• entries
    213
  • comments
    4,005
  • views
    50,270

23 Reasons Objectivists (Might) Love Roy Moore [Updated]

william.scherk

Entry posted by william.scherk

4,388 views

 Share

Elsewhere on Objectivist-Trumpism Living, the Republican run-off between Luther Strange and Roy Moore was highlighted. 

On 9/22/2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Hopefully, Roy Moore will be elected in Alabama over the Strange Swamp Creature

...

On 9/26/2017 at 9:02 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Well, Roy Moore won.

Get ready for the ride of a lifetime. Like Moore's supporters said, the deal is Trumpism, not Trump the man. Trumpism is what they vote for.

And we now a strong precedent is set and we get to witness major history in the making.

It made me wonder just what qualities and policies an Objectivish person might celebrate in the Republican candidate for the December 12 special Senate election.

judge-roy-moore-al-sup-ct.jpg

I have narrowed it down to 24 attributes exemplified in direct quotes from the man ...

  1. "Homosexual conduct should be illegal"

  2. “We have blacks and whites fighting, reds and yellows fighting, Democrats and Republicans fighting, men and women fighting. What’s going to unite us? What’s going to bring us back together? A president? A Congress? No. It’s going to be God.”

  3. "Now, I haven't seen one thing in the press about this, and yet the President of the United States will not produce his birth certificate [...] That's very strange indeed. Why we don't hear about it — because the press won't report it."

  4. "We have child abuse, we have sodomy, we have murder, we have rape, we have all kind of immoral things happening because we have forgotten God.”

  5. “False religions like Islam who teach that you must worship this way are completely opposite with what our First Amendment stands for"

  6. “I want to see virtue and morality returned to our country and God is the only source of our law, liberty and government”

  7. "I'm sorry but this country was not founded on Muhammad. It was not founded on Buddha. It was not founded on secular humanism. It was founded on God,"

  8. “[Islam is] a faith that conflicts with the First Amendment of the Constitution”

  9. “Just because it [homosexual behaviour is] done behind closed doors, it can still be prohibited by state law. Do you know that bestiality, the relationship between man and beast is prohibited in every state?”

  10. “There is no such thing as evolution. That we came from a snake? No, I don’t believe that.”

  11. “Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one’s ability to describe it.”

  12. "When we forget God, we lose the only true basis for morality and ethics, and we are cast upon the shifting sands of moral relativism in which anything goes, including lying, cheating and stealing."

  13. “God’s laws are always superior to man’s laws.”

  14. “Buddha didn’t create us. Mohammed didn’t create us. It’s the God of the Holy Scriptures. They didn’t bring a Quran over on the pilgrim ship, Mayflower. Let’s get real. Let’s go back and learn our history.”

  15. “You think that God’s not angry that this land is a moral slum? How much longer will it be before his judgment comes?”

  16. "God is the only source of our law, liberty and government,"

  17. "The free exercise clause of the constitution does not apply to any religion but Christianity."

  18. "Anytime you deny the acknowledgement of God you are undermining the entire basis for which our country exists."

  19. “Muslim Ellison should not sit in Congress”

  20. “We’ve got to remember that most of what we do in court comes from some scripture or is backed by scripture.”

  21. “‘It was the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America that Christianity ought to be favored by the State’”

  22. “There are communities under Sharia law right now in our country. Oklahoma tried passing a law restricting Sharia law, and it failed. Do you know about that?”

  23. "But to deny God — to deny Christianity or Christian principles — is to deny what the First Amendment was established for. The rights of conscience are beyond the reach of any human power; they are given by God and cannot be encroached on by any human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural or revealed religion."

