Roy Moore the Pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

Even if she looked 20, she was 14. She was told to meet him "around the corner" when he picked her up. He knew it was wrong, or else he would have come to the front door like a true southern gentleman.

He hasn't denied this, but you are making excuses for him. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

1. He told her mother he would watch her daughter while the mother went into the hearing. Does that sound like he didn't realize she was a minor?

2. I grew up in the 70's and a 32 year old hittting on a teenager would have been considered gross and inappropriate.

3. Would you be fine with a 30 something year old dating your 16 year old (much less your 14 year old)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

You are justifying the actions of a pedophile. You are a sick, sick person.

Are you accusing a man of pedophilia without due process?

Statue of limitations has long since passed. But as Mitt Romney said, politics is different than the judicial system. Given the facts in the article, and the nature of the subject, I will side with the reporting over the accused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

Even if she looked 20, she was 14. She was told to meet him "around the corner" when he picked her up. He knew it was wrong, or else he would have come to the front door like a true southern gentleman.

He hasn't denied this, but you are making excuses for him. Why?

Because I know how the liberal attack machine works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

You are justifying the actions of a pedophile. You are a sick, sick person.

Are you accusing a man of pedophilia without due process?

Statue of limitations has long since passed. But as Mitt Romney said, politics is different than the judicial system. Given the facts in the article, and the nature of the subject, I will side with the reporting over the accused.

Mitt Romney is an idiot. Given what Reid did to him, he should know better. But like a typical political type, he is all about promoting himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

Wasn't she going in for some sort of custody hearing? I would imagine that would make any mother paranoid to leave her daughter. Furthermore, I would have felt uncomfortable leaving my daughter at 14, 16, even 18 alone for a long period of time in a court setting, given the types of people that show up in courtrooms. There's a reason why I can't bring my knitting to jury duty, to pass the time. You are in no position to judge the motives of a mother going through marital issues in a court of law 38 years ago, when single mothers were more frowned upon

[Anonymous]

How many days to the election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

1. He told her mother he would watch her daughter while the mother went into the hearing. Does that sound like he didn't realize she was a minor?

2. I grew up in the 70's and a 32 year old hittting on a teenager would have been considered gross and inappropriate.

3. Would you be fine with a 30 something year old dating your 16 year old (much less your 14 year old)?

1) Let's start with the fact that this is a one-sided accusation and that's what the mother SAYS happened. I would imagine the mother was expressing concern about leaving her daughter outside in a hallway while she went through court hearings, and he was answering that concern.

2) I am 56. Graduated in '79 up north. This was not unusual even up there, though northerners DID raise their eyebrows at it more. The south is a different place

3) If my daughter was of legal age, what I thought would only matter on a moral level, not a legal level. The problem here is that in order to make the accusations fit, it HAS to hinge on Moore KNOWING this girl was 14. I have no concrete proof that is true. And I don't believe in destroying ANYONE without concrete proof.

[Anonymous]

We now know that one of the accusers worked with Hillary and with Biden, and worked on the opposition's campaign. That accuser was of legal age. We also know that the WaPo openly endorses the opposition.

To me? That makes a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never thought I’d express Agreement with Mitt, but he’s right. Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for a criminal proceeding, not an election.

Appalling. Truly. Innocent until proven guilty is a foundation of this country, one of our most fundamental rights. Without that premise, anyone can accuse someone of anything for any reason, and it could be life-changing.

And if Moore ever goes to trial for his underage encounters, he will have the assumption of 'innocent til proven guilty.' But that doesn't mean Alabamans should elect him as their standard bearer.

That should be the people of Alabama's choice. But what liberals want is for him to remove himself off the ballot so the democrat wins by default. Or they want Strange on the ballot. This is a well-timed accusation by a newspaper that endorsed the opposition. It's a hit piece.

You really don't want to set this sort of precedent. It might feel good now, but I guarantee you it's not a good road for a nation to go down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

1. He told her mother he would watch her daughter while the mother went into the hearing. Does that sound like he didn't realize she was a minor?

2. I grew up in the 70's and a 32 year old hittting on a teenager would have been considered gross and inappropriate.

3. Would you be fine with a 30 something year old dating your 16 year old (much less your 14 year old)?

1) Let's start with the fact that this is a one-sided accusation and that's what the mother SAYS happened. I would imagine the mother was expressing concern about leaving her daughter outside in a hallway while she went through court hearings, and he was answering that concern.

2) I am 56. Graduated in '79 up north. This was not unusual even up there, though northerners DID raise their eyebrows at it more. The south is a different place

3) If my daughter was of legal age, what I thought would only matter on a moral level, not a legal level. The problem here is that in order to make the accusations fit, it HAS to hinge on Moore KNOWING this girl was 14. I have no concrete proof that is true. And I don't believe in destroying ANYONE without concrete proof.

