Althouse: "Me and the wife are thinking about voting for Moore, but I just don’t like some of the things they saying about him."

December 11, 2017

"Me and the wife are thinking about voting for Moore, but I just don’t like some of the things they saying about him."

Roll Call finds an Alabaman to quote.

325 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 325 of 325

Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Blogger Inga said...
“Allred retained Georgia-based handwriting expert Arthur Anthony to assess the yearbook signature and cross-examine it with copies and originals of Moore’s signature on other documents. Anthony concluded that the signature is indeed Moore’s, Allred said at a news conference Friday afternoon in Atlanta, where she handed out Anthony’s report.

Nelson told ABC News on Friday that she later added the date (“12-22-77”) and location (“Olde Hickory House”) beneath Moore’s message and signature. But she insisted that Moore, who later became the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, penned the note and his name.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/roy-moore-accuser-says-added-date-location-yearbook-note

12/8/17, 3:59 PM”

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=7824994238957990514&blogID=6329595&isPopup=false&page=2; 12/11/17, 2:30 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Blogger Inga said...
“Inga, you know, it's OK to say "Gee, looks like I was snookered because I wanted so badly to believe her." Doubling down to defend an obvious liar is not a good look. I mean, even I am getting embarrassed for you....”

Adding the date and location to Moore’s inscription does not prove that the inscription by Moore is a forgery. It is embarrassing to see such desperation to discredit this poor woman. It’s disgusting. Seriously, what is wrong with you epeople, have you completely lost your moral center?

12/8/17, 3:46 PM
———————————
Proving Qwinn to be the liar was very easy.; 12/11/17, 2:34 PM
Qwinn said...: If the date and location were misrepresented as being Moore's writing, Inga, then yes, forgery happened. Yet you posted yet again on this thread a Vice article claiming that any claim that forgery happened is a lie.; 12/11/17, 2:39 PM
Michael K said...: At least it isn't Florida.

Democratic Sen. Annette Taddeo, who said she too has been “subjected to inappropriate behavior by a religious leader,” said it is time for Latvala to go.

She said the Latvala allegations, along with his combative response, paralyzed the Florida Legislature.

“The recent controversy surrounding Sen. Jack Latvala has all but derailed our focus on policy discussions and continues to consume the Legislature,” Taddeo said in a statement.

“I firmly believe Sen. Jack Latvala must resign as the mounting news accounts and ongoing details surrounding his circumstances without a doubt have created a distraction from representing his constituents,” she added.

But, but, but

The story got even messier Dec. 8 when Lily Tysinger, a 22-year-old Senate staffer, filed a defamation lawsuit against Rogers. The suit claimed Rogers spread lies about Tysinger’s sex life with legislative colleagues, and that Tysinger was mentally ill.

Welcome to Florida, said Morgan. He said the state’s political climate was “already insane” before the sexual harassment scandals broke. But now, it is even worse.

“Florida is on fire,” Morgan told Politico. “And it’s not a controlled burn.”

They are all accusing each other.

You'd think it was Inga !; 12/11/17, 2:40 PM
Qwinn said...: And we all remember very well the dripping contempt that Inga had for anyone who questioned ANY PART of the signature, even just the date and location. No apology at all for her sneering derision toward posters who turned out to be right and her wrong.; 12/11/17, 2:42 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “If the date and location were misrepresented as being Moore's writing, Inga, then yes, forgery happened. Yet you posted yet again on this thread a Vice article claiming that any claim that forgery happened is a lie.”

The inscription and Moore’s signature were not a forgery. That was the meat of the yearbook inscription. You are not as intelligent as you’d like to think. You are stuck on stupid.; 12/11/17, 2:55 PM
hstad said...: KittyM said...

"He's (Soros) going to the same place that people who don't recognise God and morality and accept his salvation are going"

The same place that people who (= Jews) are going. So no, Ron, he said "...people who don't recognise God and morality and accept his salvation are going..." Not just Soros.

Totally understand not caring about that statement, or indeed agreeing with it (shudder). But you honestly can't say I lied over and over.

12/11/17, 12:12 PM

Your entire premise has been debunked by you, Kitty? First, it is a real stretch to call Soros a Jew, since it has been proven that during WW2 he turned in Jews for money(so much for his morality). Moreover, I just don't understand that Moore's comments can be construed as bigoted, since 'Atheists' "..don't recognize God...". Does that mean your example is that Moore is bigoted against a Jew hater and Godless Atheists. Truly remarkable how you pretzel yourself toward the "bigot" concept because you don't like Moore. Not one person on this blog would've questioned your opinion that you don't like Moore for Senator of Alabama, but bringing in such idiotic examples are a false tell.; 12/11/17, 2:58 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Moore lied and said he didn’t know any of these women. He has proven himself to not be credible. He wrote the inscription in the yearbook and on a graduation card of another woman, the handwriting is his, no one else’s.; 12/11/17, 2:59 PM
Qwinn said...: The signature wasn't a forgery? Explain the "D.A." then please.; 12/11/17, 3:02 PM
Drago said...: Inga is a handwriting expert and KittyM, like Inga and LLR Chuck, can read minds.

We are indeed blessed at Althouse Blog.; 12/11/17, 3:05 PM
Qwinn said...: Btw, has anyone else noticed that Inga has not once denied that the date and location were originally presented as Moore's writing, and that she defended that part of the signature as much as the rest?

There's a reason for that.; 12/11/17, 3:05 PM
Hagar said...: Because "Moore" was also in blue ink.; 12/11/17, 3:07 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “There's a reason for that.”

Yes. Because it doesn’t matter. The yearbook inscription and signature IS Roy Moore’s, the handwriting expert said that there was no question that it was Moore’s handwriting.; 12/11/17, 3:09 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "He wrote the inscription in the yearbook and on a graduation card of another woman, the handwriting is his, no one else’s."

-- Then you either let the accused validate the evidence against them, or you throw it out. It has already been damaged, so fatally many juries would probably consider it tainted. But, I'm being reasonable. Let an independent authority verify it and one of Moore's choosing, not just Allred's.; 12/11/17, 3:10 PM
Jim at said...: You are stuck on stupid.

I won't even attribute it.
Just leave it out there are marvel at it.

It is truly the most glorious thing I'm going to read all day, if not all week.; 12/11/17, 3:11 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "The yearbook inscription and signature IS Roy Moore’s, the handwriting expert said that there was no question that it was Moore’s handwriting."

-- And cigarette companies got doctors to say smoking was good for you.

If he's an expert witness, he should *welcome* independent verification.; 12/11/17, 3:11 PM
Drago said...: Ingavthe Forger Defender: "Yes. Because it doesn’t matter."

Pay no attention to our many previous lies! Trust us now!

LOL; 12/11/17, 3:12 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Here's the thing: The date and location were key to verifying her story. Without them, what if he signed it, say, in May or June? Then, all of a sudden, he may not have even known her in December when the assault allegedly happened.

Denying us this knowledge has harmed her case; any attorney who lied to the public like this should have their license examined closely, because, frankly, Allred is probably due for a reckoning.; 12/11/17, 3:14 PM
Drago said...: "Denying us this knowledge has harmed her case; any attorney who lied to the public like this should have their license examined closely, because, frankly, Allred is probably due for a reckoning."

But, but Inga NEEDS the truth to be something different today than what is was yesterday.

Why cant history begin anew today?

Its so very very unfair to Inga.; 12/11/17, 3:17 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Oddly enough, at the start, I thought that what the alleged victim now alleges, was the truth. Roy Moore signed the book, but the damning follow on inscription was added by her, for whatever reason.

I was strenuously told for, what, two weeks? That was not the case.

If they had been honest, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe them now, as opposed to lying to us and now saying, "But we're trustworthy!"; 12/11/17, 3:17 PM
Darrell said...: The "DA"" in the signature proves the whole signature is a forgery. The DA was added by Delbra Adams, Moore's assistant. She didn't start for Moore until at least eleven years after the alleged attack. Debra initialed the rubber stamped signature whenever she used the rubber stamp.; 12/11/17, 3:19 PM
Drago said...: "If they had been honest, ..."

Not to worry. That will never happen.

Ever.

Btw, did you see TODAYS latest retraction from CNN related to last summers disclosures of Russian contacts with Sessions?

Yeah, Sessions was found to be correct. But that wont undue months of negative lie-based Inga-like reports.

LLR Chuck hardest hit.; 12/11/17, 3:21 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: The bottom line is this: “While many conservatives have rejected Moore’s candidacy, far-right media sites are doing Moore a big favor: They’re giving voters an alternate version of reality so they don’t have to admit they support someone accused of child molestation.”
——————————————
“These responses from Moore and his attorney tell us something crucial: Moore recognized right away that the inscription was different from the notes below it. He told his lawyer that there was “no way in the world” he had written the notes. But he didn’t extend that claim to the inscription. Instead, he suggested that “tampering” had occurred.

