DKW 86

Moore or Strange?

Moore-Strange?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Moore-Strange?

    • Moore
      3
    • Strange
      2
    • Aubie the Tiger
      19


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Hypocrisy ha ha? PT, we have people saying Roy Moore and President Trump are not "fit" for DC. Moral equivalency all of a sudden. Where do we start? Blow jobs with an intern in the oval office?...... Got to watch those evil Southern Baptist  

sounds like nothing but deflections.ya'll keep bringing up stuff from almost twenty years ago. NO wrongs should be allowed a pass. wanting moore to walk because bill got a hummer is pretty disgusting. i wonder how many peds are thinking.....hey maybe i can wave a bible and get a pass if i want to molest a child? the left came down hard on anthony weiner. lib hollywood has crashed hard on those libs commiting sexual assault and or harassment. and how many people are doing harm to those that have been assaulted by smearing them when they come forward? cops have come forward. a lady in the da's office came forward. and i think it is safe to think maybe those girls were scared to come forward when the accused is in a powerful position..at the time to do great harm against his attackers.

   you guys can believe roy is santa claus if you wish but there are many republicans who have stepped forward at the risk of their own parties backlash to do what is right. and right now all roy is doing is lying. he lied about the restuarant not being real. he faked an old list of pastors supporting him when in fact the list had nothing to do with the allegations. raoy is a sick and troubled person hiding behind the bible and the american flag and too many give hima pass without looking at the facts.............

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

And in many of the above posts, you were doing nothing more than criticizing the hypocrisy of the “social conservatives.” That’s another issue, and trust me, you didn’t have to point that you have a propensity in doing that.

Because that is what is relevant right now.  Conservatives stood up for what was right when Bill Clinton was running, but now have in two elections in back to back years completely flip-flopped on when character matters.  Plus, social conservatives are "my team" if there is such a thing.  I thought we stood for something.  So it bothers me more when my own don't show consistency.  I frankly don't expect it from the other side, fair or not.  But I do expect it from mine.

On top of that, given that most social conservatives are also self-proclaimed evangelical Christians, I think it is a huge black mark on American Christianity to be this hypocritical.  I don't expect perfection.  We all sometimes make mistakes and fail to live up to our ideals.  But this is pure, blatant hypocrisy for the purposes of political gain.  When you'd equivocate and change the standards to overlook actions that you once proclaimed make a man unfit for office before, you undermine the Gospel in the eyes of the general public.  They no longer see you as taking the political stances you do based on principle and moral backbone.  They see you're just like everyone else - you'll say or do anything if it means your team wins and has the reins of power and that "Gospel" you preach is just a religious sounding smokescreen for that aim.

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems we can add Senator Franken to the list. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that photo looks bad, the article makes things a whole lot worse. Give it a read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good read. 

https://articles.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/this_is_your_fault_mitch_mccon.amp

You own a big piece of this, Mitch McConnell.

And now, no scheme you cook up, no scenario you concoct can stop it. This is your monster you made. You are responsible for Roy Moore.

National establishment types can feign disgust and surprise all they want, but they were warned. And they took the wrong path, anyway.

I'm not here to retrace the GOP's Southern strategy, nor its embrace of extremists, nor its corruption of evangelical Christianity.

Instead, let's wind the clock back only as far as May. Mr. McConnell, you and your machine had a choice to make, and you threw everything you had behind Luther Strange.

It was obvious to everyone here that Strange had made a corrupt bargain. As Alabama's attorney general, Strange was supposed to be investigating whether Gov. Robert Bentley had used state resources to carry on and cover up an affair. But then this vacancy opened up in the United States Senate and Strange solicited the appointment from Bentley. It stunk, and every Alabamian smelled it.

But when other, more palatable Republicans, tried to mount campaigns to challenge him in the primary, you, Mr. McConnell, sent a message -- stay out of the race or be burned alive. Your super PACs openly threatened to blackball any political consultants who helped Strange's opponents. Even when Alabama Senate Pro Tem Del Marsh pleaded with you to stay neutral, you didn't listen.

You thought you knew better. You didn't.

Here's what I wrote back in May .

"All of this is to say, you folks in Washington D.C. better be careful with the game you're playing. Alabamians aren't going to take well to this, or to the candidate you're forcing on us. 

"We'll pick another, just to show you, and consequences be damned. Maybe Roy Moore. Or God help us, maybe even a Democrat."

Other Republicans here told you that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Hypocrisy ha ha? PT, we have people saying Roy Moore and President Trump are not "fit" for DC. Moral equivalency all of a sudden. Where do we start? Blow jobs with an intern in the oval office?...... Got to watch those evil Southern Baptist  

LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

sounds like nothing but deflections.ya'll keep bringing up stuff from almost twenty years ago. NO wrongs should be allowed a pass. wanting moore to walk because bill got a hummer is pretty disgusting. i wonder how many peds are thinking.....hey maybe i can wave a bible and get a pass if i want to molest a child? the left came down hard on anthony weiner. lib hollywood has crashed hard on those libs commiting sexual assault and or harassment. and how many people are doing harm to those that have been assaulted by smearing them when they come forward? cops have come forward. a lady in the da's office came forward. and i think it is safe to think maybe those girls were scared to come forward when the accused is in a powerful position..at the time to do great harm against his attackers.

   you guys can believe roy is santa claus if you wish but there are many republicans who have stepped forward at the risk of their own parties backlash to do what is right. and right now all roy is doing is lying. he lied about the restuarant not being real. he faked an old list of pastors supporting him when in fact the list had nothing to do with the allegations. raoy is a sick and troubled person hiding behind the bible and the american flag and too many give hima pass without looking at the facts.............

Will tell you this fifty. I do not think Roy is anything close to Santa. Always believed he is Bible waving, attention seeking jack ass. No other reason than my perception of his likeness. The fact is a lot of people saying he is "unfit" without the facts. I find it hysterically hypocritical that a person can talk about moral fitness in Washington.

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

sounds like nothing but deflections.ya'll keep bringing up stuff from almost twenty years ago. NO wrongs should be allowed a pass. wanting moore to walk because bill got a hummer is pretty disgusting. i wonder how many peds are thinking.....hey maybe i can wave a bible and get a pass if i want to molest a child? the left came down hard on anthony weiner. lib hollywood has crashed hard on those libs commiting sexual assault and or harassment. and how many people are doing harm to those that have been assaulted by smearing them when they come forward? cops have come forward. a lady in the da's office came forward. and i think it is safe to think maybe those girls were scared to come forward when the accused is in a powerful position..at the time to do great harm against his attackers.

   you guys can believe roy is santa claus if you wish but there are many republicans who have stepped forward at the risk of their own parties backlash to do what is right. and right now all roy is doing is lying. he lied about the restuarant not being real. he faked an old list of pastors supporting him when in fact the list had nothing to do with the allegations. Roy is a sick and troubled person hiding behind the bible and the american flag and too many give hima pass without looking at the facts.............

 

Amen...

Edited by DKW 86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because that is what is relevant right now.  Conservatives stood up for what was right when Bill Clinton was running, but now have in two elections in back to back years completely flip-flopped on when character matters.  Plus, social conservatives are "my team" if there is such a thing.  I thought we stood for something.  So it bothers me more when my own don't show consistency.  I frankly don't expect it from the other side, fair or not.  But I do expect it from mine.

On top of that, given that most social conservatives are also self-proclaimed evangelical Christians, I think it is a huge black mark on American Christianity to be this hypocritical.  I don't expect perfection.  We all sometimes make mistakes and fail to live up to our ideals.  But this is pure, blatant hypocrisy for the purposes of political gain.  When you'd equivocate and change the standards to overlook actions that you once proclaimed make a man unfit for office before, you undermine the Gospel in the eyes of the general public.  They no longer see you as taking the political stances you do based on principle and moral backbone.  They see you're just like everyone else - you'll say or do anything if it means your team wins and has the reins of power and that "Gospel" you preach is just a religious sounding smokescreen for that aim.

This is THE POINT. If your beliefs are malleable due to circumstances, then they really arent beliefs. They are not commitments. They may not even be guidelines. Hell, in 21st Century Alabama they apparently arent even the mildest of obstacles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

We asked a handwriting expert to evaluate claims that Roy Moore’s writing was forged

  

...He did, though, repeat a claim made on Wednesday by an attorney representing him about an inscription in a yearbook that Nelson showed the media when she came forward with her allegations. The inscription, shown above, includes the letters “D.A.,” which his attorney says weren’t written by Moore (who at the time of the alleged incident was an assistant district attorney).

Moore wrote:

“Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The ‘7’s’ in ‘Christmas 1977’ are in a noticeably different script than the ‘7’s’ in the date ’12-22-77.’ I believe tampering has occurred.”

...But is doubt about the yearbook inscription warranted? To answer that question, The Post spoke with Mark Songer, a former FBI agent who now works as a forensic document examiner in the private sector in Denver.

Songer wasn’t able to offer any assessment of the validity of the inscription, which is precisely the point: There is not enough information at hand for an outside observer to make such an evaluation.

“No two writings are ever exactly alike,” Songer said. “Handwriting is a complex motor skill of sensory neurological and physiological impulses. After practice and repetition, writers interject their own individual characteristics into their writings which become a pattern of habitual formations that are repeated from one writing to the next.”

In other words, your signature is never exactly the same each time you write it — but each time you write it there are common characteristics that your signatures share. To evaluate whether a questioned signature is your signature, a document examiner would need a lot of other examples of your signature (Songer said he would need five to 10) to have enough evidence to determine whether the questioned signature was valid. For other handwriting, like the rest of the inscription, he would need much more: other examples of your known writing (that is, things proven to have been written by you) that would allow him to evaluate individual words and sentences.

What’s more, Songer said, those known writings would need to be contemporaneous to 1977, the year that the inscription was purportedly written. “Everybody’s writing eventually changes over time,” he said, meaning that a bunch of handwriting from 2017 wouldn’t necessarily provide the necessary information to evaluate writing from 40 years earlier.

This is, Songer said, is why it’s hard to dismiss the inscription as invalid simply on the basis of the two sets of “77’s.”

“If you’re comparing just the number ‘7’ the question becomes: Out of the, what, 7 billion people in the world can that be replicated? And the answer is: Yes,” Songer said, making the point that it’s hard to identify a writer simply by how a seven is written. “You can only make a ‘7’ so many ways — or a ‘1’ or a ‘2’. If there were some kind of unique feature that was added to that number and it’s repeated, and it’s unique, possibly.”

“Just comparing numbers on its own merits?” he continued. “It’s very dangerous for someone to say, ‘Yeah, just based on that, that they’re different, therefore different writer.’ I would never go to that level.”

Moore’s attorneys have asked to review the yearbook itself. There’s good reason for this, Songer said.

“As a handwriting expert, we always want to look at the original vs. a photocopy because with the originals we can microscopically examine it,” he said. “Look at the line quality and determine what kind of instrument was used: Was it a ballpoint pen? Was it a gel pen? In 1977, did they have this writing instrument available at the time?” The ink itself could be tested to see if it was an ink that was available in 1977.

That said, Songer didn’t know that Moore’s team necessarily needed the yearbook.

“The quality of this copy?” Songer said, “I think they could come to a qualified opinion

Asked whether there was evidence of multiple writers, Songer indicated that he didn’t have enough examples of Moore’s writing to say with certainty.

“Looking at the yearbook entry,” he said, “it looks pretty spontaneously prepared” — that is, it doesn’t look like the writer stopped and restarted, as though someone were tentative in writing perhaps because they were trying to imitate another writer. “It looks very fluid. I don’t see any indications of unnatural writing.”

“The writing seems consistent with one writer,” he added, though he pointed out that “Old Hickory House” and the second date appear to be different stylistically — though he’d need to see examples of Moore’s hand-printed writing to be able to determine whether it’s authentic. (Moore’s lawyers didn’t provide any examples of non-script writing that might show an inconsistency.)

...Without more handwriting available for comparison, Songer couldn’t rule out that the inscription had been manipulated, though he also didn’t see strong evidence that it had been. With that doubt lingering, Moore’s political goals have already been met — as they were with Hannity.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/16/we-asked-a-handwriting-expert-to-evaluate-claims-that-roy-moores-writing-was-forged/?utm_term=.14dfb55db4c6

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad I don't live in Alabama as far as this election goes. I believe the women who are accusing Moore in addition when as a Supreme Court Justice of the State of Alabama he would not follow the Law of the land as decided by the US supreme Court he has given me to very good reasons for not voting for him. There is no way I could vote for him the problem is I would have to vote for the Democratic candidate.  It is not that I am against a candidate because of Party as long as the candidate votes as they believe and not the Party line. In recent history the Republican party which I am not that proud of has shown that they don't always follow the Party line whereas the Democratic Party has not shown that. 

Sadly despite both parties claiming to be big tents neither really does and in recent History the Democratic party has closed its tent. As a Catholic I have seen the Democratic party close its doors to Catholics because of our views on life even though historically Catholics and many other Christians have been on the leading edge of Civil Rights and other social issues. That is one of the reasons the Democrats lost some normally Blue States to Trump they have basically chased out all the moderates. Sadly I am seeing the same thing from the Republican party. 

If I lived in Alabama I would probably vote for Strange but than be disappointed when he voted Party line even when he disagreed with something. With Strange getting elected there will be almost no chance for the Republicans to pass any legislation and the same for the Democrats.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I am glad I don't live in Alabama as far as this election goes. I believe the women who are accusing Moore in addition when as a Supreme Court Justice of the State of Alabama he would not follow the Law of the land as decided by the US supreme Court he has given me to very good reasons for not voting for him. There is no way I could vote for him the problem is I would have to vote for the Democratic candidate.  It is not that I am against a candidate because of Party as long as the candidate votes as they believe and not the Party line. In recent history the Republican party which I am not that proud of has shown that they don't always follow the Party line whereas the Democratic Party has not shown that. 

Sadly despite both parties claiming to be big tents neither really does and in recent History the Democratic party has closed its tent. As a Catholic I have seen the Democratic party close its doors to Catholics because of our views on life even though historically Catholics and many other Christians have been on the leading edge of Civil Rights and other social issues. That is one of the reasons the Democrats lost some normally Blue States to Trump they have basically chased out all the moderates. Sadly I am seeing the same thing from the Republican party. 

If I lived in Alabama I would probably vote for Strange but than be disappointed when he voted Party line even when he disagreed with something. With Strange getting elected there will be almost no chance for the Republicans to pass any legislation and the same for the Democrats.  

THis is what is wrong with politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now