Roy Moore justifications

[babe]

actually alex jones has been warning about this for a while now!


ooh and stuff turns frogs gay!

Don't be too sure of yourself. Just because you don't understand a clear scientific statement, and you loosely translate technical terminology...... doesn't mean you're right.... or that some else who is doing the same uneducated simplification of an issue is entirely wrong......

Alex Jones is usually on some kind of a rant, but you can be sure when he says "stuff turns frogs gay" it's because he read a better-informed source that actually said "phytoestrogens", as in a variety of industrial and household waste streams, including soy and poop from humans who eat soy, and plasticizers common to many packaging materials. So yes, that "stuff"does affect frogs, and in say the Potomac river and other rivers in heavily populated and polluted areas, scientists have measured the effects in terms of feminization of frog morphology.

In fact, all this "stuff" we use has had a measureable effect on human morphology, rendering human males more like human females, changing sexually-determined physiology. It is thought that women are experiencing a huge epidemic of estrogen-positive cancers because of these common commercial products that include estrogen-mimicking chemicals.
* * *
*

 

[babe]

I think that Roy Moore while in the military may have been overseas, in the Philippines, in the seventies.

I listen to a lot of Pacific Garden Mission's dramas about sinners who make a turn and are changed by their faith in Christ. I have been wondering if this might have been such a case.

Experts on pedophilia cite statistics that generally support a view that they do not change, and I've heard some supporters of Moore cite those "educated observations" to make the point that Moore just doesn't fit the pedophilia profile.

Well, I really know nothing about that, but I don't doubt that Rino Republicans who spent (wasted) millions trying to secure a win for Moore's Strange primary opponent would dig up whatever dirt they could on him.

The Washington Post has no credibility on the story because they lied in their story claiming their informants were not democrats or supporters of democrats..... but it has since come out that one was, and the Post reporters had to know that fact, and were willing to blatantly lie. As a rule, I see politically-allied "news" as inherently dishonest, as all our major news retailers are. It's really not hard to see that dishonestly. If you don't see it, it means your are yourself so biased in favor of pushing that narrative that you are not being honest with yourself.

So what this amounts to is the fact that Rino Republicans and Democrats of the Establishment UniParty have no morals and will do any damned dirty dishonest thing it takes to defeat an outsider.

But most Bible-believing Christians believe a man who turns to Christ is a new man, who is forgiven of his past sins, and forty years of a much improved life is taken as proof of "Christian conversion".

I think the lying media and politicians are outta touch will voters all across the country, and are causing a massive negative reaction to their politics as usual.

This is a great day to be an American.

 

[Stoked]

I think that Roy Moore while in the military may have been overseas, in the Philippines, in the seventies.

I listen to a lot of Pacific Garden Mission's dramas about sinners who make a turn and are changed by their faith in Christ. I have been wondering if this might have been such a case.

Experts on pedophilia cite statistics that generally support a view that they do not change, and I've heard some supporters of Moore cite those "educated observations" to make the point that Moore just doesn't fit the pedophilia profile.

Well, I really know nothing about that, but I don't doubt that Rino Republicans who spent (wasted) millions trying to secure a win for Moore's Strange primary opponent would dig up whatever dirt they could on him.

The Washington Post has no credibility on the story because they lied in their story claiming their informants were not democrats or supporters of democrats..... but it has since come out that one was, and the Post reporters had to know that fact, and were willing to blatantly lie. As a rule, I see politically-allied "news" as inherently dishonest, as all our major news retailers are. It's really not hard to see that dishonestly. If you don't see it, it means your are yourself so biased in favor of pushing that narrative that you are not being honest with yourself.

So what this amounts to is the fact that Rino Republicans and Democrats of the Establishment UniParty have no morals and will do any damned dirty dishonest thing it takes to defeat an outsider.

But most Bible-believing Christians believe a man who turns to Christ is a new man, who is forgiven of his past sins, and forty years of a much improved life is taken as proof of "Christian conversion".I think the lying media and politicians are outta touch will voters all across the country, and are causing a massive negative reaction to their politics as usual.

This is a great day to be an American.

I refuse to accept that these people have turned to Christ. They have not accepted responsibility for their actions, made amends (as much as they can) and satisfied any civil penalties (like jail and fines). It's not that easy.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Don't be too sure of yourself. Just because you don't understand a clear scientific statement, and you loosely translate technical terminology...... doesn't mean you're right.... or that some else who is doing the same uneducated simplification of an issue is entirely wrong......

Alex Jones is usually on some kind of a rant, but you can be sure when he says "stuff turns frogs gay" it's because he read a better-informed source that actually said "phytoestrogens", as in a variety of industrial and household waste streams, including soy and poop from humans who eat soy, and plasticizers common to many packaging materials. So yes, that "stuff"does affect frogs, and in say the Potomac river and other rivers in heavily populated and polluted areas, scientists have measured the effects in terms of feminization of frog morphology.

