|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On November 11 2017 07:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? Its a Russian bot.
yea i mean i asked for ‘besides the he did it assumption’
assume he didn’t. why wouldn’t he? i feel like you did answer this for me all the same. no doubt he does have something he’d rather not air out in court during an election. so it’s potentially a lose-lose unless he was a saint, which we know he isn’t. hah. sucks to suck i guess.
and lastly- is Gateway Pundit something i should recognize? whoops, i’m not used to posting from a PC, i can google my own shit now! nvm.
|
United States24690 Posts
On November 11 2017 07:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 05:42 Mohdoo wrote: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.
Okay let's just beat this dead horse some more. He allegedly sexually abused a child (the extent being another matter). That is the big problem in terms of his electability... not whether or not he has some sexual interest in people under the age of 18. Stop conflating those two things.
|
yeah, i think the colloquial term pedo usually refers to someone who has acted on their pedophilic urges? if i'm interpreting correctly, the DSM 5 characterization is only to the thoughts, rather than any actual action (which would be a crime).
|
On November 11 2017 05:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 05:44 Artisreal wrote:On November 11 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:09 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:44 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:27 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:19 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 03:26 Wulfey_LA wrote:[quote] Read Erick's piece. He puts up several justifications for voting for Moore. I have accurately labeled them. The Left are the real villains opener + Show Spoiler +
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.
Anti Left Grievance + Show Spoiler +
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.
Culture War + Show Spoiler +
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 These are the true values of conservatism. http://theresurgent.com/i-dont-blame-roy-moore-voters-for-sticking-with-him/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.
I mean it's fucking ridiculous to say the church needs the tax exemption in the first place much less it deserves it.
I absolutely encourage and support churches running hospitals where state institutions fail, though that doesn't necessitate the whole institution not paying estate tax. But I prefer to give for different charities with less of a overhead.
If they'd put the money to good use or would've had to report on what they use the tax dollars they don't pay for, it I'd be much less critical of their privileged status.
If their services were available to all (not the religion specific services, those directed at community level, like hospitals) and would they not hinder individual freedom of non conformists and were they identical in their exemption status to those granted to any one charity, we'd be talking.
But we aren't talking because none of the above appears to be the case. Hence the revision of the tax exemption is the minimum that the should be open to. Because if they provide oh so much that those tax exemptions are worth it for society they shouldn't have anything to fear.
To be clear, what any one parish or local church group does may be immaculate work that enriches the community and helps the poor. A core value of christianity is sharing wealth and helping the poor. A core sin is hoarding wealth. Make your mind whether the churches of America hold up to their own agenda.
e:put in quote for context cause im slower than a snail
|
On November 11 2017 07:14 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 07:11 Plansix wrote: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? Its a Russian bot. yea i mean i asked for ‘besides the he did it assumption’ assume he didn’t. why wouldn’t he? i feel like you did answer this for me all the same. no doubt he does have something he’d rather not air out in court during an election. so it’s potentially a lose-lose unless he was a saint, which we know he isn’t. hah. sucks to suck i guess. and lastly- is Gateway Pundit something i should recognize? whoops, i’m not used to posting from a PC, i can google my own shit now! nvm.
Lawsuits cost money and he isn't likely to win. Even if he can prove the woman is lying, he would need to prove that the Post knew that and willingly printed the story anyways with the intent to damage him. That is pretty unlikely. And you have to understand that the lawyers that works for the Post, Times and Globe live for this shit. They want that fight because they can use fact finding process to prove the story to be correct.
