https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-were-t...39289.html

Sounds like senatorial material. I saw that yesterday, one of his low-life supposed Christian supporters said he liked them young because of some sick 'purity' test.

Interestingly, even President Trump admitted yesterday when sticking up for Moore on the White House lawn that the people accusing Moore were Trump supporters (he admitted that with a shrug basically to say 'well we can't accuse them of being liberals').

(11-22-2017 12:34 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Interestingly, even President Trump admitted yesterday when sticking up for Moore on the White House lawn that the people accusing Moore were Trump supporters (he admitted that with a shrug basically to say 'well we can't accuse them of being liberals').

Speaking of that display. I found the whole "but he denies it" defense to be quite interesting.

You guys needed to start a new thread to crap your pants over Moore?

I tell you what, you libturds can start a new thread about Moore when Allred releases that forged yearbook to the experts.

(11-22-2017 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 12:34 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Interestingly, even President Trump admitted yesterday when sticking up for Moore on the White House lawn that the people accusing Moore were Trump supporters (he admitted that with a shrug basically to say 'well we can't accuse them of being liberals').

Speaking of that display. I found the whole "but he denies it" defense to be quite interesting.

Really?

I find it more interesting to use the "he admitted it but I support him anyway" defense (e.g. SNL, POTUS BC).

(11-22-2017 01:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You guys needed to start a new thread to crap your pants over Moore?

I tell you what, you libturds can start a new thread about Moore when Allred releases that forged yearbook to the experts.

Please, there are multiple threads on Democratic nitwits/felons too. Look through the 1st and 2nd pages of the spin room, and you'll see 2 or more threads on Al Franken, Charlie Rose, the Clintons, etc. It's tough sometimes to know what the thread is about because of the title so I'll give the Charlie Rose stuff a pass - chances are the 2nd poster had no clue who Charlie Rose even was let alone the fact that he was on PBS.

Personally I'd blame that on the mods and not users anyway. It's not tough to combine threads.

What I find interesting are, all these statements like he was banned from the mall, well if that were REALLY true there would have to have been a No Trespass Warrant served that would still be on record, someone working at the mall saying that happened is nothing more than hearsay. IF police were told to keep him away from High School Cheerleaders there would have been a restraining order, they can't enforce someone saying they need to do this. I have to go with it's a lie since this never came out at any other point in any of his campaigns.

(11-22-2017 02:32 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  What I find interesting are, all these statements like he was banned from the mall, well if that were REALLY true there would have to have been a No Trespass Warrant served that would still be on record, someone working at the mall saying that happened is nothing more than hearsay. IF police were told to keep him away from High School Cheerleaders there would have been a restraining order, they can't enforce someone saying that need to do this. I have to go with it's a lie since this never came out at any other point in any of his campaigns.

Perhaps, but you're looking at this from a legal stand point instead of what could have just been "polite" requests or warnings to Mr. Moore.

They could have easily told him he was banned from the mall without issuing any sort of warrant or filing something with the local authorities.

Additionally, the police could have been issued something like a BOLO for Mr. Moore around young girls without issuing a restraining order.

Fake news

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

utter bull****. demonstrably untrue. this and the "banned from the mall" fairy tale are all clearly false because if this **** went down the way the guys peddling the story said that it went down, there would be a police report.

that's right, an official document. something these accusers never seem to have. they've got imprecise, 40 year old memories that are totally inconsistent, and they have a 40 year old high school year book. in fact, the lack of actual proof itself proves that this is all a huge deception.

it's a ******* sham. the people that support the accusers may as well admit that they're trying to abduct a national election based on "evidence" that the national enquirer would be ashamed to use.

(11-22-2017 04:26 PM)EagleX Wrote:  utter bull****. demonstrably untrue. this and the "banned from the mall" fairy tale are all clearly false because if this **** went down the way the guys peddling the story said that it went down, there would be a police report.

that's right, an official document. something these accusers never seem to have. they've got imprecise, 40 year old memories that are totally inconsistent, and they have a 40 year old high school year book. in fact, the lack of actual proof itself proves that this is all a huge deception.

it's a ******* sham. the people that support the accusers may as well admit that they're trying to abduct a national election based on "evidence" that the national enquirer would be ashamed to use.

This one admits it

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-22-2017 04:32 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 04:26 PM)EagleX Wrote:  utter bull****. demonstrably untrue. this and the "banned from the mall" fairy tale are all clearly false because if this **** went down the way the guys peddling the story said that it went down, there would be a police report.

that's right, an official document. something these accusers never seem to have. they've got imprecise, 40 year old memories that are totally inconsistent, and they have a 40 year old high school year book. in fact, the lack of actual proof itself proves that this is all a huge deception.

it's a ******* sham. the people that support the accusers may as well admit that they're trying to abduct a national election based on "evidence" that the national enquirer would be ashamed to use.

This one admits it

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

guilt by accusation, and then guilty until proven innocent.

in salem, they burned women at the stake for witchcraft exactly like this. in a weird way, feminists are the new puritans.

(11-22-2017 02:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You guys needed to start a new thread to crap your pants over Moore?

I tell you what, you libturds can start a new thread about Moore when Allred releases that forged yearbook to the experts.

Please, there are multiple threads on Democratic nitwits/felons too. Look through the 1st and 2nd pages of the spin room, and you'll see 2 or more threads on Al Franken, Charlie Rose, the Clintons, etc. It's tough sometimes to know what the thread is about because of the title so I'll give the Charlie Rose stuff a pass - chances are the 2nd poster had no clue who Charlie Rose even was let alone the fact that he was on PBS.

Personally I'd blame that on the mods and not users anyway. It's not tough to combine threads.

There are multiple threads on democratic felons because there are multiple democrats that have undeniable proof of what they are cacused of, and they have admitted it.

Please stop posting every new libturd who comes forward with another "rumor" for Roy Moore. It simply gets the libturds worked up into a tizzy.

(11-22-2017 02:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You guys needed to start a new thread to crap your pants over Moore?

I tell you what, you libturds can start a new thread about Moore when Allred releases that forged yearbook to the experts.

Please, there are multiple threads on Democratic nitwits/felons too. Look through the 1st and 2nd pages of the spin room, and you'll see 2 or more threads on Al Franken, Charlie Rose, the Clintons, etc. It's tough sometimes to know what the thread is about because of the title so I'll give the Charlie Rose stuff a pass - chances are the 2nd poster had no clue who Charlie Rose even was let alone the fact that he was on PBS.

Personally I'd blame that on the mods and not users anyway. It's not tough to combine threads.

OFF TOPIC, GAWDDAMMMIT!!

RIGHT The topic of this thread is some super hot former police officer that kept the cheerleaders from noticing Moore!

(11-22-2017 02:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You guys needed to start a new thread to crap your pants over Moore?

I tell you what, you libturds can start a new thread about Moore when Allred releases that forged yearbook to the experts.

Please, there are multiple threads on Democratic nitwits/felons too. Look through the 1st and 2nd pages of the spin room, and you'll see 2 or more threads on Al Franken, Charlie Rose, the Clintons, etc. It's tough sometimes to know what the thread is about because of the title so I'll give the Charlie Rose stuff a pass - chances are the 2nd poster had no clue who Charlie Rose even was let alone the fact that he was on PBS.

Personally I'd blame that on the mods and not users anyway. It's not tough to combine threads.

new allegation in the moore fakery that hasn't been faked in the forum before. perfectly deserving of it's own thread.

I do not think there are such things as a restraining orders around that time in the 1970s. Restraining order laws have started around the late 1980s early 1990s about domestic violence and all that. police officers could tell people that they need to stay away from places after a number of complaints. It does not mean it had to go to court.

(11-22-2017 02:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:32 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  What I find interesting are, all these statements like he was banned from the mall, well if that were REALLY true there would have to have been a No Trespass Warrant served that would still be on record, someone working at the mall saying that happened is nothing more than hearsay. IF police were told to keep him away from High School Cheerleaders there would have been a restraining order, they can't enforce someone saying that need to do this. I have to go with it's a lie since this never came out at any other point in any of his campaigns.

Perhaps, but you're looking at this from a legal stand point instead of what could have just been "polite" requests or warnings to Mr. Moore.

They could have easily told him he was banned from the mall without issuing any sort of warrant or filing something with the local authorities.

Additionally, the police could have been issued something like a BOLO for Mr. Moore around young girls without issuing a restraining order.

I just have a problem with anyone having to defend against very old accusations. I disagreed with what happened to Bill Cosby, any accusation of events more than 10 years old is hard to prove or disprove. Bill Clinton is a little different since the original accusations were within a few months/years of the events. Hard to say the new Clinton accuser's should have came forward back then, they saw what happened to all other accusers.

(11-22-2017 05:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I do not think there are such things as a restraining orders around that time in the 1970s. Restraining order laws have started around the late 1980s early 1990s about domestic violence and all that. police officers could tell people that they need to stay away from places after a number of complaints. It does not mean it had to go to court.

But surely someone can produce a fake restraining order from the '70s

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk