In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Well, just this past Sunday a militant atheist shot up a church in Texas, killing about half the congregation. One of those killed was still in the womb, but the baby gets counted as a person to boost the arguments for gun control, otherwise the baby would just be a fetus.
And many on the left on social media attacked the congregants of the church. Some said they got what they deserved. Meanwhile, the media ran with stories of chainsaws attached to machine guns distorting all the basic facts out of willful ignorance.
A week before, a Muslim ran over a bunch of people in New York while Democrats were patting themselves on the back for showing Trump voters running over muslim kids on television.
A few weeks before that, a CBS lawyer lost her job for mocking the dead in Las Vegas that they deserved what they got after a mass shooting, the motive behind which is still unknown.
While all of this is going on, a cake baker is headed to the Supreme Court because he had the audacity to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but he would not do all the decorations the gay couple wanted. So the baker got compared to a Nazi. He will join a florist at the Court who is being put out of business because despite having gay clients, she won’t provide flowers for gay weddings.
People are being harassed for refusing to cheer on men with mental illness who think they are women and the left thinks people in Alabama should have to let men use the ladies’ bathroom. The left is openly counting the days before churches can have their tax exempt status revoked for not embracing gay marriage. Christian private schools will be the first targets. The media on a near weekly basis runs stories that paint culturally conservative voters in a negative light, often distorting basic facts for the sake of narrative.
So you’ll have to excuse Trump voters and Moore voters for thinking the left in this country with a complicit media is out to get them.
Along comes a story about Roy Moore, a happily married man, that involves facts from 30 to 40 years ago and many of the same people who’ve spent a long time covering for people like Harvey Weinstein and are still covering for Hollywood pedophiles are piling on the man. The GOP, who hates cultural conservatives anyway, was quick to pile on.
I don’t blame the Roy Moore voters for thinking people are out to get them because people really are out to get them.
Moore is a fighter for these people. He purports to share their values. And all the people his voters hate happen to hate Roy Moore. They talk about innocence until proven guilty, but they’re ready to run Moore out of town. I don’t blame Moore’s voters, but I do have to blame those who are trying to defend Moore and dismiss the accusations or attack the women coming forward. Conservatism keeps being degraded by a bunch of people who talk Jesus and behave like Satan.
Y’all, I think the facts of the case as presented by the Washington Post are pretty damning. If I were a voter in Alabama, I would probably have to sit it out. But there are a lot of voters who are really damn tired of the culture war and they just want to be left alone. But the left won’t leave them alone. They’re coming for their churches’ tax exempt status. They are coming to force them to either get on board the secular progressive agenda or go into hiding. They are coming for their kids and their guns as well.
So now you are telling them they are really awful, bad people if they stick with Roy Moore instead of allowing into office a man who will side with the people who are out to get them?
I suspect they’ll take your aspersions and hate. They already think you hate them. And because the other side will accept nothing less than the destruction of their way of life, even if they want to walk away from Roy Moore they can’t. Because the other side is bent on their destruction and they think, rightly, that Roy Moore is the only one standing with them.
So we have the luxury of turning our nose up at it. And we can say character counts. But they believe character and morals count too and while they might find Moore’s actions reprehensible, they know the other side won’t be happy until their kids are brainwashed into thinking boys can be girls, a baby’s brains can be harvested with taxpayer subsides, and guns should be made extinct.
You really want to make them choose? You helped cause an existential crisis where they have every good reason to believe their way of life and their values are at stake and you want them to surrender? I can’t blame them for refusing even if I disagree. If you’re demanding the other side surrender in the culture war, don’t be surprised when they’re willing to stand with people they’d never otherwise consider in the name of protecting themselves and their families.
Left are the real villains (hypocrites) + Ant-left grievance + Culture War = Okay to vote for a molester
EDIT: I do think that this is the most honest and straightforward case for Moore. Straight up tribalism and culture war as justifications for voting evil. The other defenses of voting Moore will be be much less honest than Erick is here.
