Of course I'm right.
Pointing out you are wrong is not defending Moore BTW. Him being an epic piece of shyte and you being stupid can and do go hand in hand
Trump supports Roy Moore's child molestation
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Of course I'm right.
Pointing out you are wrong is not defending Moore BTW. Him being an epic piece of shyte and you being stupid can and do go hand in hand
Legal language has a way of seeping into common language. If the law defines a pedophile as someone who has hurt children (i.e. as a synonym for 'predator'), then to so stigmatize that word could make it more difficult than it already is for a pedophile (according to the stricter sense that does not indicate a molester) to seek help before he hurts another person. For that reason, it might be preferable for the law to use the term child molester instead and leave pedophile according to its stricter sense. That way a pedophile who has not hurt anyone yet might feel more comfortable to seek help.
Personally, I'd rather make it easier for a pedophile to seek help before he molests a child than to send a child molester to prison after he has. To have the word 'pedophile' take the place of 'child molester' muddies the semantic waters and can have a real impact on the safety of children into the future if we aren't careful.
A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.
In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.
The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.
But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias.
James O’Keefe, the Project Veritas founder who was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2010 for using a fake identity to enter a federal building during a previous sting, declined to answer questions about the woman outside the organization’s offices on Monday morning shortly after the woman walked inside.
“I am not doing an interview right now, so I’m not going to say a word,” O’Keefe said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html
In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.
The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.
But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias.
James O’Keefe, the Project Veritas founder who was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2010 for using a fake identity to enter a federal building during a previous sting, declined to answer questions about the woman outside the organization’s offices on Monday morning shortly after the woman walked inside.
“I am not doing an interview right now, so I’m not going to say a word,” O’Keefe said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html
BULLSHIT!!!
lol nice try numb nuts the CIA funded the washington post and bezos
Later that year, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million.
To put that another way, Bezos used less than half the money he got from the CIA to buy the Washington Post.
Do you think that was a sweetheart deal?
I do. And like others, I believe it’s something Americans should know about. For instance, the Washington Post often quotes unnamed CIA sources in its reporting. Yet, the Post doesn’t disclose that the CIA paid the owner of the paper more than twice what it cost to buy it. You won’t find any mention of this deal on the Washington Post’s Wikipedia page, either. Not worth mentioning, apparently.
Now I want you to imagine the CIA contracting with WND.com for, say, a measly $600,000. How do you suppose that would be covered by the Washington Post? How would it be chronicled in Wikipedia? Do you think I’d get a pass? I think not.
Who was CIA director when this deal with the Washington Post was finalized?
John Brennan.
You remember John Brennan? He’s the former CIA director, named by Barack Obama, who testified to Congress in March that Russia “brazenly interfered” in U.S. elections, including actively contacting members of Donald Trump’s campaign – but he stopped shy of dubbing it “collusion.”
“I saw interaction that in my mind raised questions of whether it was collusion,” Brennan told Rep. Trey Gowdy, saying that he supported the FBI digging further. “It was necessary to pull threads.”
It was Brennan, a good friend of Obama’s, who said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI Director James B. Comey. Brennan has been a loyal progressive Democrat since he voted for the Communist Party presidential candidate in 1976.
The Washington Post has been on the Russian-Trump story like white on rice ever since – along with the New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the rest of the pack of jackals. This investigation has been going on since 2016, yet no evidence has been found to support the “collusion.”
Wouldn’t you like to see an investigation into the collusion between John Brennan, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, the Washington Post and the CIA?
I sure would.
After all, they were all involved in an actual monetary deal that could have profound implications for the future of America, American business and American journalism.
But that’s just me.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/jeff-bezos-amazon-washington-post-and-the-cia/
lol nice try numb nuts the CIA funded the washington post and bezos
Later that year, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million.
To put that another way, Bezos used less than half the money he got from the CIA to buy the Washington Post.
Do you think that was a sweetheart deal?
I do. And like others, I believe it’s something Americans should know about. For instance, the Washington Post often quotes unnamed CIA sources in its reporting. Yet, the Post doesn’t disclose that the CIA paid the owner of the paper more than twice what it cost to buy it. You won’t find any mention of this deal on the Washington Post’s Wikipedia page, either. Not worth mentioning, apparently.
Now I want you to imagine the CIA contracting with WND.com for, say, a measly $600,000. How do you suppose that would be covered by the Washington Post? How would it be chronicled in Wikipedia? Do you think I’d get a pass? I think not.
Who was CIA director when this deal with the Washington Post was finalized?
John Brennan.
You remember John Brennan? He’s the former CIA director, named by Barack Obama, who testified to Congress in March that Russia “brazenly interfered” in U.S. elections, including actively contacting members of Donald Trump’s campaign – but he stopped shy of dubbing it “collusion.”
“I saw interaction that in my mind raised questions of whether it was collusion,” Brennan told Rep. Trey Gowdy, saying that he supported the FBI digging further. “It was necessary to pull threads.”
It was Brennan, a good friend of Obama’s, who said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI Director James B. Comey. Brennan has been a loyal progressive Democrat since he voted for the Communist Party presidential candidate in 1976.
The Washington Post has been on the Russian-Trump story like white on rice ever since – along with the New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the rest of the pack of jackals. This investigation has been going on since 2016, yet no evidence has been found to support the “collusion.”
Wouldn’t you like to see an investigation into the collusion between John Brennan, Jeff Bezos, Amazon, the Washington Post and the CIA?
I sure would.
After all, they were all involved in an actual monetary deal that could have profound implications for the future of America, American business and American journalism.
But that’s just me.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/jeff-bezos-amazon-washington-post-and-the-cia/
They bought you cheap...
two figures before the decimal...I guess that's why they sell crack too
From your link re trump funding veritas:
A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html
Lol, right from the "hillary will win" wapo that's been busted lying SO many times!!!!
Don't internet much do you?
all the bans I guess
You forgot about all the other fake charges layed[sic] on Moore too I see.
two figures before the decimal...I guess that's why they sell crack too
From your link re trump funding veritas:
A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html
Lol, right from the "hillary will win" wapo that's been busted lying SO many times!!!!
Don't internet much do you?
all the bans I guess
You forgot about all the other fake charges layed[sic] on Moore too I see.
What's fabricated? That Ontario's sex-ed curriculum was authored by a pedophile or the fact that you did your best to avoid those threads?
I mean c'mon. Why does the idea of a potential senator in Alabama being accused of child sexual assault get your panties in a twist but having Ontario's sex-ed curriculum authored by a convicted pedophile is perfectly acceptable to you?
Some dingus in Alabama has no affect on anyone in Canada. But Ontario's disgusting sex-ed curriculum written up by a convicted pedophile will affect every goddam kid that goes to school in the province.
So once again, why the need to create a thread about Moore when you happily ignored the Ontario Liberals legitimizing a pedophile's view on sex? Is it because you just can't bring yourself to honestly criticize those who you think are your progressive heroes/masters even when they do something incredibly f*cking dumb?
How much of that money have to taken.. I mean, it sounds like you know a lot about this prev money, you must have some inside knowledge..
Actually the “sky" actually has no colour, being that it consists of several colourless gases.
The colour(s) you see, mainly light to medium blues, are due to backscatter of sunlight in the blue end of the spectrum.
Depending upon the position of the sun and of other items carried in the air (dust, smoke, smog, etc.), the colour seen can be anywhere from slightly greenish to a orange-red to grey to anything in between. In fact, the more particulates between you and a sunset, the more colourful the sunset will likely become due to differential blocking of the blue end of the spectrum. Enjoy!
Perhaps what is needed is a clear definition of the level of abuse that was committed. Back in the day there was the baseball reference to a 'home-run' was intercourse and the 3 bases were stages along the road. Once those are defined a person who gets to 1st base can be called out without getting the punishment that is reserved for a rapist when he crime was patting her ass in a suggestive way.
Luckily I'm old enough that I look a woman in the eye before noticing her cleavage or legs that a short dress exposes. Construction crews were a bit crude with their wolf-whistles but they were mild when around their spouses.
Perhaps there will be a pendulum effect that affects the swing if it is a reaction to a problem that has existed too long so the cure is going to be more severe than it would have been if it had been addressed earlier. I might have trouble keeping eye-contact with a hooker even today, perhaps that is the answer, a brothel in every neighborhood, cheap but not sleazy.
Luckily I'm old enough that I look a woman in the eye before noticing her cleavage or legs that a short dress exposes. Construction crews were a bit crude with their wolf-whistles but they were mild when around their spouses.
Perhaps there will be a pendulum effect that affects the swing if it is a reaction to a problem that has existed too long so the cure is going to be more severe than it would have been if it had been addressed earlier. I might have trouble keeping eye-contact with a hooker even today, perhaps that is the answer, a brothel in every neighborhood, cheap but not sleazy.
I believe that applies specifically to rape by a stranger who is a serial rapist. Abuse seems to be able to take on many forms. If the age of consent was 14 in 1880 (sometime around then) and older folks were banned from hitting on the youngest ones what was the age of consent before 14 was set? The pattern would point to it being under 14.
One strange thing I noticed is that sex with somebody 14 was fine in the past but marriage required the person be 18 or 16 if the parents signed on. That seems to set the norm to be 'sex is legal but you cannot marry the girl you are having sex with as that would be illegal?? There is more than one thing that is twisted with that concept. One that benefits older men especially. DNA must have been a bad day for them also, lol.
One strange thing I noticed is that sex with somebody 14 was fine in the past but marriage required the person be 18 or 16 if the parents signed on. That seems to set the norm to be 'sex is legal but you cannot marry the girl you are having sex with as that would be illegal?? There is more than one thing that is twisted with that concept. One that benefits older men especially. DNA must have been a bad day for them also, lol.