Home » Blog, General » 40 Year Old Accusations? Really?

40 Year Old Accusations? Really?

I don’t know whether or not Roy Moore actually did the things he is accused of doing, but unlike some, I actually care.

I have seen innumerable statements on Facebook, comment sections of articles, and so on, stating that Christians conservatives are really hypocritical for supporting Moore.  This is interesting, because from the very beginning, I’ve seen many conservatives ready to give weight to the accusations, and those who ‘supported Moore’ did not support Moore so much as dispute the idea that just because the WAPO reports something, it must be accepted.  Here is one of my favorites, especially this bit:

If the allegations are true? Well, of COURSE. If the allegations are true, the citizens of Alabama ought to do more than politely request that Moore step out of the race. If the allegations are true, they ought all to pitch in, buy the world’s biggest frying pan, fill it with about half a foot of piping hot bacon grease, and fry the good judge a deep brown on both sides.

Now I will admit it—that previous paragraph was a tad flamboyant. But I put it that way for a purpose. A defense of the presumption of innocence ought never to be read as a defense of the guilty. If he is guilty of this, he deserves everything he is getting and more.

Exactly right.  Indeed, I saw one of my own points put pretty well on an internet comment, to the effect of, “Of course conservatives will throw Moore under the bus if he is guilty.  That’s the difference between conservatives and liberals.  Conservatives toss their perverts; liberals stand by them.”  Again, the question is whether or not the charges are true.  Already, I’ve noticed quite a few on the conservative side stepping away from Moore, including Rush Limbaugh, perhaps, whose comments seemed to suggest that he was inclined to think Moore was guilty as charged.

Anyway, this whole thing has prompted an interesting development re: sexual allegations, in that after decades of sticking up for Bill Clinton and deriding the women who accused him of RAPE, the rank hypocrisy is so profound even they cannot miss it.  But that will have to be another topic, perhaps, because my purpose in this essay is to ask people who instantly believed the WAPO whether or not they really had a sound basis for doing so.  That is the heart of all such accusations: are they true?

My target audience is not those who backed Moore, who backed him initially but no longer do, but those who leapt to “we must believe the women!” Who–coincidentally?–all seemed to be liberal atheists.

Let us lay out the basic outline of what transpired.

Roy Moore, a Christian conservative who liberal progressives especially detest, was accused just a few weeks before an election, of various sexual misdeeds that occurred nearly 40 years ago, 38 to be exact.  These accusations were made in a Washington Post article, the WAPO being a ‘news’ outlet that is notorious in its left-leaning bias.

We are given the names of some of the women:  Leigh Corfman, who says she was 14 at the time.

Moore’s first encounter with Corfman was with her mother present.  Pretty brazen move, for Moore, I’d say.  In support of this accusation, one anonymous source and Betsy Davis, allegedly childhood friends, are reported to have told the WAPO that they recall Corfman telling them only “that she was seeing an older man.”  According to the article, Corfman’s own mother was not told until “the mid-1990s”.  Corfman recalls certain details, only some of are things we can corroborate (he called her on HER phone number).  We are told Moore touched her intimately, over her clothes, while he himself was also down to his under garments.  We are not, naturally, supposed to ask why it was that Corfman thought it a good idea to go on a car ride with Moore, nor what might have prompted Moore to think Corfman would welcome such advances; we’re not supposed to read into her (boasts?) that “she was seeing an older man.”  We are not supposed to give any weight to the fact that, after she asked to be taken home, Moore did so without objection.

The WAPO is not curious about this, and neither, evidently, are the liberal atheists who accepted this depiction on its face.

We are then told of other incidents by women who found Moore’s attention “flattering at the time” but who also remained silent about their ‘troubled’ views as they grew older.  WAPO says:  “None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.”  No one wonders why, if this is the case, that we’re hearing about it at all.  We are told that the WAPO interviews more than 30 people.  By my count, only about 6 names are actually listed in the article as references.

We are told that none of the women knew each other, and that they did not approach the WAPO, but rather WAPO approached them.  We are not supposed to be curious how the WAPO found out about them, if indeed the women kept the matters to themselves over the years.

To sum it up, we have a highly partisan news outfit–the WAPO–magically coming up with 4 ‘reluctant’ women just before an election, who give us their word that they are telling the truth, corroborated by a couple of mothers who offer mild corroboration, and 30 unnamed people–all of whom, I suppose, have motives as pure as the wind driven snow.  Just like the WAPO!

