(11-14-2017, 02:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I didn’t say they lied.   I just said it deserves some vetting.   Some things do not match up.

(11-16-2017, 01:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's a better effort to be offensive... felt that one a little. Well done.

So, whoever is for an European Union movin closer together is a modern day Nazi enabler?

Instead, you want European countries to be apart, every country with its own completely independent military... mabe there can be some bilateral alliances... other countries reacting by stocking up their defenses and form alliances of their own... you do realize that that's what helped lead us into two world wars, right? We fought each other within Europe, that's the beginning of it all.
The EU isn't up for fighting, for going into the offense, conquering stuff. It's about avoiding nationalism that leads to violent conflict. And sure it has to be about self-defense at some point, given how Trump and other right-wing American politicians behave towards us and that we're getting lonely in our discord with Russia. It would be irresponsible not to shore up our continental defenses and just count on a hegemon across the ocean to take care of that, even more so when he's in full submission mode towards Russia.

Also, while Germany sure is a voice with considerable weight, how on earth would you entertain the idea that they are in command. They are not. Their economy isn't lightyears ahead, and neither is their military, they do not possess "the bomb" like France does. They too have to compromise and don't just get their way.

-- What about Roy Moore? Finally feeling like condemning his deeds after even more witnesses came along?

Quote:Alabama Evangelicals take a stand for child molesters: 'Some 14-year-olds ... could pass for 20'



People who can go straight to hell? Defenders of child molesters. Particularly [url=http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/11/19/why-evangelicals-are-again-backing-republican-despite-allegations-sexual-misconduct/nls3lkhOHopU5fUe6bM2hJ/story.html]the group of so-called men of God who are defending Roy Moore:

Quote:“I don’t know how much these women are getting paid, but I can only believe they’re getting a healthy sum,” said pastor Earl Wise, a Moore supporter from Millbrook, Ala.

Wise said he would support Moore even if the allegations were true and the candidate was proved to have sexually molested teenage girls and women.

“There ought to be a statute of limitations on this stuff,” Wise said. “How these gals came up with this, I don’t know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line.

“Plus,” he added, “there are some 14-year-olds, who, the way they look, could pass for 20.”

The article has more quotes along those lines, plus some straight-up racism tossed in for good measure. Vile, vile people.

(11-21-2017, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was raised Catholic.  Catholic grade school and high school.  These "Christians" make me sick.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/20/1717210/-Alabama-Evangelicals-take-a-stand-for-child-molesters-Some-14-year-olds-could-pass-for-20

[url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/20/1717210/-Alabama-Evangelicals-take-a-stand-for-child-molesters-Some-14-year-olds-could-pass-for-20][/url]


http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/11/19/why-evangelicals-are-again-backing-republican-despite-allegations-sexual-misconduct/nls3lkhOHopU5fUe6bM2hJ/story.html

(11-21-2017, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was raised Catholic.  Catholic grade school and high school.  These "Christians" make me sick.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/20/1717210/-Alabama-Evangelicals-take-a-stand-for-child-molesters-Some-14-year-olds-could-pass-for-20

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/11/19/why-evangelicals-are-again-backing-republican-despite-allegations-sexual-misconduct/nls3lkhOHopU5fUe6bM2hJ/story.html

(11-22-2017, 12:49 AM)GMDino Wrote:

(11-22-2017, 01:48 AM)Vlad Wrote: What about for those who kill them in the womb?

(11-22-2017, 01:48 AM)Vlad Wrote: What about for those who kill them in the womb?

(11-22-2017, 01:46 AM)Vlad Wrote: Maybe it wasn't rape rape. Did you ever think of that?

(11-22-2017, 01:48 AM)Vlad Wrote: What about for those who kill them in the womb?

(11-22-2017, 01:48 AM)Vlad Wrote: What about for those who kill them in the womb?

(11-27-2017, 06:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Latest in the Roy Moore saga: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.5aab81c8a5c3

(11-27-2017, 06:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Latest in the Roy Moore saga: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.5aab81c8a5c3

(11-27-2017, 09:46 PM)Benton Wrote: I liked veritas when what they were doing first came up. Journalism can be agenda driven, and journalists or more often their parent companies can make things personal.

But now it doesn’t seem so much like an effort to hold journalists to a higher degree, as much as it is a way to try and discredit a few non-alt news agencies.

(11-27-2017, 10:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They become agenda driven just like the people they were once trying to expose. Kind of reminds you of freshman congressmen and what they eventually become.

