Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Mountain Man]

I would love to see a debate between Roy and Robrecht. The nits would fly.

How about three way with Roy, Robrecht, and Charles!

[Sparko]

How about three way with Roy, Robrecht, and Charles!

Charles can be the moderator!

[guacamole]

The quoted text above gives the impression that all the people mentioned are "Christian Dominionists".

As one who spent many years reading almost everything written by Rushdoony and the many "dominionist" authors he discipled, hired, and fired, like his son-in-law Gary North, I can say with certainty that all that the people listed above have in common is simply basic Christianity -- NOT "Christian Dominionism".

Ned Walsh, writing in the Raleigh News and Observer, from which the quote above is excerpted, shows himself to be not as knowledgeable as he thinks he is and deeply prejudiced against those about whom he writes.

Dominionism, like a lot social and political movements, exists as a continuum as opposed to a closed set. It certainly evolves and mutates. In any case, I disagree that the realization of Christian morality primarily through political means is "basic Christianity." I think it's a serious misreading of scripture.

fwiw,
guacamole

[rogue06]

You have a genius for missing the point. Is it really so hard to accept that Islam had its Golden Age, without feeling the need to downplay it?

Indeed, there was a Muslim Golden Age, at least with respects to what was going on in Europe back well before the Renaissance. What I dislike is the romanticized balderdash being passed off by as history. I find that what really happened is generally far more fascinating than the fluffed up faerie tales.

Keep in mind that during just one day, in one city there were roughly as many Jews slaughtered during the idyllic and oh so tolerant rule of the Muslims in Spain as there were of all faiths (and none) killed by the Spanish Inquisition in the over three and a half centuries of its existence.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Inquisition

Again, jimmy my boy, all Britannica is saying in your snippet is saying is that realistically or practically speaking the Inquisition benefited the monarchy in Spain.

But as I keep pointing out that is not the same as saying that it was a goal of the Inquisition to consolidate power into the Spanish monarchy.

No more than one could sanely argue that it was a goal of Prohibition to consolidate power into the hands of a few, until now, largely neighborhood gangs of mobsters. Yet, unarguably the Inquisition Prohibition did serve to consolidate massive power into the hands of organized crime.

Was that too torturous for you to follow?



Popping a few precious myths concerning the Inquisition. Next time don't be afraid to keep your eyes open and you won't get lost

So let me get this straight... when faced with evidence that actual Islamic extremists must be working at very high levels (like what took place in the Maluku Islands over the course of many years -- and according to OBP, may still be a problem), you shrug your shoulders and slough it off with an "Every country has its problems including yours and mine"

Then in the next breath you start going apoplectic about the very possibility that some so-called Dominionists (read: apparently +95% of all conservative Christians) getting elected to office in the U.S.

Is it that the skin of most Moluccans is browner than that of a person of European descent the reason that you don't care? Or is it the fact that they were Christians?

So "private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults" is legal, and yet the government can punish it rather severely (with flogging) if they so wish

Isn't that also the province with the highest percentage of Muslims in Indonesia? An example of what happens when they gain enough of a majority and why they provoke acts of aggression against Hindu and Christian communities in order to drive them off -- which was exactly what took place on the Maluku Islands. The Indonesian government first started importing Muslims there from all of over the country in order to increase their numbers. And when that didn't work out as well as planned, the military and police started arming and equipping Muslim militias with the goal of forcibly expelling the Christians there.

Considering that something like a half million people have been displaced due to the conflict, that is probably the more effective tactic and right in line with conversion by the sword

This explains why the Evangelicals of Alabama, many of dominionist bent, are prepared to overlook accusation against Moore of sexually molesting minors as young as 14 years old. He's on their team.


So Cruz and Pence are only a little bit dominionist. Got it! What about the likes of Betsy DeVos or Rick Santorum and the stealth movement of Christian dominionism taking root inside the Republican Party?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc...e18081173.html

Aaaaand the apoplectic seizure commences, complete with the spinning on the eyebrows while pooping out wooden nickles

[Teallaura]

I doubt that verses about eating sacrificed food or eating bread without washing your hands are applicable here. The closest possible reference is Romans 14, but that is more a contradiction than a reversal. Also, Deuteronomy 14 doesn't refer to shellfish, but to dead animals, and doesn't necessarily apply to Xtians who do after all follow the same deity.

<Pulls card out of mayonnaise jar*>
Context. Purpose. Common Sense.

Karnak: Name three things missing from Roy's reading of Scripture.









































*Yes, it's an American thing - and yes, I'm trying for 'sardonic wit'. Probably got 'sarcastic twit' instead but I just couldn't resist.

[Teallaura]

I think it is a single incident. It is horrendous, yes, but it is not conclusive. It's the equivalent of pointing to Hurricane Irma and saying, "see - climate change!" Irma is weather. A continuous pattern of strengthing hurricane is a sign of climate change.

Likewise, Sandy Hook and Cegas were incidents. The research to show that Sandy Hook and Vegas are part of a larger pattern and the best approaches to addressing that pattern is simply not there. Why? Because of an act of Congress.

Now I wonder who benefits from shutting down research into gun violence?

Um, not letting the CDC overstep its bounds isn't the same thing as 'shutting down research'. The FBI wouldn't be violating their mandate if their research arm called the CDC for public health input - but I don't see that need, to be honest. It's a complex matter to research but I really don't see why it needs a public health angle - death and injury rates will work just fine.

[carpedm9587]

Um, not letting the CDC overstep its bounds isn't the same thing as 'shutting down research'. The FBI wouldn't be violating their mandate if their research arm called the CDC for public health input - but I don't see that need, to be honest. It's a complex matter to research but I really don't see why it needs a public health angle - death and injury rates will work just fine.

The act of Congress denied funding to the CDC for any research into gun violence that results in outcomes that could be used to argue for gun control. It was explicit. Technically, the CDC is not barred from gun violence research - but the effect is the same. When an agency is barred from research based on one possible outcome, it means the research is no longer unbiased. Ergo, the CDC has not pursued gun violence research because, if the outcome could be construed as "supporting gun control," they would either have to sit on it (i.e., not publish), find other funding (which has proven impractical), or publish and risk court action.

We also disagree that researching gun violence is "outside the bounds" of what the CDC is mandated to do. They are charged with researching health and safety issues for the American people. They have research auto safety, manufacturing safety, as well as researching disease-related issues. For them to conduct research into one of the top causes of death in the U.S. (gun-related violence) is perfectly within their mandate, IMO.

There is one and only one reason I can think of for shutting down the pursuit of information: someone doesn't want to know the outcome - or fears what the outcome will be. Since the primary lobbying groups for the legislation were the NRA and the firearms industry, and it was in response to a study that showed a correlation between gun ownership and deaths due to domestic violence...it's not very hard to figure out why. They are the only groups that benefit from suppressing such research.

[JonathanL]

<Pulls card out of mayonnaise jar*>
Context. Purpose. Common Sense.

Karnak: Name three things missing from Roy's reading of Scripture.









































*Yes, it's an American thing - and yes, I'm trying for 'sardonic wit'. Probably got 'sarcastic twit' instead but I just couldn't resist.

"Hermeneutics? Exegesis? Context? Bah! I don't need those. My fellow internet neck-beard atheists told me those are just buzzwords Christians use to explain away problematic passages."

[tabibito]

"Hermeneutics? Exegesis? Context? Bah! I don't need those. My fellow internet neck-beard atheists told me those are just buzzwords Christians use to explain away problematic passages."

There are enough people doing it to make the charge more or less viable.
Too many people claim they are using hermeneutics, exegesis, context without even making so little as a token attempt to do so.

[Tassman]

Indeed, there was a Muslim Golden Age, at least with respects to what was going on in Europe back well before the Renaissance. What I dislike is the romanticized balderdash being passed off by as history. I find that what really happened is generally far more fascinating than the fluffed up faerie tales.