|
Here is a great piece on Moore from the National Review. Contrary to what many may believe, I read their stuff regularly! I don't come up with my notions that Conservative Principles are really just anti-left agitprop and kulturkampf from nowhere. Here is Jonah Goldberg's well reasoned piece. (bonus for conservatives, he complains about some twitter lefties doing some virtuesignaling for a few paragraphs too)
But serious thinking is a thing in short supply these days. When I called for conservatives to disassociate themselves from Judge Roy Moore, the response from so many Bannonistas was depressing in its vacuity. But he’s a True Conservative®! No, he’s not. But he loves the Constitution! No, he doesn’t. He’s a real Christian! Really? He’ll fight for the Trump agenda! He will? Trump supported his more conservative opponent, and Moore didn’t even know what DACA was and he opposed Obamacare repeal. And, of course, Shut up, you anti-Christian bigot! All of this was hogwash then, and it’s hogwash now. What mattered is that people invested in Moore a meaning and symbolism he doesn’t deserve: He is one of us and he is against them. He’s not a person, he’s a talisman, a dashboard saint to a cause. I’m pretty sure Luther Strange is a conservative, a Christian, and a Constitutionalist. What he’s not is a thumb in the eye. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about the unfolding corruption of conservatism these last few years, but the events of the last 24 hours have shocked me about how deep the rot goes. Forget the people who refuse to even give the heavily sourced and corroborated Washington Post account a fair reading on the tired and predictable pretense that inconvenient facts are simply proof of the conspiracy against them. What galls and astounds me are the supposedly conservative public figures arguing that even if it’s true that Moore molested a 14-year-old girl, it doesn’t matter because, well, because the Bible said it was okay or Democrats are eeeeevil or it was a long time ago. At least Roy Moore admits that the allegation is serious and has denied it. Bless my heart, I assumed that people who are so much more sanctimonious and preachy than I am would be able to draw a line at plying 14-year-old girls with booze and molesting them, particularly when the guy they’re defending won’t even defend the behavior himself. You’d think this would be the Colonel Nicholson moment where, like Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai, they would mutter to themselves, “My God, what have I done?” and collapse to the ground. But no. They’d rather be more pro-kid-touching than the alleged kid-toucher himself. This is the unavoidable consequence of a movement that is in the process of replacing conservative principles and arguments with the new lodestars of “fighting” and “winning.” Fighting and winning are amoral concepts, embraced equally by freedom fighters and totalitarians alike. Serious thinking begins with asking, “What are we fighting for?” “What are we trying to win?” But the distinctions don’t end there. “What are we willing to do for the sake of winning?” “What means will we tolerate to achieve our ends?” But even raising such questions is the stuff of cucks and swamp-dwellers. We are becoming the Party of Wales, and the “butthurt” of those we hate is its own reward.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principles
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/453646/roy-moore-republican-party-fighting-winning-conservative-principles
EDIT: williamson is an asshole, but every 2 months or so he writes something amazing. His 'white minstrel show' article is hot fire
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism
|
On November 11 2017 07:35 Artisreal wrote:
I mean it's fucking ridiculous to say the church needs the tax exemption in the first place much less it deserves it.
I absolutely encourage and support churches running hospitals where state institutions fail, though that doesn't necessitate the whole institution not paying estate tax. But I prefer to give for different charities with less of a overhead.
If they'd put the money to good use or would've had to report on what they use the tax dollars they don't pay for, it I'd be much less critical of their privileged status.
If their services were available to all (not the religion specific services, those directed at community level, like hospitals) and would they not hinder individual freedom of non conformists and were they identical in their exemption status to those granted to any one charity, we'd be talking.
But we aren't talking because none of the above appears to be the case. Hence the revision of the tax exemption is the minimum that the should be open to. Because if they provide oh so much that those tax exemptions are worth it for society they shouldn't have anything to fear.
To be clear, what any one parish or local church group does may be immaculate work that enriches the community and helps the poor. A core value of christianity is sharing wealth and helping the poor. A core sin is hoarding wealth. Make your mind whether the churches of America hold up to their own agenda.
I am sort of with you for mega churches and other money making religious groups. But I worked on the budget for my local church back with my grandparents and they could barely afford to keep the lights on and pay the pastor. Taxing them directly would have put the church under. But it should be looked at for sure and the taxes should make sense relative to the scale of the church.
Edit: Wow, a quality national review article. I will have to remember this Jonah Goldberg. Hopefully he isn't a milkshake duck.
|
On November 10 2017 16:28 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 14:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 09 2017 23:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't see the societal benefit from individuals being billionaires. I get 'they invest and create jobs', but I've never seen any compelling evidence that one individual holding 1 billion creates more, better jobs than 200 individuals holding $5 million does. No difference. I'd err on the side of figuring the 200 would do better. Kind of the point of corps and professional managers / finance. This actually isn't correct. Real world investors are risk-averse (i.e. require an expected return premium for an equally risky investment). I'm using the the financial definition of risk btw, which is the same as statistical variance. Assuming efficient markets, this means that riskier investments generate higher returns, and thus result in faster economic growth. Obviously, risk appetite generally grows with the size of one's fortune so concentrated wealth leads to faster economic growth (again, in an efficient market). In layman's terms, if you want to stay above $10M and you own $1B, you can invest $990M. If 5 investors with $200M want to stay above $10M, they can invest 5 x $190M = $950M. So concentrating wealth results in $40M more in active capital in this example.