You're doing better than previously. I congratulate you. You missed that he advocates a resignation upon election, but hey, there was some effort here.
A better thought process would be to look at history and conclude that the left is playing for keeps. Any one loss due to scandal or anything that leads to Dem control will result in them trying to solidify their gains and expand.
You want to operate a business? Too bad! You'll be compelled to close down or violate your religious beliefs. Militant atheists will shoot up your church and the left will take away your guns to defend yourself next time. They'll show a pickup truck running down kids and pat themselves on the back all while Muslims continue to kill Americans with trucks, guns, and bombs. Your churches will lose their tax status and your teenage daughters will be changing along with boys in the high school locker room.
The stakes are high.
He's battling people that hate his voters guts regardless. They'll sit silent on Weinstein and make more victims if it means keeping their moral superiority to comment on other offenders. No universal standard here, you'll basically still get screwed. It's a much tougher choice than the left pretends (disingenuously) the choice to be. The author does a good job saying it does not excuse people defending the act, which was and is ludicrous. Also missed by Wulfey, but mustn't let facts get in the way of narrative.
Basically, they have reason to believe their families, communities, and jobs hang in the balance should a Democrat ascend to the Senate. That's a very important consideration behind voting for a likely child molester. I really can't blame Alabama voters for that vote, though I personally couldn't bring myself to vote for him had he run in California in a competitive race. Wulfey likes universal disarmament of the right and indifference to culture wars ... basically a haughty, malicious person himself. Shitty choices abound.
Nobody is quoting the first part of the post because nobody thinks he will ever do that (spoiler alert, he won't)
Voting for a pedophile because you're scared of the liberals is the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a real defense. Fucking write in strange, just do a big write in campaign. If it takes a little more work to note vote for a pedophile then do the damn work.
Sorry, dead victims and fined/jailed business owners does heighten the stakes of the election. It's more of a "has done/continue to do" rather than present scared. I mean the Obama administration actually sued Catholic nuns to force compliance and took it to the supreme court. Things would be different if you were in the cross hairs and not people that think and act differently than you. Empathy is in short supply.
Empathy is in short supply? Did you forget the part where I said just write in the other R? Who will easily win because its Alabama
"because you're scared of the liberals" is reductive and nonsense. I stated the reasons. That's before moving on. Write-ins would fight against Moore's name (high name recognition due to his long history in Alabama) on the ballot and time is short. It's next month. You would spend half that period simply staffing before canvassing for the write in campaign. Replacing someone under accusation of child molestation with someone rejected in the primary for corruption is not a high gain. I still have sympathy for voters that still choose Moore.
Too hard, better vote pedo
Your rights aren't under threat, better look the other way. Great logic, friend.
Ohh the irony, this coming from you.
If you disagree on extreme race rhetoric, you're against black rights. If you see Christians fined under threat of jailing for religious free expression and support for Christian church tax exemption fade, you shrug your shoulders. It's pretty much expected by now.
Tax exemption isnt going away for churches.... there is nothing in the real world suggesting that they are going to go away
Well, just this past Sunday a militant atheist shot up a church in Texas, killing about half the congregation. One of those killed was still in the womb, but the baby gets counted as a person to boost the arguments for gun control, otherwise the baby would just be a fetus.
And many on the left on social media attacked the congregants of the church. Some said they got what they deserved. Meanwhile, the media ran with stories of chainsaws attached to machine guns distorting all the basic facts out of willful ignorance.
A week before, a Muslim ran over a bunch of people in New York while Democrats were patting themselves on the back for showing Trump voters running over muslim kids on television.
A few weeks before that, a CBS lawyer lost her job for mocking the dead in Las Vegas that they deserved what they got after a mass shooting, the motive behind which is still unknown.
While all of this is going on, a cake baker is headed to the Supreme Court because he had the audacity to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but he would not do all the decorations the gay couple wanted. So the baker got compared to a Nazi. He will join a florist at the Court who is being put out of business because despite having gay clients, she won’t provide flowers for gay weddings.