Tampering is a different allegation from forgery. It implies that the underlying entity, the thing that’s been tampered with, is real.

That’s why Jauregui asked whether “everything written in that yearbook” was written by Moore. Play back that press conference, and you’ll see how careful the attorney was, at every point, to frame the question this way. Moore and Jauregui knew that the inscription itself, if separated from the appended notes, looked all too genuine. They were certainly clear that a single person couldn’t have written the whole thing. Which means that if Nelson wrote the notes, she didn’t write the inscription.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/roy_moore_s_fake_forgery_claim.html; 12/11/17, 3:22 PM
Drago said...: Inga retreats to Salons Safe Space.

Unexpectedly.

She has nowhere else to go.

#Hilarious!; 12/11/17, 3:24 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Inga: That's not how it works. The claim that was made was that Moore wrote everything on that page.

Every jot and tittle.

If you prove he didn't write part of it, the accusation is defeated. You force them to walk it back and re-frame it. It greatly weakens the accusation, possibly fatally, especially given the Delbra Adams stamp explanation for the DA, as opposed to District Attorney.

This is why you should be *honest from the start.*; 12/11/17, 3:25 PM
Qwinn said...: Imagine a conservative attack on Obama where any piece of writing was portrayed as Obama's, then half of it (regardless of how important it was to the attack) was admitted to be forged. Imagine Inga saying that the forged part is irrelevant because a handwriting expert hand picked by Republicans vouched for it, and the fact that Republicans wouldn't let anyone else verify it was immaterial.l and unimportant to the point that anyone who raised it as an issue was evil and fraudulent and a liar.

Seriously. It's fun.; 12/11/17, 3:26 PM
Drago said...: I bet the Russians forced Gloria and her client to lie about the inscription.

I hear those Russians can be very convincing in that way.

Or perhaps some Macedonian hackers hypnotized Allred into lying.

Either way its clearly Trumps fault.; 12/11/17, 3:27 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: “The claim that was made was that Moore wrote everything on that page.”

Actually no it wasn’t.; 12/11/17, 3:28 PM
Drago said...: Ingas going to need alot more links to make her feel better about the exposed lies of her pals.

Its gonna take awhile. Someone get her a snickers.

LLR Chuck will have to work overtime to snatch victory for the dems from this lefty lying debacle.; 12/11/17, 3:30 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Actually no it wasn’t."

Im surprised Inga didnt stick her fingers in her ears while shouting La La La La La La!!!!; 12/11/17, 3:32 PM
Unknown said...: Michael K: "...Stuff like that." Thanks. Funny how accusations depend for their credibility on physical facts like when events had to have happened, or where. Why would you walk a mile to meet a guy with a car?; 12/11/17, 3:34 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Read the NYT account. Young states: "He wrote in my yearbook as follows:" and shows the full inscription.; 12/11/17, 3:36 PM
Matt Sablan said...: CBS News reports it as follows: "Nelson went on, describing another incident in which Moore signed a school yearbook of hers when she was 16.

"He wrote in my yearbook as follows: 'To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Old Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA.'""; 12/11/17, 3:38 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: The bottom line is this: “While many conservatives have rejected Moore’s candidacy, far-right media sites are doing Moore a big favor: They’re giving voters an alternate version of reality so they don’t have to admit they support someone accused of child molestation.”
—————————-
“Nelson didn’t say she forged it. Here’s the full exchange with ABC News reporter Tom Lamas:

Lamas: “He signed your yearbook?”

Nelson: “He did sign it.”

Lamas: “And you made some notes underneath?”

Nelson: “Yes.”
Fact checking website PolitiFact rated claims that Nelson admitted to forgery “Pants on Fire” — as in a completely false. “Nelson does not claim she tampered with Moore’s actual signature. She said she added a time and location below the signature. Nelson still attributes the note and signature to Moore,” the site wrote.

Gloria Allred, Nelson’s lawyer, told the New York Times that Nelson had added the printed parts of the note “to remind herself who Roy Moore was, and where and when Mr. Moore signed her yearbook,” adding that Nelson “never said he wrote that.””; 12/11/17, 3:38 PM
Bilwick said...: I think Moore and his supporters are missing a bet not invoking the Cultural Defense, as in, "Well, it's just our culture." It's the defense Jamie Foxx and (I'm told) Whoopi Goldberg used in the case of Michael Vick and his dog-fighting activities. There was also a case a few years ago when some bubble-headed "liberal" lawyer noticed a neighborhood in some "progressive" California city that had more than its share of noise complaints resulting in visits from El Policia. The lawyer then started a class-action suit against the cops saying that noise was just part of this neighborhood's "culture." The suit, as I recall, was upheld.

Moore could say something like, "Well, goin' after the young 'uns is just part of our culture. Ain't you Yankees ever heard no hillbilly jokes?"; 12/11/17, 3:39 PM
Random Onlooker said...: The Fox News poll showing the big Jones lead is designed to shock Moore supporters into action and get them out to the voting booths.; 12/11/17, 3:40 PM
FullMoon said...: Car show had pretty models autographing posters of themselves and giving them away.
Asked one to write "To (FullMoon) the best lover I ever had. Still have the poster in my garage. Wonder if she would deny knowing me?

If Moore wrote in the yearbook and doesn't remember the girl, does not mean a damn thing. People who worked at the restaurant have destroyed the woman's claim. Inga knows that. Inga is an attention whore, getting her daily fix. She needs the attention and will lie to get it, as has been proven for years and years. You long timers know it. I have only recently realized it; 12/11/17, 3:40 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I guess Politifact didn't check exactly what Allred/Young claimed he wrote.

That's just sloppy.; 12/11/17, 3:41 PM
FIDO said...: KittyM

I am using the Polanski doctrine to determine if, in fact, Moore's accusers have any moral credibility or if this is mere political opportunism.

It is mere political opportunism.; 12/11/17, 3:41 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Full Moon is a lunatic. The thread is finished.; 12/11/17, 3:42 PM
Darrell said...: How does Nelson explain that it was his signature as a Judge from 11 years in the future. A fucking time machine? She and Inga are fucking liars. The left-weing site PoltiFact is a bunch of lefty liars and cocksuckers. Only gormless losers like Inga think it's legit.; 12/11/17, 3:42 PM
Darrell said...: Jail for Nelson and Allred. It's the only way to stop future lies.; 12/11/17, 3:44 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Random Onlooker said...
The Fox News poll showing the big Jones lead is designed to shock Moore supporters into action and get them out to the voting booths.

12/11/17, 3:40 PM

It might also make the Jones voters complacent.; 12/11/17, 3:44 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Owen at 1:41 PM

How the story of the 14-year-old (Rachel Corfman) has been debunked

How has Roy Moore's denial been debunked?

I would not say that Corfman's story has been debunked, but it is dubious.

Because Nelson's yearbook story is discredited, Corfman's story now stands as unique in its accusation of coercion.

Moore's denial and his conduct during the past 40 years deserve consideration.

There are good reasons for:

* the burden of proof being placed on the accuser

* statutes of limitations.; 12/11/17, 3:47 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Wait a moment. Let's look at Politifact real quick.

Headline:"No, Roy Moore accuser didn't admit she forged his signature in her yearbook"

The claim they're debating: ""WE CALLED IT! Gloria Allred Accuser **ADMITS** She Tampered With Roy Moore’s Yearbook ‘Signature’ (VIDEO)," the headline""

That's really sloppy. Especially since I expected to come looking at claims of forgery, but instead we get rathe rtame "tampering," which is exactly what happened. If you sign a lease, and someone goes in and changes the document, they've tampered with it. If you agree to pay $1,000 dollars, and I change it to a 7, you'd say I tampered with the document.

This is intelligently bankrupt.; 12/11/17, 3:48 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Maybe she didn't intentionally lie when she said "he wrote this," and showed/quoted the entire thing. But... you'd think that would have gotten corrected the same day or the next when people rose questions about the different writing/etc. Instead of waiting for, what, a month almost?

Why did it take her this long to clarify that?; 12/11/17, 3:50 PM
FullMoon said...: Blogger Inga said...

Full Moon is a lunatic. The thread is finished.

12/11/17, 3:42 PM

I embrace my insanity. I recognize it. I love it. I willingly acknowledge it.
Doesn't mean I am wrong about you. You are an attention whore who lies repeatedly simply to get attention from others. Why not own up to it? Pretending otherwise is another lie. As a relative newcomer looking back at your history, you have been doing the same ol' same ol' for literally years.

adj. late 13c., "affected with periodic insanity, dependent on the changes of the moon,"; 12/11/17, 3:53 PM
Unknown said...: It's amazing, isn't it? Inga's here saying that everyone who claims it's a forgery is obviously, obviously wrong because Nelson (apparently) never claimed the entire inscription was Moores.

Ok, then why did she have to come out a few days ago and "clarify" that she was the one who wrote the "notes" afterwards? It's because everyone thought she had claimed Moore wrote all of that.

Care to explain how it is that the entire world apparently thought Moore was supposedly the author of the entire inscription, Inga? Including CNN, ABC, all the rest ? Who could possibly have given them the impression that Nelson was claiming Moore had written all of the inscription?

Matthew Saban upthread links to claims in the mainstream press that state that Moore wrote all of it--including your "clearly Nelson never claimed it!" stuff.

Logic and deduction, Inga: try some sometime.

--Vance; 12/11/17, 3:54 PM
John Nowak said...: So now the claim is that it wasn't forgery forgery?; 12/11/17, 3:56 PM
Michael K said...: "We are indeed blessed at Althouse Blog."

Yes, we have experts on almost any topic you could bring up. ARM on investments

Inga on sexual harassment that happened 40 years ago, plus forgery of course.

LLR chuck on Trump's foibles.; 12/11/17, 3:57 PM
MacMacConnell said...: In related sexual harassment news, "The New Yorker" has just slammed a pink slip up its star reporter and CNN contributor Ryan Lizza's ass amid allegations of sexual misconduct. You might remember Lizza is the reporter that taped the off the record phone call that got Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director fired. Hey Ryan don't fuck the help, I guess he thought he was Joe Scarborough or something.

I call Trump Voodoo strikes again.; 12/11/17, 3:59 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Owen at 1:41 PM

How the story of the 14-year-old (Rachel Corfman) has been debunked

Roy Moore is 70 years old.

I don't know how old you are, Owen, but when you are 70 years old, you will not want to be surprised by an accusation about an event that might have happened 40 year ago -- an accusation made by a woman who was a very troubled teenager at that time.

When you are 70 years old, you will want your life to be evaluated on your entire life's conduct -- not on some weird accusation about one long-ago incident that is impossible for you to disprove.

Corfman's accusation can be considered but then set aside from the decision about whether to vote for Moore next Tuesday.

Likewise, Moore's denial can be considered and then set aside from that decision.

About Moore's life, plenty is known more certainly that can serve as sufficient basis for the voting decision.; 12/11/17, 4:06 PM
gadfly said...: Alice Cooper has figured out that whatever works for Trump ...

You and me ain't no super stars.
What we are is what we are.
We share a bed,
some popcorn,
and TV, yeah.
And that's enough for a workin' man.
What I am is what I am.
And I tell you, babe,
you're just enough for me.; 12/11/17, 4:24 PM
Qwinn said...: "He wrote in my yearbook as follows: 'To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Old Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA.'"

The lengths you'll go to to discredit this woman! Like quoting her accurately with links to multiple sources! Shocking! This says a lot about the Althouse commentariat! /Inga; 12/11/17, 4:42 PM
Night Owl said...: LarryJ @11:50 said (emphasis mine):

"... For this to come out now (and conveniently after the deadline for someone else to replace him on the ballot) has the mark of a very dirty smear campaign. If it works, you can count on a lot of similar allegations coming out in future elections. As much as I dislike Moore, I do believe in the presumption of innocence."

My thoughts exactly.

No politician would be safe if accusations from 40 years in the past along with doctored evidence becomes an acceptable means for destroying someone's political career. And since we know that the media is complicit with covering up for Dems and peddling lies in an attempt to destroy Republicans, we know that in practice it would become a tool that is effective only against Republicans.

I would vote for Moore because this practice needs to be discouraged. And if it means we end up with one more morally corrupt politician in Congress, well by golly, who would notice the difference?; 12/11/17, 4:43 PM
wildswan said...: The way I was taught (parochial school) if you live up to your conscience you will go to heaven. That applies to Moslems, Jews and even people from Alabama. Even Hillary. However most people who commit or are onlookers at terrible crimes have let themselves be de-sensitized, like Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer and the people around them. They aren't living up to their conscience because they killed it awhile back. For some reason you can't bury the corpse of your conscience so today's people are keeping this corpse in a freezer. In the old days it rotted and stank but today killing your conscience can be quite a sanitary operation.

Oh well, enough with the dreamy drifting. The Church says:

"That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery."

The Church didn't always say this but this is what is taught since Vatican II. John Paul II was there, remember.; 12/11/17, 4:43 PM
Drago said...: gadfly, the Poor Man's LLR Chuck, continues to soldier on.

Not "gamely", more in a pathetic way, but still.; 12/11/17, 4:48 PM
Qwinn said...: I actually think it's awesome that Inga is going all in defending the first part of Wilson's forgery. You gotta wonder what her reaction will be when the ENTIRE signature is proven to not be Moore's writing. (I, among many others here, agree that the original name is Ray, not Roy). I bet we never see her again unless it's under a new screen name.; 12/11/17, 4:49 PM
Drago said...: Assrat: "So now the claim is that it wasn't forgery forgery?"

Yes. Obviously.

But clearly its not a "claim claim".

Those little lefties sure are shifty, ain't they?; 12/11/17, 4:50 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Full Moon is a lunatic. The thread is finished."

Someone give Inga an armband! She is desperately seeking promotion to Thread Monitor.

You know, like the Stasi.; 12/11/17, 4:52 PM
Drago said...: Mathew Sablan: "That's just sloppy."

Nope. It was intentional.; 12/11/17, 4:54 PM
Drago said...: Maybe Inga is just cranky because one of her beloved islamist "activists" had a bit of a minor malfunction in NYC earlier today?

That kind of failure can really put a damper on a lefties day.

Cheer up Inga! You can still bring up Gun Control!!; 12/11/17, 4:58 PM
Curious George said...: Here is the level of honesty from the resident dullard, Inga:

Her claim: "Inga said...
The suicide bomber is just like Fox, reporting Beverly Nelson’s entire yearbook inscription was a FAKE and she ADMITTED it!! Weak.

I knew that had to be BS so I looked it up and here is the headline: "Roy Moore accuser admits she forged part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama Senate candidate"

I called her on it and she responded: "Liar. Go look again."

Liar. Dullard.; 12/11/17, 4:59 PM
gadfly said...: @traditionalguy said...
NB: Alabamians are not Hill Billies. They made a bad forgery out of this interview too. Most Alabamians are tough as nails and as well educated as Bible Belt Southern Baptist standards allow. The voters in Huntsville, Birmingham, Auburn, and Montgomery are quite smart folks.

There are lots of hills in Huntsvull and Burminham; Muntgumry has Fleamarket Montgomery which is just like a mini-mall. But without Lynyrd Skynyrd, Alabama is definitely sour.; 12/11/17, 5:06 PM
Drago said...: The lefties are so certain of the "signature" that they won't allow independent analysis!!

The lefties are so certain of Russians hacking the DNC servers that they won't allow the FBI to inspect the server!!

The lefties are so certain of the fake russian dossier that they won't tell us if the FBI used it as the basis for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump and his campaign!!

It would not be unreasonable to draw obvious conclusions.; 12/11/17, 5:11 PM
Michael K said...: No politician would be safe if accusations from 40 years in the past along with doctored evidence becomes an acceptable means for destroying someone's political career.

We already saw this once with George Allen in 2006.

Allen's term in the Senate expired in January 2007. He sought re-election in 2006. Allen won the Republican nomination on August 11, 2006, and faced two opponents in the general election: the Democratic Party nominee, former Secretary of the Navy James H. Webb,[72] and Gail Parker, a retired Air Force officer and retired civilian Pentagon budget analyst who ran on the Independent Green Party ballot line. Allen ran a campaign that appealed to cultural, hard right-wing conservatives. During the campaign the Marshall-Newman Amendment was also on the ballot.

The pivotal moment in the campaign, and the one that the vast majority of political observers attribute Allen's stunning upset loss to Webb, came on August 11, 2006, at a campaign stop in Breaks, Virginia, near the Kentucky border, where Allen twice used the racist slur "macaca" (meaning 'monkey') to refer to the dark-complexioned S. R. Sidarth, who was filming the event as a "tracker" for the opposing Jim Webb campaign. In what was dubbed as his "Macaca moment”, Allen said:

Wiki, of course, does not mention the role of the WaPoo in the matter.

Mr. Allen, who as a young man had a fondness for Confederate flags and later staunchly opposed a state holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has surely learned too much about racial sensitivities in public life to misspeak so offensively.

And: The controversy was fed by the WaPoo and other leftist sites..

Salon published a story in late September reporting that three of Allen's former college football teammates said that during the 1970s, Allen repeatedly used an inflammatory racial epithet and demonstrated racist attitudes toward blacks.[43] On September 29, Edward Sabornie, a professor at North Carolina State University who had been in Allen's class and played football with him, decided to go on record with his allegations. Sabornie had commented under condition of anonymity in Salon's previous article about Allen's use of the slur. In that article, he was described as a "white teammate" and commented that using racial epithets "was so common with George when he was among his white friends. [It was] the terminology he used." Sabornie also recalled Allen as having referred to blacks as "roaches" and Latinos as "wetbacks".[44]

Following the first Salon article, pundit Larry Sabato, who attended the University of Virginia at the same time as Allen, stated on a televised interview that he knew for a fact that Allen used the epithet. Sabato later recanted saying that he had only heard that rumor from someone else.[45] Allen called the claims "ludicrously false", explaining, "[t]he story and [Shelton's] comments and assertions in [the claim] are completely false. I don't remember ever using that word and it is absolutely false that that was ever part of my vocabulary.

Sabato is a lying piece of shit and I will never credit anything he says, especially that he is a Republican,.

It worked with Allen so they were saving it for a big occasion. Both Allen and Moore have done some of this to themselves, of course.; 12/11/17, 5:45 PM
FullMoon said...: Immediately after the election, Inga, posing as unknown, jumps on th Russians bandwagon, cuttin' and pastin' while insulting every normal person here. Shure was hard to figure out who "unknown" really was.

INGA Unknown said...

I'm quite sure that as the days pass we will all be finding out wayyyyy more. This is just the tip of the iceberg. All the political junk that was written on this blogpost's comments section has to be a new low in Althousia. Junk blog post, junk comments.; 12/11/17, 5:49 PM
Qwinn said...: Here's Ann's thread from the night the yearbook was released. It would be AWESOME if it could be bumped to the top and we could start posting to it again and analyze what was said.

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/11/woman-says-roy-moore-tried-to-rape-her.html

Matthew Sabian immediately called out the implausibility of someone adding the date and location just prior to attacking someone. Pretty much everyone else agreed, until our lefties showed up.

Who the hell was this "David Baker" guy?

David Baker said...

Leigh said..."The inscription and the "Love, Roy" are written in one color of ink. The "Moore, DA" and "Olde Hickory ...." are added in different ink, written by a different person."

Wrong.

Here are examples of Roy Moore’s signature on official documents. Note that these various Roy Moore signatures match the signature seen in the yearbook.

It's ludicrous to claim someone other than Roy Moore signed "Moore," or added anything to the yearbook inscription.

11/14/17, 10:03 AM

David Baker said...

"The question is, does the handwriting of the whole inscription match samples of his handwriting that could be verified from recorded documents?"

Yes.
11/14/17, 12:41 PM

That was the claim then. Assuming this wasn't just a blatant lie and "David Baker" actually had a source for this, how the hell is it not relevant NOW? Because who the hell else could be the source of this if not the handwriting expert Inga is so desperately clinging to now? If that guy said the date and location were definitely the same handwriting, *he is utterly and totally discredited*.

I seriously recommend re-reading that entire thread, and seeing what Inga wrote then, writing as "Unknown".

Jason even read the signature as "Ray" that very first night. Kudos for documenting it, Jason!

And GoSpace documented the pictures of the signature in the first CNN twitter tweet that showed the two color inks. This was BURIED in an avalanche of "adjusted" pictures showing them in black and white.

Check it out:

https://i.redd.it/sky87hi4byxz.jpg

That is SO f'ing "Ray", not "Roy". Every other "o" in that signature is done in a totally different way - the only clear similarity to that middle letter is the "a" in "say".

And we're supposed to believe that the different ink showing everything INCLUDING "Moore D.A.", and okay, yeah, the date and location we added, but not Moore! Just a total crazy coincidence that you spotted a discrepancy that was *almost* exactly like what we are admitting we did. But that crazy "Moore D.A." clearly matching the color of what was added in the pictures as published by CNN? And which is a duplicate of the signature on Wilson's divorce papers? Coincidence! Clearly an artifact, or something!

Seriously, who the hell was "David Baker" in that thread? Everything he said was critical to the whole narrative, every word was a lie, and he said it all with 100% conviction.; 12/11/17, 5:55 PM
FullMoon said...: Typical Inga cut and paste :

Blogger Unknown said...

Strange how Trump picks the guy who's Putin's buddy too...not.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/309823-mccain-tillerson-ties-to-putin-a-matter-of-concern

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Saturday he has concerns about the possibility of Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson being nominated for secretary of State, given his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I don’t know what Mr. Tillerson’s relationship with Vladimir Putin was, but I’ll tell you it is a matter of concern to me,” McCain said in an interview with Fox News."; 12/11/17, 6:16 PM
Qwinn said...: Here's the CNN Twitter capture that Gospace got, again:

https://i.redd.it/sky87hi4byxz.jpg

Here's the picture of the official document that "David Baker" produced for comparison.

http://ajatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RoyMoore2-e1360302164766.jpg

The "Moore"s look alike, sure, which is consistent with forgery. The "Roy"s don't look alike at all. The o is utterly different, and even the R and y have substantial differences.; 12/11/17, 6:27 PM
Qwinn said...: And finally, nothing explains the incredibly awkward sentence structure of that inscription *unless in the service of rhyme*. Does "say" rhyme with "Roy"? No. It reads totally stilted and weird if it's "Roy". But with "Ray" it's cute and it works. Doesn't the inscription read *much* more plausibly as a cutesy rhyme if the name is actually "Ray" than if you read it as "Roy"? Tremendously, yes.; 12/11/17, 6:33 PM
Qwinn said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/17, 6:33 PM
Paco Wové said...: I realize KittyM has long since skedaddled back to lurkerdom, but I just wanted to stick my oar in to say that her accusation of anti-semitism, based on the Moore quote eventually provided, was so far out into left field that it amounts to a fairly substantial lie. And here I thought KittyM was cut of finer stuff than her fellow travelers...; 12/11/17, 7:40 PM
wwww said...: Democrats are helped more by a Roy Moore win. If a D wins, the next time the Senate is up for a vote, the R will win.

But if Moore wins, it's likely the Senate ethics committee will investigate. Under oath, things will be entered into the record. It also brings up in the news, by implication, Trump's accusers. Ds have Moore to run on in 2018, the R incumbents will already be at a disadvantage because an R is in office, and structurally Americans prefer divided government. Throw in a big whiff of sexual corruption towards children tied to the incumbents, and that's not gonna help win the suburban white woman vote.

This race shouldn't be close. Rs win by almost a million votes for this seat. The fact that the race is not absolutely clearly for the R candidate in ALABAMA clarifies how toxic Moore is to a large group of voters. Now think about how a Moore win will play with moderate voters and swing voters in purple states.

Once Moore is in the Senate, I don't see him resigning. I don't see McConnell expelling him. Alabama Rs will have to primary him and once he's an incumbent that's going to be a lot harder. Every time he says something crazy, like let's abolish the 13th Amendment, Democrats will use that statement to try to brand the Republican party as the Moore-Trump party.; 12/11/17, 7:47 PM
Fabi said...: You know the left has conceded the race when they begin spinning that a Republican victory is actually a loss. No wonder the lefties are imploding across the board -- they can't even believe their own lies anymore. Lulz; 12/11/17, 7:56 PM
Michael K said...: Ds have Moore to run on in 2018, the R incumbents will already be at a disadvantage because an R is in office, and structurally Americans prefer divided government.

Says the man who doesn't know how many Senate seats the Ds have to defend,

If the Ds have any chance, it is in the House. A loss of House seats is common in the first off year election after a new President takes office.

The real test of Trump's viability will be the House next year, We'll see.; 12/11/17, 8:04 PM
Jason said...: Ok, kids! You want to have some fun!

I was too lazy to go back to our resident handwriting analyst's posts, and I couldn't remember his name. But the Mighty Qwinn found it: David Baker.

I pegged him as a bullshit artist right away. He was pretty obnoxious about his claim as an expert handwriting analyst and his "conclusions." He claimed to be a certified handwriting analyst, but I could find no analyst by that name in practice. I went to his profile and followed his email address, davewrites@gmail.com, but that goes nowhere. His blog page is completely empty.

There is a "David Baker" who is general counsel for the Writing Instrument Manufacturer's Association, but he's a safety compliance attorney and his page makes no mention of any kind of handwriting analysis practice. And the photo is totally different.

So I did a search on Dave Baker's photo. Looks like he stole it from this guy:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AE7WSVQDYCHOBSGXZM64P6P6I4OQ/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_gw_tr?ie=UTF8

That's the only place a reverse Google Image search turns up for that image.