 

 Share

86 Comments

Recommended Comments

Recommended

Posted by Michael Stuart Kelly,

I decided to look closer at this guy's Twitter account to see if there was any way to embellish my quips above. But something got weird real fast. Here's a screenshot: The two followers in the red circle are O'Keefe and Corsi. These are not the only rightwing folks following him, they are merely the rightwing folks I follow that follow him. (And I only follow people when a momentary fancy strikes me. I don't tweet and I don't use Twitter as a social outlet for my activities except

"How is it this guy has 17 thousand tweets, well over 18 thousand followers and only 6 likes? That's not normal human behavior and indicates a fake account to me."

Recommended by william.scherk

0 reactions

Go to this comment
Recommended

Posted by Michael Stuart Kelly,

William, I'm not acquainted with it and I started that thread and argued it. We talked about "age of consent"--a governmental issue that comes around in O-Land and l-land discussions at times. I don't have time to read through the thread for a gotche, but I assure you, I don't recall discussing psychological nuance. We mostly discussed some evil-intentioned people framing Jim Peron as a pedophile. Frankly, I never heard the term "ephebophilia" until this moment. btw - I am ev

"Our times are going to enter an oppressive prudish phase after the dust settles and that does not please me. I certainly don't expect human nature to change re mixing power and sex, but I do expect the power people to develop expertise in sexual accusatory skills for taking out enemies (all sides, including Social Justice Warriors as they age), so some darkness is coming."

Recommended by william.scherk

0 reactions

Go to this comment
Recommended

Posted by william.scherk,

A side issue: how Twitter can help in OL audience-building ... This makes sense -- Twitter can become a sucking sink for time and attention, just as Facebook can (one reason why I am afraid of opening Facebook). But, I wanted to make a note here of what Twitter can do.  At times, I refer to and link an OL post or comment, to illustrate this point or that on Twitter, and find that views here can spike  in the aftermath of a post (showing in the Online Users and also in Views). So

I predict Roy Moore will weather the storm, be elected to the Senate on December 12, and take his seat, and not be expelled by a 2/3 vote of his colleagues. One guy who wants an Evangelical Kingdom in America will not do appreciable damage to the Republican brand ... nor will a Senator Moore be a drag on GOP votes in 2018.

Recommended by william.scherk

0 reactions

Go to this comment
Recommended

Posted by william.scherk,

Keeping up with the Joneses, catching up with the Gaccias ... "Big setback for Pedogate yesterday. France got a pedophile as it's first lady." I got up to 24 reasons. Other readers, feel free to add or subtract to my pre-High School Ladies list.   For context, I found it more likely that Roy Moore liked young ladies of fourteen and up, like Milo's priest liked the younger gentlemen -- rather than that Moore was attracted to -- let alone preyed upon -- pre-pubescent girls.  So,

Updated with a subtitled video of the lady's allegations. France has a pedophile as its first lady.

Recommended by william.scherk

0 reactions

Go to this comment


william.scherk

Purloined heroism: Twitter phonypants "Doug Lewis" folded and bolted when rational, inquiring minds came calling. 

Quote

STOLEN VALOR

The Troll Smearing Roy Moore’s Accuser Stole a Dead Navy SEAL’s Identity

And that’s just one of a host of lies from ‘@Umpire43,’ whose attempts to discredit Roy Moore’s accusers went instantly viral in the Trumposphere.

The rightwing blog The Gateway Pundit pushed a single-sourced rumor from an anonymous Twitter account, @Umpire43, claiming that one of Roy Moore’s accusers was offered $1,000 by The Washington Post to go public with her claims.

[...]

Umpire43, also known as Doug Lewis or DJ Lewis, has repeatedly invented stories in the past—particularly about his own background. Lewis said he was a 22-year veteran of the Navy, a pollster at Ipsos/Reuters, an expert on rigging voting machines, a source who was feet away from Reince Preibus, a man who speaks six languages, a beleaguered soul who needed time off after the 9/11 attacks when he saw Muslims “dancing on rooftops,” the owner of a polling company who claimed Trump had a sustained lead in California, and an actual baseball umpire with 50 years experience. Oh, and he worked at the American consulate in Calgary, where he claimed to obtain proof of a forged birth certificate for Ted Cruz’s father.

The Daily Beast spoke with each of the institutions and companies at which he claimed to be affiliated or employed. None of Umpire43’s employment or service claims are true, these organizations said.

Umpire43’s now-infamous allegation that “A family friend in Alabama just told my wife that a WAPO reporter named Beth offered her 1000$ to accuse Roy Moore,” posted last week, was deleted with the rest of his Twitter account Tuesday morning.

[...]

Umpire43 (or Lewis) claimed to be born in two different places—South Bend, Ind. and Plains, Ga.—in separate tweets. It’s hardly his only inconsistent claim. For someone who leaned hard on his security credentials to bolster his credibility, Umpire43 appears to have stolen or invented those credentials.

How to arm and protect yourself from bullshit on the Internet?  

Limbaugh: Moore was a Democrat at time of sexual misconduct allegations

Spoiler

Sean Hannity gives Roy Moore a deadline ...

[Added: fuller context for the 'deadline' ...]

Hannity gives Moore 24 hours to explain the inconsistencies - Americans deserve 100 percent truth and honesty

Bonus off-topic postscript:

In these parts of BC, your basic cable includes all the Seattle television channels, PBS, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, MeTV. In the old days, households easily switched between Yankee and Canuck local "Six O'Clock News," often because the Seattle stations had more pizazz and more attractive women except for PBS. So, even today in this household, one of us will sample American dinnertime news.

One of the other householders reports a Seattle news-opinion-editorial that tried to shame Seattle folks for turning Veterans Day into a shopaholic frolic, missing the memorial, and wrecking it, comparatively. I said OK yeahbut then you guys had an additional solemn holiday in Memorial Day, but yon householder, an accomplished cross-border shopper, said no.  No, Memorial Day is not like our Remembrance Day. It's all shopping.

Which was the punch-line of the opinion: that Canada's observance of war-dead memorial day avoided the crass elements of the equivalent down south.

I don't half believe it. For example, my neighbourhood had major traffic diversions for our public ceremony at the cenotaph two blocks from here. Tons of people there, solemn, almost dour. It was a Saturday, so the official 'bank holiday' was taken on the Monday, but it felt old-time Sunday quiet at the ceremony. Tone: between sombre and funereal.

I guess what I am asking is: is there actually a difference in the way our nations honour the dead on these holidays, at the sites of observance? If not, I want to dash off a sternly-worded note to the fools at KOMO News 4, or KIRO 7 Action News, or KING 5 News. 

9338767_web1_Rem4-1200x800.jpg

-- besides that millions pin a poppy to their collars in the week leading to the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day, when everything stops for a little while.

And the wreaths. 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
william.scherk

Matt Drudge and Steve Bannon in opposite corners? Matt Drudge and Steve Bannon on the same side? Curious ... picture link goes to Daily Beast story suggesting Bannon is having ''second thoughts" about supporting Roy Moore's candidacy ...

drudgeRetortsBannonMoore.png

-- and a Tweet (from Business Insider).

screen%20shot%202017-11-15%20at%20114659

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
19 hours ago, william.scherk said:

How to arm and protect yourself from bullshit on the Internet?  

Limbaugh: Moore was a Democrat at time of sexual misconduct allegations

William,

You might as well include Rush's follow up:

Drive-Bys Annoyed by My Observation That Roy Moore Was a Democrat When Alleged Sexual Misconduct Occurred

It's about how giving Bill Clinton a pass all these years is now biting the Democrats on the hind-end. 

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk

Bill Clinton was impeached. His record will always be marred by his dick, for me. Pretty big scandal, as I recall. A Canadian politician would have stepped down ...

"The Democrats" deserve whatever they deserve as delivered by voters sick of their shit, but what does Roy Moore deserve? Does he deserve a seat in the Senate, by your eyes, your political instinct, your heart, your strategic mind, your reason?

This is the step-son of the Liar/Truth-teller/suborner-of-forgery lady ... 

