XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans   
   From: governor.swill@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:12:30 -0500, "Scout"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   >news:2nop0dlb4k3l44uk3jdct3pc63mvbl6nbq@4ax.com...   
   >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:23:08 -0500, "Scout"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>"Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:a8qk0dtg1dboochmhi63sm5gvi63p8cph3@4ax.com...   
   >>>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:54:55 -0500, "Scout"   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>"Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>news:ou3296$pm2$1@reader2.panix.com...   
   >>>>>> Scout  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>>Agreed. Why is it that it seems like all sorts of crimes now have no   
   >>>>>>>statute   
   >>>>>>>of limitations on them?   
   >>>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Another right-wing nutjob supporting child molestation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>No, explain to me why for 7 long years this fully legal adult said   
   >>>>>NOTHING.....   
   >>>>   
   >>>> For the same reasons child sexual abuse is not reported.  The victims   
   >>>> aren't usually believed and the agony they endure going through a   
   >>>> trial process, which usually acquits the perpetrator, aren't worth it.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Well, then, they shouldn't be expected to be listened too after waiting   
   >>>even   
   >>>longer......   
   >>>   
   >>>If you wouldn't speak up then.....your creditability factor is a whole lot   
   >>>less now unless you have PHYSICAL evidence to support your claim.   
   >>>   
   >>>Say a sealed letter you wrote at the time, or some other sort of   
   >>>substantive   
   >>>support for the claim. Oh, and someone else alleging to support the   
   >>>allegations is just piling more assertions on top of another assertion.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Yup.  Piling on, hoping for a bit of revenge against the perp.   
   >   
   >Ah, so you can prove that he's guilty then?   
      
   Why do you insist on making up stuff you wish I'd said so you can make   
   the argument you want to make instead of the argument that is   
   relevant.   
      
   I have made no such claim.  I cannot prove the allegations nor do I   
   care to.  I expect Moore to be elected and will sit back and enjoy the   
   hypocrisy of the religious right as they seat him in Washington.   
      
   >....or are we simply accepting unsupported accusations of events from   
   >decades ago, that magically appeared just weeks before the election?   
      
   Much like you accepted allegations about Bill Clinton (who at least   
   preferred adults) in the nineties.   
      
   >Hmmm....   
      
   Hmmm. . . indeed.   
      
   >But tell me, if he decides to sue them for damages, and this impacted his   
   >professional standing and as such he doesn't have to show monetary loses, do   
   >you think they would enjoy having to pay him for the rest of their lives   
   >because they couldn't back up their accusations in court?   
      
   And if he loses his suit?  If any of his accusers is able to prove to   
   a jury that he did what they claim?  Are you willing to risk such a   
   conviction?   
      
   >> Not   
   >> that it'll keep him out of office, but it can sure mess up his day and   
   >> sidetrack his campaign.   
   >   
   >And tell me why you think that objective wouldn't be worth a few people   
   >telling lies to make happen?   
      
   What about politicians telling lies when they deny their misbehaviors?   
      
   >Oh, that's right, we're suppose to believe everyone, except the person being   
   >accused.   
      
   Why not?  Isn't that what you did regarding Bill Clinton?  Have you   
   not believed that Obama was a closet gay-Muslim-left wing radical born   
   in Kenya?   
      
   >> But this is the deep south.  Cousins marrying cousins is no big deal   
   >> (which may affect how they vote down there) so no reason to condemn a   
   >> man for hitting on teenage girls, right?   
   >   
   >Sorry, but despite your bigotry it certainly is a big deal.   
      
   It's not bigotry.  It's fact.  In a south filled with deeply   
   conservative Anglos, who else was there to marry?  One was restricted   
   to white mates of your own religion and preferably connected to your   
   clan so as to keep the money in the family.  This was not limited to   
   just the south.  Marrying within one's family has been going on for   
   millennia.   
      
   This cousins to cousins habit destroyed most of the royal houses of   
   Europe.  Or did you not know that the Kaiser, Czar Nicholas and the   
   Empress Victoria were all cousins?  Prince Albert had taken a course   
   of marriage management continent wide and the prolific house of   
   Hanover managed in the 19th century to marry one or another of it's   
   children to almost every royal house in Europe.  In this way, Albert   
   thought, war could be avoided because all European monarchs would   
   belong to the same extended clan and who would attack their own   
   cousin, aunt or uncle?   
      
   >So, now that we've exposed you as a bigot, tell me again why anyone should   
   >believe you, or your support of others who make unsupported accusations?   
      
   Lol!  You haven't shown I'm a bigot, only that you don't like hearing   
   the truth.  My mom was from Alabama and my Dad from Tennessee.  I've   
   been a citizen of the Great State of Georgia for nearly fifty years.   
      
   I know my own people and their history.  That cousin marrying   
   tradition largely ended in the last century.   
      
   Swill   
   --   
   The difference between being ruled by a central government   
   or the 1% is that the government is ultimately answerable   
   to the voters - the 1% are answerable to no one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)