Hrmmm, there's a good point here but it seems to be incomplete... I shall drink heavily and ponder 
|
On November 11 2017 07:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, i think the colloquial term pedo usually refers to someone who has acted on their pedophilic urges? if i'm interpreting correctly, the DSM 5 characterization is only to the thoughts, rather than any actual action (which would be a crime).
Actually, I think there has to be action before you can be diagnosed with a pedophilic disorder under the DSM V-merely being primarily attracted to sexually immature individuals does not constitute a mental disease. It's somewhat murky whether e.g. reading pornography featuring underage characters would constitute a disorder, though.
|
On November 11 2017 07:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 07:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, i think the colloquial term pedo usually refers to someone who has acted on their pedophilic urges? if i'm interpreting correctly, the DSM 5 characterization is only to the thoughts, rather than any actual action (which would be a crime). Actually, I think there has to be action before you can be diagnosed with a pedophilic disorder under the DSM V-merely being primarily attracted to sexually immature individuals does not constitute a mental disease. It's somewhat murky whether e.g. reading pornography featuring underage characters would constitute a disorder, though.
if that's the case, then pedo in everyday speak and pedophilic disorder per the DSM are the same right? anyways, i'm curious and will try and do some reading. maybe the guidance is bad because it's such a taboo area.
i recall reading about how there's people who, for lack of better phrasing, like kids. they know it's wrong, they don't act on urges, many even get help and it generally just sucks for them.
|
On November 11 2017 07:45 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 07:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 11 2017 07:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, i think the colloquial term pedo usually refers to someone who has acted on their pedophilic urges? if i'm interpreting correctly, the DSM 5 characterization is only to the thoughts, rather than any actual action (which would be a crime). Actually, I think there has to be action before you can be diagnosed with a pedophilic disorder under the DSM V-merely being primarily attracted to sexually immature individuals does not constitute a mental disease. It's somewhat murky whether e.g. reading pornography featuring underage characters would constitute a disorder, though. if that's the case, then pedo in everyday speak and pedophilic disorder per the DSM are the same right? anyways, i'm curious and will try and do some reading. maybe the guidance is bad because it's such a taboo area. i recall reading about how there's people who, for lack of better phrasing, like kids. they know it's wrong, they don't act on urges and it generally just sucks for them.
I could see that being true and holy shit that does suck for those people.
|
On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 11 2017 04:34 Nevuk wrote:On November 11 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:22 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2017 04:19 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 03:26 Wulfey_LA wrote:[quote] Read Erick's piece. He puts up several justifications for voting for Moore. I have accurately labeled them. The Left are the real villains opener + Show Spoiler +
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.
Anti Left Grievance + Show Spoiler +
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.
Culture War + Show Spoiler +
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 These are the true values of conservatism. http://theresurgent.com/i-dont-blame-roy-moore-voters-for-sticking-with-him/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. I think it's more about not voting for an abuser of children than not voting for someone because of their sexual orientation or preferences. Sure, whatever you need to not vote for the guy who put a 14 year olds hand on his penis (over his pants) He wasn't wearing pants (just underwear). Anyways, we all knew that Roy Moore was a lunatic who thought the law didn't apply to him. This isn't a huge surprise. The reaction of much of the GOP is fucking disgusting, though (specifically conservative media and the AL GOP. The establishment reaction was fine). The attitude is basically "better a conservative pedophile than a liberal saint". On one side, a pedophile. On the other side, a flesh and blood Atticus Finch.
“As I gave my undivided attention to Baxley’s powerful closing argument,” Jones told a House crime subcommittee two decades later, “I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that one day this case and my legal career would come full circle, giving me the opportunity, some 24 years later to prosecute the two remaining suspects for a crime that many say changed the course of history.”
More than 20 years after Chambliss was convicted, Jones would become U.S. attorney in Alabama and set out to finish what Baxley started. He brought charges against two more Klan members, Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr., and Bobby Frank Cherry. The prosecutions have helped make him a contender in his Senate race against Republican Roy Moore, a controversial former judge. On Thursday, Moore was accused by a woman of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 and he was 32 — allegations he called “completely false” and his campaign dismissed as “the very definition of fake news.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/09/an-alabama-senate-race-conjures-the-awful-1963-church-bombing-that-killed-4-black-girls/?utm_term=.83969942f519But hey, did you hear that liberals are hypocrites cause of Bill Clinton? Or what about those cake baker's whose way of life will be destroyed by culture war liberals? That is enough for the principled conservatives out there to vote for Moore. Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance.
Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember.
Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment?
Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society.
|
it's about white men losing their control of society.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
|
On November 11 2017 08:07 sc-darkness wrote:What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
White men have been in control of US society for the entire existence of this country. As laws have changed and allowed non-white people to participate in controlling society there has been a powerful effort to impede that transition at every turn.
People like Danglars falsely suggest it's an appeal to freedom and rights that drives them to say/do things that support the white supremacy establishment when it's clear it's not people's rights, but the right of white men to control society that is the supreme right they are protecting.
Otherwise they would never support someone who is vocally against the first amendment when it comes to freedom of Religion.
|
United States42788 Posts
On November 11 2017 08:07 sc-darkness wrote:What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
White men used to be able to sit at the front of the bus, get jobs over more qualified women and minority applicants, and get systematic favourable treatment by every institution they interacted with, from private businesses to the police, from government services to banks.
That's all changed over the last few decades. Now they can't reserve seats at the front of the bus.
|
On November 11 2017 07:35 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 05:49 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:44 Artisreal wrote:On November 11 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:09 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:44 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:27 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:19 IyMoon wrote: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. I mean it's fucking ridiculous to say the church needs the tax exemption in the first place much less it deserves it. I absolutely encourage and support churches running hospitals where state institutions fail, though that doesn't necessitate the whole institution not paying estate tax. But I prefer to give for different charities with less of a overhead. If they'd put the money to good use or would've had to report on what they use the tax dollars they don't pay for, it I'd be much less critical of their privileged status. If their services were available to all (not the religion specific services, those directed at community level, like hospitals) and would they not hinder individual freedom of non conformists and were they identical in their exemption status to those granted to any one charity, we'd be talking. But we aren't talking because none of the above appears to be the case. Hence the revision of the tax exemption is the minimum that the should be open to. Because if they provide oh so much that those tax exemptions are worth it for society they shouldn't have anything to fear. To be clear, what any one parish or local church group does may be immaculate work that enriches the community and helps the poor. A core value of christianity is sharing wealth and helping the poor. A core sin is hoarding wealth. Make your mind whether the churches of America hold up to their own agenda. e:put in quote for context cause im slower than a snail
And yet some people here think that they’re never going away, don’t worry. When you bring up it as a civil rights issue, immediately we’re on to defending why it matters in the first place. When the government taxes a religious establishment based on the ceremonies it elects to hold, its telling that church how to practice religion.
Like other 501(c)(3)s, they are required to report what they spend their money on when under IRS audit.
But please, tell me more about how your approval or disapproval of its activities—prove you deserve a tax exemption to me—doesn’t burden the pastor and congregation’s practice of religion.
The arguments are already there and freely discussed. I think it’s only partisanship that prevents widespread understanding. You have to vote in people that understand citizens don’t judge the church’s activities to justify its continued removal from tax burden. It’s their right to practice religion free of government bureaucrats not liking their services and proselytization.
|
“If there was one thing that South Carolina feared more than bad Negro government, it was good Negro government.” Du Bois.
Little has changed for a lot of the southern states and the US as a whole. We just fooled ourselves into thinking it had.
|
Who else here relishes in the descent of conservatism into utter darkness? I can't get enough of it. It makes me smile every time I see it. FOX News has some gooooood stuff today. The 14 year old accuser was a Trump voter according to WaPo, but the 17 year old accuser now runs a sign language company that did some work for some Democratic campaigns.
+ Show Spoiler +
Deborah Wesson Gibson, who told The Washington Post that she briefly dated Moore when she was 17 and he was 34, founded the language interpreting company, Signs of Excellence, and has worked for a number of democratic campaigns, according to Alabama Local News.
The company’s Facebook page shows Gibson working for and posing with several democratic candidates at political rallies including 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Joe Biden, former Sen. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla., and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
In the expose published by The Washington Post, Gibson said she first met Moore in 1981 when he spoke to her high school civics class. He reportedly asked her out and the pair went on to date for a few months.
She recalled her mother saying she was “the luckiest girl in the world” that Moore wanted to date her, noting that he “had this godlike, almost deity status” in Gadsen, Ala., The Post reported.
Gibson alleged that she and Moore only kissed twice and said in retrospect, she’s “glad nothing bad happened.”
“As a mother of daughters, I realize that our age difference at that time made our dating inappropriate,” Gibson told The Washington Post.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/10/roy-moore-accuser-worked-for-clinton-campaign-as-interpreter-reports-say.html
Thus ... since her company did contracting work and posed with some clients ... she is a Democrat ... and we all know Democrats are trying to take away our right to defend ourselves ... so she is a mortal threat ... and some of the pics were with HRC and Biden .... so she is in cohoots with Obama .... thus okay to vote for Moore!
|
On November 11 2017 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 11 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2017 04:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 11 2017 04:34 Nevuk wrote:On November 11 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:On November 11 2017 04:22 micronesia wrote:On November 11 2017 04:19 IyMoon wrote: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. I think it's more about not voting for an abuser of children than not voting for someone because of their sexual orientation or preferences. Sure, whatever you need to not vote for the guy who put a 14 year olds hand on his penis (over his pants) He wasn't wearing pants (just underwear). Anyways, we all knew that Roy Moore was a lunatic who thought the law didn't apply to him. This isn't a huge surprise. The reaction of much of the GOP is fucking disgusting, though (specifically conservative media and the AL GOP. The establishment reaction was fine). The attitude is basically "better a conservative pedophile than a liberal saint". On one side, a pedophile. On the other side, a flesh and blood Atticus Finch.
“As I gave my undivided attention to Baxley’s powerful closing argument,” Jones told a House crime subcommittee two decades later, “I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that one day this case and my legal career would come full circle, giving me the opportunity, some 24 years later to prosecute the two remaining suspects for a crime that many say changed the course of history.”
More than 20 years after Chambliss was convicted, Jones would become U.S. attorney in Alabama and set out to finish what Baxley started. He brought charges against two more Klan members, Thomas Edwin Blanton Jr., and Bobby Frank Cherry. The prosecutions have helped make him a contender in his Senate race against Republican Roy Moore, a controversial former judge. On Thursday, Moore was accused by a woman of initiating a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 and he was 32 — allegations he called “completely false” and his campaign dismissed as “the very definition of fake news.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/09/an-alabama-senate-race-conjures-the-awful-1963-church-bombing-that-killed-4-black-girls/?utm_term=.83969942f519But hey, did you hear that liberals are hypocrites cause of Bill Clinton? Or what about those cake baker's whose way of life will be destroyed by culture war liberals? That is enough for the principled conservatives out there to vote for Moore. Jobs for me, but not for thee! But let's go back to To Kill A Mockingbird and forget shooting up Christians and suing nuns. That's far too nasty to bring in. Are you actually arguing that the church shootings we've seen so far are done by 'militant atheists', or are you merely saying that to people who support Moore, this infowarsy hypotheses has significant traction and that once you believe in this alternative reality voting Moore becomes a logical course of action? I could agree with the latter - but only when coupled by a strong condemnation of conservatives who peddle this type of bullshit. I mean, the recentmost one was a Bible studies teacher, (although I saw youtube nutjobs blame antifa and say he was a muslim convert pretty much immediately) and I can't recall seeing a 'militant atheist agenda' displayed by anyone involved in any former church shooting either. An atheist can literally shoot up a church and be wounded by a man wielding an AR-15 and they'll still try to take guns away from law-abiding Christians. This is from reporting on his facebook posts and profile. I'm saying that I have trouble condemning people that think Moore is the better choice on the balance. Atheist/white supremacist, then a white supremacist, and an abortion terrorist. Those are the most recent (newest to oldest) church shootings I remember. Did this child thing make everyone on the right (looking at you Danglars) forget this Mooreon is anti 1st amendment? Oh that's right, it's not about people having their rights threatened, it's about white men losing their control of society.
Only GH can tie a church shooting to whites losing their control of society. White people sneeze in public or spit on sidewalks in gestures of white supremacy as well. This might be the first time I’ve seen a response on gun control as another aspect of white supremacy.
|
On November 11 2017 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 08:07 sc-darkness wrote:
it's about white men losing their control of society.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? White men have been in control of US society for the entire existence of this country. As laws have changed and allowed non-white people to participate in controlling society there has been a powerful effort to impede that transition at every turn. People like Danglars falsely suggest it's an appeal to freedom and rights that drives them to say/do things that support the white supremacy establishment when it's clear it's not people's rights, but the right of white men to control society that is the supreme right they are protecting. Otherwise they would never support someone who is vocally against the first amendment when it comes to freedom of Religion.
You see, rights and freedoms are all a conspiracy to support the white supremacy establishment. One-way ticket to ignoring what somebody says based on what you think they think about skin colors. I love politics in 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