Roy Moore's legal guy and a campaign official just delivered some remarks. The gist was: "Gloria Allred, deliver the yearbook to an examination by our expert." If I understood the legal guy, Roy Moore signed some divorce papers for the undeforgerate lady -- in 1999, and so ... this was distributed to reporters. 

It's a pretty good, aggressive move. Insinuate forgery, demand an examination of the document by your own (unbiased?) expert. No quarter given. Everything is absolutely false and will be litigated up the yin-yang.

Then again, this keeps the story on boil for another period of play. The two Moore dudes did not take questions. Moore hasn't taken questions since his Hannity stumbles. The President did not take questions today ...

HOOPLA! 

Spoiler
RELATED:
i84.jpgshare.png CNN:
Trump takes cautious approach on Roy Moore  —  Steve Bannon comments on Roy Moore accusations  —  STORY HIGHLIGHTS  —  Washington (CNN)It's been five days since the White House said President Donald Trump believes Alabama Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore should drop out if the allegations …
i95.jpgshare.png Eliana Johnson / Politico:
Bannon sticking by Moore ‘through thick and thin’  —  Steve Bannon is not backing away from Roy Moore, the controversial Alabama Senate candidate facing a slew of accusations that he had inappropriate sexual contact with teenagers.  —  Two sources close to the former White House chief strategist …

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
william.scherk

Tammy Wynette, with some long-ago advice for Roy Moore (and Donald Trump) enthusiasts.

To cleanse the palate of its bitter political taste. This is one of the Six Songs that Made the World, I wager ... Tammy Live at the Grand Ol' Opry!

 

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly
17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Matt Drudge and Steve Bannon in opposite corners?

William,

I just watched a video with Mike Cernovich (recorded live) and one of the viewers asked him this. He said Drudge has a grudge against Bannon because Drudge is friends with Jared Kushner. So even though both are on the same side in general terms, they do frenemy stuff at times.

That makes sense to me. Moore is Bannon's dude. Kushner wanted Luther Strange. Drudge probably doesn't give a crap, so he turns into a pebble in Bannon's shoe just for the hell of it.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk

"What does Roy Moore [Al Franken] deserve? Does he deserve a seat in the Senate, by your eyes, your political instinct, your heart, your strategic mind, your reason?"

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just watched a video with Mike Cernovich (recorded live) and one of the viewers asked him this [Drudge v Bannon]].

Mike Cernovich Periscope - What science says about how Roy Moore should handle the allegations

Ivanka Trump: 'Special Place in Hell for People Who Prey on Children'

drudgeFranken.png

drudgeFranken2.png

Link to comment
william.scherk

"It will be hard to stomach him preaching about how moral and caring of humanity he is. He needs to earn back his public respect, not pounce on it because he was exposed." Who, Roy Moore? "No. Roy Moore did nothing. The eight women are all fucking liars."

On 11/11/2017 at 1:52 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Our times are going to enter an oppressive prudish phase after the dust settles and that does not please me.

“God’s laws are always superior to man’s laws.” 

Roy Moore for Senate, he is the only moral choice!

 

Link to comment
william.scherk

Stay-at-home jurists may be just getting their robes on. It isn't too early to judge all the Moore accusers as liars. It is never too early to take a stand against the liars ...

Emphases added ...

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

After scrutiny, the Beverly lady's case keeps getting holes blown into it. For example, Judge Moore ruled on her divorce 18 years after she claims he assaulted her. Yet, as Moore said in his open letter to Sean Hannity, she didn't have any emotional reaction like she did in front of the cameras the other day.

Moore wrote: 

Quote

We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation. For instance, we have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999. No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions.
 

-- so, this is in some people's minds an indication that Beverly Young Nelson is a liar, that her allegations are lies. Let's have a listen to what the Moore lawyer said about "contact."

What happens when one investigates a bit further? Do minds change or do they remain loyal to a political position above all? Do rational minds closely examine proffered explanations or do minds rush to judge ... ?

Spoiler

At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, attorneys for Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R) attempted to refute sexual assault accusations made earlier this week by Beverly Young Nelson. In addition to challenging the yearbook signature, attorney Phillip Jauregui also suggested Nelson was not credible because she said she had no contact with Moore. Jauregui claimed that Nelson had contact with Moore when he presided over her divorce case in 1999. The documentation of that divorce proceeding, however, undermines this claim.

“As it turns out, in 1999, Ms. Nelson filed a divorce action against her then-husband, Mr. Harris,” Jauregui said Wednesday. “Guess who that case was before? It was filed in Etowah County, and the judge assigned was Roy S. Moore, circuit judge of Etowah County. There was contact.”

There was not contact.

The details of the case were first exposed by a pseudonymous Twitter account, which dug up the documents from that divorce action. ThinkProgress independently verified the full, unredacted case file, which shows there was no occasion for Moore and Nelson to cross paths. The case was dismissed shortly after it was filed as Nelson and her husband attempted to reconcile.

The documents do show that Nelson, then Beverly Harris, filed a divorce action against her then-husband in May of 1999. All of the initial documents, however, were signed by a different district judge, W. D. Russell. On May 25, 1999, Judge Russell scheduled the first hearing for the case for June 16.

screen-shot-2017-11-16-at-10-51-38-am.pn

But that hearing never took place. In June, before the scheduled hearing was set to take place, she filed for a motion to “continue” (delay) the hearing because she and her husband “are going to counseling and are attempting to reconcile.”

screen-shot-2017-11-16-at-10-52-47-am.pn

A month later, she filed a motion to dismiss the case. That appears to be the only document Moore signed, and given there was no hearing, there is no reason the divorce action would have required her to enter the courthouse or have contact with Moore.

screen-shot-2017-11-16-at-10-53-27-am.pn

Moore’s attorney acknowledged that he didn’t even personally sign this document. Rather, it was a routine filing where his name was stamped by an assistant. Nelson did eventually file for divorce again, but it was five years later, and a different judge, District Judge Donald W. Stewart, oversaw and signed the final divorce papers.

The only explanation for Jauregui claiming “there was contact” between Moore and Nelson because of this divorce action is to undermine Nelson’s credibility. In doing so, he only further undermined Moore’s.

 

Link to comment
william.scherk

Roy Moore appears before the media scrum, takes hard questions, stands up for himself -- instead of hiding behind lawyers, campaign directors, assorted supporters or his wife -- finally! Hear his responses to questions [Exclusive].

White House calls allegations 'extremely troubling.'

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
william.scherk

Finally, finally, the US President comes down firmly on the side of Roy Moore. Trump supporters can now get with the program.

"A lot of things are coming out. I'm really happy that things are being exposed." Except for Roy Moore.

Link to comment
william.scherk

What is the proper Objectivish relationship between 'claim,' 'evidence,' and 'fact'? Well, that depends on whether your prejudices are set in stone ...

 

Link to comment
BaalChatzaf

Moore is not only a Dirty Old Man, he is a prevaricator.   There was not a general sentiment toward establishing a State religion.  There was a general opposition to such a thing.  There was little argument of the the provisions in the First Amendment forbidding Congress to establish a religion.  Fortunately for us,  most of the Founders were Deists,  not Christians.

 

Link to comment
Brant Gaede

The war beneath the surface makes the surface hardly relevant. The Moore contretemps is merely theater. You can vote for the bastard without inviting him into your home. This likely applies to every US Senator and every voter, Democrat or Republican. Moore is not a threat to his cultural dislikes such as homosexuals. He can't more stink up a stink up. He is a threat to something and that something is trying with all its might to crush him. I'm talking about the ruling elite which is feeding on itself stuck to a tar baby of its own making. This elite is mainstream media from academia, big business and high up Dems and Reps. If elected the Senate may not accept him, but where would the Senate then be with the likes of Franken et al.?

--Brant

Link to comment
Michael Stuart Kelly

One may like Judge Roy Moore or dislike him, but when he's factually right, he's right.

He said: “The Washington Post is a worthless piece of crap..."

What's there to argue about that?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
william.scherk
20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Moore is not only a Dirty Old Man, he is a prevaricator.   There was not a general sentiment toward establishing a State religion.  There was a general opposition to such a thing.  There was little argument of the the provisions in the First Amendment forbidding Congress to establish a religion.  Fortunately for us,  most of the Founders were Deists,  not Christians.

If you were an Alabamian,  would you contemplate voting for Roy Moore, despite the prevarications? Would you approve him ascending to national office?  If so, can you explain your support of his ascension?

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The war beneath the surface makes the surface hardly relevant. The Moore contretemps is merely theater. You can vote for the bastard without inviting him into your home. This likely applies to every US Senator and every voter, Democrat or Republican. Moore is not a threat to his cultural dislikes such as homosexuals. He can't more stink up a stink up. He is a threat to something and that something is trying with all its might to crush him. I'm talking about the ruling elite which is feeding on itself stuck to a tar baby of its own making. This elite is mainstream media from academia, big business and high up Dems and Reps. If elected the Senate may not accept him, but where would the Senate then be with the likes of Franken et al.?

If I understand this correctly, Roy Moore would be your choice on December 12, if you were an Alabamian.  And your choice would be justified by several lines of support. Is that a right reading? If so, can you lay out your criteria for support?  In the next national election, when 33 Senate seats are up for election, would you support (in the primaries) Roy Moore-ish candidates over others?  

In other words, do you have a pre-existing bias in favour of Dominionist 'religious freedom' advocates ... ?  Or  is Moore a special case of 'stick it in the elite eye'? (separately, how does your paragraph read with "Jones" replacing "Moore"? -- eg 'Jones is not a threat,' 'you can vote for Jones without inviting him into your home' ... )

I understand that Michael may or may not actually support Roy Moore's candidacy, and that the quality of the candidate does not matter as much as his party stripe.  Is that your position as well, Brant?  I wonder what your thoughts were about the candidate before the allegations were made. I find it hard to square support for Moore with common Randian attitudes about church and state. I can well imagine what Ayn Rand's attitude would be towards his ascension ...

Now, as to Michael's dismissal of the Washington Post as ... well ... wholly unreliable, that is no surprise. It allows a person to disregard any and all reporting as tainted irreversibly, no matter its claims, no matter its sourcing, no matter its verifiable information content. In this instance, I am amused: why would anyone want the Moore campaign to answer questions about their claims? Who doesn't like a stonewall?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Brant Gaede

I didn't even know Moore existed before the allegations.

I'd vote for him if I voted, just to keep the Dems out of power in the Senate if not to see how the Senate would handle the jerk.

We are in the age of tearing America apart politics and for the present that's what America needs.

The old age was power butting up against power creating some kind of nation-state stability amongst states. Today we have that still but now it's more and more overt civil wars building up too. In the US its red against blue. In Europe its Muslim migration setting Western European countries up for overt fascist rule to throw them out or neutralize them. 

--Brant

it's gonna get worse and Moore is a twirp

Link to comment
william.scherk
49 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I didn't even know Moore existed before the allegations.

That makes sense.  And so does the side taken in the incipient civil war.  You would prefer the power-loving former judge twice removed from office over the power-loving prosecutor who convicted KKK members for the murder of four little girls circa 1963.

Or maybe you didn't/don't know that Doug Jones existed -- beyond  a (D).  

How's that for "loaded language"?

a22i1jmnr2gnknnxnl79.jpg

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
BaalChatzaf
20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If you were an Alabamian,  would you contemplate voting for Roy Moore, despite the prevarications? Would you approve him ascending to national office?  If so, can you explain your support of his ascension?

If I were an Alabaman I would either consider suicide or leaving the State.

