Roy Moore Was Banned From A Mall In The 80's For Repeatedly Harassing Teenage Girls

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ool_girls.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.12c5380f5768

OK, so are you fine Fellers defending Moore?

That means you don’t believe anything anybody says, unlike Twitler, who believes everything everybody says.

I get it. You don’t want him to be a sleazy pedophile. Neither do I.

So listen to someone you believe ... Steve Bannon!

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...113-story.html

Roy Moore supporters don't want the allegations to be true. And so they don't believe them

I’ll cut to the chase: I think Roy Moore did it. And I can predict what Moore supporters will say: “Of course you would believe that!”

After all, I called for conservatives to repudiate Moore, the Alabama Republican candidate for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, before the Washington Post’s meticulously reported story alleging that he dated teenagers and, in one instance, molested a 14 year-old-girl. So naturally I would exploit this politically timed “smear” to ruin a “good man.”


That’s the nature of the Moore-defense I’m hearing, not just from folks on Twitter and email, but from prominent politicos and pundits. It’s all just a hoax perpetrated by people who don’t want to Make America Great Again.

At one point, with barely restrained pique, Moore insisted, 'I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.'
I would say it’s a terrible argument, but calling it an argument is too generous. Here’s Breitbart honcho Steven Bannon on Thursday:

“The Bezos-Amazon-Washington Post that dropped that dime on Donald Trump,” Bannon told a New Hampshire audience, “is the same Bezos-Amazon-Washington Post that dropped the dime this afternoon on Judge Roy Moore. Now is that a coincidence?”

This is typical of Bannon’s demagogic style. Because the Post is allegedly out to get Moore, not only can we not believe what the Post reports, we don’t have to credit what any of the people talking to the Post on the record actually said. It’s a kind of motivated reasoning that lets audiences connect dots and reach conclusions unsupported by the facts.

Bannon uses lots of adjectival nouns — “Bezos-Amazon Washington Post”! — to insinuate a nefarious conspiracy everyone is supposed to know about. He appeals to intellectual vanity and insecurity: Surely you don’t believe this is a coincidence! This is a classic example of the paranoid style, inferring evil intentions from objective facts.

The most telling detail is Bannon’s claim that the Post “dropped a dime” on Trump with the “Access Hollywood” tape. Translation: they’re snitches!

But here’s the thing: Snitches may or may not be bad people, but what makes people hate snitches is that they tell the truth. A snitch, by definition is an informer, not a liar.

And the one fact Bannon leaves out from his innuendo-drenched word-salad is that the “Access Hollywood” story was, actually, you know, true. Donald Trump said what he said — on tape — in his own words! Whether he was lying when he talked about sexually assaulting women is a different question altogether. The Post didn’t make anything up then, and I don’t think it’s making anything up now.

That said, I’m entirely open to the idea that the Post is out to get Moore. But reporters’ motives aren’t nearly as important as people think. The Post was surely out to get Richard Nixon during Watergate; that doesn’t change the fact that Nixon was guilty. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, many people were out to get Bill Clinton (me included), but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have an affair with an intern and lie about it under oath. The motivations of truth tellers cannot turn the truth into a lie.

Both the Post’s reporting and victims’ testimony are persuasive for reasons widely discussed. But there’s one point no one has made: If these women were willing to lie, why not go all in and say they were raped or insist Moore wouldn’t take “no” for an answer? In for a penny, in for a pound, after all.

But perhaps most damning are Moore’s creepy denials. When Fox News host Sean Hannity asked, almost begged, Moore to deny the allegations categorically, Moore was evasive, lawyerly and weird. If someone asked me if I ever dated teenagers when I was in my 30s, my reply would be “absolutely not.” It wouldn’t be “that wasn’t my customary behavior.” When asked if he remembered dating teenagers, Moore answered “not generally, no.” At one point, with barely restrained pique, he insisted, “I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.”

That’s an odd thing to say if you never dated teenagers.

Moore and his defenders are counting on the fact that his supporters don’t want the allegations to be true. And, shamefully for all concerned, it’s working.

https://whatthedatasays.com/2017/11/...ore-signature/



Thomas Wictor @ThomasWictor

Well, unretouched CNN photo DEFINITELY shows that "Moore D.A. 12-22-77 Olde Hickory House" was written in different-colored ink than the rest of the inscription.

