- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Roy Moore likes em young, apparently
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:06 pm to Navytiger74
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:06 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
No actual values + no self-awareness
Perfect explanation of progressive dems.
1
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:06 pm to HempHead
quote:
I'm sitting on the fence until more comes out.
Girl was 14, mom had to be about 33 anyway. Wonder if mom is still alive to even back up the story?
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:06 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
No actual values + no self-awareness = a lot of poliboard posters.
quote:
Navytiger74
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:07 pm to Lg
quote:
Perfect explanation of progressive dems.
It's applicable to the batshit wings of both sides, actually
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:07 pm to stat19
quote:
How convenient to come out now when its so much in style.
I think they feel they have to try and point attention away from them..by "them" I mean every single mouthpiece squawking for the liberal value system is being shown to be a sick perv. They have to blow smoke. They're the product of generations of ideological inbreeding. Sad.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:07 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
I believe my comment was about the majority of the board's attitude in general.
I guess in your world Shorty Rob = the whole poliboard.
Delusions of grandeur much?
To be fair, I'm always curious as to who exactly constitutes "the board" and who doesn't. Especially when it often seems there's as many people railing on "it" as not.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:07 pm to AggieDub14
quote:
How do you feel about the Louis CK thing? There's another thread about it where people are pretty much doing the exact opposite they are doing here.
So. I've read a grand total of about 4 paragraphs.
1st thing that stands out.
2002 vs 1979.
Then, I get to this.
quote:Oh. So this didn't fall from space like the other case? Interesting.
Now, after years of unsubstantiated rumors about Louis C.K. masturbating in front of associates
And then this.....
quote:
The stories told by the women raise sharp questions about the anecdotes that Louis C.K. tells in his own comedy. He rose to fame in part by appearing to be candid about his flaws and sexual hang-ups, discussing and miming masturbation extensively in his act — an exaggerated riff that some of the women feel may have served as a cover for real misconduct. He has all but invited comparison between his private life and his onscreen work, too: In “I Love You, Daddy,” which is scheduled to be released next week, a character pretends to masturbate at length in front of other people, and other characters appear to dismiss rumors of sexual predation.
So. OK.
Is there some reason we're pretending the two cases are similar other than you guys being scum?
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why are you so giddy?
Decatur?
Because he's a slimebag. That's why.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:09 pm to Pettifogger
Roy should pull a Weinstein and declare war on the left and planned parenthood. Bama voters would love it.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:09 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
EVERY man should say "who gives a shite" every time 30 year old accusations are made, regardless of who they are made against. This idea that we automatically have to believe a woman when she makes these claims is bullshite. I don't even care if it happened. You should have reported it then you little slut.
This post was edited on 11/9/17 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:09 pm to Iosh
Technical question: where are we heading as far of standard(s) of proof for such allegations - especially ones that have been unknown/well-hidden/not-spoken for so many years?
Is it the number of witnesses? In the Catholic clergy cases, there have been hundreds and thousands of witnesses over the course of years, in conjunction with pretty obvious cover-ups.
In the recent Hollywood dust-up, there seems to be a critical mass approaching dozens and a wire recording that appears to catch the prime suspect confessing - not to mention the years and years of common knowledge about the so-called casting couch.
As far as the smear against DJT, there has been what I would call a handful of allegations and some circumstantial evidence but it obviously didn't stick.
Now in the case of Moore, it looks like there is one person with some lurid accusations from when she was a teenager and 2 or 3 others admitting that they either dated him or entertained the idea when they were teenagers, sometimes with knowledge of their parents.
Circumstantially, there appears to be evidence that Moore was attracted to younger women (although, in 1979 a 30 yr old dating a 16 yr old may not have been as far from the norm as it is in 2017) and it looks like he did marry someone almost 15 years his junior when he was still in his 30s.
If no other details or accusations emerge, what standard should be used for Moore?
