Woman says Roy Moore initiated sexual encounter when she was 14

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

You're missing my point.

No. I know exactly what you're saying. You are missing the point.

You only have a right to something intrinsic. Self-defense is intrinsic. Your property you can intrinsically provide.

We have the right to freedom of association with other consenting adults. Period. That freedom of association and other consenting adults includes the right to marry who we choose. I fully understand that I cannot demand anything of anyone and that the consent of other adults are a necessary component. But that is not determined by government. That is determined by our own consciences in accordance with our Natural Right to free will.

You, on the other hand, are giving that power to government to decide who does and does not have the freedom of association, including marriage. That's tyranny.

Marriage is a social contract involving you and at least one other person. That's a social privilege. You need their agreement before you can be married. Your partner had to agree to be married to you.

Yup. Yay freedom and free will!!!

By yourself, you cannot be married. There is no inherent right for anyone to be married. If there was, I could go up to any other person, ask them marry me, and if they said "no," I could claim my rights violated because I have a right to be married.

Yes, that "other consenting adult" thingee is a factor... but you do in fact have every right to ask someone to marry you... that person has the right to say yes or no... and if the answer is yes, then you two have every right to marry each other and you don't need anyone else to do it. Just you two using your own free will to do so.

This is the same problem with thinking health care is a right.

Actually, this is the same problem with thinking health care is NOT a right.... the very idea that someone else can tell you that you cannot nurse and nurture your own health but demanding and using the barrel of a gun to tell me that I cannot take care of myself but MUST accept only that healthcare from only those healthcare providers that the government tells me. That's a HUGE problem.

It is a service others must still provide to you...

ONLY because government tells me so and forces THEIR choices upon me at the barrel of a gun. We can all do quite a bit for ourselves without anyone's help.

... and when you start thinking you have a right to what others provide, you start verging on enslaving those who provide that service to your "right" to have it.

No. When government forces me (us) to limit my (our) healthcare to only what others provide, then they are enslaving me (us) in order to have that "service" which must be provided by others.

In both instances, it's the government who needs to get the hell out of our way and let us do for ourselves as we see fit. And, yes, it is our absolute inalienable right to do so.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's the right to free speech, which requires no one other than you to exercise. You can affirm your undying commitment to a racoon if you want... it does not mean you are married to the racoon.

Raccoons are not "other consenting adults."

...a marriage requires more people than you to perform an action. See above.

It only requires one other consenting adult. Period. There was marriage long before there were churches or governments or any other officially sanctioned officiant. Any two consenting adults can pledge their eternal love and commitment to each other all by themselves. No one else is required.

So you have the right to sell yourself as an indentured servant? You have the right to sell yourself sexually? The right to execute a suicide pact?

Yup. We have the right to do stupid things as well.... even a suicide pact. Much like government decides who can live or die every day... abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, denying life-saving healthcare... eh???

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is Moore has to answer the charges not just spout stuff like this is an democrat hit job

Did he know the girl, things like that

...refute her allegations and not with political dogma

Innocent till proven guilty won't have time to work it's way through for a fair vetting of the truth. Have to vote him in to see what is there, if he did do it they can replace him. The Dem is a freaking idiot.

a reply to: Boadicea

But if you personally have a "right" to marry, then you can demand to be married.

Marriage is a social contract between you and another person. It takes the consent of at least one other person and usually more than one other for your to be married.

That's exactly why you don't have a right to it.

No one, not you or me or anyone else, has the right to anything that depends on the agreement of one single other person in order for us to have it. That includes marriage.

We can live in a society that says "two consenting adults" all we want, but if you are one consenting adult, then you don't have a "right" to be married because no other adult has consented.

Saying something is your "right" is saying you will always have it if you want it and no one or nothing can take it away from you. But in this case, in order for you to enjoy that "right" (i.e. be married), you *must* have at least one other willing to go along, so there is no "right" you have.

Let me ask you ...

If your partner tells you tomorrow that he (or she) is through, do you still have your right or has your partner violated it by terminating the agreement? If you have a "right," then your partner is oppressing your "right" by seeking to take your "right" away by refusing to remain married to you.

a reply to: ketsuko

Okay. Gotcha. You are quite willing to relinquish OUR rights for government power and authority. I'm not. It's pretty much that simple.

I will say it again: the first clue that it is an abuse my right is the fact that you would have to use force to stop me/us from doing it although it has absolutely nothing to do with you in any way.

What gives you that right to force your will upon me or anyone???

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Speaking as a lifelong proud Alabamian...

If he's proven guilty, I don't want Roy Moore to step aside... I want him in prison!

If...

The biggest two-letter word in the English language.

But the truth is, after all the similar claims that have gone unproven, and considering this broke in the NYT... sorry, don't believe it. Prove it in a court of law or who cares. Until that happens it's just another pundit-wannabe willing to prostrate herself in front of the media to destroy a good man.

Innocent until proven guilty. Considering the way the Democrats have been projecting as of late, I'm wondering if Doug Jones isn't guilty of the charge... seems to align with the pattern.

Come next month, I will proudly join millions of other Alabamians in rejecting the politics of destruction and cast my vote for the next Junior Senator from the great state of Alabama... the ten commandment displaying, Supreme Court snubbing, straight-shooting, liberal-scaring, honorable Senator Roy Moore!

And John McCain can take his assumptive shiny hiney and drag it back to Arizona where he needs to be. Alabama deserves Moore!

TheRedneck

nice defense there, redneck......" IF you can prove"......and with that, Roy Moore will be senator for along time....if Trump can ADMIT to sexual assault and get elected president, then republican child molester's should have no problem in the future getting elected to the senate to represent Alabama

And the lunatic left continues as we said in the Army SSDD......

No one has proven anything that a neutral voter with a teenage daughter here has seen other than the D's play extra dirty.

This man has been a controversial figure for a lot longer if they wanted to get a guilty bastard, why wait till it is too late to put another R in place if you are not crooked as Hillary Clinton?

I may never ever vote a D in again in my life, nor my family. Any hope you had is gone. Now most of the R's are rino D' ass kissers anyway so don't worry about voting any of them in.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jimmyx

I'm not so sure. Mainstream Republicans don't like the guy. It's entirely possible the party will swear him in, bribe him to resign, and then appoint someone more agreeable to the spot. If that doesn't happen, he'll probably be primaried. If I understand correctly he'll be up for reelection in 2018.

I don't know....if democrats in Alabama had 4 legs and antlers, there wouldn't be any left in the entire state.

I know a few of them Alabamians over my life that are certainly D so you can go suck an egg they would tell you. Oh they are the conservatives D's there. You don't see a Pelosi or Jackson type from that part of the D party. It sure seems to me there are some very sicko leftist Dem's that are the ones thinking about genocidal actions to the "any other" party. The hate Tea Party, Libertarian, Repugnicans and Constitutional to name a few. Probably hate the Green Party come to think of it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko

Okay. Gotcha. You are quite willing to relinquish OUR rights for government power and authority. I'm not. It's pretty much that simple.

I will say it again: the first clue that it is an abuse my right is the fact that you would have to use force to stop me/us from doing it although it has absolutely nothing to do with you in any way.

What gives you that right to force your will upon me or anyone???

You think this has to do with what kind of unions I do and don't approve of don't you?

That isn't even part of the equation.

It has to do with you not understanding what a right is.

A right is something that is wholly intrinsic to an individual. Ask yourself, what things can you have and enjoy if you had no other people around you. Marriage would not be on that list, neither would health care. Personal property, the ability to defend yourself, those sorts of things would. Those kinds of things are rights.

Things that you need other people for are not rights, not as they are outlined in the COTUS and Bill of Rights.

Those things are part of the social contracts we make in society in order to live with other people and that's where marriage clearly falls.

a reply to: Boadicea

Raccoons are not "other consenting adults."

Good! So you agree you don't have a right to marry. It requires someone else to agree in order to exercise it.

It only requires one other consenting adult. Period.

According to the law, it also requires a officiant licensed to perform a ceremony, even if that ceremony is secular and conducted in a judge's chambers. It also requires a license which can be refused or granted at the will of the State.

That's not something modern, either. It is rooted in history and predates the USA.

There was marriage long before there were churches or governments or any other officially sanctioned officiant.