 

Link to comment
william.scherk

Part of my prediction:

On 11/13/2017 at 12:36 PM, william.scherk said:

One guy who wants an Evangelical Kingdom in America will not do appreciable damage to the Republican brand ... nor will a Senator Moore be a drag on GOP votes in 2018.

I think the grand hoopla stage has passed in terms of Moore dominating coverage in  the broadest wodge of media (including blogs, Youtube, Twitter, partisan-web chunky bits, etc), perhaps not to return.  But I can add a case of today's Dueling Headlines ... from Memeorandum.com:

Panicked Reporters Stalk Project Veritas HQ As Rumors Swirl O’Keefe Is Set To Expose Washington Post -- by Joshua Caplan
WaPo Busts James O’Keefe’s Failed Attempt to Fool Them With Fake Roy Moore Accuser, by Ken Meyer 

I once worked at a place that had weekend Duelling Pianos in the dining lounge. It was touching at times, like watching old ponies wend their way up a steep hill home. My favourite use of multiple pianos is Phil Spector's early work,  where at least five keyboards help pump out the wall of sound. 

Spoiler

share.png Shawn Boburg / Washington Post:

A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore.  She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.  —  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 …
–
Discussion:

PS -- another addition to the ensemble. Who is this guy and what is his merry melody? How much dirty money can be marshalled to promote his candidacy? Will state media hold a debate between him and the Democrat? Does this change anyone's predictions?

John Kelly's former top aide plans to launch a write-in campaign in Alabama against Roy Moore

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
william.scherk

Is Roy Moore a candidate that ought be supported by Objectivish people?  We have two votes in so far ...

Here's a funny little story from the gang at ThinkProgress ... in which Moore and associates at a phony 'school' teach some anti-Randian ethics.

Textbook co-authored by Roy Moore in 2011 says women shouldn’t run for office

Vision Forum closed in 2013 after Phillips resigned, having admitted to a “lengthy” and “inappropriately romantic and affectionate” relationship with a woman who was not his wife. Shortly thereafter, that woman, Lourdes Torres-Manteufel, sued Phillips and Vision Forum, detailing an emotionally, psychologically, and sexually abusive relationship that started when she was just 15 years old.

The suit, which was settled and dismissed in 2016, has clear parallels to the many sexual abuse accusations against Moore, which allegedly took place when his accusers were teenagers and he was in his 30s. (Moore has claimed that the allegations against him are “absolutely false.”)  Moore’s attorney has stated that, “whether they were 25, 35, or whether he doesn’t know their age”, Moore would always make sure to ask a girl’s parents for permission to date them before beginning any courtship.

Link to comment
william.scherk

Twenty-sixth reason for an Objectivish person to support the candidacy of Roy Moore!

-- on the other hand, did you know that another purported note from Roy Moore to a "young lady" of high-school age has been found in an attic? From Fox News: Roy Moore accuser shares graduation card she claims he signed.

 

Her name is Debbie Wesson Gibson, and if you believe the Moore-ish defense against these allegations, she is a dirty liar and a forger -- because Moore denies ever knowing her ...

Link to comment
william.scherk

The Senate majority leader said the people of Alabama will decide, and the RNC resumed funding the Moore campaign. The majority leader also said that Moore will face an ethics probe if elected. That's not nice. Who wants an ethics probe dogging his Christian mission?

But the accused-of-sexual-improprieties seat in the Senate can be said to be empty if Al Franken resigns. The Democrats seem determined to defenestrate the Groping Kiss Bandit, if only to clear the air before Mall Visitor McYoungladies takes that empty seat. 

I see the old-as-a-giant-turtle Representative Conyers has also stepped down after a full century in the House, over gropy kissy grabby matters. He has recommended voters elect his great-great-great grandson to 'his' seat. 

stepAsideFranken.png

 

When they go low, we go lower ... Ayn Rand fans will surely enjoy this cute Moore tweet:

This claim is not true, but what would we really expect from Roy Moore but an appeal to disgust? #AbortionJones 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now