James O'Keefe fundraising on his sting-the-Washington-Post fiasco. pic.twitter.com/yH0y4pnJqm

— Byron York (@ByronYork) November 28, 2017

Raw video: Man wearing Roy Moore sticker physically attacked a cameraman attempting to film Moore's arrival outside campaign rally a few minutes ago here in Henagar, Alabama. Another man w/ Moore sticker verbally assaulted a second cameraman. pic.twitter.com/faJVV8YpE0

— Connor Sheets (@ConnorASheets) November 28, 2017

CONFIRMED: the man who grabbed the videographer's camera is Tony Goolsby, DeKalb County coordinator for Moore's campaign. He organized tonight's rally.

— Connor Sheets (@ConnorASheets) November 28, 2017

Quote:[url=http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/alabamians-vote-roy-moore/]Why Alabamians Should Vote For Roy Moore
I have a 14-year-old daughter. If I caught Roy Moore doing what was alleged, for starters I would kick him where it counts. That said, I don’t think it’s wrong to vote for Moore.




By Tully Borland
NOVEMBER 30, 2017

I am going to argue for the very unpopular, even shocking, view that, even if Roy Moore did what he is accused of doing, Alabamans are within their rights to vote for him, and they shouldn’t let Democrats and Never Trumpers shame them into not voting.

Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.


To have a large family, the wife must start having kids when she is young. The husband needs to be well-established and able to support the family, in which case he will typically need to marry when older. Consider Keith Burgess-Jackson’s (philosophy professor at UT Arlington) account of his own grandparents:

Quote:What’s the big deal about a 32-year-old man courting a 14-year-old girl? My maternal grandmother was 15 years old when she married and 16 years old when she conceived her first child. Her husband was 41 and 42. They had 10 children during the next 20 years. This was normal back then. I’m sure it was normal in Alabama 40 years ago as well. The age of consent in Alabama even today is 16 (with parental consent)…I’m sick to death of people imposing their own moral standards on people of the past, whether it’s Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, George Armstrong Custer, Martin Luther King Jr, or Roy Moore.

Times have changed. But, like it or not, four decades ago Moore dated teenagers (even his wife is 14 years younger than he).

As for the Sexual Assault Allegations

What else do we know? We know that two women have accused him of having inappropriate sexual contact or coercion. The most recent allegation appears to have involved more coercion than the first. Whether it would rise to attempted rape in court no one knows, because the details are too sketchy. Forty years is a long time to remember a lot of details.

Both claims have been called into doubt. The yearbook Moore allegedly signed appears to have been doctored, and his accuser falsely claimed never to have seen Moore since even though he was the judge for her divorce. Given recently discovered court records, there is also reason to doubt Leigh Corfman’s story.

But let’s suppose the accusations are mostly true. Then from a conservative moral perspective, Moore is guilty of lying, trying to have pre-marital sexual relations with girls half his age, and pressuring them to do so without first determining that they reciprocate. There is no sugar-coating what he did. Moore was a dirt bag and is currently lying about his actions rather than confessing the truth and asking for forgiveness.

If elected, Moore would join the ranks of other undignified politicians who have been liars and fornicators. I have a 14-year-old daughter. If I caught him doing what was alleged, for starters I would kick him where it counts. Hard. That being said, I don’t think it’s wrong to vote for Moore.

Voting for a Lesser of Two Evils Doesn’t End Your Integrity

Others disagree. In a recent post at the National Review, David French appears to think it’s immoral to vote for Moore, going so far as accusing evangelicals of having a lack of faith. Although I respect French, the article offers little actual argument. Nonetheless, it has received so much attention that it deserves some commentary.
Plus, it’s an exemplary for the lack of argument the #Never____ers routinely put forward.

French’s view can be summarized with the three following sentences: “No amount of concern for the future of the Church can justify supporting an evil man.” “Do you [evangelicals] really have so little trust in God that you believe it’s justifiable—no, necessary—to ally with, defend, and even embrace corrupt men if you think it will save the Church?” “There’s no defensible argument for choosing the ‘lesser of two evils’ in Alabama.”

I point out, but leave aside, the fact that French seems to take for granted that Moore is not only corrupt but evil, since we are assuming for the sake of argument that
Moore did what he is alleged to have done. The question before us is whether one can still maintain faith and one’s moral integrity while voting for a lesser of two evils. The answer is, yes, in both cases.

All voting is voting for the lesser of two evils, and it’s almost never wrong to vote for the lesser of the two. There are no perfect candidates. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, sometimes bigly. Assuming Moore did what’s been alleged, let’s turn to his rival, Democratic candidate Doug Jones.