It could be that he's just using a different name, but neither name turns up any kind of handwriting analysis practice associated with it as far as I can tell.

Most likely conclusion: Althouse's blog has turned up on someone's list of Internet opinion-makers, and got targeted by a paid shill working for a DNC blackhat PR campaign.

Congratulations.; 12/11/17, 8:10 PM
Night Owl said...: "...Every time he says something crazy, like let's abolish the 13th Amendment, Democrats will use that statement to try to brand the Republican party as the Moore-Trump party. "

Of course they will. They are out of ideas so they will use a strategy that has already failed. The Dems for decades have branded the Republicans as the party of deplorable-racist-bigoted-woman-haters and yet Trump won. What would be a shock is if they actually came up with a new strategy other than "Republicans are icky".; 12/11/17, 8:11 PM
Drago said...: "Most likely conclusion: Althouse's blog has turned up on someone's list of Internet opinion-makers, and got targeted by a paid shill working for a DNC blackhat PR campaign."

Lots of that going around.

Lots and lots.

You know, like Macedonian Troll Farms which you can't wipe away...even with a cloth...; 12/11/17, 8:14 PM
Drago said...: wwww: "Democrats will use that statement to try to brand the Republican party as the Moore-Trump party."

Where the hell have you been?

The democrats branded Mitt Romney as literally a theocratic Hitler. In fact, the dems have labeled every republican a misogynistic nazi fascist for the last 60 years.

Perhaps you need to stock up on smelling salts. You are going to need them.; 12/11/17, 8:17 PM
wwww said...: Perhaps you need to stock up on smelling salts. You are going to need them.

For what? I don't understand how Rs think Moore helps them with the R party, but whatev. I find it curious, but not my circus.
Man, y'all keep mistaking me for a partisan. As a hobby I like to predict stuff.; 12/11/17, 8:40 PM
Paco Wové said...: "mistaking me for a partisan"

Maybe they know something you don't.

"Macedonian Troll Farmer" would be a great pseudonym. Might have to steal that one.; 12/11/17, 8:50 PM
Big Mike said...: @wwww, it’s straightforward. Right now the GOP has 52 votes versus 48. They can lose two grandstanding Senators on any issue and still get legislation passed because Pence can break the tie. If Moore loses tomorrow, the margin becomes only one. Prior to Reid and now Schumer the Republicans could take the long view and plan to get the seat back when it is recontested in 2020, but even Democrats from deep red states like Joe Donnelly stay in line on key votes. So Moore it is.

But whether Moore wins or Moore loses, if any of the women who have been alleging misdeeds on Moore’s part turn out to be lying, then they need to be punished so strongly that no one ever tries that stunt again.; 12/11/17, 9:23 PM
buwaya said...: As a prediction, there will be dozens more "accusers" next year, of many if not all Republican Senate and House candidates. It will become quite absurd.

The MSM will treat it all with the greatest seriousness.

This drumming up of accusers is turning into quite a typical tactic. The question is whether it scales up.; 12/11/17, 10:18 PM
buwaya said...: And, Bravo, Jason. I think you are quite right. That fellow was very curious indeed, not just a "casual".; 12/11/17, 10:20 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/17, 10:21 PM
chickelit said...: George Soros can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. ALL of his alleged philanthropic endeavors are simply ingenious ways to undermine established governments and trading markets. He specializes in profiting off of such instability. Unlike Trump, the man has never built a thing besides personal wealth. He always bets on failure and tries to provoke failure. He gives capitalism a bad name. I shall not mourn his death and ardently wish he'd hurry up and die. If that makes me an anti-Semite or un-Christian, so be it. The world will be much better off without George Soros in it.; 12/11/17, 10:28 PM
buwaya said...: The Senate needs a purge, to some gulag for preference.
Or absurdity and mockery, if thats all thats available.
That lot of toads.
Respect and collegiality is the last thing they deserve.; 12/11/17, 10:28 PM
JAORE said...: "BUT - Moore is campaigning to be senator. So what he says in public on the radio is very relevant to considering his qualification to be senator."

I'll ignore your tightly twisted spin on anti-antisemitism, dear KittyM. I can't see into your heart and call you a liar, so twisted it shall be.

But I found your above statement to be interesting. It appears you expect candidates to say things they don't believe in, or to NOT say things they DO believe in in order not to upset the voters with, you know, information.

But let's say that what you accuse him of is the truth, Roy Moore thinks all non-believers in Christ are doomed.

Here's the rub, Roy Moore is a fundamental Christian. He BELIEVES that accepting Christ is the only true path to heaven. Yet you want him to hide that?

Not me.

I want him to shout it from the roof tops.

I'd want Pelosi to shout that she'd allow abortions through the third grade if that's what is in her heart. I'd want Ellison shrieking out Sharia LAW for ALL if that's his end goal. I want the WaPo to have a permanent banner on the front page saying, "We'll print ANYTHING to help the left" if, as I believe they act that way..

I detest this, "Keep abortions rare" crap.... it's a lie and we all know it. If not why is a 27 week ban such a horror? Why not admit that single payer is, was and will remain the actual goal of health care reform?

Feh! Unmask the beasts of both sides. Let their true colors show.; 12/11/17, 11:35 PM
JAORE said...: FWIW I live in Alabama. I was thrilled when Moore was removed as Chief of the Supreme Court (both times). I voted against him every time his name has been on the ballot.

There are two realistic names on the ballot for tomorrow. The write in movement is transparently an effort to siphon off votes from Roy Moore.

I have considered the wide range of ramifications should MY vote be the tie-breaker.

Tomorrow I will vote for Roy Moore.; 12/11/17, 11:42 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Michael K said...
Yes, we have experts on almost any topic you could bring up. ARM on investments

Pro Tip: Save enough for retirement or you will be working for the guvmint in your old age.; 12/12/17, 3:15 AM
CWJ said...: Yeah, now that she's copped to adding the notations, it's that much more difficult to give her the benefit of the doubt elsewhere. I'm fairly convinced that the yearbook was signed by "Ray," not Roy Moore. Everything after Ray was added. I don't know what to think about the "blue ink." But even if all the ink is black, and the appearance of "blue ink" is an artifact, the fact that the artifact is restricted to the forged section still seems indicative of two different inks. I think we've reached peak Rathergate, but with people still taking this woman seriously. That's pretty scary, both politically (dirty tricks division) and psychologically.

Can't sleep tonight so I subjected myself to this thread.; 12/12/17, 4:46 AM
KittyM said...: @Paco Wové "I realize KittyM has long since skedaddled back to lurkerdom, but I just wanted to stick my oar in to say that her accusation of anti-semitism, based on the Moore quote eventually provided, was so far out into left field that it amounts to a fairly substantial lie. And here I thought KittyM was cut of finer stuff than her fellow travelers..."

Hi Paco. I did "skedaddle back to lurkerdom" (lovely phrase, btw!) because I'm not good at "taking it" when the conversation turns particularly racist or anti-semitic or extreme. I do recognise that that is just me, and my choice. I know now (didn't realise when I started commenting) but this is quite a rough environment for anyone not 100 % Trump or (as I see it) quite far-right. So I need to make good decisions for me, although, as I have often mentioned, I do find the conversation quite addictive at the same time. Go figure.

Anyway, you have been "kind" to me in the past, by taking my arguments seriously and engaging with me in a thoughtful and rational way. So I was quite upset to read that you think I was lying.

So may I please take this one comment to carefully explain myself? I do this while recognising that I won't change anybody's mind here. The most I can hope to do is to give you guys some insight into the thoughts of just one person who is not in your political circle, thus hopefully contributing to the breaking (popping?) of the "bubbles", which was my initial reason for posting here. Here I go:

Moore went on the radio and said Soros' agenda is "not American culture" and that he "comes from another world that I don't identify with," adding that "No matter how much money he’s got, he’s still going to the same place that people who don’t recognize God and morality and accept his salvation are going. And that’s not a good place.”

We all agree that he did this. So you don't think I am lying about this bit. What you think I am lying about, then, is that I think this is anti-semitic.

I don't know how to convince you, or anyone here, that I am NOT lying when I say that to me, this is utterly and despicably and obviously anti-semitic. I mean, anyone can write anything online; you don't know me except for what I post here; I totally could be making this all up; frankly, even if we met in person, how could you look into my heart and know whether I'm bullshitting or not?

So my only defence against the accusation that I am lying that I can think of is to quote from a few other people or organisations that agree with me. (Quick note: I anticipate that many of you will be dismissive of these sources. There is no way for me to counter your views that any news source or organisation that disagrees with your viewpoint is by definition lying.)

-- The Reagan Battalion: "Despise Soros, believe his actions are hurting this country, but this answer from Roy Moore is straight up antisemitism."