It appears that this jalopy of an accusation has completely fallen apart. pic.twitter.com/IiA0QP0l2R

JohnP says:
November 14, 2017 at 4:31 am
The “European” style 7 was used in blue ink but not in the black. It’s not written by the same person.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

that is very interesting.. even with same colored ink, it is obvious the "Olde Hickory House" line is written by a different person, and a female at that.. it makes sense, too, that he would have written just "Roy", and not filled in the other detail.. that extra verbage does not pass credulity.

Moore and his defenders are counting on the fact that his supporters don’t want the allegations to be true. And, shamefully for all concerned, it’s working. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

however.. just because that document was forged, does not mean Moore is cleared, for the reasons outlined here.. he totally fucked himself with those dodgy responses on Hannity, and there is loads of corroboration about this Skanky Pedophile.. sure, Clinton got away with his deeds, Republicans need to point back 20+ years to a guilty Democrat, to try and absolve their guy.. but their guy (and many Republicans) runs as a moral crusader, and it's hilarious how many of them are rank hypocrites.

So listen to someone you believe ... Steve Bannon! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hey dipshit - that LA Times op-ed wasn't written by Bannon! Do you know how to fucking read? You're such a dumb schmuck... oink, oink!

I didn’t say that, did I?

Maybe you need to learn to read, Junior.

Ask Bannon. He’ll tell you it’s OK.

that is very interesting.. even with same colored ink, it is obvious the "Olde Hickory House" line is written by a different person, and a female at that.. it makes sense, too, that he would have written just "Roy", and not filled in the other detail.. that extra verbage does not pass credulity.



. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

When was the blue ink added is the question? Was it added right after he signed it and before the alleged attack? Which too, would make sense. You know like a powerful person in our town likes me! Let me record the date and person for memory. After all this was not one of her classmates... unless you count a classmate as someone who graduated 14 years before you! I can promise you oh Roy Moore does not want to get into a pissing match over those questions.



There are still a whole lot of questions to be answered. And you are right after the GOP dogging Clinton ....the chickens are coming home to roost in Alabama.

1977 was before nightly reruns of "Law & Order".

Who the fuck here knew what a "D.A." was or did when they were in high school in the 70s?

If you knew, it was because you were on the wrong side of the law.

And if you were like most teenagers and didn't know, how the fuck could you claim to be intimidated by some so-called "authority figure" carrying just a title of unknown import?

And didn't year books arrive in the spring near the end of the school year ... and not just before Christmas?

FYI: The ink has different chemical composition and contains a designated "trace metal" in the "brew" that is "assigned" for that year ... aka IRS and the Feds. The FBI/Secret Service can test the ink for the trace metal and thereby determine the year it was manufactured.

1977 was before nightly reruns of "Law & Order".

Who the fuck here knew what a "D.A." was or did when they were in high school in the 70s?

If you knew, it was because you were on the wrong side of the law.

And if you were like most teenagers and didn't know, how the fuck could you claim to be intimidated by some so-called "authority figure" carrying just a title of unknown import?

And didn't year books arrive in the spring near the end of the school year ... and not just before Christmas?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

All good questions ....I'm sure Roy Moore, if innocent should have no problem putting himself under oath to answer as should the accusers.

This may turn out like the Duke Lacrosse team.

Let the voters decide. That is the only jury that matters right now.

I would not vote for the silly SOB but I would not have voted for him because of that Howdy Doody out fit he wore!

If the Senate puts him and the others under oath, if he is elected....it could get interesting.

I'm kinda hoping he gets elected. Shit Trump will be pissed because this guy is getting more ink than the Donald!

FYI: The ink has different chemical composition and contains a designated "trace metal" in the "brew" that is "assigned" for that year ... aka IRS and the Feds. The FBI/Secret Service can test the ink for the trace metal and thereby determine the year it was manufactured. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Look at you going all CSI on us!
http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sc.../ink-analysis/

Finally LL speaks the truth.


Ole Roy needs to jump on this! Unless he is guilty , then he needs to continue to blame the Media, the Democrats and the GOP and the Swamp !

How do you know he even exists? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I am starting to wonder if the so called victims do, lol. Go take a dumb and clear your mind you ignorant fuck.

Jim

I am starting to wonder if the so called victims do, lol. Go take a dumb and clear your mind you ignorant fuck.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I just did.. you!

So do you support a man like this serving in the Senate?

OK, so are you fine Fellers defending Moore?

That means you don’t believe anything anybody says, unlike Twitler, who believes everything everybody says.

I get it. You don’t want him to be a sleazy pedophile. Neither do I.

