Yes.
All are when nobody’s been actually charged or tried for. Innocent til proven otherwise still stands....what this is is character assassination because it works enough to take down politicians.....guilt or not isn't the issue "doubt" for the voter is.
For withholding judgement in the absence of verifiable evidence???
“We all agree that if the charges against Moore are true then what he did is terribly ugly and evil, especially since he did so as a professing Christian and as someone in power.”
The operative word here is “IF.” I don’t believe any of this and never have.
“You’d Better Put Some Ice On That”
People no longer want their goodness used against them.
I get it. I don’t either.
I actually think Moore is getting Borked or Thomased.
The leftists say everything until they find something that gives them traction with their enemies. Truth does not matter to them. I would just as soon support Moore and discover he was fine after he wins, than to discover he was he was fine after he lost.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules from Rules for Radicals
Saul Alinsky describes 24 rules in Rules for Radicals. Of those 24 rules, 13 are rules of “power tactics”:
1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy
thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.”
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the
enemy.”
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and
actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing
itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of
operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will
break through into its counterside.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive
alternative.”
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
The remaining 11 rules Alinsky describes are concerned with “the ethics of means and ends”:
1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue … Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.”
2. “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”
3. “In war the end justifies almost any means.”
4. “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”
5. “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”
6. “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”
7. “Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”
8. “The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”
9. “Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”
10. “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
11. “Goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”
A stupid article written by a stupid person.
The author makes the (stupid or on purpose?) mistake of assuming the Liberal has the same moral standards as a Conservative.
The Conservative most likely has a Biblical, or near Biblical measure, the Liberal has either a self created measure or none.
from the author (brown):
“Has this compromised our moral authority in the eyes of many Americans?” [voting for Trump]
“On the one hand, it certainly has.”
the fact of this statement, leads me to doubt anything he says about morality. it demonstrates a serious lack of understanding about the definition of “moral authority.”
moral authority derives entirely from the moral law followed by God Almighty. any individual has “moral authority” to the extent they claim a right relationship with God.
thus “moral authority” can only be compromised in someone by a judgment of God Himself, that judgment comes in various forms as the Bible states. to the extent Christians follow the law of God, they are not compromised in any way. to the extent they depart from the law of God they have sinned.
so the question for this guy is simple, how does voting for Trump (or supporting Roy Moore) given what we knew or know about them at the point when we made the decision to support each violate God’s moral law?
since Trump won the election, the decision to vote for him was right in God’s eyes since scripture says God chooses the leaders of nations.
in the case of Moore, God’s ‘jury’ is still out on that.
we weren’t direct witnesses to the charges against Trump or Moore. we have to choose never the less. thus, we look at who has judged him based on what evidence. we look at who suports him based on their character. we look at the candidate’s “fruit” or service so far. all of those are provided by God and thus we can violate no moral law if we use those criteria and our own reason to make a decision of support or opposition. i believe God will not condemn us for a wrong decision in this case. i think, the author brown is way off base here.
Was Moore convicted of something while I was napping?
"Beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits to see if they are of God."
I weighed the evidence before me and made my judgement.
Who isn’t ?
I am voting for Roy Moore on Dec 12th.
If ethics didn’t matter we’d be democrats.
Christianity does not consider a courtship between a 32-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl to be a sin, as long as civil laws are not violated. Rather than a sin, it is seen as a good thing—two mature adults discerning whether they have a vocation to marry each other and try to bring new souls into the world, who are predestined to love God for all eternity in Heaven.
There’s nothing virtuous in the behavior alleged by the three allegations of misconduct (the 14yo, the yearbook/car incident, the groping), nor in the implied allegation of lying. With that said, there are contradictions in the story of the 14yo, the yearbook looks on balance to have been forged, the character of the witnesses is in question, the witnesses are not available for further questioning, there is no common modus operandi in the alleged crimes, and other than the yearbook there is no corroborating evidence of any sort, physical or testimonial. With control of trillions of dollars at stake in the election, it is difficult to take these sorts of claims at face value.
Now there is no law that says that you have to vote for a man if you disapprove of his dating choices. For example, Christianity says that interracial dating is a good thing, but many voters have in the past disapproved of that sort of thing.
We have seen Moore’s character over the last several decades. We know what he stands for. We know what his opponents stand for. Its an easy choice.
The Anita Hill attack on Thomas was fraudulent. She worked for him for years and followed him from job to job. There was no evidence she had a problem until the ambush during his confirmation.
As for Moore and Trump, I would normally give the women the benefit of the doubt if they spoke up at some time other than days before an election after the ballots have been printed (in Moore’s case). And whatever Moore was 40 years ago, we know what he stands for now, and we know what his opponents stand for now.
Elections are always about comparative choices. Always. It is not hypocritical to support Roy Moore compared to an abortion-loving democrat ... even if the charges turned out to be true. There are degrees of bad.
moses
To: Rush Limbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:06 PM
Subject: Moore 2
Never Trumpers and drive by media radio talk hosts are having a field day ignoring the fact that all of the accusers were of the age of legal consent. Including the one claiming when 14 years old. For her accusations are the juiciest. Which they gleefully relate and dwell on in a touchy feel-ly manner as if it came off of a police report yesterday. Not as a unsubstantiated recollection from 40 years ago. Because they know these are damaging accusations which will be almost impossible to disprove.
Despite that fact that it has been uncovered that two of his accusers are working for the Perversion Party and that their accusations are false and politically motivated. The drivebys and the nevers media are not reporting this but are mentioning one accuser is a “Republican” .
Here is background on two accusers. One works for the perverts that one knows the one who claimed she was 14. But was actually 17 at the time? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3603606/posts
Latest charge : Grad book signature a forgery; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3604591/posts
someone named Roy signed it Moore’s last name was added to it. His legal secretary at the time he was a Circuit Court Judge declared it a forgery because her initials DA appear with his signature in that year book. Because she would do so to verify his signature only on his court rullings.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3605761/posts
I’ve always said we’d face the same things we used as wedge issues. That day has come and gone.
Ask that potential Dem senator if he gives a s*it if they are.
Start voting like you actually want to stop the left, and tell the church ladies to go sit on it if they dont like it.