Jump to content
270soft Forum
Presidentinsertname

I smell bullshit

Recommended Posts

@Presidentinsertname,

Roy Moore has been accused by 5 individuals of inappropriate sexual activities. A was once banned from a mall in Alabama. As with the different handwriting. I can write my 7's in two different styles in one paper, just because. I'm sure everyone here in this forum lacks the ability to consistently keep their penmanship the same. 

Even, like you, assume these allegations are false, it is worrying that Alabama is nominating a man that has openly defied the US District Courts is being nominated to a position whose job includes confirming men to the very said courts he defied.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LISTEN: Curious Robocall Seeks ‘Damaging’ Information On Moore

http://wkrg.com/2017/11/14/curious-robocall-seeks-damaging-information-on-moore/

Quote

Hi, this is Bernie Bernstein, I’m a reporter for the Washington Post calling to find out if anyone at this address is a female between the ages of 54 to 57 years old willing to make damaging remarks about candidate Roy Moore for a reward of between $5000 and $7000 dollars. We will not be fully investigating these claims however we will make a written report. I can be reached by email at albernstein@washingtonpost.com, thank you.

There is no reporter by that name working for the Post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

 Even, like you, assume these allegations are false, it is worrying that Alabama is nominating a man that has openly defied the US District Courts is being nominated to a position whose job includes confirming men to the very said courts he defied.  

That he stood up for his beliefs I think is a needed quality nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

That he stood up for his beliefs I think is a needed quality nowadays.

Defying the courts should be celebrated? What if I believe that- as a judge, or any elected official- the 17th amendment is unconstitutional and demand the State legislators to appoint the senator. Or I believe that the 19th is not the founders original intent, can I stop women from voting? This is not meant to attack Moore on his stances regarding taxes, healthcare, etc. But his disregard for separation of powers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Defying the courts should be celebrated? What if I believe that- as a judge, or any elected official- the 17th amendment is unconstitutional and demand the State legislators to appoint the senator. Or I believe that the 19th is not the founders original intent, can I stop women from voting? This is not meant to attack Moore on his stances regarding taxes, healthcare, etc. But his disregard for separation of powers. 

I'm saying that he was willing to stand up for his beliefs not his acts necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

I'm saying that he was willing to stand up for his beliefs not his acts necessarily.

His action were: refusing to take down the Ten Commandments after being instructed by the District Courts; and issuing an order, after the Obergefell decision, for Alabama to not issue same-sex marriage licences.

Two clear violations of federal law, and yet some how he can be the next Senator from Alabama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

That he stood up for his beliefs I think is a needed quality nowadays.

Does this apply to, say, the members of Hamas, in your mind, as an example? Or is it only laudable in people whose beliefs you agree with or personally find tolerable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Does this apply to, say, the members of Hamas, in your mind, as an example? Or is it only laudable in people whose beliefs you agree with or personally find tolerable?

1.Hamas is a violent group dedicated to Genocide.

2. I was referring to a study saying  that people are unwilling to share political thoughts lest they receive fierce blowback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

1.Hamas is a violent group dedicated to Genocide.

2. I was referring to a study saying  that people are unwilling to share political lest they receive fierce blowback.

Every group you strongly disapprove of you say has a platform and ideology entirely and completely devoted to genocide and has no other aspect whatsoever to their beliefs. While many such groups may support such a concept (then again, many groups you praise or have no problem with have a bloody history of condoning genocide as well, at various times, for various purposes, under various justifications), it's erroneous to say that groups like Hamas, or the Nazis, or other such groups, however despicable and monstrous, had ideologies that were ONLY about genocide, like you often portray - their ideologies and beliefs are (and were) much more extensive and comprehensive than. As an amateur armchair historian, I prefer to call a spade a spade in history, and not sugarcoat, whitewash, or present a revised or "patriotically acceptable to modern sensibilities" view of history, even if it's dark and ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'm saying that he was willing to stand up for his beliefs not his acts necessarily.

It's worth pointing out that has some pretty grotesque beliefs though, such as believing that Keith Ellison shouldn't be a Congressman because of what religion he is and that 9/11 and Sandy Hook was "God's punishment".

 

That sometimes gets lost when it really shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Every group you strongly disapprove of you say has a platform and ideology entirely and completely devoted to genocide and has no other aspect whatsoever to their beliefs. While many such groups may support such a concept (then again, many groups you praise or have no problem with have a bloody history of condoning genocide as well, at various times, for various purposes, under various justifications), it's erroneous to say that groups like Hamas, or the Nazis, or other such groups, however despicable and monstrous, had ideologies that were ONLY about genocide, like you often portray - their ideologies and beliefs are (and were) much more extensive and comprehensive than. As an amateur armchair historian, I prefer to call a spade a spade in history, and not sugarcoat, whitewash, or present a revised or "patriotically acceptable to modern sensibilities" view of history, even if it's dark and ugly.

"Jonas. You, of all people. Precision of language, please!" - The Giver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

"Jonas. You, of all people. Precision of language, please!" - The Giver.

I'm not familiar with the reference. I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NYrepublican

I think I may be misunderstood here. Just for the record, even though I was correcting the simplified view you've promoted about groups like the Nazis and Hams and others having ideologies that were NOT just centred solely on genocide, but had (and have) more comprehensive ideologies and platforms, and that getting in the habit of such simplification is a dangerous practice, I also did call these groups "despicable and monstrous" and their place in history "dark and ugly," as well, so I was in no means praising them. Also, when I said "many groups you praise or have no problem with have a bloody history of condoning genocide as well, at various times, for various purposes, under various justifications," this too is true, though not a legacy often mentioned in a lot of modern history books - in fact, the United States and British Empire, much more often under their more right-wing governments, have actually been more "successful" (if one measures "success" solely by ability to accomplish the intent one sets out to do with no moral judgements), at genocide historically than groups like Nazi Germany, Hams, and such, the latter having no full and complete ethnic extinction events on their tallies like the U.S. and British do. So, to clarify, I was speaking from an objective historical viewpoint, and one of loathing of historical revisionism, not a pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic stance (although calling Arabs anti-Semitic, like a lot of Western media does, always seemed odd to me, as they too are a Semitic people who speak a Semitic language with traceable linguistic commonalities to Hebrew).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×