Er, no. The first use the word "marriage" is from old European culture, in conjunction with the Roan Catholic Church.

The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French, marier (to marry), and ultimately Latin, marītāre, meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife". The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine, which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium, which combines the two concepts: mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition".

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Any two consenting adults can pledge their eternal love and commitment to each other all by themselves. No one else is required.

True. But that is not a marriage. That is a different relationship.

Yup. We have the right to do stupid things as well.... even a suicide pact.

I think Dr. Jack Kevorkian would likely tell you differently.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

You think this has to do with what kind of unions I do and don't approve of don't you?

By definition, if it's not a right, then it's a privilege or entitlement granted at the whim of another. I have neither quantified nor qualified why you would or would not approve, however, approval is required for any privilege or entitlement. And that approval leads to permission... the lack of approval leads to denial. And denial leads to enforcement.

That isn't even part of the equation.

See above.

It has to do with you not understanding what a right is.

I understand what a right is, where it comes from, and when they are violated.

A right is something that is wholly intrinsic to an individual.

Intrinsic:

belonging naturally; essential.

My freedom of association, including my choice of who to marry or not, naturally belongs to me. No one else can make that choice for me. I cannot force anyone to choose to marry me, or otherwise associate with me; but only I can make that choice for myself.

Conversely, if someone else has the power and authority to tell me who I cannot marry, then they also have the power and authority to tell me who I must marry.

Ask yourself, what things can you have and enjoy if you had no other people around you. Marriage would not be on that list, neither would health care.

But that's not the world we live in. It's a false and therefore faulty premise. Even within that premise, however, should I hide in the shadows to make sure I don't get any sunlight and therefore no Vitamin D? Shall I not eat any fruits growing naturally and thus deny myself the vitamin C and other nutrients? If I cut myself, am I not allowed to wash it in the waters of the earth? If I burn myself, but I have an aloe plant growing nearby, am I not allowed to break the leaf and use the healing benefits of the sap inside? Because golly gee I have no right to nurse and nurture my life??? Because I have no right to the bounty of the earth provided by nature and Nature's God? Am I stealing because it doesn't belong to me -- although there is no other person for it to belong to?

Personal property, the ability to defend yourself, those sorts of things would. Those kinds of things are rights.

Defend myself from who? There are no other people around, so animals? I'm allowed to defend my life and limb from animal attacks... but not then allowed to treat the wounds sustained in the process? And what personal property? Anything and everything around me? So I'm allowed to have all that personal property but not allowed to use it to nurse and nurture my life and limb?

Things that you need other people for are not rights, not as they are outlined in the COTUS and Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights enumerates and limits government powers -- not our rights. And the Bill of Rights itself makes it clear that our Constitutional rights are not limited to those enumerated:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Further, the Bill of Rights itself also grants rights based upon the cooperation and/or services of others. How can one exercise their freedom of religion without other people? How can one exercise the freedom to assemble without other people? How can one be guaranteed a trial by jury or a lawyer without other people?

Those things are part of the social contracts we make in society in order to live with other people and that's where marriage clearly falls.

And those social contracts are possible by our right to freedom of association and free will.

a reply to: TheRedneck

According to the law, it also requires a officiant licensed to perform a ceremony, even if that ceremony is secular and conducted in a judge's chambers. It also requires a license which can be refused or granted at the will of the State.

Good! You agree! It is government getting in the way by making arbitrary rules and forcing the will of some on others!!!

That's not something modern, either. It is rooted in history and predates the USA.

Indeed... instituted by churches for their own tyranical purposes... and governments for inheritance and property purposes... all so that the few can impose their will on the many. Tyranny.

Er, no. The first use the word "marriage" is from old European culture, in conjunction with the Roan Catholic Church.

I'm not going to play semantics... union, wedlock, marriage... whatever.

The origins of marriage:

The best available evidence suggests that it's about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

True. But that is not a marriage. That is a different relationship.

At best, this semantics. At worst, this is simply further example of some imposing their will on others via government interference and enforcement.

I think Dr. Jack Kevorkian would likely tell you differently.

Of course, because this government decided only they can decide who lives or dies and prosecuted/persecuted him for it... and, of course, all while reserving and exercising their own "right" to kill who they choose.