-- Interfaith Alliance President, Rabbi Jack Moline: "Moore is playing on well-known anti-Semitic tropes in which Jews are cast as outsiders using their money for evil intent. These comments have no place in public discourse. The rise in anti-Semitism we have seen over the last year is extremely disturbing and comments like this only serve to validate its perpetrators. No candidate for office should appeal to latent bigotry when asking for support.”

There are loads more, but I understand it gets boring to fill up the space this way. I hope I have made my point, which is simply that a lot of people cleverer than me, more involved in this issue than me and more conservative than me have called out this statement as anti-semitic...; 12/12/17, 5:56 AM
KittyM said...: @Paco Wové:

....Back to me though: some people here have posted that they believe that Moore was merely making an anti-Soros point. But the anti-Soros sentiment as expressed here IS anti-semitic, as it plays on the anti-semitic idea of the Jew as "coming from another world" and secretly having "another agenda". These are "dog-whistles". We all know what he means. But there's just enough wriggle-room for some of you here to deny that.

Consider: Soros puts his wealth toward political causes that he believes in. No different from the billions of dollars that right-wing billionaires like Charles and David Koch have been donating to Republican causes for years. Conservative hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, for instance, gave millions of dollars to a pro-Trump Make America Number One super PAC. But a lot of the imagery surrounding attacks on Soros are classic anti-semitic tropes: Glenn Beck called Soros "a "puppet master" who holds the strings of the world in his hands; Breitbart published tweets calling Soros "an octopus." Etc etc. I mean, he's a very rich guy who supports left-wing causes just as there are very rich guys who support right-wing causes. What's the big deal?

Please consider also that some of the "facts" some of you *know* about Soros (he worked with Nazis, he's a monster who wants to take over the world etc etc) are simply deliberate lies, invented to support alt-right conspiracy theories.

At the end of the day, obviously you and I, Paco, will disagree about just about everything! I don't believe I will convince you or anyone here of anything. (Sad face emoji.) We're clearly too far apart politically for that to ever happen. But it will be enough for me if I can convince you that the views and opinions that I express here are honestly held and come from a deep and true conviction. That way, I figure my posting here is generally a good thing because it is a tiny part of bringing people with different views together, rather than us all stuck in our corners, talking in our respective echo chambers.; 12/12/17, 5:56 AM
KittyM said...: @JAORE "Roy Moore is a fundamental Christian. He BELIEVES that accepting Christ is the only true path to heaven. Yet you want him to hide that?"

You make a good point.

I suppose thinking about it, if people have a faith that is exclusionary (all non-believers go to hell etc) then I would prefer that to remain private. This is just my preference. I am made nervous by public displays of fundamentalist religion of any kind - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever.

In this day and age in particular, I am looking for a representative to reach out as far as possible, to bring the country together. I am sensitive to the kind of rhetoric that has the ability to divide us. I would love to support someone on either side of the political divide who can do that.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that, like you, I am grateful that he is open about his beliefs but only to the extent that it helps me to see him clearly as someone who I don't want in the Senate.; 12/12/17, 6:04 AM
Jason said...: Libtards have a knack for unerringly sniffing out 978,896 out of every five actual anti-semites.; 12/12/17, 6:35 AM
Jason said...: Dollars to doughnuts KittyM is ten times the insane, raging bigot towards, say, Southern Baptists that Roy Moore ever thought about being towards Jews.; 12/12/17, 7:12 AM
Paco Wové said...: KittyM – I appreciate that you took the time to respond. I agree that the gap between is is well nigh unbridgeable, because we appear to have very different habits of language and logic. In this case, Moore took what I understand to be a fairly standard piece of Christian doctrine (though I don't keep up with such things) and publicly applied it to a specific person.

I don't think it's Moore's place to declare who is going to hell and who isn't, but the idea that anyone who is not a born-again Christian is going to Hell isn't new or unique to Moore; as this lapsed Protestant understands it, that's standard, garden-variety conservative Christianity (and Islam, and probably countless other sects).

So Moore expressed a standard bit of doctrine. Along with others here, I personally don't care if a politician thinks I'm going to Hell. Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, etc. I see nothing anti-semitic in that. Get back to me when he says "Jews killed Christ" or "that Jew Soros is going to Hell". So, no, I don't agree that the general sentiment is anti-semitic, or it's application (as expressed) to Soros.

"it plays on the anti-semitic idea of the Jew as "coming from another world" and secretly having "another agenda". These are "dog-whistles". We all know what he means"

We do? As they say, if you hear the dog whistle, you're the dog. Lots of people "come from other worlds" and have "other agendas". Sounds like Moore is invoking nativism here, anger at outsiders coming in and telling Alabamans what to do. This is not at all uncommon, especially in the South.

"I mean, he's a very rich guy who supports left-wing causes just as there are very rich guys who support right-wing causes. What's the big deal?"

So, are all those lefties raging about the Koch brothers crazed bigots as well? Or is there some rule that lefties can criticize "right-wing" plutocrats but righties can't criticize "left-wing" plutocrats (because they conveniently happen to be Jewish)?

"is to quote from a few other people or organisations that agree with me."

You're learning! I do indeed dismiss those sources. I am not going to outsource my thought processes to somebody I've never heard of. It is clear to me, on the face of it, that what Moore said wasn't anti-semitic, as it was in no way directed at Jews as a group, or Soros as a Jewish person.

I have no way of knowing if you intentionally propagated an untruth, so I shouldn't have stated what I said in that fashion. However, I consider the arguments that you are repeating here to be disingenuous.; 12/12/17, 7:17 AM
Qwinn said...: Um, we've known what a scumbag Soros is for decades, long before there was any "alt-right" to make up conspiracies about him.

And you say he's just like anyone else, like the Koch brothers? Lol. The Kochs are CONsTANTLY demonized. They are constantly depicted as supreme evil, all the time, forbno good reason whatsoever, and they don't spend a 10th of what Soros does.

Soros is just like the Kochs? Well, Ive been reliably informef thousands of times that the Kochs might as well be Nazis. So what did Moore say wrong again?

Love how libtards try to have it both ways... Kochs are evil, right up till the moment we need to rehabilitate Soros, then they'll be healthy participants in our society.; 12/12/17, 7:18 AM
KittyM said...: @Paco Wové Hi! I should be working on something; chatting (arguing? debating?) with you is part of my procrastination technique.

"I have no way of knowing if you intentionally propagated an untruth, so I shouldn't have stated what I said in that fashion. However, I consider the arguments that you are repeating here to be disingenuous."

Well, this is very disappointing after I took a really ridiculously long time to compose two long comments to try to convince you of my absolute 100 % seriousness. Aaarrrggghhh. Can't you accept that as a person on the left of you, I really truly do believe what I write? Can't you grant me that dignity? It's beyond frustrating that you still imply (more than imply) that I am not telling the truth as I see it.

After all - I disagree with you. But I am not suggesting you are being ingenuous or lying!

As to your point about Koch - that's not me. I have never written about Koch before on this blog. I hate being made "responsible" for whatever a left-wing person has said or written somewhere, just as I am sure you wouldn't like it if I blamed you for some loony thing a right-winger said. I have indeed tried hard *not* to tar anyone here with the brush of something I read somewhere else, trying instead to simply respond to what is written here. Please don't assume you know my views on everything.

I have political views, so obviously I'm "opposed" to people who support different views. I don't think I would like the Koch brothers if I met them and I certainly don't like the organisations they support. But I would never accuse them of trying to take over the world, or depict them as monsters or whatever.

So to be clear, I absolutely do NO believe there should be a rule that lefties can criticize "right-wing" plutocrats but righties can't criticize "left-wing" plutocrats (because they conveniently happen to be Jewish)? Not my opinion. You guys are so paranoid sometimes! You put opinions on me that I do. not. hold. Some liberal leaning people like me are just very ordinary, with very ordinary, middle-of-the-road views with no desire to undermine your argument in a mean-spirited or unfair way.; 12/12/17, 7:58 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: ....Back to me though: some people here have posted that they believe that Moore was merely making an anti-Soros point. But the anti-Soros sentiment as expressed here IS anti-semitic, as it plays on the anti-semitic idea of the Jew as "coming from another world" and secretly having "another agenda". These are "dog-whistles". We all know what he means. But there's just enough wriggle-room for some of you here to deny that.

Kitty:

Soros is "from another world." He was born in Hungary. He was a collaborator with both the Nazis and the Soviets. This currency speculator "broke the Bank of England" and did the same for Malaysia and Thailand, leaving untold misery in his wake. The ramifications of his contributions to political unrest in Eastern Europe may be equivocal, and you may like that he helped Obama become President, but setting the Ummah on fire with the Arab Spring, and fostering Islamofascism in Turkey, served who exactly?

In fact it all served the same cause - chaos. That's his agenda. He throws dynamite into the water so he can scoop up the dead fish that rise to the surface.

It's nice for him that he thrives in such environments but it doesn't do much for the rest of mankind.

So "another agenda" is putting it mildly.

And I'm not on this earth to be told, by you, that I am anti-Semitic. It's no more a sign of Judenhass for me, or anyone else, to oppose or dislike George Soros, than to oppose or dislike Harvey Weinstein. Before or after all the recent dirt came out.

"We all know what he means." You should take that mouse out of your pocket.; 12/12/17, 8:09 AM
KittyM said...: @ Bad Lieutenant Hello. Thanks for reading my (too long) comments. Let me say that I have understood the points you are making and agree with some of what you write. I agree for example that it is not anti-semitic to criticise Soros generally for his politics, his work or anything else. It is not anti-semitic to criticise Weinstein, either.

So apologies if you thought my comments were directed at you or - maybe this is better put - if I misinterpreted something you wrote.

I hope we would agree, though, that there is definitely a whole anti-semitic movement around Soros (see Hungary and some of the more extreme websites).

And one last thing. What does this - "You should take that mouse out of your pocket." - mean?; 12/12/17, 8:18 AM
Qwinn said...: First, if you would defend Soros, you're not a nice person. Period. He is indefensible.

Second, while you may not have said anything about the Kochs, you know your fellow travelers do, using the same sort of "octopus" anf "agenda" language used against the Kochs. But THAT isn't antisemitic right?

Your own side proves the accusations against Soros can be levied honestly with no antisemitic dog whistles. Yet, only when our side does it do you hear them. That's why at least some of us think you are lying and disingenuous. Because your double standard is so obvious and unfair that it simply can't be honest.; 12/12/17, 8:18 AM
Paco Wové said...: "I hate being made "responsible" for whatever a left-wing person has said or written somewhere, just as I am sure you wouldn't like it if I blamed you for some loony thing a right-winger said. I have indeed tried hard *not* to tar anyone here with the brush of something I read somewhere else"

...and yet you engaged in that tactic yourself, tying Moore to statements made by others, e.g.:

'a lot of the imagery surrounding attacks on Soros are classic anti-semitic tropes: Glenn Beck called Soros "a "puppet master" who holds the strings of the world in his hands; Breitbart published tweets calling Soros "an octopus."'

Moore didn't say those; why bring them up?

I will take you at your word on your sincerity – however, I believe you are sincerely advancing arguments that are, at their core, dishonest.; 12/12/17, 8:24 AM
Qwinn said...: Don't fall into the bullshit trap of "conceding" that Beck (whom I dislike a lot) and Breitbart (no problems with them) are anti-semitic. That's bullshit too. Soros IS a puppet master, he IS an octopus with tentacles on every lever of our society, and I couldn't give one shred of a crap that he's ethnically Jewish. Utterly irrelevant and if you're hearing a dog whistle, YOU'RE the dog.; 12/12/17, 8:32 AM
mockturtle said...: Kitty M. asks: And one last thing. What does this - "You should take that mouse out of your pocket." - mean?

Oy, vey! Kitty, when one uses the term 'we', one is open to question as to the 'we' he or she is referencing. So the response is often, "Who is WE? Is there a mouse in your pocket?"; 12/12/17, 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: KittyM: I do this while recognising that I won't change anybody's mind here. The most I can hope to do is to give you guys some insight into the thoughts of just one person who is not in your political circle, thus hopefully contributing to the breaking (popping?) of the "bubbles", which was my initial reason for posting here.

KittyM, missionary to the heathens.

But seriously, Kitty, where do you get the idea that the opinions that you bring here are unfamiliar to the natives? There is not a single opinion you have posted here, on this topic or any other, that readers will not have already encountered elsewhere. Your views are entirely conventional and predictable. Nothing wrong with that per se (I have many conventional and predictable views, myself), and that in no way implies that your views are therefore incorrect. But your belief that expressing those views here is providing some new information or "insight" to readers here is based on a false assumption on your part.

One of the salient characteristics of "embubblement" is the assumption that the people who disagree with you must not be in possession of the same information that you possess. (That is, if they're not just bad, mean people.) The first step out of the bubble is to get rid of those lazy, surface assumptions about why people think what they think. Sometimes people think what they think because, yes, they're ill-informed or just not very bright. (But that goes as much for one side as for the other.)

Your "arguments" essentially consist of re-asserting of your original contention, just more emotively. (BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY ANTI-SEMITISM!), augmented by appeals to authority. It isn't a matter of "dismissing" your sources, it's your lack of understanding that this "appeal to authority" is a basic fallacy, and that finding somebody else asserting the same opinion as yourself is not any kind of argument.

It would be nice if you could learn to address people's comments straightforwardly, point by logical point, without all the extra padding about your sincerity and your reasons for being here (irrelevant) and without constantly shifting the goalposts - e.g.:

"I hope we would agree, though, that there is definitely a whole anti-semitic movement around Soros (see Hungary and some of the more extreme websites)."

Now this is an interesting topic (and I would be pleasantly surprised if you had something to say about Hungary that wasn't predictably bubble-icious), but it has nothing to do with Moore.; 12/12/17, 8:41 AM
FIDO said...: KittyM

Here is what we are left seeing as your doctrine:

"I know fellow Lefties criticize the Koch brothers like this, but I do not bring up this until forced to to burnish my fair minded credibility. If they harm the Koch brothers, I will cry no tears nor take them to task for vilifying or destroying them with bad tactics'

"If anyone even seems to criticize even as deplorable a person as Soros from the Right from any kind of way I can take umbrage, I will immediately try to get the most mileage out of such insinuations as possible."

Pretty passive aggressive and very one sided.

Let me be frank: As a Christian, as a human being, I find 1970s Moore...icky. I don't know what was going on with him back then, but I am not a fan IF IT IS TRUE.

Do we know this is true? This latest 'forgery thing' casts doubt. The fact that the Left press always comes out with sexual smears makes me demand a pretty high standard of proof. Cause we have seen lying and withdrawn accusations before.

This is not a ridiculous standard to hold to, particularly considering the hypocrisy shown by the Left re Sexual Allegations.; 12/12/17, 8:43 AM
FIDO said...: Michael Sylvester lays it out properly.

Due process and a REAL investigation instead of character assassination by media. You don't get to whine about it happening to Hillary if you are cheering that it is happening to Moore

Statute of Limitations. Even if Moore did this back then...we as a nation have to allow that people change. Otherwise Ayers should still be in prison and Mandella's ashes should be dumped in the ocean.; 12/12/17, 8:48 AM
Qwinn said...: What Kitty doesn't get is that no one on the Right (at least that I've heard) thinks of Soros as a Jew. We think he was a Nazi collaborator. If that isn't sufficient to get your Jew-card revoked, what would be?; 12/12/17, 9:03 AM
Qwinn said...: One is left to wonder what Kitty thinks of Doug Jones' effusive praise for the Confederacy, and how that manages to not trigger her dog whistle detector.; 12/12/17, 9:07 AM
FIDO said...: I would label it as 'convenient'.; 12/12/17, 9:16 AM
KittyM said...: @Angel-Dyne "But seriously, Kitty, where do you get the idea that the opinions that you bring here are unfamiliar to the natives?"

I don't think that. In fact, I am often slightly embarrassed because I am all to aware that from your pov I am indeed just "rehashing" well-worn and well-known arguments.

But what can I do? These happen to be my views, however hackneyed and clichéd they are.

And I'm sorry if I come across as pompous ("missionary to the heathens") or self-satisfied. That's not my intention at all, and not at all how I feel when I post here. I'm all to aware that I'm not very good at arguing and that things that seemed obvious in my head are quite hard to express when it comes to actually writing them down.

I'm not here to "provide some new information or "insight" to readers", at least not the content of what I write. As I said to Pové, I know I won't convince people here of anything. But what I *did* hope to be able to do was just *be* here - an ordinary person with left-ish views (at least compared to most people here) - and by being here and engaging I did hope, in a possibly naive way, to break through some of the clichés around what "lefties" think and how they are.

There is a lot of nastiness here about "lefties" (a term I hate), a lot of "all lefties think this or that", and I don't recognise that picture of myself, nor do I often agree with the views to which I have been assigned (see above).

As to "extra padding about your sincerity and your reasons for being here (irrelevant)" - that's just the way I am and the way I write. Your comments always strike me as mean-spirited and unnecessarily insulting. To each their own on the internet.; 12/12/17, 9:17 AM
KittyM said...: @FIDO "Pretty passive aggressive and very one sided."