TL;DR -
My thesis/contention is that such accusations are being offered for the court of public opinion because there is really no way for the justice system to decide without convincing forensic evidence...
Is it the number of witnesses? In the Catholic clergy cases, there have been hundreds and thousands of witnesses over the course of years, in conjunction with pretty obvious cover-ups.
In the recent Hollywood dust-up, there seems to be a critical mass approaching dozens and a wire recording that appears to catch the prime suspect confessing - not to mention the years and years of common knowledge about the so-called casting couch.
As far as the smear against DJT, there has been what I would call a handful of allegations and some circumstantial evidence but it obviously didn't stick.
Now in the case of Moore, it looks like there is one person with some lurid accusations from when she was a teenager and 2 or 3 others admitting that they either dated him or entertained the idea when they were teenagers, sometimes with knowledge of their parents.
Circumstantially, there appears to be evidence that Moore was attracted to younger women (although, in 1979 a 30 yr old dating a 16 yr old may not have been as far from the norm as it is in 2017) and it looks like he did marry someone almost 15 years his junior when he was still in his 30s.
If no other details or accusations emerge, what standard should be used for Moore?
TL;DR -
My thesis/contention is that such accusations are being offered for the court of public opinion because there is really no way for the justice system to decide without convincing forensic evidence...
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:10 pm to ShortyRob
Neither fell from space in the context of literally every famous person being accused of something like this.
You chose before you ever even looked. This isnt the first time of course. Trumpkins are so consistently inconsistent it's laughable.
You chose before you ever even looked. This isnt the first time of course. Trumpkins are so consistently inconsistent it's laughable.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:10 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Wonder if mom is still alive to even back up the story?
She is quoted in the OP
quote:
“He said, ‘Oh, you don’t want her to go in there and hear all that. I’ll stay out here with her,’ ” says Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, 71. “I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl.”
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:11 pm to MrLarson
quote:Proof of concept. Thinks a open joke on a website is more likely indicative of something than four actual women actually accusing some obvious fake holy-roller of sexual misconduct.
MrLarson
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:11 pm to AUbused
quote:
You chose before you ever even looked.
This is the key.
Take a position, then go figure out how to support it. And I have no idea why. Loyalty to personalities? Hatred of the opposition? It's bizarre.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:11 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
To be fair, I'm always curious as to who exactly constitutes "the board" and who doesn't
Eh Ill give it a shot
5% - hardcore leftists
10% lean left
10% lean right
10% middle of the road
65% MAGA ALL THE WAY BABY hardcore right wing republicans who think anyone in the other 35% is a bunch of extreme liberal pussies that need to get on board, get out of the way, or preferably die.
At least that's what I see.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:12 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
Louis CK thread - That piece of crap liberal shill cuck of course he did it. Put him under the jail. Roy Moore thread - Well I mean this is obviously a political set up let's wait to hear the facts
How are those two even vaguely comparable? Was Louis KC running for office and subject to the predictable last minute character assassination that is a run of the mill tactic for political slime merchants?
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:12 pm to mindbreaker
So what are you?
What am I?
What am I?
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:12 pm to Iosh
Haven't read the whole thread. I'm pretty outspokenly against Roy Moore being elected.
The reeks of bullshite. Suspicious timing. Get two women to come forward and claim Moore is a sexual predator of underaged girls when the Harvey Weinstein case is fresh on everyone's minds. Right after the democrats "shift the tide" on Tuesday with a few election victories.
This is just going for blood. They see a weak candidate in Roy Moore and are hoping to pickup an additional seat in the Senate.
The reeks of bullshite. Suspicious timing. Get two women to come forward and claim Moore is a sexual predator of underaged girls when the Harvey Weinstein case is fresh on everyone's minds. Right after the democrats "shift the tide" on Tuesday with a few election victories.
This is just going for blood. They see a weak candidate in Roy Moore and are hoping to pickup an additional seat in the Senate.
Posted on 11/9/17 at 2:14 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:Hmm..
Suspicious timing
Page 18 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News