Anonymous wrote:His actions, if true, were reprehensible/criminal but nothing I have seen qualifies him as a pedophile.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think companies are going to be flocking there now.

Anonymous wrote:What's in Alabama? Airbus has a big manufacturing facility near Mobile. 3 years old and 2 years to construct the plant-1 year operational. Alabama gave them low interest via bonds. Mercedes also has a plant.

Mobile AL has low real estate prices and for stuff that would be really high in the DMV the prop taxes are extremely low.

1.275m with $3500 prop tax on 7 acres, 5 beds , massive pool complex. https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Mobile-AL/pmf,pf_pt/51049036_zpid/32900_rid/priced_sort/30.935801,-87.699738,30.432689,-88.665162_rect/9_zm/?

So how does the place support itself? Income taxes aren't high. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-alabama.aspx

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:95 pages of people claiming there is no evidence, then being refuted with all the info in the Post article, then saying the same thing. It makes you wonder.

All it does is confirm to me that there are some motivated trolls - or hacks - who want to yell a lot about how unfair life is because their big strong gross men are being outed as being predatory creeps and worse.

Anonymous wrote:95 pages of people claiming there is no evidence, then being refuted with all the info in the Post article, then saying the same thing. It makes you wonder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

Everybody used to have one or two house phones back then. Many people used to have had a long cords that could reach to bedrooms or closets. Totally normal. If that’s all you got, you are losing this argument.

Except the girl clearly said it was HER phone in HER room. So you have to suppose and make things up. That's my exact point. You are embellishing her story to make it fit your narrative.

If you are going to parse words that carefully -- and I have no objection to that -- you need to go by her exact words, not a secondhand account of what she said.

Have you ever been paraphrased by a reporter? I have, more than once. Often even the "exact" quotes don't match the tape.

95 pages of people claiming there is no evidence, then being refuted with all the info in the Post article, then saying the same thing. It makes you wonder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this thread it filled with Russian trolls.

37%of Alabam evangelicals say that allegations of pedophilia make them MORE likely to vote for more.

Birds of a feather?

I. Can’t. Even.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360010-poll-37-percent-of-alabama-evangelicals-more-likely-to-vote-for-moore-after

No, they are not birds of a feather. They are people who know what liberals are made of.

Anonymous wrote:It was Ted Cruz's intern, Ned Cruise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it so hard to follow the 18-and-over rule?

Bingo. That said, I imagine very slim pickings in small town Alabama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a contradiction between mother and daughter....no surprise...



Citing Corfman, the Post reported:

After her mother went into the courtroom, Corfman says, Moore asked her where she went to school, what she liked to do and whether he could call her sometime. She remembers giving him her number and says he called not long after. She says she talked to Moore on her phone in her bedroom, and they made plans for him to pick her up at Alcott Road and Riley Street, around the corner from her house.

Corfman clearly claimed she spoke to Moore on what she said was “her phone in her bedroom” on at least one of those occasions. The Post did not specify whether the second or third alleged calls purportedly took place on a bedroom phone.

When her mother was asked whether or not her daughter had a phone in her room, this was the reply:


Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.”

It's details like this that trip up stories - this is why police often question people multiple times in multiple ways - they want to see the inconsistencies that appear. Those inconsistencies are what leads an officer to break open a case.

What this is going to do is cause liberals here to me suppositions: "I bet she stretched the phone cord" or "Perhaps the cord was long enough for her to take the phone in her room?"

And those will just be 'perhaps' and 'maybes' and 'I bets'. That's it. That's all.

Everybody used to have one or two house phones back then. Many people used to have had a long cords that could reach to bedrooms or closets. Totally normal. If that’s all you got, you are losing this argument.

Except the girl clearly said it was HER phone in HER room. So you have to suppose and make things up. That's my exact point. You are embellishing her story to make it fit your narrative.

If you are going to parse words that carefully -- and I have no objection to that -- you need to go by her exact words, not a secondhand account of what she said.

Have you ever been paraphrased by a reporter? I have, more than once. Often even the "exact" quotes don't match the tape.