This issue initially bothered me because of the politics involved and the timing of the allegations.

Then I thought back to the 60's and 70's and remembered a time when attitudes were far different then.

But one thing that stuck with me is this; a grown man was in a vehicle with a 14 year old.

The ONLY time any grown man should be in a vehicle with a 14 year old is when he's driving the babysitter home.

No where has he said that he wasn't in the vehicle with a 14 year old.

(unless I'm mistaken)

So nail his sorry ass to the wall.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Wonderful straw man argument then.
Who's asked for "superior rights?"

When you try to twist my statement 180 degrees and then, when called on it, try to twist it around again... nice talking to you, Phage.

TheRedneck

He lost me a few years back when he kept dodging the truth about the Climate warriors who keep ignoring the new tech that makes oil obsolete and end the Saudis gravy train, but that has been covered. I am still right about him being good in Astronomy but certainly that one doesn't seem any more intelligible than the Antifa's lately with that psychobabble logic.

a reply to: DBCowboy

There's over 30 witnesses now, and a whole bunch of stories of his conduct are coming out (though few from the women themselves). Throw in Moore's changing stories and odd defenses like "I didn't generally hang out with teenagers that young" which leave plenty of wiggle room and I think this one is true.

a reply to: Aazadan

Then fry the perv.

QED

Does anyone else find it telling that Moore's accuser worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign!?

She's such an obvious political hack liar it isn't even funny. Why do you people fall for this # every single time? The left uses sexual assault to impeach our politicians, just like they use racism and anti-women and anti-whatever else.

Stop falling for their dirty tricks!

Questions:

1) Why wait so long to come forward with accusations?
2) Why wait until the heat of a political race to come forward?
3) Why would an employee of a campaign known for falsifying sex claims (HRC lining up 30 liars to falsely accuse DJT) be telling the truth finally?
4) Again, why wait so long to come forward?
5) When 30 people are coming out of the woodwork suddenly during an election, YOU NEED TO QUESTION IT.

A little convenient if you ask me. Vote how you want, but don't let these Dems decide for you with their slanderous lies.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This issue initially bothered me because of the politics involved and the timing of the allegations.

Then I thought back to the 60's and 70's and remembered a time when attitudes were far different then.

But one thing that stuck with me is this; a grown man was in a vehicle with a 14 year old.

The ONLY time any grown man should be in a vehicle with a 14 year old is when he's driving the babysitter home.

No where has he said that he wasn't in the vehicle with a 14 year old.

(unless I'm mistaken)

So nail his sorry ass to the wall.

"How do we know this", is a good question? And there are some contradictory evidence coming out about the 'ladies'.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This issue initially bothered me because of the politics involved and the timing of the allegations.

Then I thought back to the 60's and 70's and remembered a time when attitudes were far different then.

But one thing that stuck with me is this; a grown man was in a vehicle with a 14 year old.

The ONLY time any grown man should be in a vehicle with a 14 year old is when he's driving the babysitter home.

No where has he said that he wasn't in the vehicle with a 14 year old.

(unless I'm mistaken)

So nail his sorry ass to the wall.

He said he never met the then 14 yr old and her allegations are false. That pretty much includes an assumed statement that he wasnt in any vehicle with her.
He did say he dated the 17, 18, 19 yr olds, with their parents' permission. Those women admitted that he was the most eligible bachelor around, and that he played his guitar for them, and may have hugged and kissed, bought wine at dinner, but nothing more.
Two different types of stories, detailing two completely different types of men.

a reply to: Justoneman

Except the fact this # worked for Hillary's campaign and was vocal about Trump impeachment! She is trying to sabotage all GOP candidates, much like those same tools did in VA against Gillespie.

www.foxnews.com...

When you hear silly claims like this during an election, demand photographic/video evidence or a confession. If you get none, it means there is no evidence. No evidence = didn't happen.

This didn't happen. It is another political assassination against a conservative.

Hope these dirty Dems end up swinging.

a reply to: primus2012


Seriously, as if it is somehow HIS responsibility to even address these erroneous claims. He doesn't have to prove/deny anything. SHE is the accuser. SHE must present evidence and demonstrate why she waited until an important election to spread her sick lies.