People are being harassed for refusing to cheer on men with mental illness who think they are women and the left thinks people in Alabama should have to let men use the ladies’ bathroom. The left is openly counting the days before churches can have their tax exempt status revoked for not embracing gay marriage. Christian private schools will be the first targets. The media on a near weekly basis runs stories that paint culturally conservative voters in a negative light, often distorting basic facts for the sake of narrative.
So you’ll have to excuse Trump voters and Moore voters for thinking the left in this country with a complicit media is out to get them.
Along comes a story about Roy Moore, a happily married man, that involves facts from 30 to 40 years ago and many of the same people who’ve spent a long time covering for people like Harvey Weinstein and are still covering for Hollywood pedophiles are piling on the man. The GOP, who hates cultural conservatives anyway, was quick to pile on.
I don’t blame the Roy Moore voters for thinking people are out to get them because people really are out to get them.
Moore is a fighter for these people. He purports to share their values. And all the people his voters hate happen to hate Roy Moore. They talk about innocence until proven guilty, but they’re ready to run Moore out of town. I don’t blame Moore’s voters, but I do have to blame those who are trying to defend Moore and dismiss the accusations or attack the women coming forward. Conservatism keeps being degraded by a bunch of people who talk Jesus and behave like Satan.
Y’all, I think the facts of the case as presented by the Washington Post are pretty damning. If I were a voter in Alabama, I would probably have to sit it out. But there are a lot of voters who are really damn tired of the culture war and they just want to be left alone. But the left won’t leave them alone. They’re coming for their churches’ tax exempt status. They are coming to force them to either get on board the secular progressive agenda or go into hiding. They are coming for their kids and their guns as well.
So now you are telling them they are really awful, bad people if they stick with Roy Moore instead of allowing into office a man who will side with the people who are out to get them?
I suspect they’ll take your aspersions and hate. They already think you hate them. And because the other side will accept nothing less than the destruction of their way of life, even if they want to walk away from Roy Moore they can’t. Because the other side is bent on their destruction and they think, rightly, that Roy Moore is the only one standing with them.
So we have the luxury of turning our nose up at it. And we can say character counts. But they believe character and morals count too and while they might find Moore’s actions reprehensible, they know the other side won’t be happy until their kids are brainwashed into thinking boys can be girls, a baby’s brains can be harvested with taxpayer subsides, and guns should be made extinct.
You really want to make them choose? You helped cause an existential crisis where they have every good reason to believe their way of life and their values are at stake and you want them to surrender? I can’t blame them for refusing even if I disagree. If you’re demanding the other side surrender in the culture war, don’t be surprised when they’re willing to stand with people they’d never otherwise consider in the name of protecting themselves and their families.
Left are the real villains (hypocrites) + Ant-left grievance + Culture War = Okay to vote for a molester
EDIT: I do think that this is the most honest and straightforward case for Moore. Straight up tribalism and culture war as justifications for voting evil. The other defenses of voting Moore will be be much less honest than Erick is here.
You're doing better than previously. I congratulate you. You missed that he advocates a resignation upon election, but hey, there was some effort here.
A better thought process would be to look at history and conclude that the left is playing for keeps. Any one loss due to scandal or anything that leads to Dem control will result in them trying to solidify their gains and expand.
You want to operate a business? Too bad! You'll be compelled to close down or violate your religious beliefs. Militant atheists will shoot up your church and the left will take away your guns to defend yourself next time. They'll show a pickup truck running down kids and pat themselves on the back all while Muslims continue to kill Americans with trucks, guns, and bombs. Your churches will lose their tax status and your teenage daughters will be changing along with boys in the high school locker room.
The stakes are high.
He's battling people that hate his voters guts regardless. They'll sit silent on Weinstein and make more victims if it means keeping their moral superiority to comment on other offenders. No universal standard here, you'll basically still get screwed. It's a much tougher choice than the left pretends (disingenuously) the choice to be. The author does a good job saying it does not excuse people defending the act, which was and is ludicrous. Also missed by Wulfey, but mustn't let facts get in the way of narrative.
