[Let's talk Moore]

Oh well looky here . . .

http://www.wbrc.com/clip/13905910/former-gadsden-mall-manager-says-roy-moore-wasnt-banned

Hmm. So if Roy Moore was banned from the mall from from 1977-1979 you'd think that the manager of the mall from 1981+ onward would have actually known about it!

Oh but he didn't and the manager who owned the mall from 1977-1981 is dead!  

Oh let's look at this from Gloria Alred:

--------------------------------

Blitzer asked, “Can you say flatly to our viewers right now, Gloria, that the signature, what he wrote in that yearbook in 1977, according to her, can you say flatly that was not a forgery?”

Allred answered, “Well, all I’m saying is we will permit an independent examiner of the writing to look at exemplars of [the] former judge…we will allow all of this to be asked and answered at the hearing.”

After Blitzer pressed, Allred responded, “Well, all I’m saying is we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing. We will not be distracted, and we will pursue a just result for our client.” She added that she wants analysis of the signature “done in a professional setting to the extent possible. That’s the only setting in which people can testify under oath and that’s what we think is most important.”

--------------------------------------

Oh no, you're just smearing.  I've had this type of excrement of politics played on me personally-you're lying through your teeth, but since you have no morals it doesn't matter to you all that matters to to tarnish the reputation of a good man. If you wanted to prove the case and be honest about it, you would have had a handwritting expert lined up at the press conference to put their reputation on the line that the signature was the same.

Lies, lies, dang lies.  But the damage is done . . .individuals like Grunt (no offense personally meant, just meant as an example of types of people) have already made up their mind and no amount of disproving of the lies will convince them otherwise.

[Let's talk Moore]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

We must have different Scriptures, or you know them better than I.

Lol sorry, written in the 1600s, my bad. Still a truism.

[Let's talk Moore]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

That said, I can count on one hand how many times I've been accused of very serious things that I didn't do. 

Then maybe you haven't developed the right enemies.  Oh I can tell you, when you've got enemies this stuff is pretty common; it's high risk, but it's common.

[Let's talk Moore]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

If you don't believe Moore is a pedophile, then clearly my post doesn't apply to you, does it?

Oh don't even .  . . . way to backpedal. You knew what you were doing. 

[Let's talk Moore]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's why I said earlier that the only way to make this happen less is to make false accusations expensive financially and socially.

Good luck with that; in our feminist matriarchal society!  A woman must be believed or you are a sexist pig!

Nevermind the saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" . . . 

[Let's talk Moore]

 

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

And put him behind bars. And I shouldn't have to mention the shakeup that's taking place in Hollywood right now. Liberals are cleaning house, so I'm not sure if the double standard argument is going to work this time.

Speaking of Hollywood, I would assert that what we've seen with the allegations towards Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louie CK, and others was probably a factor in leading Moore's accusers to speak out. 2017 seems to be the year of reckoning for perverts and rapists. 

No, it's a sign of a godless society.  The wicked are turning on their own.

All a woman has to do in today's society to destroy a man is claim he did something untoward to her.  That is a very, very bad precedent.  It is the salem witch trials, the hysteria of the mob.  It's lynching.  It's happened plenty of times in the past and is currently happening today . . .so sad that people don't see what's happening around them.  They think they are so pristine and so much "better" than people 50-60 years ago.

Nope, they are much worse b/c they think they are better but are doing the exact same stuff that lead to mobbings and lynchings. 

[Let's talk Moore]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Godless could have found a better phrase to get his point across, in my opinion, but you also responded in kind.   

Perhaps we all could stand to step back, take a deep breath, and look at how we are approaching this discussion.

I don't pull punches. You hit me, I'll hit back just as hard.

[Let's talk Moore]

Just now, Grunt said:

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, I suppose.  I think we've covered the basics of the discussion and it boils down to the fact that I believe much of what he was accused of is accurate, that it falls outside my tolerance for acceptable behavior, and that based on the previous two statements I would not be able to reconcile supporting him with my own conscience or the example I wish to set for my children.

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree.  That's why this stuff is so disgusting.  I've had this type of politics played on me personally before.  And when you have evil people lob unfounded, inaccurate lies at you . . .no one wins.

Even you you prove them wrong 100%, even if you show that they lied to the nth degree, you still lose.

Why, b/c no matter how false the accusations can be, no matter how much you deny it, no matter how much you prove it false, you have been convicted in the court of public opinion and you lose.

I understand people do not make logical decision; they like to think they do, but they don't.  When someone forms an emotional opinion (which these things are designed to do), even if it is proved false, they will still in the back of their mind say the accused is a pedophile.

[Let's talk Moore]

Just now, MormonGator said:

You crossed the line with this. @Godless is a great guy so watch your mouth. 

Absolutely disgusting. 

Oh I see you'll stand up for someone who accuses me of voting for a pedophile, but when I accuse him of being godless (which is in his name), soulless, I have to watch my mouth.

Lol hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Let's talk Moore]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This is a classic case of "As long as I agree with you on politics, I'll excuse anything you do." The left did it with Bill Clinton, the right is doing it now with this pervert. 

At least the left had the decency to throw Anthony Weiner out. 

Based on what!  Character assassination.  You are wrong gator.  You have no clue what you are talking about.  The guy is innocent.

[Let's talk Moore]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

Translation: I would vote for a pedophile to stick it to the mainstream media. 

Okay . . .let the mudslinging begin.  You are a godless, soulless individual who one day will stand accountable before God for your actions; may God have mercy on your soul.

[Let's talk Moore]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

But I'm a heathen!  Won't they give me a pass?

I totally agree with you, if he sexually assaulted women then he should't run.

But what he is accused of is out of character for the type of man he is.  This is different than Trump. It was obvious that Trump was a foul-mouthed heathen. Not the case with Moore.

Moore has generated a lot of enemies; he stood up to homosexual marriage in Alabama, he stood up to keeping the 10 commandments in Alabama.  You think that type of an individual would do what he is accused of?

If you do, then quite frankly we are sunk as a society b/c it means that no one has any character anymore and that people don't trust in the character of another individual . . .all it takes is made-up stories to sink an individual.

And trust me, I've had this played on me before and when you are a man of character and people sling mud at you . . .well Moore is doing exactly what a person who is innocent would do.

 

[Let's talk Moore]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 If you believe it is OK for a 32-year-old man to pursue minors, then vote for him.  If you believe he didn't make unwelcome physical advances upon minors, then vote for him.  Personally, I believe he did both and that flies in the face of my beliefs.

 

You claiming it was false doesn't actually make it false.  If you believe it to be false then vote for him.  I've stated what I believe and won't support a man of what I believe to be low moral character.

Well let's get something straight, in Alabama age of consent is 16.  At worst he asked 17-18 year olds out and at worst did so with parents permission, 40 years ago! I have relatives who married were married at 18 and 26.  

It amazes me, you have someone who you believe is morally corrupt based on accusations from 40 years ago. 

By their fruits shall ye know them, that's what Christ says.  Look at what he has done over 40 years, judge him based on that record not some flimsy accusations based on 40 years ago. You don't have a man who is willing to lose his job (and did) as Alabama Supreme Court Judge over homosexual marriage who does these things.  A man who does the things he is accused of does not have that type of character!!!

And the news media claiming it was true doesn't make it true.  You acknowledge it is a political hit but yet are willing to accept at face value the information?  That's just logically inconsistent and morally wrong.

[Let's talk Moore]

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It should infuriate any red-blooded American that the media thinks they can control them to the degree that they are doing this.

Oh it's way worse than this.  What you are seeing is just the teeny, tiny, tip of the iceberg. 

There are real Gadianton Robbers within the U.S. Government.  What you are seeing is just a little bit of the deep, dark underbelly of those who pull the strings and control the U.S. government.  R, D it doesn't matter they are part of the uni-party.  

https://www.cfr.org/membership

 

[Let's talk Moore]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That he was trolling for teenagers and making inappropriate and unwanted attempts at having relations with them.

Nope . . .all false.  Read the actual reports.  It is all based on third-party heresay.  The owner of the mall who would have put him on a ban list is dead! The owner of the mall in 1981 acknowledge a ban list could not confirm Roy Moore on the list . . .oh and just for giggles and grins this flozy who said he took her behind the restaurant, guess what there was a "Roy Moore" that graduated from Gadsen High School in the class of 1977.

You do know there are multiple "Roy Moore" . . .40 years later, and we are trying to remember what happend during a 2-year period of time from 1977-1979. It could very well be that a "Roy Moore" was banned from the mall, but that "Roy Moore" was the one who graduated in 1977.

[Let's talk Moore]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I can't be responsible for other voters.  I'm only responsible for myself.  If I deem the accusations to be credible, I can't support the candidate just because I like his politics.  Character matters to me.

And I understand your position . . . . but this is a political take-down of the highest magnitude and order.

Here is what I believe the actual truth to be.  I do believe that Moore most likely dated younger women, juniors or seniors in high school above the age of consent, 17-18.  I do believe that he probably asked their parents to take them out.  I do not believe that he harassed or did anything untoward to any of this women.

The greatest lies are those lies which are mixed with truth.

This is a great hit, a classic to see evil people work.  Because if you separate out the two (the lies from the truth) a picture of two totally different people emerge . . .and it's very easy to see the progression of a lie. 

From the first reporting of the 3 women who claimed to date him when they were teenager and the unnamed 14 year-old.  All three named women who dated him said that he was a gentleman and asked permission of their mother.   So I believe that was true; I believe the unnamed 14 year old was a total complete utter fabrication.  We still don't know who that 14-year old was and it reads like somebody's made-up story of what they think would happen had he done this not what actually happened.

Alright, so now we've established a baseline for the lie mixed in with truth; i.e. take a true event (dating younger women . ..nothing wrong with that back in the late 70s in Alabama!) mix it in with some lies (sexual assault).  Now all the while you are doing this, you are looking for a "credible face" to make a personal accusation.  So you bring in Gloria Allred and find some woman who has this story.  She spins a tale of sexual assault. 

Now you can't claim rape, b/c rape is a different beast, too many people would say "you were raped and you never reported it!!! that's dumb".  So you spin a tale of assault, just serious enough that it pisses people off but not serious enough to raise the radar of this is a lie.  So now that you have a "credible" witness you'd now but a face to the lie you told in the newspaper article.  Now you can start bringing out every Jane and Jill out there . . .it doesn't have to be corroborated, it doesn't have to be credible it just continues to build upon the lie.

The mall . . .well funny enough everyone who would have actually had authority in "banning him" is dead, and those who claim he was banned rely on 3rd party .. .well the night guard J.D. Thomas told me he was banned . . .can't talk to J.D., can't talk to the actual manager.

And from now until election they will trot out more and more woman . . .we'll probably but up to 20+ by the time this is done and not one will actually be credible.

Now let's go back to the yearbook woman.

She just "conveniently forgot" to mention that Judge Roy Moore was the judge presiding over her own divorce proceeding in the mid 90s!!!  This "event" was so tramatic that when he was the presiding judge over a divorce she didn't speak up, didn't say a word, didn't file a motion all b/c she was "scared".

Lol, give me a break.  

Political takedown of the highest order.

[Inspired to go into debt?]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I hear you just fine.  I simply don't think that your Wall Street savvy is that critical to home buying.  And homebuyers are not contributing to the recession just because they don't know a bear market from a bear rug.

Man . . .(now I am going to say it) you are being obtuse.  You obviously have 0 clue as to what happened in '08.  Recession happen b/c of leverage.  Banks lend out more capital than they should, people borrow more than they should, they stop making payments, they start defaulting, defaults on banks balance sheets go up, they start retracting credit, b/c people & companies are overleveraged they cut their expenses (i.e. layoff people), which causes more defaults, etc., etc. until the overleveraged bad debt is killed.

Oh my goodness . . . this is the credit business cycle . . .  

Recessions don't just "happen" it is a process that occurs b/c of leverage (i.e. debt).  And one of the largest sources of debt is homebuyers!  And yes they do contribute to a recession, b/c right now banks are giving loans to people who don't qualify!!! I know you think that doesn't happen due to '08, but yes it is happening right now. It is not as bad as '08 but it's not sound leveraging practice. 

You want to know how I know . . . b/c on "paper" I currently have 3 times my income in housing debt.  That is what a bank sees when they pull my credit report.  Now I have an interesting situation b/c I have business ventures paying that debt.  But not taking that income into account, I can currently as of right now, qualify for 6x my income in housing debt!  Six flipping times; there is no way I should be able to do that. 

I swear it's like the economy on auto-repeat.  This is very, very similar to '05-'06.  Even the responses are similar to '05-'06 . . . .

And that you are making it out like I'm insulting you and impugning your honor is just absolutely stupid.  I'm not and I haven't. 

[Inspired to go into debt?]

9 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

 

What . . .wow.  What a total complete pack of lies.  Man people are stupid when it comes to money.  There are so many assumptions baked into this cake (and lies) . . .oh my goodness.

Financial idiocy.  This guy is just plain stupid and is just working to enslave people, very unfortunate so many people listen to snake-oil charmers.

[Inspired to go into debt?]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

T

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It tells me you are too focused on your hobby horse that you are not even hearing me.

 

Lol, look in the mirror.

[Inspired to go into debt?]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm a programmer.  I eat logic for breakfast.

Lol . . .you'd like to think so. I'll one up you.  So am I and a dang good one at that!!!

[Inspired to go into debt?]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

You are not paying attention.  You are riding your hobby horse and cannot see.

I don't really care if you insult me and think I'm such a reprobate and have no honor.  But I hope you get off your horse long enough to see the damage you tried to do to my character.

??? What??? Okay then.  I said you have cognitive dissonance . . .that is an insult? that means I think you are a reprobate and have no honor?

No, I'm pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your argument. Saying that I'm insulting you and saying you are a reprobate and have no honor is not an argument.

It is logically inconsistent to state:

 Recap STTE You: "I needed to buy a home so when you buy it doesn't matter, you buy a home for stability"

Recap STTE Me: "Well if you get into trouble you will lose the home"

Recap STTE You:"Yea well, if you lose your job, needing a home will be the least of your worries, you can always walk away from a mortgage"

Those two ideas are logically inconsistent.  Because actually if you lose your job, having a roof over your head is the best thing you need.  Food, shelter, clothing . . . .

Where did I insult you?  Where did I say you "have no honor" or are a "reprobrate". Please do not put words in my mouth. 

I love the reverse ad hominem straw man attack line, nice.  I've got to remember that one for logical fallacy attacks . . .

[Inspired to go into debt?]

1 hour ago, mdfxdb said:

 I find this interesting because a $200K mortgage for 15 yrs at 3.25% is about $1,400/mo at 26.4% of OP net income means OP is taking home $64,000 per year more or less.....Which means OP is living off of less than half of his take home if he is paying off his house in 5-7 years.   wow........what's for dinner top ramen? Spagetti o's?

OP then takes all of this info to an anonymous web- site asking if we think it is ok, even though he prayed about it and knows it's ok?

Weird.......

Yeah, well some people (those who actually get ahead financially speaking) are very well attuned financially.  I save 50% of my income.  Some people get the financial system and the path to true financial prosperity in this life.  It requires a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifice over a long period of time. You don't have to make 150k/year to be well off . . . in fact there are plenty of people who make 150k/year who live paycheck to paycheck. And I guarantee there are people who make 60k/year who after 30 years have more wealth than those who make 150k/year.

It's an attitude of financial discipline and knowing what you are getting into.  It's called minimizing your expenses, little to no debt, saving a significant portion of your income and then using those savings wisely (not trying to chase financial bubbles).

But unfortunately, most people are stupid when it comes to money . . . I wish that weren't the case, we'd be a lot better off as a society.

 

[Inspired to go into debt?]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You can always walk away from a mortgage.

And this right here is the problem and why we are headed for another bust.  This attitude is too prevalent.  Hey not my money anyways . .. who cares that I signed the document saying I'd pay them back, I'll just walk away from it.

You have cognitive dissonance.  You want a home but are perfectly willing to walk away from it.

I'll buy a house for whatever the price I can get for it just so I can "own a home" (which you really don't-if you have a mortgage you are renting from the bank) and if I get into trouble I'll just "walk away from it". 

Bingo.  All the things you decry about stability making a "home" . . .it all goes poof with this attitude.

[Inspired to go into debt?]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Well then that's where we differ.

I guess that's American thinking.

Families live in homes where tradition is established.  Raising a family when you have to uproot them every 7 years is not ideal for family stability.  That's why people have a hard time in the military.  Filipino families live in generational houses.

 

I tend to agree, you should have the ideal of staying in a place for a long period of time.  But more than that you need to have the flexibility to go where the jobs are! 

And given a recession, the best thing one can do is pick up and move (even if it is from the north end of town to the south end of town) to where the jobs are.  The people who are smart figure out real quick, "if I lose my job, I'm going to find a job and I'm going to go where that job is located!"  That's the part people don't think about.

And you can't have that flexibility with a mortgage hanging around your neck.

[Inspired to go into debt?]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

Like I said... all this becomes noise when you're buying a HOUSE.  You don't just buy a house because, Oh, what a nice thing to have a house.  At least not in the OP's case.  You buy a house because YOU NEED ONE.  And that's just fine.  Because it doesn't matter the market when you're buying a collateral for the long haul.

For example.  I bought a house at the high end of the cycle.  I have X mortgage which is fine because I planned for X mortgage.  It is only not fine if I can't sell the house for how much I bought the house for because then I'll have lost money.  But since I am raising a family in this house so I'm not planning on selling this house ever - it's probably gonna get handed down all the way to grandkids and such - It doesn't matter much that I bought the house at the height of the cycle.

Look, no one needs to buy a house.  You need a place to live; but that is drastically different than the need to buy a house. And yes, yes it does matter.  The idea that you will live in 1 house for 20-30 years while you raise a family is just not feasible. For some people it is, but for the vast majority of people it is not.  On average people buy a house every 7 years. 

Yes you bought a house at the high end of the cycle and that will impact your eventual overall financial standing.  Yes if you plan and budget for the price, then it is like buying a computer, it shouldn't matter than you bought a computer 5 years ago for 2k when you can buy the same one today for 1k . . .however there is one big difference debt!!!  And your attitude above is why the system is so jacked up, b/c people don't care about debt. 

All they care about is if they can make the monthly payment and that is a recipe for financial ruin.

That's why if you buy a house for cash or have it paid off, where you are in the real estate cycle doesn't matter quite so much.  I agree with you on that point.  But if you have debt, then when you buy matters very much in the real estate cycle.  There are plenty of people who think the same thing (I don't plan on ever selling) then they have a job loss, a medical problem etc. and then they lose the place.

Your reasoning is exactly why the housing bubble was so bad and destroyed so many lives.  People speculated and the people who didn't speculate just "needed a house" and bought anyways instead of assessing if it was financially a good decision.  A lot of people who needed to buy a house in '08 didn't need to buy a house in '11 even though they needed a place to live.