Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 20 19:10:48 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Roy "pedophile" Moore can't let this go
FoxNEWS
Member
Thu Dec 14 04:43:04
A day after losing the Senate race in Alabama to Democrat Doug Jones, Roy Moore has issued a new statement refusing to concede the election. But it wasn’t your typical post-election statement.
It was a four-minute fire-and-brimstone video about abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayer, sodomy, and “the right of a man to claim to be a woman and vice versa.”

“We are indeed in a struggle to preserve our republic, our civilization and our religion and to set free a suffering humanity,” Moore said. “Today, we no longer recognize the universal truth that God is the author of our life and liberty. Abortion, sodomy and materialism have taken the place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

"We have stopped prayer in our schools,” Moore said in his statement. “We have killed over 60 million of our unborn children. We have redefined marriage and destroyed the basis of family, which is the building block of our country. Our borders are not secure. Our economy is faltering under an enormous national debt. We have a huge drug problem. We have even begun to recognize the right of a man to claim to be a woman, and vice versa. We have allowed Judges and justices to rule over our Constitution, and we have become slaves to their tyranny. Immorality sweeps over our land.”
FoxNEWS
Member
Thu Dec 14 04:52:01
http://www...msR?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
yankeessuck123
Member
Thu Dec 14 05:25:07
"Immorality sweeps over our land."

Doesn't it though, Mr Moore?
hood
Member
Thu Dec 14 07:39:47
293rd term abortion for this dumb ho, please.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 13:10:26
An Alabama judge has denied Roy Moore's request to stop the certification of the Senate race.

...he's still claiming voter fraud & that he passed a polygraph about the women & wants a do-over

Doug Jones' win being certified now in some boring televised event
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 28 13:15:46
And just like that, his accusers instantly disappear after his loss. Almost as if women are lying whores and their word alone shouldn't be enough to destroy the careers of powerful men...oh, sorry, I forgot this is the era of Listen and Believe. My bad, fry Roy Moore's ass.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 13:18:02
i heard that about Trump's too...

what do you want the accusers to be doing?
Dukhat
Member
Thu Dec 28 13:26:16
Rugian is such a fucking far-right moron. Nobody believes that shit unless you spend your time up Steven Bannon's asshole at Breitbart.

Multiple women provided independently verified claims and multiple women provided written evidence that Roy Moore courted them.

The statute of limitations passed. These women wanted to make sure Roy Moore didn't become a senator given his behavior and more power to them.

It's really open and close unless you're a troglodyte like Rugian without any capacity for empathy in which case this all a giant conspiracy. MUH LIBERALS.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 28 13:29:32
"courted them."

"The statute of limitations"

lol, fucking Cuckhat
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 13:39:12
it's accurate... some didn't allege anything illegal, some weren't even unhappy about it, just confirmed he went after them as teens

I can think of only 2 alleging anything illegal... where statute of limitation is an issue plus trying to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt isn't going to happen

same problem for Trump accusers, although I think at least one still pursuing defamation or something

and it's not like they were shouting accusations daily until the election then just shut up... they told their stories, then that was it... (and some fled homes from death threats)
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 28 13:44:03
"tumbleweed
the wanderer Thu Dec 28 13:18:02
i heard that about Trump's too...

what do you want the accusers to be doing? "

For starters, not bringing up unverifiable allegations dating back to the 19 fucking 70s. That'd be a good start. Frankly, I don't give a shit.

"Multiple women provided independently verified claims and multiple women provided written evidence that Roy Moore courted them.

The statute of limitations passed."

What statute of limitations? The women he allegedly courted were of age. As for the ones crying assault, they have nothing to verify their claims with.

"It's really open and close unless you're a troglodyte like Rugian without any capacity for empathy in which case this all a giant conspiracy. MUH LIBERALS."

Yeah, it's totally out of the question that a woman would ever make a false sexual assault claim against someone, especially a powerful figure like a Senatorial nominee. Even more so in the Year of the MeToo witchhunt. Perish the thought.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 28 13:49:49
"I can think of only 2 alleging anything illegal..."

Right. For the vast majority of claims, the statute of limitations is irrelevant. Asking a 16-year old out on a date is not illegal.
Turtle Crawler
Admin
Thu Dec 28 13:57:26
It should, however, be illegal to ask a 30 year old out on a date. Yuck.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 14:31:30
why are some of you still hung up on what's illegal?

the character of politicians matter... some people voted on his character
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 28 14:34:01
It's Alabama...no they didn't.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 28 14:38:11
Cuckhat was the one who brought up the statute of limitations, implying Moore would have ever gone to jail based on the claims. Take it up with him.
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 28 14:40:09
Also Turtle Crawlers transformation into a misogynistic joke spewer is fantastic.
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 28 14:40:09
Also Turtle Crawlers transformation into a misogynistic joke spewer is fantastic.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 14:43:00
statute of limitations is relevant as to why there could never be a 'proven in court' moment, that Moore people kept demanding before anyone believed anything

there's more than enough evidence to believe he targeted teens even if it was usually legal

cheating on your wife isn't illegal either, yet has brought down plenty of politicians in the past
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 28 14:54:24
We're living in an age where a guy who ran over a person with a car and whose stepdaughter became famous by fucking on camera is nevertheless lauded as a hero because he chopped off his balls and put on a wig. I don't know what year you're living in, but moral standards got thrown out of the window ages ago.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 28 14:57:59
Statute of limitations was never going to be an issue. These girls were never going to press charges, and only came out because they disliked his politics.

re: cheating on wife, infidelity has almost never been accepted in any civilized society at any point in modern history. Men being significantly older than prospective wives, however, has.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 15:02:15
i'm unaware of high school girls dating men in their 30s being accepted as normal anywhere

and given he did it enough times to be known for it, i find it completely believable that he at least once went below the hard deck


& they didn't come out because they disliked his politics... there was enough rumors about Moore that the Post heard them when investigating & tracked down people who didn't even want to talk about it
Rugian
Member
Thu Dec 28 15:05:35
"i'm unaware of high school girls dating men in their 30s being accepted as normal anywhere"

http://www.islam101.com/dawah/muslim_world_map.html
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 28 15:05:42
You're unaware of teenage girls courting men in their twenties and thirties throughout history? Been living under a rock?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 15:11:05
i was referring to current day America

and it wasn't the girls courting him... he was known to go after them
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 15:15:01
go post on your social media sites that you are a dating a 16-year-old girl & see what reaction you get if you aren't embarrassed by it
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 28 15:43:03
This didn't occur in current day America.

And if they said yes to a date, they're courting, as well.

I realize definitions are hard.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 28 16:02:53
so your argument is his behavior was less repulsive at the time when he did it, and the illegal stuff can't be proven in court, so voters should not have considered any of it?
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 28 16:08:30
My "argument" was laughing at this tripe:

"The statute of limitations passed. These women wanted to make sure Roy Moore didn't become a senator given his behavior and more power to them. "
Turtle Crawler
Admin
Fri Dec 29 00:25:15
My 35 year old friend's gf just turned 18 last year.

Shes azn so its not much of an accomplishment, but still decent.

Seems normal for a guy to get as hot/young a girl as he can.

Since this became a topic I've been tracking girls ages vs marriageability, I'll say 15-16 is a very attractive age.

Maybe its partially since I've only ever dated girls 18 or younger (and then got married etc), so its all I really understand.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 09:10:40
"Since this became a topic I've been tracking girls ages vs marriageability, I'll say 15-16 is a very attractive age. "

I hope they don't ban you from local malls, TC
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 09:13:30
" We have allowed Judges and justices to rule over our Constitution"

thats the same Roy Moore who says that muslims can't be seated in Congress. Must be one of those strict constitutionalists
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 11:09:01
To be fair, judicial review is about as Constitutional as a litmus test.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 11:24:14
right. this is really really hard for a strict constitutionalist to understand, I know
".. but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 11:29:42
Right. They both have zero Constitutional basis.

Thank you, no need to google specific clauses, I'm already aware.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 29 11:30:10
activist judge Roy Moore got the boot for demanding his ten commandments monument remain in his courthouse
“God’s law will be publicly acknowledged in our court.” ~Moore
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 11:32:14
"They both have zero Constitutional basis. "

what are you talking about? Not the usual anti judicial review ramblings, I mean what are you talking about the religious test?
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 11:33:37
"To be fair, judicial review is about as Constitutional as a litmus test."