So listen to someone you believe ... Steve Bannon!

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...113-story.html

Roy Moore supporters don't want the allegations to be true. And so they don't believe them

I’ll cut to the chase: I think Roy Moore did it. And I can predict what Moore supporters will say: “Of course you would believe that!”

After all, I called for conservatives to repudiate Moore, the Alabama Republican candidate for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions, before the Washington Post’s meticulously reported story alleging that he dated teenagers and, in one instance, molested a 14 year-old-girl. So naturally I would exploit this politically timed “smear” to ruin a “good man.”


That’s the nature of the Moore-defense I’m hearing, not just from folks on Twitter and email, but from prominent politicos and pundits. It’s all just a hoax perpetrated by people who don’t want to Make America Great Again.

At one point, with barely restrained pique, Moore insisted, 'I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.'
I would say it’s a terrible argument, but calling it an argument is too generous. Here’s Breitbart honcho Steven Bannon on Thursday:

“The Bezos-Amazon-Washington Post that dropped that dime on Donald Trump,” Bannon told a New Hampshire audience, “is the same Bezos-Amazon-Washington Post that dropped the dime this afternoon on Judge Roy Moore. Now is that a coincidence?”

This is typical of Bannon’s demagogic style. Because the Post is allegedly out to get Moore, not only can we not believe what the Post reports, we don’t have to credit what any of the people talking to the Post on the record actually said. It’s a kind of motivated reasoning that lets audiences connect dots and reach conclusions unsupported by the facts.

Bannon uses lots of adjectival nouns — “Bezos-Amazon Washington Post”! — to insinuate a nefarious conspiracy everyone is supposed to know about. He appeals to intellectual vanity and insecurity: Surely you don’t believe this is a coincidence! This is a classic example of the paranoid style, inferring evil intentions from objective facts.

The most telling detail is Bannon’s claim that the Post “dropped a dime” on Trump with the “Access Hollywood” tape. Translation: they’re snitches!

But here’s the thing: Snitches may or may not be bad people, but what makes people hate snitches is that they tell the truth. A snitch, by definition is an informer, not a liar.

And the one fact Bannon leaves out from his innuendo-drenched word-salad is that the “Access Hollywood” story was, actually, you know, true. Donald Trump said what he said — on tape — in his own words! Whether he was lying when he talked about sexually assaulting women is a different question altogether. The Post didn’t make anything up then, and I don’t think it’s making anything up now.

That said, I’m entirely open to the idea that the Post is out to get Moore. But reporters’ motives aren’t nearly as important as people think. The Post was surely out to get Richard Nixon during Watergate; that doesn’t change the fact that Nixon was guilty. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, many people were out to get Bill Clinton (me included), but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have an affair with an intern and lie about it under oath. The motivations of truth tellers cannot turn the truth into a lie.

Both the Post’s reporting and victims’ testimony are persuasive for reasons widely discussed. But there’s one point no one has made: If these women were willing to lie, why not go all in and say they were raped or insist Moore wouldn’t take “no” for an answer? In for a penny, in for a pound, after all.

But perhaps most damning are Moore’s creepy denials. When Fox News host Sean Hannity asked, almost begged, Moore to deny the allegations categorically, Moore was evasive, lawyerly and weird. If someone asked me if I ever dated teenagers when I was in my 30s, my reply would be “absolutely not.” It wouldn’t be “that wasn’t my customary behavior.” When asked if he remembered dating teenagers, Moore answered “not generally, no.” At one point, with barely restrained pique, he insisted, “I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.”

That’s an odd thing to say if you never dated teenagers.

Moore and his defenders are counting on the fact that his supporters don’t want the allegations to be true. And, shamefully for all concerned, it’s working. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It's not a matter of whether anybody should believe it or not, but rather after thirty years why should anybody really give a shit.


Jim

I just did.. you!

So do you support a man like this serving in the Senate? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, of course I don't support someone, regardless of profession or status who would sexually prey on a minor. By that same token, I don't support unsubstantiated accusations either. If Moore is guilty he needs to be brought to justice if that can't happen then these allocations don't belong in the news any longer.


Jim

. If Moore is guilty he needs to be brought to justice if that can't happen then these allocations don't belong in the news any longer.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

That can not happen but what also can not happen is to say what can and can not be in the news.

The Guy is running for a seat in the Senate. Of course this charge can play out in the court of public opinion.

If Alabama elects him then the Senate will have to deal with the Court of Public Opinion.

That is the Court that matters to Politicians.