Posted on 11/14/2017 6:10:11 AM PST by Tea Party Terrorist
Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore may have been banned from his hometown mall for annoying teenage girls, amid growing allegations that he pursued teenage girls in his 30s, a new report says.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
If he walks away, he should say that after seeing the quality and integrity of those in the Senate, he does not wish to join a body that will use unverifiable slander to overturn an election and subvert the vote of the people.
You do know he’s not the one who made that defense, don’t you? That was Jim Ziegler, Alabama State Auditor. Moore can’t stop people from saying stuff like this anymore than he can stop the stupid accusations.
WASHINGTON — An Alabama state official is citing the Bible to defend the Republican U.S. Senate candidate accused of sexual advances on girls. State auditor Jim Ziegler says “Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter,” suggesting that Roy Moore acted in a divine tradition if he in fact made sexual advances toward a 14-year-old girl.
Please return to democrat underground . Be gone.
Are you daft
You think a mall would ban a district attorney
Man this forum has the highest idiocrcy I’ve seen since Bush worship
Which I occasionally indulged in
Oh, they're accomplishing that. But the ballot issue is icing on the cake for them.
The word “May” = nope
I pointed that out in one of these threads.
EVERYONE would have known and there would have been ample documentation to cover their butts.
And it WOULD have come out in previous political races.
Very, very strange that these allegations appear in the final days of the campaign. As far as I am concerned he is innocent of any crime. I trust Alabama voters to elect him, they know him best.
Freepers are prone to hysterics
And tough monkers rarely indicate that
Two years. This is to finish out Sessions' term which began in 2014. Moore will be up for re-election in 2020.
There are some that just have no idea about politics and social mores in small towns in the rural south 40 years ago.
No way would banning from the mall be ‘sekrit’ for 40 years. It would literally have been the talk of the town. TV’s weren’t useful after midnight, no email, no computers, no internet. Nothing to do but gossip about each other. And I guarantee you an assistant DA being banned from the local mall for being a creeper WOULD have been MUCH discussed at the time.
What I do care about is evidence that something untoward happened. None of these women's stories are credible because they offer no evidence whatsoever. And they conveniently wait almost 40 years to mention it to the press. Suspect? Absolutely!
Innuendo that he was trolling young girls (if they were 16, they were at the age of consent and would be considered women at that point) is not enough. All men troll women for dates, sex and wives. It's called biology.
But to rise to allegations of sexual misconduct of some kind, let's see some hard evidence. Something. Anything. But all we have so far is just "she said". Not enough in my book or in the eyes of the law to pin anything on Moore.
The mere fact that he is not getting due process is why I say enough is enough. Put up or shut up ladies. Otherwise, it's all BS.
Ever read a news article about global warming?
There you will find loads of words like “could”, “might”, “as much as”, “possibly”, “more research”, “aren’t entirely sure”, “uncertainty”, “imperfect knowledge”, and (surprise!) “may”.
Ah...my mistake.
*as long as there is an R after the name.
Its in the Bible!
Ahem. First of all, fourteen may be, indeed generally is, emotionally immature. But “little?” Not so much - that’s when *many* girls attain their adult size (or at least, the size they as adults in later life wish they could get back to). Give them a pair of glasses and the right wardrobe, and they can pass for older.There is a cultural shift that has taken place over the past century; in times past women were kept out of most professions - they even had to fight to create the nursing profession, and otherwise teaching school was about it. The upshot being, that girls were expected to be homemakers, and they could reasonably expect to learn that craft from experienced mentors - their own mothers.
Boys, likewise, were almost exclusively expected to grow up to be farmers, and had their fathers for mentors. In America but not everywhere else, boys could obtain land and be situated to be able to support a family (always allowing for the fact that children were expected to provide real help in that endeavor).
In the Old World, boys could not go to the frontier and homestead on land - none was available for the taking. I remember specifically reading about Ireland. There, a boy didn’t have the ability to support a family until he inherited his father’s farm - thus, was effectively an adolescent until his father’s death. In consequence marriage would routinely be between a mature man and, very possibly nay likely, a teenaged girl. If you watch the movie, “The Quiet Man,” you will note that when John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara (wasn’t it her?) have the bans read, she is referred to as, “spinster.”
The girl who was raised doing chores around the house, notably including cooking could, if motivated to learn, be quite prepared to function as a homemaker as a young teen. And, if properly nourished, would attract male attention quite readily. The age of marriage for a girl would depend on parental consent, and hopefully parental wisdom - but girls typically didn’t reach the age of 20 single. As recently as 1955 nearly every girl in a high school class I knew was married within a year of high school graduation. The boys, not so much. Note that I did not say “men.” Those girls were not all marrying classmates, and they certainly weren’t marrying younger boys.
The upshot is that while 30 marrying 14 would seem a stretch today, it would have been scarcely remarkable in earlier times. One of my grandmothers married at 14 or 16 (can’t remember which) - and both my grandmothers married widowers, each with a son who survived his mother. Today, girls are expected to have careers outside the home, and don’t always marry until college graduation, if then. It is, as I say, a cultural shift - the planted axiom of which is that adulthood begins not when a girl can maintain a household but when the couple both have qualified for professions. Qualified by higher education, and for professions, not merely “careers.”
As to the title of this thread, I associate myself with those who notice “may” and wonder if there is any “there" at all, there. I mean, the hit on Moore obviously was shaky without any allegations of questionable behavior more recent than 1978, so obviously they needed to go there - but “may?” Really?
You are pro abortion of undesirables and pro homosexual marriage.
The only difference i see is, back in farming days in Iowa etc, it was pretty common for people to marry very young... but it wasn’t the age gap. ie 30 yr to 15 or 16.
My aunt and uncle married when he was 16 she was 15. They are still married today.. 70 yrs.
****Please stop being silly. This is a serious matter****
P!ss off dirtbag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.