And this is what liberal atheists believed instantly.

Since the article, there is one more woman who has come forward, assisted by the completely unpartisan Gloria Allred.

Again, we aren’t supposed to be curious about how this managed to unfold so quickly after 4 decades of nearly complete silence.  But we do have the emotional testimony which indeed sounds compelling.  Nelson said that Moore tried to grope her and then when she resisted she says that he says, and I quote, “You’re just a child,’ …. ‘I am the district attorney of Etowah County and if you tell anyone about this, no one will ever believe you.'” Pretty good memory, right?

She remembers all sorts of stuff:  “Mr. Moore was wearing brown hush puppies on his feet.”

We are told the name of the restaurant, “the Olde Hickory House.”  Interestingly, Beverly Nelson has a yearbook where Roy Moore evidently wrote, “To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say, ‘Merry Christmas.'” [signed] “Roy Moore, D.A.”.

She remembers other details:  it was after her shift at 10 p.m.., which we are told is when the restaurant closed.  It was cold.  Her boyfriend was late.  Moore happened to walk out at the same time, and saw her waiting, and offered to take her home.  She describes where Moore parked.  She gives a pretty vivid and detailed account of what then transpired.   Very detailed stuff!

She said she left after her shift was over, which is the same time the restaurant closed.  We are led to believe she had been sitting there for some time (no one pressed her on it), as her boyfriend was late.  No one seems to wonder how it is that Moore was leaving a restaurant that was closed, and had been closed long enough for at least some of the workers (Beverly) to have already left and then sit around for a bit.

She says in her statement that Moore would stay until closing often, but this seems to be a late departure by Moore even on this view.  And besides, wouldn’t he be seen by others leaving so late?  Or are we to believe that she was not only ending her shift, but she was the last person on the premises–besides Moore, who exits AFTER she leaves AFTER the restaurant is closed.

Then there is the thing about the yearbook.  The following picture is provided:

 

This is interesting corroboration.  But I have questions.

If you are going to sign a yearbook, why would you list the date?  Its a YEARBOOK.  One already has a good idea of the date, no?  Why would anyone say, “Merry Christmas” and then repeat himself one word later, with “Christmas 1977”?  This redundancy is compounded by yet another redundancy with Moore not only telling us it is “Christmas 1977” but ALSO 12-22-77.  And now this is bizarre–why does a man who is the DA think that after putting DA after his name, he thinks he needs to jog her memory further by putting the name of the restaurant?–which just happens to be the ‘scene of the crime.’  How lucky for Beverly to have such corroborating documentation!

And yet, this lucky corroboration begs another question.  What kind of dumb ass DISTRICT ATTORNEY writes something as incriminating as this in the yearbook of a woman he later assaults?  How stupid would one have to be?  Speaking of stupid, Moore was actually the ASSISTANT District Attorney.  An ADA would not generally represent himself as a DA.*  It is easy to gloss over the fact that Young claimed that Moore said he was the DA (“I am the district attorney of Etowah County”), suggesting that she was young and ignorant, and anyway, it was a traumatic incident.  However, a few weeks earlier in the calm of the restaurant, the older and well-educated Moore would know how to sign his name:  Roy Moore, ADA.

I note, too, that the rest is in cursive, but the date and name of the restaurant is printed.

Something doesn’t smell right about this yearbook signature, but at least its some kind of documentary evidence.  And she does say that she is willing to testify under oath, which is great.  But what she really needs, like the other women in the WAPO post, is a good cross-examination.  Ah, but what poor luck for them… the statute of limitation has expired for all of them.  No justice for them is available… only a fortuitously timed assassination of a man’s reputation.

Now I want to be clear.  For all I know, these women are telling the God’s honest truth.  I do not know them, and I do not know Moore.  I do not live in Alabama, so I don’t have to make a judgement here.  My complaint is the one I already made, where people are alleged to be sexual predators and then either, A., allowed to continue their predation for decades because no one presses charges on them or B., they are deprived of any ability to clear their name if they are falsely accused.  If we find a way to verify these charges, I will be happy to join the flock of denouncers.

I am just very curious to know why atheists will believe accounts that are 4 decades old.  Who can remember things like “Mr. Moore was wearing brown hush puppies on his feet.” after 40 years?  Do 14 year olds in 1979 have their own telephone numbers?  Where is the skepticism from the avowed skeptics?

Could some atheists please explain to me why we can trust these 40 year old accounts coming from two sources (Allred and the WAPO) who are known to be biased?  Who can believe anything this detailed and specific after so many years, presented at such a suspicious moment?

Much appreciated.   The comment section is yours.  Thanks!

* I thought this was the case, but I chatted with some I know who works at the level of a state supreme court to see if my assessment was accurate, and without knowing why I was asking, affirmed it.

Share

10 Responses to 40 Year Old Accusations? Really?

  1. Hi,

    Thanks for inviting me! Like you, I also care whether or not Roy Moore is guilty of the things he has recently been accused of doing, but apparently unlike you, the outcome would not materially alter my opinion of him.

    Roy Moore is an attention-seeking theocratic activist who would like to make private sexual conduct (homosexuality) ILLEGAL. This is the antithesis of libertarianism, for anyone who still cares about such things. He has twice been ejected from the (secular) position of judge. The first time for placing religious laws above human laws (regarding his stupid Ten Commandments statue) and the second time also for placing religious laws above human laws (regarding the supreme court decision relating to gay marriage).

    He is clearly unfit to hold elected office by the standards of anyone who doesn’t only *pretend* to care about the constitution as a cover for advancing Christian/Dominionist goals.

    Quite separate to all that, he has been accused of some historical sexual offences.

    To those who are currently championing the “innocent until proven guilty” line – yes, I agree that is a good principle. But what about OJ? What about Bill Clinton? [I happen to think that both of those “gentlemen” were probably guilty of what they were accused, but never proven in a court of law, of having done. Consequently, I would not vote for them in any election where their opponent was not demonstrably a much worse person.]

    What about Benghazi? Can we get a little consistency out of the Fox News-watching, Trump-supporting Religious Right here? “Lock her up”? For precisely WHAT? If you wanted Hillary Clinton in prison then you have all your work cut out for you explaining why Roy Moore shouldn’t be there too. Good luck with that.

    And yes Tony, I remember all of your “innocent until proven guilty” moralising about Hillary Clinton. Oh wait, no I don’t. Because it wasn’t “liberal atheists” who were pushing the unverified claims there. It was Fox News (a “news” outlet that is notorious in its right-leaning bias, but which you happen to like because it confirms all your biases).

    “Conservatives toss their perverts; liberals stand by them.”

    Delusional, but funny, given the recorded statements of the current Republican-elected-and-supported occupant of the White House.

    You describe Roy Moore as “a Christian conservative who liberal progressives especially detest”. Why might that be? Could it be something to do with his theocratic tendencies which you, as a fellow traveller, may have overlooked? The guy is on record as wanting to make “homosexual behaviour” illegal. Let me say that again – ILLEGAL! Why might a liberal progressive, or even possibly someone claiming to be a libertarian, detest that kind of sentiment?

    I’m not interested in engaging with your second-guessing of historical abuse accusations. I think it’s fair to say that neither of us knows what it’s like to be a young woman who is sexually assaulted by a man many years her senior, so I’m not really comfortable saying what that person should or should not do. Perhaps in choosing between the technically-more-fair-but-in-reality-heavily-prejudiced-towards-the-richer-male-party legal route and the less-legally-fair-but-undeniably-more-effective media route, you could understand someone picking the softer option. It might be a bit like your attitude towards supreme court rulings – you know, if it goes against your interests then it’s tyranny, but if it goes in favour of your interests then…. well, you’ll take it.

    “My complaint is the one I already made, where people are alleged to be sexual predators and then either, A., allowed to continue their predation for decades because no one presses charges on them or B., they are deprived of any ability to clear their name if they are falsely accused.”

    I agree that this is not ideal from any perspective. But unless your position is that abused teenage girls had better bring charges immediately or else shut up forever then I don’t think you can consistently claim these individuals should not be allowed their right to free speech (you know, like rich people get [CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION]).

    Bottom line, if you support this guy but not Harvey Weinstein then you’re a partisan. If you don’t oppose this guy’s agenda then you’re a fake libertarian.

  2. What he said.

  3. Um. A long essay that all only supports my description, “who liberal progressives especially detest”.

    I won’t begin to get into a discussion of your lack of awareness about the Constitutional distinction between ‘states’ vs ‘Federal’, which apparently has you, as a Brit, utterly flummoxed. The main thing is this:

    “I’m not interested in engaging with your second-guessing of historical abuse accusations.”

    Then why are you here again, exactly?

    Sounds to me like you aren’t interested in discussing them because you know they are flimsy. Oh, and you hate Roy Moore, notwithstanding.

  4. Hi,

    Thanks for inviting me! Like you, I also care whether or not Roy Moore is guilty of the things he has recently been accused of doing, but apparently unlike you, the outcome would not materially alter my opinion of him.

    Roy Moore is an attention-seeking theocratic activist who would like to make private sexual conduct (homosexuality) ILLEGAL. This is the antithesis of libertarianism, for anyone who still cares about such things. He has twice been ejected from the (secular) position of judge. The first time for placing religious laws above human laws (regarding his stupid Ten Commandments statue) and the second time also for placing religious laws above human laws (regarding the supreme court decision relating to gay marriage).

    He is clearly unfit to hold elected office by the standards of anyone who doesn’t only *pretend* to care about the constitution as a cover for advancing Christian/Dominionist goals.

    Quite separate to all that, he has been accused of some historical sexual offences.

    To those who are currently championing the “innocent until proven guilty” line – yes, I agree that is a good principle. But what about OJ? What about Bill Clinton? [I happen to think that both of those “gentlemen” were probably guilty of what they were accused, but never proven in a court of law, of having done. Consequently, I would not vote for them in any election where their opponent was not demonstrably a much worse person.]

    What about Benghazi? Can we get a little consistency out of the Fox News-watching, Trump-supporting Religious Right here? “Lock her up”? For precisely WHAT? If you wanted Hillary Clinton in prison then you have all your work cut out for you explaining why Roy Moore shouldn’t be there too. Good luck with that.

    And yes Tony, I remember all of your “innocent until proven guilty” moralising about Hillary Clinton. Oh wait, no I don’t. Because it wasn’t “liberal atheists” who were pushing the unverified claims there. It was Fox News (a “news” outlet that is notorious in its right-leaning bias, but which you happen to like because it confirms all your biases).

    “Conservatives toss their perverts; liberals stand by them.”

    Delusional, but funny, given the recorded statements of the current Republican-elected-and-supported occupant of the White House.

    You describe Roy Moore as “a Christian conservative who liberal progressives especially detest”. Why might that be? Could it be something to do with his theocratic tendencies which you, as a fellow traveller, may have overlooked? The guy is on record as wanting to make “homosexual behaviour” illegal. Let me say that again – ILLEGAL! Why might a liberal progressive, or even possibly someone claiming to be a libertarian, detest that kind of sentiment?

    I’m not interested in engaging with your second-guessing of historical abuse accusations. I think it’s fair to say that neither of us knows what it’s like to be a young woman who is sexually assaulted by a man many years her senior, so I’m not really comfortable saying what that person should or should not do. Perhaps in choosing between the technically-more-fair-but-in-reality-heavily-prejudiced-towards-the-richer-male-party legal route and the less-legally-fair-but-undeniably-more-effective media route, you could understand someone picking the softer option. It might be a bit like your attitude towards supreme court rulings – you know, if it goes against your interests then it’s tyranny, but if it goes in favour of your interests then…. well, you’ll take it.

    “My complaint is the one I already made, where people are alleged to be sexual predators and then either, A., allowed to continue their predation for decades because no one presses charges on them or B., they are deprived of any ability to clear their name if they are falsely accused.”

    I agree that this is not ideal from any perspective. But unless your position is that abused teenage girls had better bring charges immediately or else shut up forever then I don’t think you can consistently claim these individuals should not be allowed their right to free speech (you know, like rich people get [CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION]).

    Bottom line, if you support this guy but not Harvey Weinstein then you’re a partisan. If you don’t oppose this guy’s agenda then you’re a fake libertarian

  5. “Um. A long essay that all only supports my description, “who liberal progressives especially detest”.”

    Irrelevant – I emphatically support due process even for those I detest. The much more interesting questions to me are; 1) why are certain conservatives treating these particular historical sexual allegations differently to others, 2) what’s your interest in this story, and 3) why don’t YOU detest Roy Moore?

    That last one truly occupies me. Do fake *ahem* sorry – i mean “constitutional” libertarians NOT recoil in horror from the proposed criminalisation of private sexual conduct? How much more “Big Government” can you get than judicial intrusion into the bedroom? When ARE all you Second Amendment warriors planning on getting out your guns in defence of individual rights? I guess if state-level oppression is directed against ‘Teh Gays’ then its kind of ok, yeah?

    Your silence is the equivalent of a statement, so it’s entirely your own call how much of a gigantic hypocrite you want to look here. Imagine talking to someone who was defending a guy that wanted to criminalise Christianity, and then review your own comments through that lens (just in case self-interest gives your moral compass a useful nudge).

    “I won’t begin to get into a discussion of your lack of awareness about the Constitutional distinction between ‘states’ vs ‘Federal’’

    Because criminalising homosexuality on an individual state level is somehow fine with you? What the f**k are you smoking? I have previously raised with you the issue that libertarianism potentially allows morally reprehensibly local laws to go unchallenged. The perpetuation of Jim Crow in Southern states was an example, as I recall. I assumed that you would address these instances of state-level totalitarian bigotry as regrettable collateral damage for the greater good of personal freedom. It honestly didn’t occur to me that you would actively defend them.

    “Then why are you here again, exactly?”

    You invited me. Cordially.

    “Sounds to me like you aren’t interested in discussing them because you know they are flimsy. Oh, and you hate Roy Moore, notwithstanding.”

    I have no idea whether or not these allegations are true, but I would like to see some consistency from a (self-appointed) spokesperson for a political block that allegedly “toss their perverts” (despite propelling at least one of them into the frikkin’ White House).

  6. “Because criminalising homosexuality on an individual state level is somehow fine with you?”

    Why should I discuss this if you cannot even understand the difference between state and Federal under the U.S. Constitution?

    Hey, at least you are in good company on this one. Even most American liberals can’t fathom it.

    “You invited me. Cordially.”

    Yes. To talk about why you accepted the accusations against Moore on their face. But you don’t want to talk about that, even though you do accept them, despite your protestations. The other stuff is just you showing that you can’t get past the red mist in your eyes to have a cogent conversation on whether or not these accusations are epistemologically robost.

    “I have no idea whether or not these allegations are true, but I would like to see some consistency from”

    And this statement assumes that the allegations are true, which, AS YOU JUST SAID, and I QUOTE:

    “I have no idea whether or not these allegations are true”

    You obviously DO think the allegations are true. Cogency. Is it too much to ask for? Hence also,

    “Bottom line, if you support this guy but not Harvey Weinstein then you’re a partisan.”

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you don’t know if Moore is guilty of these claims AND demand that I denounce him AS IF he is guilty, at the same time. That’s irrational, albeit typical.

    This blog post is not really about Roy Moore. This blog post is about why secular humanists liberal progressive atheists accepted unsubstantiated testimony about events that occurred 40 years ago. Care to discuss that, or not?

  7. You invited me here to talk about something that you made up in your head then. Forgive me for not playing along.

    There are a number of differences between the accusations that have been made against Louis CK, Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, Al Franken, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton etc etc etc. There are also differences in the responses that each of these “gentlemen” have made to their respective accusers, but nothing (as far as I am aware) has been proven in a court of law in any relevant case. I personally suspect that there is at least some degree of truth to all of these allegations, but I do not know.

    So, when you say that I accept the accusations against Roy Moore on their face that is simply false. I merely pointed out that he is getting rather different treatment from evangelical voters and some conservative media voices than he would have had any right to expect if he was any of the other men on that list (apart, of course, from The Donald). Any of them get sympathetic interviews on Fox or have their excuses made for them on Breitbart? Unlikely.

    It is also interesting to notice that a number of Alabama republicans rushed to defend Roy Moore ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE IS GUILTY. Is this loyalty, or just a closer knowledge of the facts? To me it all speaks to the way that partisanship rots principle, but maybe those guys were already somewhat deficient in the latter to begin with.

    There’s lots of interesting things to discuss here. But so long as you are quoting me saying things like “I have no idea whether or not these allegations are true” and responding with devastating logic that “this statement assumes that the allegations are true”, it really doesn’t look like we’re going to get very far.

    “This blog post is about why secular humanists liberal progressive atheists accepted unsubstantiated testimony about events that occurred 40 years ago. Care to discuss that, or not?”

    I don’t think I have much to contribute to that discussion. Looks like you confused me with a secular humanist liberal progressive atheist who better fits your preconceptions.

    “Why should I discuss this if you cannot even understand the difference between state and Federal under the U.S. Constitution?”

    This is a very nit-picky response to a very straightforward enquiry. I don’t think many people would care whether it was the state or federal government that was enacting the relevant legislation when the police broke down their bedroom door to arrest them for private sexual behaviour. Whether that behaviour is homosexual, interracial (cf Loving vs Virginia) or just a non-judicially-approved sexual position. I think your disinclination to explain yourself on this point speaks volumes. Is it truly your position that in evaluating the morality of a government representative who wants to make consensual adult homosexuality illegal, it really matters whether that person is working at a state or federal level?

  8. “You invited me here to talk about something that you made up in your head then. Forgive me for not playing along.”

    Dude, if it didn’t apply to you, it didn’t apply to you. That’s all you’d have to say. Forgive me for not wanting to play along with your white hot hatred of a man, posing as a legitimately thought out position.

    “There are a number of differences between the accusations that have been made against Louis CK, Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, Al Franken, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton etc etc etc.”

    Irrelevant to the OP. Read the OP. If it doesn’t apply to you, I cordially invite you to move along.

    “So, when you say that I accept the accusations against Roy Moore on their face that is simply false.”

    That’s not what I’m doing.

    Your charge that I’m a hypocrite logically contains the admission that you accept the accusations. Follow along closely:

    1. A person can only be a hypocrite if they justify behavior they say they condemn.
    2. You are calling me a hypocrite.
    3. For that to be true, I must be justifying Moore’s behavior, despite condemning it.
    4. For that to be true, Moore actually had to behave in that manner.
    5. For you to lodge the claim, you must believe he actually did behave in that manner.

    If #4 is not true, your whole accusations re: me being a hypocrite are absurdly irrational. THAT is my point.

    Now, as for accepting them ‘on their face,’ at the time of my writing, there was nothing more than the WAPO piece and the Beverly Young thing. So, if you accepted them–but not necessarily on their face–then viola! You suddenly fall back into the purview of this OP. And you are once again cordially invited to explain how, with this scant evidence, you nonetheless pieced together your view that he is guilty.

    Or, you can be consistent with your other remarks, and drop your accusation that I am a hypocrite; if, that is, you really mean it when you say you don’t know if he’s guilty.

    (Damn it, Jim, I’ll denounce him when in fact I know he’s guilty! No problem. But of course, that’s not really the OP. My OP stands, even if, and *especially if* we decide he is guilty–from the evidence I described.

    Ponder that.)

    “It is also interesting to notice that a number of Alabama”

    Irrelevant to the OP. I cordially invited you here to discuss the OP. If you’re not going to discuss the OP, cordially… move on.

    Please see again: “My target audience is not those who backed Moore, who backed him initially but no longer do, but those who leapt to “we must believe the women!” Who–coincidentally?–all seemed to be liberal atheists.”

    And if you don’t fit into the category of “who leapt to ‘we must believe the women’!’ Then kindly exclude yourself from the category, and cordially… move on.

    (Although, to be perfectly frank, I don’t think any honest reader of this exchange is going to believe your protestations. But, that’s not my problem. That’s just me, as a friend, telling you that you have a booger on your nose. You’re welcome.)

    “I don’t think I have much to contribute to that discussion. Looks like you confused me with a secular humanist liberal progressive atheist who better fits your preconceptions.”

    Preconceptions, nuthin. Observations.

    Maybe I’ll have better luck next time.

    Or, one of the other liberal progressive atheists I interact with, or who finds this, will not be as reluctant as you to acknowledge that he did conclude from this material that he believed Moore was guilty, and then (a man can dream!) a proper conversation can follow.

  9. Small correction, I only suggested – cordially – that you were acting like a hypocrite for claiming to be a constitutional libertarian while also refusing to criticise (and denigrating those who do criticise) a theocratic authoritarian for what I can only assume are shallow partisan motivations.

    Now don’t be so salty. Salt makes you thirsty. If you get thirsty, try some cordial. 🙂

  10. This is the most sense you’ve made so far. The only problem is that i have no idea what on earth any of this has to do with WEINSTEIN.

    But anyway, if that’s what you meant, now I understand a little better. But I’m still not inclined to debate it on THIS post.

    You may instead put it here:
    http://sntjohnny.com/front/proposal-every-state-secede-united-states/3045.html

    This provides a more logical entry into the topic. Note, that post is dripping with irony. Still, you may begin to understand how it answers your charge of hypocrisy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*