Basically, they have reason to believe their families, communities, and jobs hang in the balance should a Democrat ascend to the Senate. That's a very important consideration behind voting for a likely child molester. I really can't blame Alabama voters for that vote, though I personally couldn't bring myself to vote for him had he run in California in a competitive race. Wulfey likes universal disarmament of the right and indifference to culture wars ... basically a haughty, malicious person himself. Shitty choices abound.
Nobody is quoting the first part of the post because nobody thinks he will ever do that (spoiler alert, he won't)
Voting for a pedophile because you're scared of the liberals is the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a real defense. Fucking write in strange, just do a big write in campaign. If it takes a little more work to note vote for a pedophile then do the damn work.
Sorry, dead victims and fined/jailed business owners does heighten the stakes of the election. It's more of a "has done/continue to do" rather than present scared. I mean the Obama administration actually sued Catholic nuns to force compliance and took it to the supreme court. Things would be different if you were in the cross hairs and not people that think and act differently than you. Empathy is in short supply.
Empathy is in short supply? Did you forget the part where I said just write in the other R? Who will easily win because its Alabama
"because you're scared of the liberals" is reductive and nonsense. I stated the reasons. That's before moving on. Write-ins would fight against Moore's name (high name recognition due to his long history in Alabama) on the ballot and time is short. It's next month. You would spend half that period simply staffing before canvassing for the write in campaign. Replacing someone under accusation of child molestation with someone rejected in the primary for corruption is not a high gain. I still have sympathy for voters that still choose Moore.
Too hard, better vote pedo
Your rights aren't under threat, better look the other way. Great logic, friend.
Ohh the irony, this coming from you.
If you disagree on extreme race rhetoric, you're against black rights. If you see Christians fined under threat of jailing for religious free expression and support for Christian church tax exemption fade, you shrug your shoulders. It's pretty much expected by now.
Religious freedom is not unlimited and never has been. You continue to make the argument that religion is a reason to allow legal discrimination. The courts have said otherwise. We are a nation of laws, not religious beliefs.
On November 11 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: [quote] You're doing better than previously. I congratulate you. You missed that he advocates a resignation upon election, but hey, there was some effort here.
A better thought process would be to look at history and conclude that the left is playing for keeps. Any one loss due to scandal or anything that leads to Dem control will result in them trying to solidify their gains and expand.
You want to operate a business? Too bad! You'll be compelled to close down or violate your religious beliefs. Militant atheists will shoot up your church and the left will take away your guns to defend yourself next time. They'll show a pickup truck running down kids and pat themselves on the back all while Muslims continue to kill Americans with trucks, guns, and bombs. Your churches will lose their tax status and your teenage daughters will be changing along with boys in the high school locker room.
The stakes are high.
He's battling people that hate his voters guts regardless. They'll sit silent on Weinstein and make more victims if it means keeping their moral superiority to comment on other offenders. No universal standard here, you'll basically still get screwed. It's a much tougher choice than the left pretends (disingenuously) the choice to be. The author does a good job saying it does not excuse people defending the act, which was and is ludicrous. Also missed by Wulfey, but mustn't let facts get in the way of narrative.
Basically, they have reason to believe their families, communities, and jobs hang in the balance should a Democrat ascend to the Senate. That's a very important consideration behind voting for a likely child molester. I really can't blame Alabama voters for that vote, though I personally couldn't bring myself to vote for him had he run in California in a competitive race. Wulfey likes universal disarmament of the right and indifference to culture wars ... basically a haughty, malicious person himself. Shitty choices abound.
Nobody is quoting the first part of the post because nobody thinks he will ever do that (spoiler alert, he won't)
Voting for a pedophile because you're scared of the liberals is the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a real defense. Fucking write in strange, just do a big write in campaign. If it takes a little more work to note vote for a pedophile then do the damn work.
Sorry, dead victims and fined/jailed business owners does heighten the stakes of the election. It's more of a "has done/continue to do" rather than present scared. I mean the Obama administration actually sued Catholic nuns to force compliance and took it to the supreme court. Things would be different if you were in the cross hairs and not people that think and act differently than you. Empathy is in short supply.
Empathy is in short supply? Did you forget the part where I said just write in the other R? Who will easily win because its Alabama
"because you're scared of the liberals" is reductive and nonsense. I stated the reasons. That's before moving on. Write-ins would fight against Moore's name (high name recognition due to his long history in Alabama) on the ballot and time is short. It's next month. You would spend half that period simply staffing before canvassing for the write in campaign. Replacing someone under accusation of child molestation with someone rejected in the primary for corruption is not a high gain. I still have sympathy for voters that still choose Moore.
Too hard, better vote pedo
Your rights aren't under threat, better look the other way. Great logic, friend.
Ohh the irony, this coming from you.
If you disagree on extreme race rhetoric, you're against black rights. If you see Christians fined under threat of jailing for religious free expression and support for Christian church tax exemption fade, you shrug your shoulders. It's pretty much expected by now.
Tax exemption isnt going away for churches.... there is nothing in the real world suggesting that they are going to go away
Your lack of reading into the issue is no excuse to say the issue does not exist. Is it really too hard to say you have no clue about the issues confronting Christian religious free expression rights in America? Because this is frankly embarrassing.
so what i'm getting is that judeo christian values, the nuclear family and the constitution are so at risk that it is compelling and necessary to vote for a pedo
Nobody is quoting the first part of the post because nobody thinks he will ever do that (spoiler alert, he won't)
Voting for a pedophile because you're scared of the liberals is the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a real defense. Fucking write in strange, just do a big write in campaign. If it takes a little more work to note vote for a pedophile then do the damn work.
Sorry, dead victims and fined/jailed business owners does heighten the stakes of the election. It's more of a "has done/continue to do" rather than present scared. I mean the Obama administration actually sued Catholic nuns to force compliance and took it to the supreme court. Things would be different if you were in the cross hairs and not people that think and act differently than you. Empathy is in short supply.
Empathy is in short supply? Did you forget the part where I said just write in the other R? Who will easily win because its Alabama
"because you're scared of the liberals" is reductive and nonsense. I stated the reasons. That's before moving on. Write-ins would fight against Moore's name (high name recognition due to his long history in Alabama) on the ballot and time is short. It's next month. You would spend half that period simply staffing before canvassing for the write in campaign. Replacing someone under accusation of child molestation with someone rejected in the primary for corruption is not a high gain. I still have sympathy for voters that still choose Moore.
Too hard, better vote pedo
Your rights aren't under threat, better look the other way. Great logic, friend.
Ohh the irony, this coming from you.
If you disagree on extreme race rhetoric, you're against black rights. If you see Christians fined under threat of jailing for religious free expression and support for Christian church tax exemption fade, you shrug your shoulders. It's pretty much expected by now.
Tax exemption isnt going away for churches.... there is nothing in the real world suggesting that they are going to go away
Your lack of reading into the issue is no excuse to say the issue does not exist. Is it really too hard to say you have no clue about the issues confronting Christian religious free expression rights in America? Because this is frankly embarrassing.
So one lawyer 2 years ago said they might lose it if X happens..... which isnt happening and nobody is talking about is some how proof that it is under attack?
On November 11 2017 05:40 micronesia wrote: Can you guys stop referring to the candidate as a pedo. Conflating someone who actually abused a child somehow with pedophilia is somewhat destructive and also isn't representing the actual choice that voters will have to make.
...what? doesn't abusing a kid kinda imply he's a pedo?
I should be more clear and say we shouldn't shame people for voting for a "pedo" in this case. While shaming is generally bad, if it's going to happen, do it because of voting for one with a history of abusing children, especially in a sexual way. Saying you shouldn't vote for someone because they meet the definition of pedophilia (not even clear if he does or not) is fairly different than saying you shouldn't vote for this guy. It's better to disassociate the brain from the acts and blame him for the acts.
edit: Not all pedophiles are child abusers and not all adults who sexually abuse children are pedophiles.
I agree. Unfortunately, not even the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does a great job separating pedophilia from pedophilic disorders, so it's difficult for me to blame the world for not doing so. It doesn't help when epebophilic disorders doesn't make get their own category but pedophilic ones do.
On November 11 2017 06:12 Plansix wrote: A single op ed in Time and a comment from one Obama era attorney seems pretty weak. That change would happen through the congress.
I'm not even sure Danglars read those articles, because both fall into the same line as his and xDaunt's arguments on other issues.
The Op-Ed says tax exemption statuses need to be reexamined (across the board, not just for Christian churches). The "Obama Lawyer" was asked about existing case law for interracial marriages revoking tax-exempt status...case law could've been applied to churches for 35 years (should they deny interracial marriage).
Sounds like a familiar "I'm not saying it should be this way, I just think it should be investigated" argument.
On November 11 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote: [quote] Sorry, dead victims and fined/jailed business owners does heighten the stakes of the election. It's more of a "has done/continue to do" rather than present scared. I mean the Obama administration actually sued Catholic nuns to force compliance and took it to the supreme court. Things would be different if you were in the cross hairs and not people that think and act differently than you. Empathy is in short supply.
Empathy is in short supply? Did you forget the part where I said just write in the other R? Who will easily win because its Alabama
"because you're scared of the liberals" is reductive and nonsense. I stated the reasons. That's before moving on. Write-ins would fight against Moore's name (high name recognition due to his long history in Alabama) on the ballot and time is short. It's next month. You would spend half that period simply staffing before canvassing for the write in campaign. Replacing someone under accusation of child molestation with someone rejected in the primary for corruption is not a high gain. I still have sympathy for voters that still choose Moore.
Too hard, better vote pedo
Your rights aren't under threat, better look the other way. Great logic, friend.
Ohh the irony, this coming from you.
If you disagree on extreme race rhetoric, you're against black rights. If you see Christians fined under threat of jailing for religious free expression and support for Christian church tax exemption fade, you shrug your shoulders. It's pretty much expected by now.
Tax exemption isnt going away for churches.... there is nothing in the real world suggesting that they are going to go away
Your lack of reading into the issue is no excuse to say the issue does not exist. Is it really too hard to say you have no clue about the issues confronting Christian religious free expression rights in America? Because this is frankly embarrassing.
So one lawyer 2 years ago said they might lose it if X happens..... which isnt happening and nobody is talking about is some how proof that it is under attack?
It was the lawyer arguing Obergefell on behalf of the government of the United States of America. People have brought religious tax exemption cases to the courts. Naturally, Justice Alito would be interested if the government thought the case would have no impact.
I wish we lived in a world where he’d laugh and say no, but that isn’t the world. You’re just sticking your head in the sand since there isn’t a case currently before the Supreme Court challenging it. When I brought it up in this thread a while ago, the thread was split on keeping tax exemption for churches that refuse to sign marriage licenses the state would otherwise accept. Really poorly argued from you.
On November 11 2017 06:12 Plansix wrote: A single op ed in Time and a comment from one Obama era attorney seems pretty weak. That change would happen through the congress.
I'm not even sure Danglars read those articles, because both fall into the same line as his and xDaunt's arguments on other issues.
The Op-Ed says tax exemption statuses need to be reexamined (across the board, not just for Christian churches). The "Obama Lawyer" was asked about existing case law for interracial marriages revoking tax-exempt status...case law could've been applied to churches for 35 years (should they deny interracial marriage).
Sounds like a familiar "I'm not saying it should be this way, I just think it should be investigated" argument.
You really think an Obama lawyer was asked about interracial marriages? Geez what years do you think Obama was president?
On November 11 2017 06:12 Plansix wrote: A single op ed in Time and a comment from one Obama era attorney seems pretty weak. That change would happen through the congress.