Doug Jones Is a Moral Monster Or Moral Ignoramus

Jones has gone on record that not only does he support abortion, but he supports unrestricted abortion, even opposing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. This is morally equivalent to supporting infanticide. So either Jones knows exactly what he’s doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn’t care, in which case he’s a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters. Politics, of course, is inextricably bound with such matters.

In my mind, Jones’ position is so extreme that a vote for him is a vote for the greater of two evils by a wide margin. It’s hard to imagine much worse than the mass murder of innocents. That’s also not taking into consideration his many other views with which conservatives disagree.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Moore, as an old, married man, is still trying to have sex with teens. All the accusations target his early thirties before he was married. But Jones supports infanticide in utero today. Virtue-signaling Republicans condemning other Republicans for voting for Moore strike me as being more concerned about their own appearance than the seriousness of abortion and the mental state of someone supporting it.

Why are no Republicans or Democrats calling for Jones to step aside if not for the fact that they are really not that serious about the immorality of supporting infanticide in the womb? If Moore should step aside, so should Jones. Of course there is another alternative, one that I support: Elect Moore and support the Senate not giving him a seat. This would bring about another special election.

Never Voting for a Lesser Evil Means Never Voting

Even if the Senate didn’t expel Moore, from the conservative point of view, the main reason to vote for him over Jones is that he will favor better policies affecting millions of people. Both are terrible candidates, but we have a good idea how they will vote. Alabamans should’ve chosen Trump’s guy, Luther Strange, in the primaries. But Moore and Jones are the only two viable candidates left.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others have raised the possibility of a write-in candidate. But none have emerged, and the establishment apparently didn’t care enough to put one forward. If you want someone to vote for policies that you think are better or best, Moore is it now; there are no other reasonable alternatives at this point.

French’s #NeverMoore and #NeverTrump stances fall prey to what philosophers call a reductio ad absurdum, an argument that reduces itself to absurdity. If one can’t vote for someone who is better (that is, less bad or less evil) or who is equally bad but has better policies, then one should opt out of politics and the voting process altogether! But since that’s not the case, the #Never_____ position fails. It’s that simple.

None of this means that one must embrace Moore, as French says, or defend pre-marital sex, or the practice of older men dating teenagers, or attempted rape, and the like. Moreover, one can condemn such actions while still voting for a candidate.

Get Real: Politics Is Never Pure

The sweeping argument against voting for Moore (or Trump) rests on the mistaken view that in voting one is expressing one’s faith or moral convictions in their totality—identifying oneself with everything about a candidate. But a vote is not an expression of agreement with everything about a candidate or a candidate’s views. In fact, the few pro-life Democrats who still exist will say the very same thing when they vote for Democrats.

A vote is not an expression of agreement with everything about a candidate or a candidate’s views.

I think most candidates are bad. I’m almost always voting for an arm to write a signature or push a button. Thus there’s no shame in voting for someone with whom you disagree, no matter how significant the disagreement, as long as you do so for the right reasons. Regret in having two lousy candidates to choose from is possible without having shame in picking one you think will do less harm to the nation.

Consider the similar case of Gen. George S. Patton in World War II. Patton was a known womanizer and adulterer. He was profane and foul-mouthed, often an embarrassment to his more well-behaved and refined chain of command. Thus it was no great surprise when he was temporarily relieved of command for slapping a shell-shocked soldier.

Patton was to his chain of command in many ways what Trump and Trumpians are to the establishment. But in a war—be it military or political—sometimes the profane is all you have left. So, it was again no shock when the military establishment held their collective noses and “voted” for Patton once again to lead the Third Army. In spite of his tremendous faults, he was not the enemy set on “fundamentally transforming” the freedom-loving republic of their ancestors.

Tully Borland is associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and superhero against the dark forces of political correctness. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter @BorlandTully.

Quote:Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.


To have a large family, the wife must start having kids when she is young. The husband needs to be well-established and able to support the family, in which case he will typically need to marry when older. Consider Keith Burgess-Jackson’s (philosophy professor at UT Arlington) account of his own grandparents:

Quote:What’s the big deal about a 32-year-old man courting a 14-year-old girl? My maternal grandmother was 15 years old when she married and 16 years old when she conceived her first child. Her husband was 41 and 42. They had 10 children during the next 20 years. This was normal back then. I’m sure it was normal in Alabama 40 years ago as well. The age of consent in Alabama even today is 16 (with parental consent)…I’m sick to death of people imposing their own moral standards on people of the past, whether it’s Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, George Armstrong Custer, Martin Luther King Jr, or Roy Moore.

Times have changed. But, like it or not, four decades ago Moore dated teenagers (even his wife is 14 years younger than he).

(11-30-2017, 11:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/alabamians-vote-roy-moore/

Just to repeat from the article: