Let's talk Moore

[person0]

33 minutes ago, Godless said:

Update: looks like we have another dirtbag on the chopping block.

Al Franken was a dirtbag even without this incident coming to light.

[JoCa]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I have zero love for Al Franken but he at least admitted he was sorry and didn't try to excuse it. That's what a good person does instead of makes excuses or tries to justify their behavior. 

Tell me MormonGater, what exactly is a good, moral, honest person supposed to do in this situation.  Just for a mind-exercise, believe Roy Moore is totally 100% innocent.  What exactly should he say or do in this case?

You see, it's a catch 22.  Because evil people know that it's easy to ask forgiveness than permission. So if caught, just play the "Oh, I'm so sorry, I'm so contrite, I'm not a bad person card" and you get out of jail.

But if the person is actually truly innocent, there is nothing they can do or say.  Nothing . . .except exactly what Moore is doing.  Fight it tooth and nail . . .but of course if you do that, (b/c people have already pre-judged) it means you're an evil person for not just admitting the wrongs you've done.

And it's why this attack is sooo incredibly powerful against actual honest men/women.  And it's also very powerful b/c of where we are at in current culture.

We are so incredibly degraded as a society (porn use, vulgarity, infidelity, etc.) that people cannot fathom them being innocent!  A good honest man cannot survive in politics b/c the assumption is that they are all dirty (just as dirty as most of society), so actual honest people are seen as holier-than-thou, better than the rest . . .b/c so many people can't actually fathom there being good moral people.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest MormonGator]

52 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

  Don't date, or try to date, or propose dating, teen girls when you are in your thirties.

The fact that this even needs to be said is so depressing. So, so depressing. 

[person0]

3 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I definitely disagree with the second portion; show me one time in scriptures that a wicked man governed in wisdom and righteously and a righteous man who governed wickedly and foolishly.

Honestly, I was thinking more of the wicked or worldly ones who repented:  Lamoni, his father, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus.  Anyway, I would say that to an extend David and Solomon fit one or more of those descriptions at times throughout their reign.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll confess to not having read the previous posts. However, as believers in chastity, ought we not simply let these chips fall where they may? Should we not quietly rejoice that in a somewhat bipartisan way (Sen. Al Franken appears to be the latest) middle-aged men pressuring minors into romantic gestures are being called out? I won't jump to conclusions about any particular case/accusation, but I admit to being happy that's it's gone beyond a scavenger hunt against Trump-supporters, and seems to now be a sincere effort to shine a light on sexually predatory behavior.

[JoCa]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The fact that this even needs to be said is so depressing. So, so depressing. 

40 years ago man, 40 years ago.  I'm sure 40 years from now people will say.  How could it be that Joe Blow ever held an opinion that homosexuals shouldn't marry . . .what an evil, degraded person.  Judging people on actions they took 40 years ago, that were not criminal then. and fitting it into today's culture is morally wrong.

What actions today are you doing that in 40 years will be looked upon society as evil, wrong, bad?  That's why we have statute of limitations.

I have relatives who married 8 years apart the the woman was 18 when the married; they are happily married 40 years later which is a heck of a lot longer than probably 60% of marriages.  Get off your high-horse.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

sincere effort to shine a light on sexually predatory behavior.

I don't believe it is actually a good desire.  I believe it is a very vindictive effort and a lot of good people are going to be caught up in it.  How quickly we forget the Red Scare of the 50s.

[JoCa]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

Honestly, I was thinking more of the wicked or worldly ones who repented:  Lamoni, his father, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus.  Anyway, I would say that to an extend David and Solomon fit one or more of those descriptions at times throughout their reign.

And you either had wicked ones who repented or good ones who fell. I don't believe you can have a wicked leader that leads people in righteousness nor a righteous leader who leads people into wickedness.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'll confess to not having read the previous posts. However, as believers in chastity, ought we not simply let these chips fall where they may? Should we not quietly rejoice that in a somewhat bipartisan way (Sen. Al Franken appears to be the latest) middle-aged men pressuring minors into romantic gestures are being called out? I won't jump to conclusions about any particular case/accusation, but I admit to being happy that's it's gone beyond a scavenger hunt against Trump-supporters, and seems to now be a sincere effort to shine a light on sexually predatory behavior.

I think it's important to remember that we are all sinners and we all make mistakes, sometimes serious ones. 

What I "like" seeing (Of course, I wish none of this ever happened) are people willing to admit that politicians in their own political party can be just as guilty as the other side. Oh sure, the true believers will always be true believers, but a very large percentage of people are beginning to demand decency from people on their own side. It's the only good thing to come out of this.  

Edited November 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[prisonchaplain]

4 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I don't believe it is actually a good desire.  I believe it is a very vindictive effort and a lot of good people are going to be caught up in it.  How quickly we forget the Red Scare of the 50s.

Men in their 30s kissing/groping/dating/etc. girls in their early-teens was wrong 40 years ago. It's wrong today. Associating with Communists was probably foolish, but should have been protected. I'm afraid this is an apples/oranges comparison.

[prisonchaplain]

Just now, MormonGator said:

I think it's important to remember that we are all sinners and we all make mistakes, sometimes serious ones. 

What I "like" seeing (Of course, I wish none of this ever happened) are people willing to admit that politicians in their own political party can be just as guilty as the other side. Oh sure, the true believers will always be true believers, but a very large percentage of people are beginning to demand decency from people on their side. 

I've stated previously that churches should and do have protocols for bring registered sex-offenders into their houses of worship in ways that are safe and redemptive. Politicians who've hidden their misdeeds, then lie, deflect, or hide behind their faith and blame their accusers...I may pray/hope for their salvation, but that does not mean I trust them or desire that they serve in public leadership.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

I've stated previously that churches should and do have protocols for bring registered sex-offenders into their houses of worship in ways that are safe and redemptive. Politicians who've hidden their misdeeds, then lie, deflect, or hide behind their faith and blame their accusers...I may pray/hope for their salvation, but that does not mean I trust them or desire that they serve in public leadership.

we totally agree my friend. I think we've seen the damage that sex scandals regarding minors can do to churches. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been paying attention. It's the same in politics. Totally agree 100% 

Edited November 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[person0]

Just now, JoCa said:

And you either had wicked ones who repented or good ones who fell. I don't believe you can have a wicked leader that leads people in righteousness nor a righteous leader who leads people into wickedness.

Personally I would suggest that this category of people fits that bill. 

Quote

D&C 76:75
These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

I would say you could have a person who is righteous in many ways, but is wicked in many others.  For example, a skilled and good leader who lives a legal and consensual sexually promiscuous lifestyle.  I would still consider that to be a wicked man, but that lifestyle wouldn't necessarily affect his ability to lead correctly in other ways.  Perhaps he grew up in a society where there was nothing wrong with this behavior (which is pretty much how we are now).  Unlikely, perhaps, but still possible.

Also, I would say that former President Obama appears to be and to have been a relatively righteous person, as an individual.  However, his ideals and goals for the country are wicked and will lead us down the path of destruction.  He did not necessarily have to have wicked intentions in order to implement wicked and evil policies as he did.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

I would say you could have a person who is righteous in many ways, but is wicked in many others.  .

We are all like that, it's the human condition. The really "good people" that I know don't admit they are good first off. They are quickest to admit their flaws and weakness. When they make a mistake they also admit that too-but rectify the situation. I'd have much more respect for Roy Moore if he said "Yes, I'm guilty of this. I resign from the race immediately" instead of fighting the charges or dancing around them.  

[JohnsonJones]

25 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I agree except for the bold.  There is a reason why the law has a statute of limitations; to precisely avoid stuff like this. Common law recognizes and acknowledges that if a crime is perpetrated against you, the victim bares some responsibility.  Part of that responsibility is to report the crime immediately, exactly to avoid this stuff-how do you prove or disprove something from 40 years ago?  Even if the yearbook is accurate, it still doesn't prove anything . . .that's why we have the law and why we have reporting requirements.

But again, people have lost their everloving minds, they emotionally see this things happen and then want to burn them at the stake . . . we are going back centuries in time with regard to law. 

I definitely disagree with the second portion; show me one time in scriptures that a wicked man governed in wisdom and righteously and a righteous man who governed wickedly and foolishly.  

In regards to Moore, if it was with a 14 year old, there are some items where there are actually no Statute of Limitations in the state of Alabama.  If I were the state I'd be currently gathering evidence, they do not need the consent of the victim to press charges (though it would be more likely to have a good case that might have enough evidence if the victim was willing and cooperative...and if they are not, that brings into question the entire story itself and why they brought it up in the first place).   Along certain lines (of which we are speaking) If it is a violent crime, or one that involves a minor (under the age of 16) there is no statute of limitations.  On other ones, that do not involve minors or is of a lesser degree (so in his case, as it was a physical abuse of the minor, it is not a lesser degree) such as exposure of oneself or other things the statute is far less (one to three years).  In this instance, however, as the accused stated physical touching of certain areas without consent and pressure to commit to things beyond that, it would fall under the more serious code which does not have a statute of limitations.  The biggest thing there is to see if there can be garnered enough evidence to prove the event and bring it to trial.  That can take a little while, and requires cooperation not just of the accused but of other corroborating witnesses (for example, her mother would be a good one.  Friends also can act as witnesses to what she said, acted, etc.  There also should be paperwork that show who was actually present that day at the court she claims it started, as well as other pieces of information).

In this instance, if they could corroborate and get a good enough case, he is not immune to the law.  It is entirely possible he could go to jail in that instance.  The bigger question is if he is guilty, and the accuser does not want to cooperate in this, why not?  It severely weakens the case and makes it likely not to be brought to trial.  They already made it bigger than it would be on it's own by doing it via media instead of reporting it, but then, sometimes that seems to be the status quo recently.  I think Corey Feldmen is one of the few that has just recently called the police (on a TV show no less) in this regards to charging those who would have molested him as a minor.  If they really want something to be done about it, help the state build it's case and then bring charges. 

In fact, it is probably ONLY the criminal case where charges could be brought up...I think as far as civil cases go, there IS a 30 year statute of limitations as long as the victim placed a charge or grievance within five years of the action having occurred.  So, in the instance of a civil case, the SoL is probably already past, but in regards to criminal activities, this is one that I think fall under the arena (as the specific victim was under the age of 16 which is the age specified in the code) where there is no Statute of Limitations for that crime where in he can be charged, as long as a case can be built.  As I said, it ALMOST REQUIRES cooperation from the supposed victim though, because it's awfully hard to build a case this far from the event without their cooperation.

[person0]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'd have much more respect for Roy Moore if he said "Yes, I'm guilty of this. I resign from the race immediately" instead of fighting the charges or dancing around them.

I agree, but what if he's not guilty?

Edited November 16, 2017 by person0

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

And if he's not guilty?

The blunt truth: guilt and innocence are legal terms, not terms in the political arena. Politics is a tough game, and it's not a fair game. If you want a fair game, play chess or checkers. Wisely, many GOP leaders have thrown him under the bus. You tell Roy here that "It's not personal, just politics. We need to keep the seat and we have better odds with Mr. Smith than we do with Mr. Moore." Why people have grown to love this guy is beyond me.

It's Alabama. Probably the most red state in the union. I say that as a registered republican by the way, not a pejorative. I want the GOP to win. The GOP can easily, easily easily find someone just as conservative who doesn't have the baggage. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[person0]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

The blunt truth: guilt and innocence are legal terms, not terms in the political arena. Politics is a tough game, and it's not a fair game. Wisely, many GOP leaders have thrown him under the bus. You tell Roy here that "It's not personal, just politics. We need to keep the seat and we have better odds with Mr. Smith than we do with Mr. Moore." Why people have grown to love this guy is beyond me.

It's Alabama. Probably the most red state in the union. I say that as a registered republican by the way, not a pejorative. I want the GOP to win. The GOP can easily, easily easily find someone just as conservative who doesn't have the baggage. 

Agreed.  But what a shame if its all a lie, and liars are causing this man potential long term damage, and setting a standard that it could be done successfully to anyone they want to eliminate.

[JoCa]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The blunt truth: guilt and innocence are legal terms, not terms in the political arena. Politics is a tough game, and it's not a fair game. Wisely, many GOP leaders have thrown him under the bus. You tell Roy here that "It's not personal, just politics. We need to keep the seat and we have better odds with Mr. Smith than we do with Mr. Moore." Why people have grown to love this guy is beyond me.

It's Alabama. Probably the most red state in the union. I say that as a registered republican by the way, not a pejorative. I want the GOP to win. The GOP can easily, easily easily find someone just as conservative who doesn't have the baggage. 

Wrong.  You don't understand the game.  They can find a conservative they can control.  They can't control Roy Moore.  You really don't understand how the system works.  The reason why they all threw him under the bus is b/c the guy is legit! He is a legitimate Christian conservative who believes very firmly in God and his actions back him up on it.  Rs and Ds are cut from the same cloth; it's why things don't change too much during the changing of the Guard it is the uni-party. 

But Moore-just like Trump is an actual legitimate threat to their power.  Trump was not supposed to win at all and they want to send a message to any actual true-blue conservatives thinking of running in 2018 in the Trump mold (i.e. to break the power structure), "you don't play our ball-game, we will take you out".

Oh they can easily find someone they want . . .Luther Strange, he was their guy.  But the actual people of Alabama rose up and said NO! This is the swamp fighting back, they will do everything to take down good, moral men. 

If you don't see that what is actually going on is a very real war between good and evil . . . . well then man, it's just all made up-no God, no Satan, no Heaven, no Hell.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest Godless]

39 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Couple of things with this one.  Okay pleeze, Leeann Tweeden . . .she made her career out of selling her body.  How many Playboy spreads, Maxim, FHM, etc. did she do? The military tour she was one she says specifically was made crude/lewd jokes.  The whole point of your career is to sell sex.  What the heck do you think is going to happen when your entire career is based on selling immorality?  So please spare me your fake hypocritical outrage.

"She was asking for it"

"She should have worn something less provocative"

"She was leading him on."

"She made a career out of selling her body"

A woman's profession doesn't excuse unsolicited lewd behavior towards her. Whatever immoral actions Tweeden engaged in during her professional career, she did on her terms. It doesn't give anyone a free pass to use her as a sex object outside the parameters of what she consents to professionally. This is a fact that has been ignored for years in the sex/porn industry. I imagine that will begin to change soon. 

39 minutes ago, JoCa said:

It's everyone's 15 min. of fame right now in sexual harassment.  If you are a male-be very, very scared.  I would not work with or associate with any females unless I had to.  All it takes is one baseless accusation and you are toast and of course the female always tells the truth, b/c a woman would never lie about something like this to get back at a man.

Sick, sick world we live in.  He's a witch so burn him, burn him.

Guilty until proven innocent-it's a natural outcome of a godless society.

 

I won't deny that there may be some false allegations floating around right now. And if there aren't currently, there may be in the future. However, my first instinct is and always will be to trust the victim first, because I've known too many victims who stayed silent out of fear of character assassination, victim-blaming, career ramifications, and/or retribution from their attackers. And those fears (that, based on multiple examples we've seen over the years) are exactly why it's very unlikely that many women would lie about something like this. Who in their right mind would put themselves through the mental anguish and public inquisition that we've seen sexual assault accusers go through? Is 15 minutes of fame worth putting yourself through all of that? I'm inclined to think not. Again, there will probably be a few exceptions here and there, but I think the amount of public scrutiny and investigation that goes into the background of alleged victims is enough to deter most would-be frauds. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

Agreed.  But what a shame if its all a lie, and liars are causing this man potential long term damage, and setting a standard that it could be done successfully to anyone they want to eliminate.

If he didn't want to be lied about, he shouldn't have gone into politics. Live a nice, quiet life in the private sector. No one will bother you. I have zero sympathy for him. 

[JoCa]

 

1 minute ago, Godless said:

"She was asking for it"

"She should have worn something less provocative"

"She was leading him on."

"She made a career out of selling her body"

A woman's profession doesn't excuse unsolicited lewd behavior towards her. Whatever immoral actions Tweeden engaged in during her professional career, she did on her terms. It doesn't give anyone a free pass to use her as a sex object outside the parameters of what she consents to professionally. This is a fact that has been ignored for years in the sex/porn industry. I imagine that will begin to change soon. 

I won't deny that there may be some false allegations floating around right now. And if there aren't currently, there may be in the future. However, my first instinct is and always will be to trust the victim first, because I've known too many victims who stayed silent out of fear of character assassination, victim-blaming, career ramifications, and/or retribution from their attackers. And those fears (that, based on multiple examples we've seen over the years) are exactly why it's very unlikely that many women would lie about something like this. Who in their right mind would put themselves through the mental anguish and public inquisition that we've seen sexual assault accusers go through? Is 15 minutes of fame worth putting yourself through all of that? I'm inclined to think not. Again, there will probably be a few exceptions here and there, but I think the amount of public scrutiny and investigation that goes into the background of alleged victims is enough to deter most would-be frauds. 

So I can be a drug dealer and if I get shot I bare no responsibility for my actions?  This whole sexual harassment crap has just got to stop.  By not recognizing that yes you bare responsibility for your profession you are abrogating personal responsibility.   Man this world has gone nuts . . .I was always taught "you can choose your actions but you can't choose your consequences".  If you go into a profession of selling sex, don't act all outraged when you get assaulted.  When you go into a profession of drug dealing, don't act all upset when you get shot.  Personal responsibility!

Guilty until proven innocent . . .got it. And you are right; you are godless and a godless society by virtue of it being godless must devolve into guilty until proven innocent.

[JoCa]

Just now, JoCa said:

Guilty until proven innocent . . .got it. And you are right; you are godless and a godless society by virtue of it being godless must devolve into guilty until proven innocent.

Because you see believers understand that ultimately I, nor you nor anyone else is the ultimate judge and one day, if you have committed a heinous crime. You will stand before God and you will be accountable. Based on that world-view, it is perfectly acceptable that some guilty individuals never get caught.

But in a godless, atheist society all that matters is the here and now.  If someone who is guilty, gets away with it, they will never answer for their "crimes" so it is better to assume one is guilty first and have the innocent prove they are innocent . . .b/c if we don't catch the guilty, no one will.

[JoCa]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If he didn't want to be lied about, he shouldn't have gone into politics. Live a nice, quiet life in the private sector. No one will bother you. I have zero sympathy for him. 

Wow dude ..  .then only the wicked will be in politics. So so sad. Oh and least we forget, he didn't really go into politics.  He is a judge . . .I don't know where you come from but where I come from while judges are "elected" they are non-partisan races.

Edited November 16, 2017 by JoCa

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Couple of things with this one.  Okay pleeze, Leeann Tweeden . . .she made her career out of selling her body.  How many Playboy spreads, Maxim, FHM, etc. did she do? The military tour she was one she says specifically was made crude/lewd jokes.  The whole point of your career is to sell sex.  What the heck do you think is going to happen when your entire career is based on selling immorality?  So please spare me your fake hypocritical outrage.

Are you saying models give up equal protection under the law?

Would it help if I mentioned the admitted grope happened in 2006, and she didn't pose nude until five years later?

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by NeuroTypical