"Right. They both have zero Constitutional basis."

No worries, just the usual anti-judicial review ramblings.

CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 11:37:10
so if Moore is on record saying that there is no freedom of speech and no right to bear arms, and then says that judicial review is bad, do you also want people "to be fair" to him? Because you agree with him on judicial review?
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 11:55:59
CrownRoyal
Member Fri Dec 29 09:13:30
" We have allowed Judges and justices to rule over our Constitution"

thats the same <insert San Francisco dingbat here> who says that firearms should be banned from private ownership. Must be one of those strict constitutionalists

---

Yeah, I'd probably inject my usual anti-judicial review rant into this as well.

Admittedly, I'd probably also state that I hope the dingbat gets shot, because speech/2A ranks higher on my priorities list than a Deep South tard saying Muzzies can't hold public office. One is rightfully laughed at, while the others legitimized and practiced in various forms across the country.
McKobb
Member
Fri Dec 29 12:04:46
Fuck Moore. He treated his staff like shit.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 12:09:29

" because speech/2A ranks higher on my priorities list than a Deep South tard saying Muzzies can't hold public office."

That is true. this is a sign of a strict constitutionalist, where you support the parts of the constitution, based on priorities. Or maybe not.

"thats the same <insert San Francisco dingbat here> who says that firearms should be banned from private ownership. Must be one of those strict constitutionalists "

I can tell you that i would not call anyone like that a strict constitutionalist, and whats more, i would not urge people "to be fair" to such dingbat, since it is clear to me that such dingbats other views on constitution are to laughed at, whether i agree with these views or not. I am clearly a way stricter constitutionalist than you, forwyn, way stricter
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 12:35:47
I understand English is difficult for you - too much time in Ukraine, maybe?

Prioritizing issues based on their threat doesn't mean accepting one while demonizing the other, it just means realizing that one is an extremist position that will never gain traction.

Free speech zones and hate speech legislation pushes are a real issue, however. Likewise, cities and states quite frequently make it harder to purchase/own/carry firearms, their peripherals, and ammunition.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 12:46:51
First, I want you to explain why you thought I should be fair to Roy Moore, a Deep South tard, as you call him. That is if you think I wasn’t fair to him in the first place. I think I was very very fair
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 13:14:35
To be fair, regarding Deep South tard's idiotic position number 2, his stance on position number 1 is largely correct, though probably for the wrong reasons - he was a judge himself, after all.

But you don't have to be fair to him at all if you like, I just enjoy the pulpit for criticizing judicial review.
Dukhat
Member
Fri Dec 29 13:27:59
Rugian going to bat for a pedophile. Love it.

A 30-year old man going after teenagers is only interested in one thing. And some of the allegations were literally sexual assault. And even if he did court some of them; many of them would've been unable to give consent according to most state laws.

I don't think the allegations themselves were the most damning. Most republican voters don't care about personal issues as long as the asshole running says they will appoint mouthbreather anti-abortion activists to the courts.

What broke the camel's back was when they found Roy Moore writing that women were inferior to men and shouldn't hold positions of power.

Roy Moore's numbers had recovered and dipped again after that.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 13:45:30
"But you don't have to be fair to him at all if you like, I just enjoy the pulpit for criticizing judicial review."

excellent. I knew your original reply to me was useless, you just wanted to post the usual ramblings. And I know that I don't have to be fair to Moore if I don't want to. But why did you decide that I wasn't fair to him in the first place? I want to be fair, so how was I unfair to the guy you call a deep South tard who, as you say, has an extremist views on the Constitution, that you emphatically do not accept. How is you saying that fair to old Roy, but when I mock the idea of taking any tips on Constitution from the same extremist unticonstitutional tard, you think I am unfair.

seems to me that, not only I am a stricter constitutionalist that you, since I don't selectively pick what's constitutional and what isn't, but I am also more fair to Judge Moore, you just belittle and berate him mercilessly
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 13:55:34
You presented a statement that is true, presented by a guy who holds obviously false opinions, to denigrate the true position.

"since I don't selectively pick what's constitutional and what isn't"

Not fair, drunkard, we've established this.

"Prioritizing issues based on their threat doesn't mean accepting one while demonizing the other, it just means realizing that one is an extremist position that will never gain traction."
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:04:20
"ec 29 13:55:34
You presented a statement that is true, presented by a guy who holds obviously false opinions, to denigrate the true position"

correct. why would I take any advice on Constitution from an extremist as you call him? you should do the same
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:06:11
"Not fair, drunkard, we've established this. "

what did we establish? you prioritize your allegiance to constitutionalist, right? by all means, of course, but I don't, therefore I am a stricter constitutionalist
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:11:23
"why would I take any advice on Constitution from an extremist as you call him?"

As I pointed out, he likely holds the position for the wrong reasons - he was a judge, and seemed to have no problem issuing inane rulings.

"you prioritize your allegiance"

I prioritize threat levels. There is zero threat of a Deep South tard's view that Muzzies can't take their oath on a pedo's diary (pot meet kettle) spreading to the point that it becomes a national issue.

Meanwhile, members of Congress sit on the floor like crybabies to increase restrictions on 2A, and free speech zones / hate speech legislation have become more widespread in recent years.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:15:40
As I pointed out, he likely holds the position for the wrong reasons - he was a judge, and seemed to have no problem issuing inane rulings. "

This is why I should take advice from him?? Because you pointed it out? He is an extremist plus you pointed it out
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:17:43
"I prioritize threat levels."

right. your allegiance is based on threat level. When the threat is low, in your opinion, you don't care about e CConstitution that much.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:23:19
"Meanwhile, members of Congress sit on the floor like crybabies to increase restriction..."

I know what you should do. you should post something urging people to be fair to these extremists, like you did with Moore. Hey, maybe they are deep South retards
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:24:17
He holds the right position, and it shouldn't be automatically discounted because of his wrong positions. We shouldn't assume he's correct on the issue, for the right reasons, but we shouldn't assume all of his positions are automatically wrong, either. Even a broken Deep South clock is right twice a day. Or once, in this case.

"When the threat is low, in your opinion, you don't care about e CConstitution that much."

Nah, I'm just not going to have an aneurysm about it, I'll just laugh at him.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:41:38
"He holds the right position, and it shouldn't be automatically discounted because of his wrong positions. "

even if i wanted to side with fringe imbeciles who still contend that judicial review should be gone, after two centuries, your comprehensive trashing of Roy moore, the extremist tard, convinced me otherwise. And in general, I don't know about you, but I but extremist unticonstitutionalist tards opinions on the Constitution are exactly the opinions that I disregard.

"Nah, I'm just not going to have an aneurysm about it, I'll just laugh at him."


I imagine that many selective constitutionalists are nonchalant about it. Like, a SF dingbat who says that private gun ownership should be outlawed is not as outrageous, once you know that she is also having a laugh. You have that in common
Forwyn
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:47:46
"fringe imbeciles" like Thomas Jefferson.

"Like, a SF dingbat who says that private gun ownership should be outlawed is not as outrageous, once you know that she is also having a laugh."

She's not having a laugh, and neither is Moore. The difference is that the former is given a platform in mainstream media, the latter is universally derided.
CrownRoyal
Member
Fri Dec 29 14:55:17
“She's not having a laugh, and neither is Moore.”

I’m talking about you. - “Nah, I'm just not going to have an aneurysm about it“

And I said that probably many people like you, who are selective about the parts of the constitution they care about, are also not having an aneurism about the trashing of other parts of the same constitution, they might also be very nonchalant about it. Two examples are you and the SF dingbat who thinks that private ownership of guns should be banned. Maybe the dingbat also has a threat level, a priority system, who knows he might even oppose judicial review, like you. That’s all

Jewgle
Member
Wed Jan 03 04:39:54
Roy Moore's Jewish lawyer says in interviews he is a "passionate supporter" of Doug Jones

Alabama attorney Richard Jaffe, who represented Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore's son Caleb, said in interviews Tuesday that although Kayla Moore famously said "one of our attorneys is a Jew," Jaffe voted for Doug Jones. "There could not be a more passionate supporter of Doug than me!" Jaffe told the Washington Examiner.

http://www...SEJ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

LOL
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 03 11:05:42
he shall burn in the hell he doesn't believe in
Jewgle
Member
Fri Jan 05 11:11:14
Roy Moore's Jewish lawyer is a practicing Christian.

LOL

But "one of our attorneys is a Jew."
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share