The proof is that he didn't come to the front door to "court" her. He had her sneak out behind her mother's back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We now know that one of the accusers worked with Hillary and with Biden, and worked on the opposition's campaign. That accuser was of legal age. We also know that the WaPo openly endorses the opposition.

To me? That makes a difference.

Did the women all know each other? If not that is a real coincidence there.

And by "working with Hillary and Biden" you mean she worked for a company that was hired to do something for the campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that no one who supposedly knew about this never reported a thing.

Why wait until 30 days before a heated election?
That's not even enough time for an investigation.

Something fishy about that.

Dude he admitted to everything except the 14 year old saying that he always got permission from the teenagers moms before dating them.

He admitted to knowing at least two of them. He won't say it didn't happen just, "I don't recall" and "I dated a lot of young women"

Exactly. So what's going on here is liberals don't like that an older man dated women of legal dating age, and asked their mothers for permission? 38 years ago? How many men in Hollywood are married to much younger women? It doesn't matter if you think it's skeevy, even for 38 years ago. What matter is if it's LEGAL. Timeframe and location matter, as do norms sat the time of the alleged 'crime'.

Is there any concrete proof, aside from 'word of mouth' that Moore knew the 14 year old was actually 14, not 16? And didn't he ask her mother as well? And if so, why did they not say "she's only 14?" and if they said they did, where is the concrete proof of that?

1. He told her mother he would watch her daughter while the mother went into the hearing. Does that sound like he didn't realize she was a minor?

2. I grew up in the 70's and a 32 year old hittting on a teenager would have been considered gross and inappropriate.

3. Would you be fine with a 30 something year old dating your 16 year old (much less your 14 year old)?

1) Let's start with the fact that this is a one-sided accusation and that's what the mother SAYS happened. I would imagine the mother was expressing concern about leaving her daughter outside in a hallway while she went through court hearings, and he was answering that concern.

2) I am 56. Graduated in '79 up north. This was not unusual even up there, though northerners DID raise their eyebrows at it more. The south is a different place

3) If my daughter was of legal age, what I thought would only matter on a moral level, not a legal level. The problem here is that in order to make the accusations fit, it HAS to hinge on Moore KNOWING this girl was 14. I have no concrete proof that is true. And I don't believe in destroying ANYONE without concrete proof.

The proof is that he didn't come to the front door to "court" her. He had her sneak out behind her mother's back.

That is what you are being told. Perhaps she did that because she told him she was 16 and her mother KNEW she was only 14 and she didn't want to be stopped. Perhaps that's not what happened at all. There are plenty of teenagers that have lied about their age and snuck out of their homes.

Again, you don't KNOW what the truth is. You only know what they are SAYING is true. If this were any democratic candidate, you would be destroying this woman! In fact, it's been done....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair to Moore, the 14 year old was unusually tall, probably looked closer to 16-18 when he did it. And the age of consent in Alabama is 16. And the dating pool is/was quite shallow as most women in the 70s in Alabama were married by their late teens. My grandmother was married at 17, the week after she graduated from high school.

Facts don't matter to liberals. Put a bunch of teens in a lineup and I guarantee you that most liberal men would guess their age incorrectly. Furthermore, these idiots are deliberately 'forgetting' that almost 40 years has gone by and that it was a southern state where women did marry quite early. My very liberal MIL was pregnant with her first at 19, and that was in Ohio, never mind AL.

Why would a mother, at the courthouse for a hearing, need someone to watch a 19 year old? Especially if way back in the olden times in the south a 19 year old was practically an old maid? Something fishy about that story. Oh maybe it's because her daughter was actually 14 and still looked on as a minor.

I said my MIL was 19. This girl could easily be mistaken for 16. You know that, and that's why you are shifting the goalposts.

Doesn't matter how old your MIL was. If teenagers were practically brides back then why would the mother have needed supervision for a daughter if she was 16? Needing supervision implies she was still a minor needing protection from an adult. Is that what you call hitting on her?

Wasn't she going in for some sort of custody hearing? I would imagine that would make any mother paranoid to leave her daughter. Furthermore, I would have felt uncomfortable leaving my daughter at 14, 16, even 18 alone for a long period of time in a court setting, given the types of people that show up in courtrooms. There's a reason why I can't bring my knitting to jury duty, to pass the time. You are in no position to judge the motives of a mother going through marital issues in a court of law 38 years ago, when single mothers were more frowned upon

Yes of course. And probably if you were uncomfortable leaving you teenager daughter alone in that situation you the last thing you'd have wanted is a 30 something year old man making the moves on her when he was entrusted to chaperoning her.