Keep in mind that during just one day, in one city there were roughly as many Jews slaughtered during the idyllic and oh so tolerant rule of the Muslims in Spain as there were of all faiths (and none) killed by the Spanish Inquisition in the over three and a half centuries of its existence.

Good! So you agree that there was a Muslim Golden Age, which my point. And it lasted many centuries.

Again, jimmy my boy, all Britannica is saying in your snippet is saying is that realistically or practically speaking the Inquisition benefited the monarchy in Spain.

But as I keep pointing out that is not the same as saying that it was a goal of the Inquisition to consolidate power into the Spanish monarchy.

No more than one could sanely argue that it was a goal of Prohibition to consolidate power into the hands of a few, until now, largely neighborhood gangs of mobsters. Yet, unarguably the Inquisition did serve to consolidate massive power into the hands of organized crime.

Was that too torturous for you to follow?

Popping a few precious myths concerning the Inquisition. Next time don't be afraid to keep your eyes open and you won't get lost

The Inquisition was not the topic. It was merely the contrast between overall enlightened Muslim rule during their 900 year tenure of Spain and the more brutal Christian rule that followed. You, of course can be relied upon to launch paragraph after paragraph of irrelevant crap about how the Inquisition really wasn't all that bad after all

So let me get this straight... when faced with evidence that actual Islamic extremists must be working at very high levels (like what took place in the Maluku Islands over the course of many years -- and according to OBP, may still be a problem), you shrug your shoulders and slough it off with an "Every country has its problems including yours and mine"

Then in the next breath you start going apoplectic about the very possibility that some so-called Dominionists (read: apparently +95% of all conservative Christians) getting elected to office in the U.S.

Is it that the skin of most Moluccans is browner than that of a person of European descent the reason that you don't care? Or is it the fact that they were Christians?


So "private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults" is legal, and yet the government can punish it rather severely (with flogging) if they so wish

Isn't that also the province with the highest percentage of Muslims in Indonesia? An example of what happens when they gain enough of a majority and why they provoke acts of aggression against Hindu and Christian communities in order to drive them off -- which was exactly what took place on the Maluku Islands. The Indonesian government first started importing Muslims there from all of over the country in order to increase their numbers. And when that didn't work out as well as planned, the military and police started arming and equipping Muslim militias with the goal of forcibly expelling the Christians there.

Considering that something like a half million people have been displaced due to the conflict, that is probably the more effective tactic and right in line with conversion by the sword

Yes, this conflict had had a significant effect upon the 2.1 million people of greater Maluku. Leading up to the Malino agreement, the International Crisis Group estimated that 700,000 displaced by the four years of fighting in the Moluccas which is thought to have claimed a minimum of 5,000 lives...according to Wiki. But it is inaccurate and wildly biased to characterise this as typical of the 750 million population of Indonesia. But it's typical of you to make such false and misleading generalisations.

Aaaaand the apoplectic seizure commences, complete with the spinning on the eyebrows while pooping out wooden nickles.

[Teallaura]

The act of Congress denied funding to the CDC for any research into gun violence that results in outcomes that could be used to argue for gun control. It was explicit. Technically, the CDC is not barred from gun violence research - but the effect is the same. When an agency is barred from research based on one possible outcome, it means the research is no longer unbiased. Ergo, the CDC has not pursued gun violence research because, if the outcome could be construed as "supporting gun control," they would either have to sit on it (i.e., not publish), find other funding (which has proven impractical), or publish and risk court action.

We also disagree that researching gun violence is "outside the bounds" of what the CDC is mandated to do. They are charged with researching health and safety issues for the American people. They have research auto safety, manufacturing safety, as well as researching disease-related issues. For them to conduct research into one of the top causes of death in the U.S. (gun-related violence) is perfectly within their mandate, IMO.

There is one and only one reason I can think of for shutting down the pursuit of information: someone doesn't want to know the outcome - or fears what the outcome will be. Since the primary lobbying groups for the legislation were the NRA and the firearms industry, and it was in response to a study that showed a correlation between gun ownership and deaths due to domestic violence...it's not very hard to figure out why. They are the only groups that benefit from suppressing such research.

https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/ourstory.htm

CDC is a public health agency - its mandates relate to disease control. It does NOT have a mandate to investigate anything and everything that can affect a person's health. Gun control is related to law enforcement, not public health. The FBI can do the exact same research - they can even get CDC input. But the CDC was out of line - and acting politically which is destructive as heck to public health.

The people that are charged with protecting extremely sensitive personal information (reportable disease) need to keep their hands in the car.

Manufacturing safety belongs to OSHA. I wouldn't be surprised if CDC overstepped there, too - they are bad about it. But it's still outside public health because there's no effective means of intervention (vaccination, treatment). Again, HIV was initially on shaky grounds here but I still think the exception is rational.

[carpedm9587]

https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/ourstory.htm

CDC is a public health agency - its mandates relate to disease control. It does NOT have a mandate to investigate anything and everything that can affect a person's health. Gun control is related to law enforcement, not public health. The FBI can do the exact same research - they can even get CDC input. But the CDC was out of line - and acting politically which is destructive as heck to public health.

The people that are charged with protecting extremely sensitive personal information (reportable disease) need to keep their hands in the car.

Manufacturing safety belongs to OSHA. I wouldn't be surprised if CDC overstepped there, too - they are bad about it. But it's still outside public health because there's no effective means of intervention (vaccination, treatment). Again, HIV was initially on shaky grounds here but I still think the exception is rational.

Read the entire page Teal. You'll find this at the bottom as one of the five areas of focus: "implementing measures to decrease leading causes of death." That is why they have been involved in research related to automobile safety, toy safety, and (until it was barred) gun safety. You are right about manufacturing safety, OSHA's does have that domain in terms of setting policy. But some (much? most?) of that policy is based on research conducted by the CDC.

Two examples: automobile safety in a manufacturing environment (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/report...-0268-3065.pdf) and studies about injury types and frequency (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm). If you search their cite for such reports, you will find many of them.

The argument that the CDC needs to be "reined in" is a major NRA talking point - and one of the major arguments for the congressional act. The result is we have no one doing this research - so no one can definitively say "X causes Y" and the NRA and gun lobby can continue to throw up dust, as the tobacco industry did before them, the lead industry before them, and the sugar and fossil fuels industries are doing today.

It takes time - but eventually the information WILL be gathered. Unfortunately - there are always companies looking to make a buck. So big tobacco is as big today as it ever was, because they have moved their main business to other countries. After all, the U.S. is only 5% of the world market. So if/when we ever get a handle on big sugar, big fuels, and the gun industry, they'll probably just do the same thing. To the world, it looks like american companies peddle their poison offshore when they get shut down onshore.

No wonder we are so widely seen in such ill light...

[Mountain Man]

Oh boy... Doug Jones' campaign recently sent out a mailer with a picture of a black man and the caption "Think if a black man went after high school girls anyone would try to make him a senator?"

He apparently thinks this is how you appeal to black voters.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...at-doug-jones/

[Mountain Man]

Who didn't see this one coming?

Source: Breitbart

Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...rged-yearbook/

© Copyright Original Source

Of course ABC News, being a bastion of journalistic integrity, downplays the forgery as Nelson merely adding "notes" to an otherwise authentic signature. It's the Dan "Fake but Accurate" Rather defense.

[One Bad Pig]

Who didn't see this one coming?

Source: Breitbart

Beverly Young Nelson has finally admitted that she forged a portion of the infamous high school yearbook that she and attorney Gloria Allred used as proof of her accusations against U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...rged-yearbook/

© Copyright Original Source

Of course ABC News, being a bastion of journalistic integrity, downplays the forgery as Nelson merely adding "notes" to an otherwise authentic signature. It's the Dan "Fake but Accurate" Rather defense.

I'm hearing that the "forgery" is no more than adding, in an obviously different hand, the date and location for where Moore allegedly signed it. How is that a forgery? This is not a "bombshell"; this is a nothing burger.