Bobcat Attack - General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events

General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic

Topic: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?

Page: 23 of 29

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 2:57 PM

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more

I don't know why I bother with you. You have no capability to hold a normal conversation or demonstrate a basic level of respect. Any more BS like what you just posted, and I'm out.

The slate article is full of little.
Story 1. Corfman claims Moore is wrong when he says he never met her. So what? Where's the crime? Benefit of the doubt for the left: Let's say Moore is guilty of... having a bad memory. Oh, she also claims he wore tight white underwear. Wow. That's a stretch and surely locks-down her accusations. Right? Hell, I wear tight white underwear. Uh Oh.
Story 2. Moore said he never dated anyone in their teens. Three women say he "asked them out." Now, we don't know that happened, or if a date of any kind happened. Benefit of the doubt: Moore is guilty of asking a teenager out on a date. A date that may or may not have actually happened.
Story 3. Corfman says Moore gave her alcohol, but Moore says it was a dry county, so that's not possible. Oh, but Aha! The county passed alcohol sales in 1971, so Moore is LYING!!!!!!! This MUST mean Moore is a child molester.
Story 4. Moore is married to a woman 14 years younger. Therefore, he prayed on little girls.
Story 5. This is the Gloria Allred thing we just discussed. There is MUCH to distrust about this whole sordid story. One handwriting expert has already said that at least some of the yearbook writing WAS tampered with and was much newer than 30 years old. Hmmmm.
That's it. From that, you are satisfied Moore is a child molester. I'm not. Now, let's go on about our regularly scheduled business.

Note: Here's what the accuser's said about the yearbook: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/d... /

But to the larger point, you see 5 accusations against Moore, none of which he could rebut without inconsistencies (at best) or lies (at worst) and don't become more suspicious?

And again, the question we need to answer is not if Roy Moore is guilty of a crime and deserves to go to jail, but whether you think he should be a US Senator. There's enough unexplained sketchy behavior, and witnesses with no reason at all to lie, for me to make that determination in a way I'm comfortable with. 6 women accused Roy Moore of similar behavior. Many of them have corroborating witnesses. Roy Moore's rebuttals contain inconsistencies. For him to be completely innocent, I'd have to believe that 6 people who are strangers to Roy Moore arbitrarily decided to concoct very similar lies to discredit him and got family members and friends to support them. What's their motivation to do so? Why should I believe that when believing 6 similar stories with witness accounts is 1000% more logical and likely?

And I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by asking you to review facts. You might want to take a look at your previous response to me though. I'm not sure how it demonstrates an appropriate level of respect.

Last Edited: 12/21/2017 3:22:13 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Kevin Finnegan

12/21/2017 4:28 PM

This seems to have devolved into territory fit for Carl Sandburg's quote: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell."

Facts against you--Yeah, but is it against the law to hit on teenage girls?

Law against you--But, it's he said/she said, and really, is that note his writing?

Law and facts catching up--time to start yelling like hell

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 5:21 PM

finnOhio wrote:expand_more

Who's yelling Finn? Not me. I'm just stating the FACTS as they are and avoiding any jumps to conclusion--which BLSOS does without hesitation. He's OK with that. I'm not. What's the controversey?

Facts against me? No, they're not. I posed a legitimate counter question. One that neither you nor BLSOS has answered.
Law against you? Correct. It's he said/she said. I'm not willing to jump to a conclusion. You are.
Law and facts catching up? I don't know what you're saying here....

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 5:34 PM

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more

finnOhio wrote:expand_more

Whatever you say, man. I'm very comfortable with my stance on this matter. It's based on a logical reading of the situation. That you can't argue against that logic without accusing me of partisanship tells me what I need to know. I've responded to every point you've made, and asked you to respond to mine, as well as the accusations against Trump ND Moore. You ignored the accusations against Trump, and ignored the major substance of the Moore argument made in the Slate piece, which is about the accumulated impact of all of the accusations.

All you did was just wishcast that the accusations we're lies. But you haven't attempted to explain why 20 some odd people, including witnesses, who don't know each night other all choose to tell the same sorts of lies about Roy Moore. You havent explained why do many people in his town came forward about these rumors.

You've just said "these could be lies", without even the slightest justification for why you think that.

And you're doing it all in the name of due process and under the guise of impartiality and accusing me of blind partisanship and jumping to conclusions despite the preponderance of evidence supporting my conclusions.

Last Edited: 12/21/2017 5:41:40 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 5:38 PM

10-4. I think we both know what we need to.

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 6:02 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more

You ignored the accusations against Trump, and ignored the major substance of the Moore argument made in the Slate piece, which is about the accumulated impact of all of the accusations.

The accumulated accusations? Of what? That Moore flirted with teenagers? That Moore asked teenagers to "go out on a date"? That Moore liked to chat with/flirt with teeny boppers from his home town?

So what. If he did, that makes him a weirdo from 30 years ago, when he was in his early 30s. Maybe he was a bit of a nerd and thought he could hit it off with teenage girls. Who knows? Does that make him an oddball? Perhaps. Does that make him a child molester? HELL NO!

You don't like the guy because he's a staunch conservative. OK. But at least be honest about that. Anyway, he lost. It's over. It doesn't mater. Much like the comments earlier in this thread protecting Queen Hillary. No reason to attack her, because she's out of power, right? Same with Moore. Who cares?

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 6:25 PM

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more

You ignored the accusations against Trump, and ignored the major substance of the Moore argument made in the Slate piece, which is about the accumulated impact of all of the accusations.

Yikes. You and I have very different definitions of "odd ball."

And of what's acceptable behavior.

Here I thought you were just blindly supporting Moore because of politics. It turns out, you think his behavior was totally fine, even if the accusations are true. That's. . .disturbing. And I think you should seriously re-think that.

Also, it's worth pointing out that multiple accusers say Moore attempted to initiate sexual contact. You seem to not realize that.

I'm honestly just baffled at this point.

Last Edited: 12/21/2017 6:33:54 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 6:32 PM

Again, we don't know, for sure, what his behavior was. We have only accusations. Who knows what the truth is? This is all at least 30 maybe 40 years ago. And also, again, if conservatives knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that Moore was a child molester, would they vote for him anyway? Your answer to that reveals all we need to know.

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 6:35 PM

I mean, you just said the accusations could be true and it'd make him an "oddball" not a child molester.

So, what should I conclude? I don't think you've created the "gotcha" here that you think you have.

Last Edited: 12/21/2017 6:36:06 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 6:44 PM

I guess that begs the question, what is a child molester? If you have a 32 year old male, and he asks a 16 year old out on a date (and this takes place in 1976), does that make the male a child molester? Does that carry a prison sentence?

If it happened, yes he's an oddball. If it can be proven 40 years later, does it eliminate him from consideration for senate? Yes. It would. Clearly the problem here is, we don't have proof. Not to the satisfaction of Libs AND Republicans. If it were indisputable, no one would argue. Do you agree with that?

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 6:53 PM

Okay. Whatever, man. I'm not going down this rabbit hole again.

You don't think there's proof, and even if there were, he's just an "oddball." I don't feel comfortable with this conversation anymore.

Honest advice, given that you post with your real name: I'd consider editing some of what you've said here.

Last Edited: 12/21/2017 6:54:19 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 6:55 PM

I post by my real name with pride. Something you lack. I don't have any trouble with anything I've posted. Try it some time.

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 6:57 PM

Just trying to help.

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 7:00 PM

Are you going to answer my question? If we had indisputable proof, would conservatives back Moore? What do you think?

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 7:17 PM

Yikes. You're so lost here it's actually sad. Maybe you don't realize it, but you defended the idea of a 32 year old dating 14 year olds earlier. Maybe drop the moralizing tone?

But to answer your question: no, I don't think all conservatives would have voted for Moore if there were definitive proof of his guilt.

I'm not sure why you think this is so relevant.

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 7:22 PM

Easy. Because it illustrates the delimitation line between basic common sense and politics. The only difference of opinion here is whether or not Moore is guilty of child molestation. You are sure he is. I am not. This is where we started this debate, and this is where we are now. No further along. If Moore is guilty, then Im with you. If he's not, are you with me?

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 8:01 PM

Of course we're no further along. You refused to address the actual facts in a cogent way.

Do you really think otherwise? You didn't even address a third of what you were asked to, and ended up defending a 32 year old dating a 14 year old instead. That you think you've defended your viewpoint is insane. You basically just said "everybody is lying" and even if they're not, Moore's just an "oddball." That's not a logical defense. It doesn't provide any motive for the accusers lies, or given any reason why their stories, as corroborated by witnesses, don't hold up.

Your defense is just that Roy Moore's defense, which has been called into question by facts, might just mean he has a bad memory.

That is, frankly, stupid.

Last Edited: 12/21/2017 8:08:00 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 8:08 PM

Right. You asked me to address Moore's accusers one by one, using the Salon article. I did that. I pointed out that most of the accusations did not rise to the level of "child molestation," something that you've thrown around since the beginning. I've also pointed out that the key difference of opinion here is whether or not the alleged actions are, in fact, child molestation. I don't think so. You do.

Now you're trying to character assassinate me. Nice try but your opinion of me is less than meaningless.

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/21/2017 8:30 PM

You're doing that to yourself, my man. I'm literally just repeating what you keep saying, in disbelief.

You're also demonstrating your ignorance regarding the severity of the accusations. He was accused of molestation. Not just "asking girls on dates." If the accusations are true, they unquestionably count as child molestation. Even if you desperately want to move the goalposts now that you've inexplicably opted to defend Moore even if the accusations are true.

That you're this deep into the conversation and don't realize that isn't a glowing reflection on your position here.

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/21/2017 9:01 PM

Ha! Nice threat.

Again, no. You asked me to defend Salon's listing of accusations. I saw nothing that rises to the description of child molestation. Not even close. I will also remind you--needless as it may seem to be--that I have continuously said the Moore may be guilty, or he may not be. I don't know. I will also remind you that you don't know either, much as you would like to believe you do.

I am quite confident in my position because I have easily claimed to not know for sure what the truth is. Your position requires guesswork. Amazing that you are so confident in that guesswork.

Oh and if the accusations were based on molestation, why didn't the Salon article make that clear? Maybe you should consult with Salon.

Last Edited: 12/21/2017 9:02:22 PM by Robert Fox

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/22/2017 7:46 AM

First of all, it was a Slate article.

So given that you've gotten the source wrong 4 times, maybe go back and read it again. They made it very clear. They used the phrase "sexually assaulted her in her car" with a big, bold hyperlink.

Maybe the reason you "don't know" is because you didn't actually try to know? Your grasp of the accusations is obviously lacking.

Multiple women accused Moore of trying to intimate sexual contact with them when they were teenagers. Dozens of news sources have reported this. This information's a Google search away. It was widely reported information for a month.

That you don't know this, despite claiming to have responded to the "Salon" article is not a great sign for your credibility here. You are completely oblivious to very basic facts of the case but more than willing to lecture other people about not jumping to conclusions.

My position here is simple. It's that when we have overwhelming evidence suggesting somebody is at best a "Robert Fox Oddball" and at worst, a pedophile, the moral thing to do is not elect him to Senate. You, on the other hand, ignore logic and a preponderance of fact, claim victims could be lying without proving a reasonable explanation as to why or how, and then claim that to be due process.

Last Edited: 12/22/2017 8:10:36 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/22/2017 8:00 AM

Slate, Salon. Whatever. I do hope that my error won't hurt my credibility on BA.com. It could call into question everything I've said so far, couldn't it?

And I did address the "sexually assaulted her in her car." That was part of Story 5. That is the same story that has brought in our illustrious Gloria Allred. It is also the same story that is enrolled in a handwriting expert assessing whether or not the accusers best piece of evidence is, in fact, a fake.

Also, please help me understand this change of direction:

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more

And again, the question we need to answer is not if Roy Moore is guilty of a crime and deserves to go to jail, but whether you think he should be a US Senator.
[/QUOTE]Later:
[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame]
He was accused of molestation. Not just "asking girls on dates." If the accusations are true, they unquestionably count as child molestation. Even if you desperately want to move the goalposts now that you've inexplicably opted to defend Moore even if the accusations are true.

So which is it? Are we chasing down these accusations simply to reach the conclusion that this man is not Senator material? Or are we on a full-fledged criminal pursuit of child molestation?

You have said both. I suppose your angle is "whatever it takes to bring him--and all conservatives--down."

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/22/2017 8:12 AM

I give up man. Have a nice Christmas. Not gonna bother

We're miles apart here, as usual. Don't care enough to try and change your mind anymore. Have a nice Christmas, genuinely.

Last Edited: 12/22/2017 8:23:47 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/22/2017 8:19 AM

I agree, let's call it quits. Merry Christmas to you, too.

mail

person

Alan Swank

12/22/2017 9:28 AM

This might be the most disturbing part of the whole thing.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/10/frank_...