I'm not even sure Danglars read those articles, because both fall into the same line as his and xDaunt's arguments on other issues.
The Op-Ed says tax exemption statuses need to be reexamined (across the board, not just for Christian churches). The "Obama Lawyer" was asked about existing case law for interracial marriages revoking tax-exempt status...case law could've been applied to churches for 35 years (should they deny interracial marriage).
Sounds like a familiar "I'm not saying it should be this way, I just think it should be investigated" argument.
You really think an Obama lawyer was asked about interracial marriages? Geez what years do you think Obama was president?
They were talking about gay marriages, because churches are not allowed to discriminate in the US. You are using the same argument that was used to oppose interracial marriage, so the same remedy is the only natural response.
On November 11 2017 06:12 Plansix wrote: A single op ed in Time and a comment from one Obama era attorney seems pretty weak. That change would happen through the congress.
I'm not even sure Danglars read those articles, because both fall into the same line as his and xDaunt's arguments on other issues.
The Op-Ed says tax exemption statuses need to be reexamined (across the board, not just for Christian churches). The "Obama Lawyer" was asked about existing case law for interracial marriages revoking tax-exempt status...case law could've been applied to churches for 35 years (should they deny interracial marriage).
Sounds like a familiar "I'm not saying it should be this way, I just think it should be investigated" argument.
You really think an Obama lawyer was asked about interracial marriages? Geez what years do you think Obama was president?
Look, I know you're not a lawyer and don't like talking law...
But yes, he was asked about case law regarding interracial descrimination. Specifically, he was asked if a past Supreme Court decision regarding Bob Jones University vs United States would be an issue that could come up. The quote was literally:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
Nobody is quoting the first part of the post because nobody thinks he will ever do that (spoiler alert, he won't)
Voting for a pedophile because you're scared of the liberals is the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a real defense. Fucking write in strange, just do a big write in campaign. If it takes a little more work to note vote for a pedophile then do the damn work.
Sorry, dead victims and fined/jailed business owners does heighten the stakes of the election. It's more of a "has done/continue to do" rather than present scared. I mean the Obama administration actually sued Catholic nuns to force compliance and took it to the supreme court. Things would be different if you were in the cross hairs and not people that think and act differently than you. Empathy is in short supply.
Empathy is in short supply? Did you forget the part where I said just write in the other R? Who will easily win because its Alabama
"because you're scared of the liberals" is reductive and nonsense. I stated the reasons. That's before moving on. Write-ins would fight against Moore's name (high name recognition due to his long history in Alabama) on the ballot and time is short. It's next month. You would spend half that period simply staffing before canvassing for the write in campaign. Replacing someone under accusation of child molestation with someone rejected in the primary for corruption is not a high gain. I still have sympathy for voters that still choose Moore.
Too hard, better vote pedo
Your rights aren't under threat, better look the other way. Great logic, friend.
Ohh the irony, this coming from you.
If you disagree on extreme race rhetoric, you're against black rights. If you see Christians fined under threat of jailing for religious free expression and support for Christian church tax exemption fade, you shrug your shoulders. It's pretty much expected by now.
Tax exemption isnt going away for churches.... there is nothing in the real world suggesting that they are going to go away
Your lack of reading into the issue is no excuse to say the issue does not exist. Is it really too hard to say you have no clue about the issues confronting Christian religious free expression rights in America? Because this is frankly embarrassing.
That's talking about removing tax exempt status from schools which refuse to integrate racially against public policy. Not really a comparison you should be trying to make to prove that the government is out to get you. "It'll be like Brown vs The Board of Education all over again" doesn't make an attractive rallying cry.
He also went onto the bastion of truth known as the hannity radio show.
Hannity went through the Post story and detailed the allegations of the four accusers. Moore claimed to know two of four, but denied any instance of misconduct with either. In response to the allegations involving Debbie Wesson Gibson, Moore said,
“I don’t remember going out on dates. I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did. But I don’t remember that.” [...] "When asked if he remembered dating any woman who was in her late teens while he was a 30-something, Moore said, “not generally, no" and that it would be "out of my customary behavior."
“I don’t remember that, and I don’t remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother," he added."
On November 11 2017 06:12 Plansix wrote: A single op ed in Time and a comment from one Obama era attorney seems pretty weak. That change would happen through the congress.
I'm not even sure Danglars read those articles, because both fall into the same line as his and xDaunt's arguments on other issues.
The Op-Ed says tax exemption statuses need to be reexamined (across the board, not just for Christian churches). The "Obama Lawyer" was asked about existing case law for interracial marriages revoking tax-exempt status...case law could've been applied to churches for 35 years (should they deny interracial marriage).
Sounds like a familiar "I'm not saying it should be this way, I just think it should be investigated" argument.
You really think an Obama lawyer was asked about interracial marriages? Geez what years do you think Obama was president?
Look, I know you're not a lawyer and don't like talking law...
But yes, he was asked about case law regarding interracial descrimination. Specifically, he was asked if a past Supreme Court decision regarding Bob Jones University vs United States would be an issue that could come up. The quote was literally:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
Missed the first part, thanks for pointing it out.
can anyone explain why he wouldn’t announce an incoming lawsuit to WaPo if he actually wanted to clear his name, without the obvious ‘because he did it’ assumption?
and to be clear i wouldn’t expect that of anyone accused of impropriety, but since he wants to win an election it seems like his only recourse. one that would no doubt be celebrated by his supporters, too.
i have no idea what that phillip bump tweet is supposed to mean. is it sarcasm? is it not? what’s the point either way? if WaPo was cold calling people offering money i’d imagine that’d be a bigger story than some rando posting on twitter? on the other hand, i’m sure many americans write 1000$, as inaccurate as it may be. and then to the content of the tweet, it seems like he wants to discredit the allegations of the WaPo article. it’s all so conflicting..
On November 11 2017 07:06 brian wrote: can anyone explain why he wouldn’t announce an incoming lawsuit to WaPo if he actually wanted to clear his name, without the obvious ‘because he did it’ assumption?
and to be clear i wouldn’t expect that of anyone accused of impropriety, but since he wants to win an election it seems like his only recourse. one that would no doubt be celebrated by his supporters, too.
Civil lawsuits expose you to this thing call discovery, production of documents and answering questions under oath. And once it is filed and the Post responds, the Post might not let him dismiss the case before it gets messy for him. He could be in office at that time, having to admit he did date this 14 year old girl.
On November 11 2017 07:06 brian wrote:
mean. is it sarcasm? is it not? what’s the point either way? if WaPo was cold calling people offering money i’d imagine that’d be a bigger story than some rando posting on twitter?
On November 11 2017 07:06 brian wrote: can anyone explain why he wouldn’t announce an incoming lawsuit to WaPo if he actually wanted to clear his name, without the obvious ‘because he did it’ assumption?
and to be clear i wouldn’t expect that of anyone accused of impropriety, but since he wants to win an election it seems like his only recourse. one that would no doubt be celebrated by his supporters, too.
i have no idea what that phillip bump tweet is supposed to mean. is it sarcasm? is it not? what’s the point either way? if WaPo was cold calling people offering money i’d imagine that’d be a bigger story than some rando posting on twitter?
I think the accusation is that it is a Russian troll account.
On November 11 2017 05:40 micronesia wrote: Can you guys stop referring to the candidate as a pedo. Conflating someone who actually abused a child somehow with pedophilia is somewhat destructive and also isn't representing the actual choice that voters will have to make.
...what? doesn't abusing a kid kinda imply he's a pedo?
Technically I think pedophilia means an attraction to pre-pubescent children, but I'm in favor of simply using the word pedo and pointing out the absurdity of Republicans electing a pedo to the Senate. I mean the House you could sort of justify, because it's just one nutty gerrymandered district, but not the Senate.
EPT
