral purity lefties will never achieve, there is also the pragmatic side that these people also win elections. And each time they do, they knock the country down a notch. Leaving the rest of us in the self-satisfying position of maintaining our principles while the country crumbles around us. There may be no better example of this than the one you gave here, the Clinton Family.


    Here was that original post of mine

    The whole Moore thing is disturbing, no matter which story is correct
    If its true Moore did this, then he is disgusting.
    But if this is fake, then the media and their partners at the DNC are destroying someone's life for their own political gain.
    Either outcome is bad. No winners.
     
  16. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    I'm grooming you. Learning a lot from this Roy Moore dude.... :)
     
    Seattle Husker likes this.
  17. Garmel

    Garmel 500+ Posts

  18. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

  19. Garmel

    Garmel 500+ Posts

    Because the timing of the article is just too good. After all of this time this story comes out where it easily handcuffs the republicans. If it was released a few weeks earlier Moore can be easily replaced. The Post's dishonest stories on Trump that Comey shot down shows the what the Post is capable of doing. If you want to believe it was just coincidence that's fine. I can't give them the benefit of the doubt.
     
  20. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    LOL! Rush Limbaugh though it important to point out to his listeners that Roy Moore was a Democrat when he was a allegedly a predator for teenage girls.

    Just having a 'D' after your name makes you a deviant, apparently.
     
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    My toe nails need some work
    You available?
     
  22. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 5,000+ Posts

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/23/roy-moore-alabama-senate-resurrection-215639
    Politico confirms Moore was a democrat when he was younger, and was dating teenagers.

    Wonder why the Democrats did not condemn him back then. Curious.
     
    militaryhorn likes this.
  23. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Still highly skeptical of recent claims against Moore. Has nothing to do with my preference on the race. I'm not sold Moore would've benefited MAGA being a fundamentalist hardliner who likely views compromise as an attack on his core beliefs. Also don't buy a Dem will win the seat regardless if Moore is kept from it.

    However, the timing, sources, and collective that detests this guy since the Strange battle make it extremely hard to accept on its face.

    How much of a stretch is it to believe the guy had a penchant for dating legal aged teenagers back 40 years ago. As creepy as it sounds now, it wasn't that unheard of back then, which is why it never surfaced as an election attack.

    So WAPO and the Dem operatives latch onto this 'now unacceptable' behavior in his past and see a golden opportunity to manipulate it into something intolerable and illegal.

    Knowing those beyond the age of consent wouldn't do the trick, they drum up a very sordid person to claim she was underage and he touched her, etc. Now his dating of consent aged girls helps provide much validity to the underage claim.

    Feeling that may not have done the trick, they then dig up another of age girl he probable dated a bit and have her claim forced sexual assault. And she's led by left crusader Gloria Allred of all people.

    Seeing who's behind the take down (angry sworn enemies)...MSM (who endorsed the Dem), establishment (who spent millions on Strange and were embarrassed) and Allred (left crusader from hell)...there's a good chance Moore dated consent aged teens back 40 years ago, but the minor and sexual assault claims were fabricated knowing they'd be believed when viewed in unison.

    If that's true, it's pretty despicable the guy will lose his career and name over his dating preferences 40 years ago that were legal, whether we approve of them now or not makes zero difference. There's a hell of a lot of grandpas out there who were many years the elder of consent age teens they married.

    As I said, I wasn't a big advocate for Moore before this all went down, but I'm having trouble swallowing he was anything more than an advanced aged man who dated consent aged teens 40 years ago. If so, yes it's creepy now, frowned upon back then but not unheard of, but not illegal or grounds to remove.

    This is screaming for using "cui bono" to form judgement in the face of a lack of evidence he did anything illegal. Who benefits? WAPO, McConnell and the estab, Allred...all benefit directly and massively. As much as anyone possibly could. Toss in an insane amount of both motive and opportunity to ice the hit job cake.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  24. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Since people today are hell bent on revisionist history and condemning far removed cultures in the name of modern acceptable customs, consider this...

    Who would be seen as more disturbed and immoral in 1960's Alabama?

    1) 30 year old dating 16-17 year olds
    2) 80 year old sexually active with 18-20 year olds

    While both were legal, I'd argue #2 would hands-down win the disgusting pervert prize back in those days.

    Funny, we seemed to celebrate #2 as a pioneer in our times. Even had a reality show with him sexually active with girls 60+ years younger.

    Hugh Heffner was praised in modern society. Hard to believe that'd be the case in 1960's Alabama. Ole Heff had been doing his Playboy thing for 7 years already at 34 years old back in 1960. Just a lil fyi, Miss January 1958 was 16 years old.

    Just saying, failure to apply context when condemning history from the high horse is dangerous business. Sooner or later all sides will enter the crosshairs.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    Based on the quotes from locals, Moore's interest in teenage girls was viewed as "odd" then too. No need to whitewash it and act like it's somehow acceptable.
     
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  27. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    This didn’t happen in a vacuum. I’d hate to be a sexual harasser with any cache now. Women are feeling encouraged to tell their stories. Moore is just one of many.
     
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  29. OUBubba

    OUBubba 500+ Posts

    I read up on this trial. It's over corruption/bribery. The under age prostitutes that you reference are what our President calls "fake news". One of the accusers admits that she was paid to make false claims.
     
  30. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    **edit** OUBubba beat me to it.

    I like how he threw the right jab about underage prostitutes in there, considering his trial is for corruption/vacations and not the debunked Daily Caller underage prostitute story from 4 years ago.

    That said, if Menendez is guilty (and sure looks like he's guilty AF), and the voters of NJ still want to retain him, then the double standard and whataboutism is alive and well. I think the Moore thing has more traction for reasons related to sexual assault (grab them by the *****, Weinstein, Louis CK, etc.) and it's more salacious.
     

Share This Page