In fact, all this "stuff" we use has had a measureable effect on human morphology, rendering human males more like human females, changing sexually-determined physiology. It is thought that women are experiencing a huge epidemic of estrogen-positive cancers because of these common commercial products that include estrogen-mimicking chemicals.
* * *
*

i was not sarcastic. i know how to listen to alex jones!


let me give an example
suppose this is a fact: certain chemicals effect frogs raising their estrogen levels in frogs!

alex jones: i got the documents the govenrment is turning frogs into transaeuxal homosexual raping deviants as their evil plan to take over the world! rarw globalist are evil! 1776 will rise again! it is all connected to the micchael obama school lunch program, toothbrushes are laced with frog turning gay chemicals.
omg frogs are gay! MAO TOOK THE GUNS! I got the documents



i was not sarcastic i was just trolling with the ooh it turns frogs gay.

so i think you misunderstood my post. sorry for that!

 

[LogGrad98]

I refuse to accept that these people have turned to Christ. They have not accepted responsibility for their actions, made amends (as much as they can) and satisfied any civil penalties (like jail and fines). It's not that easy.

That is a tough call to make. What constitutes "amends" in any given case? I guess that would depend on the individual case and the individuals involved and what exactly took place, and it is probably something that won't be readily apparent to an outside observer. As far as the law is concerned, that is also case-specific really. In this case, if what he did was proposition and perhaps kiss someone is that grounds for conviction? What if he apologized and she refused to press charges? At what point would anyone consider such a case as resolved and "old news", so to speak. These issues are so personal and subjective it is very hard to make a determination.

It does raise another interesting question: how long after an act should someone have to "pay" for it? The law generally makes this pretty clear with statutes of limitations and such, but personally and professionally should a person's life be considered over after a single act like this? I am genuinely asking, and curious how people feel about this, because to me it is anything but black and white, depending on the circumstances of course. Everyone does dumb things, some dumber than others, some may even be simply unpardonable I suppose. But at what level should that person just write their life off regardless of what they may have paid in restitution or amends?

 

[Ron Mexico]

McConnell Calls for Roy Moore to Drop Out of Senate Race

“I believe the women, yes,” Mr. McConnell said

Glad someone is calling him out from his won party.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/roy-moore-alabama-senate.html

 

[DutchJazzer]

look i dont know if moore did it or not!
i rather stand on sidelines and wait for acts to come out. maybe he should drop out, but he is innocent until proven guitly.

but people screaming they believe these women, why did they not believe the clinton alleged victims

 

[Stoked]

That is a tough call to make. What constitutes "amends" in any given case? I guess that would depend on the individual case and the individuals involved and what exactly took place, and it is probably something that won't be readily apparent to an outside observer. As far as the law is concerned, that is also case-specific really. In this case, if what he did was proposition and perhaps kiss someone is that grounds for conviction? What if he apologized and she refused to press charges? At what point would anyone consider such a case as resolved and "old news", so to speak. These issues are so personal and subjective it is very hard to make a determination.

It does raise another interesting question: how long after an act should someone have to "pay" for it? The law generally makes this pretty clear with statutes of limitations and such, but personally and professionally should a person's life be considered over after a single act like this? I am genuinely asking, and curious how people feel about this, because to me it is anything but black and white, depending on the circumstances of course. Everyone does dumb things, some dumber than others, some may even be simply unpardonable I suppose. But at what level should that person just write their life off regardless of what they may have paid in restitution or amends?

Obviously there is a ton of grey area in these types of discussions. Not every case or person is the same. There are some crimes that should have no statue of limitations. And in some of these harder more aggressive cases Just turning to God isn't enough. You have to make, or at least attempt, to make amends and own up to your actions. No obviously the range on making amends and owning up to our actions is as varied as the acts committed and the situations they are committed in.

.

 

[Stoked]

Glad someone is calling him out from his won party.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/roy-moore-alabama-senate.html

He isn't alone. McCain, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Bob Corker, Steve Daines, Tim Scott, Patrick Toomey... all have gone against Moore. They range from pulling endorsements to statements like McConnell's in believing the women.

Yes, there is clearly support for him in congress and the conservative press. But it is hardly closed ranks support.

My question is that given the current distaste on the right for establishment type Republicans, will these statements help or hurt Moore? And is that a calculated risk taken by some of these establishment types?

 

[LogGrad98]

He isn't alone. McCain, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Bob Corker, Steve Daines, Tim Scott, Patrick Toomey... all have gone against Moore. They range from pulling endorsements to statements like McConnell's in believing the women.

Yes, there is clearly support for him in congress and the conservative press. But it is hardly closed ranks support.

My question is that given the current distaste on the right for establishment type Republicans, will these statements help or hurt Moore? And is that a calculated risk taken by some of these establishment types?

They discussed this this morning on NPR and the comment that was made seemed to fit the political climate well. They said that the problem largely is that the republican base sees having a democrat in office as worse than having this guy in office regardless of what he has done (more or less, I am paraphrasing obviously). And that seems to fit what we are seeing, and it is appalling that sticking to party lines in our divisive politics is viewed by anyone as more important than a person's character. But that is the crux of it.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, I feel like if this election were happening in Utah the voters would feel more obligated to vote for the Republican than to worry who the Republican is.

 

[Stoked]

They discussed this this morning on NPR and the comment that was made seemed to fit the political climate well. They said that the problem largely is that the republican base sees having a democrat in office as worse than having this guy in office regardless of what he has done (more or less, I am paraphrasing obviously). And that seems to fit what we are seeing, and it is appalling that sticking to party lines in our divisive politics is viewed by anyone as more important than a person's character. But that is the crux of it.

Yup, being a member of the Rs or Ds is so poisonous to so many voters.