I am really sorry that you read my posts as passive aggressive. I really don't mean them to come across that way: if they do, then obviously that is a mistake on my part. I do find it weirdly difficult to express my views sometimes when I don't agree with most of what people post here, but I still want to take part in the discussion. And also, knowing that I am very much in the minority politically and generally being a person who shies away from conflict in real life, I can appreciate that my comments might come across as stilted.

As to "one-sided": I guess I can cop to that. I have views that appear very left-wing in this forum (it's all relative of course, in other contexts I am considered quite conservative) and those are the views I am expressing here. I am interested in reading other views - or obviously I wouldn't be here - but I am not going to write anything that I believe, so it will come across as one-sided - as do everyone's views here. If you see what I mean!

But the passive-aggressive thing - I will try and work on that somehow. Thanks for the heads up.; 12/12/17, 9:24 AM
KittyM said...: @Angel Dyne

One more thing, about your accusation that I talk too much about my "sincerity", which you call "padding"...I think you partly think that because of today's discussion with Pové in which the subject *was* my sincerity, or lack of it, as he/she saw it. Pové thought I was lying, I wasn't - and said so - then Pové continued to tell me I was being ingenuous - so again; I addressed that.

There is an awful lot of "You're lying" here from the majority to those occasional voices from another point on the political spectrum. That's a shame - and also as much of a waste of words as my "sincerity padding". It also avoids addressing the arguments.; 12/12/17, 9:29 AM
KittyM said...: @mockturtle " "Who is WE? Is there a mouse in your pocket?"

Oh, I see! I've never heard that term before. That is adorable! I will use that from now on - and think of you while doing it.

Sorry about my use of "we", there. I sometimes use that in this forum where I *hope* that there would be some agreement but I have discovered, and today is another example, that there isn't much common ground. I honestly just thought *we* would agree on this point, but I stand corrected.

Thanks for the mouse thing! Love it!; 12/12/17, 9:35 AM
Qwinn said...: Again - why doesn't Kitty hear any dog whistle in Doug Jones' praise for the Confederacy?; 12/12/17, 9:39 AM
KittyM said...: @Qwinn. I absolutely do hear the dog whistle. Clearly, this ad is a deliberate attempt to suck up to potential conservative voters. But the text of the ad seems OK to me. I like the spirit of it. Those of you who have got to know me a bit on this board are probably rolling your eyes and thinking "Of course you do!" because it's all about compromise. :-)

--- "Those times have passed long ago and our country is better for it, but now we fight too often over other matters. It seems as if we're coming apart. I want to go to Washington and meet the representatives from Maine and those from every other state, not on the battlefield, but to find common ground -- because there's honor in compromise and civility, to pull together as a people, and to get things done for Alabama."; 12/12/17, 9:45 AM
Qwinn said...: Now I want to know why Kitty quoted only the ad FOLLOWING the problematic bits.

What she quoted is completely fine. If you can hear a whistle in that... no, you really can't. Not honestly, anyway.

It's the lines BEFORE what Kitty quoted tbat are a problem.

But Kitty skipped that and quoted only the completely non-controversial parts of the ad.

I wonder why that would happen. What would make Kitty make that choice.; 12/12/17, 10:19 AM
KittyM said...: @Qwinn "I wonder why that would happen. What would make Kitty make that choice."

Oh sorry! I read about the ad, and that was the only text I found. I didn't realise there was more. Please do post the whole thing if you would like my opinion.; 12/12/17, 10:22 AM
KittyM said...: @Qwinn - Sorry to make you do that, Of course I found it immediately. Here's the whole text (right?)

"Little Round Top, Gettysburg. Three times Col. William Oates of Alabama led the Confederate forces to take it. Running out of ammunition, Col. Joshua Chamberlain of Maine had his men fix bayonets to desperately repel the attack. What brought those two brave men, one from Alabama and one from Maine, together was war—two sides believing so strongly in their cause that they were willing to die for it. Those times are past, long ago, and our country is better for it. But now we fight too often over other matters. It seems as if we're coming apart. I want to go to Washington and meet the representatives from Maine and those from every other state not on a battlefield, but to find common ground, because there's honor in compromise and civility. To pull together as a people and get things done for Alabama. I'm Doug Jones and I approve this message, because on December 12, Alabama can lead the way."

Having now read the whole thing, I still feel the same way about it. The main thrust of the ad is to talk about compromise and coming together. He has chosen to "dog-whistle" the confederacy, to (I assume) reassure certain conservative voters that he is not the bogey man they might think.

I genuinely don't mind it. I suppose because I like the sentence "Those times are past, long ago, and our country is better for it." If the text was "those were good times" I would absolutely hate it.

This stands in contrast to Moore's recent (September) statement about those times: a man asked him when he thought America was great. “I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another,” he responded. “Our families were strong, our country had a direction.”

That was a horrible statement. In the antebellum South, black families were ripped apart constantly and intentionally. Husbands, wives, sons, and daughters were bought and sold.; 12/12/17, 10:42 AM
Qwinn said...: So a confederate soldier is "brave" and believed so strongly in the Confederacy's cause that he's willing to die for it. That isn't problematic at all, and if it is, it's only because he's chasing "conservative" votes (see, it's our fault either way! Isn't that awesomely unfalsifiable?)

And Moore's statement, which says we were great DESPITE slavery, rather than slavery being a noble cause that many were willing to die for - HIS statement is horrible.

This is such a hyperpartisan, insane analysis that if I didn't think you were lying through your teeth, I'd think you should be locked in an asylum as a danger to yourself and others.

Soros is definitely not getting his money's worth from you.; 12/12/17, 10:53 AM
Rick said...: KittyM said...
But a person saying publically that Jews go to hell is a bigot. Was else can you call him?

All religious believers think their religion is correct, otherwise they would follow a different religion. Anyone following a religion believes other religions are wrong, otherwise they'd follow that other religion. This is simply true and not a big deal.

Why do people try to make these simple facts into something hateful? To test whether you truly believe your assertion ask if you believe every Muslim believer is a bigot. Muslims don't believe Jews go to heaven. I've searched without success for your claim Jews are bigots because they think Christ was not divine.

I suspect you would never say these things but your supposed principles show you would believe them if you really believed these principles. So all you're proving is that you're a bigot.

And further the whole issue is absurd. Jews don't believe Jews will go to heaven. But we're supposed to care that Christians agree with them?; 12/12/17, 12:06 PM
Qwinn said...: The infuriating thing about posters like Kitty is how they mask lies and propaganda that would make Stalin envious and wrap it in a false veneer of cutesiness, reasonableness and moderation. I'm sure we'll be hearing about how she cried at my meanness soon enough.

I ask her if she hears the dog whistle in what Jones said. Of course!, she says, despite only seeing a completely non-problematic portion of the quote. But of course, that whistle was only meant for conservatives, so it's all okay!

200 years of slavery and Jim Crow under Democrats, projected onto the party of Lincoln with naught but a smile and a twinkle!

But Kitty and the mouse in her pocket all know that all the racists moved from the Dems to the Republicans right around Nixon! Duh!

Really? Al Gore Sr. filibustered the Civil Rights Act, didn't see him or his family go Republican. Then there's Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Robert Byrd, who died 3 heartbeats from the Presidency, put there by Democrats. Dozens of others.

Still see Democrats worship FDR. Why, if they weren't Democrats during FDR?

For every 1 Democrat Segregationist that switched parties, I can show you five who didn't.

But conservatives are the racists, not us, nuh uh! All our sins are yours now!

It is the vilest most rancid smear in all the human history of politics, and hell itself would not be punishment enough for those who traffic in it, ESPECIALLY Soros.; 12/12/17, 12:51 PM
KittyM said...: @Qwinn "The infuriating thing about posters like Kitty is how they mask lies and propaganda that would make Stalin envious and wrap it in a false veneer of cutesiness, reasonableness and moderation"

Dear Qwinn, I may be infuriating you, but it is certainly not my intention. From the first time I started posting here (fairly recently), my goal was to be open but polite and to just try and communicate. I don't mean to be "cutesy" but I do try to be reasonable. I don't know whether I'm moderate - or, put another way, it's not for me to say. I think probably every one of us thinks that we are being moderate, even while others think we are being crazy / radical / Stalinist or whatever.

"200 years of slavery and Jim Crow under Democrats, projected onto the party of Lincoln with naught but a smile and a twinkle!"

I have never quite understood this "argument" or point. Historically, Democrats in the South were the slave owners etc and Lincoln, a Republican, fought the Civil War and freed the slaves. That is something to be tremendously proud of, if you are a Republican, and yes, something of which to be ashamed if you are a Democrat.

I agree with you.

I just don't see what it has to do with politics today. Or rather, I don't see how that fact - and it is a totally important historical fact, no doubt about it - adds anything to the debate as to whether a current Republican (or Democratic) candidate for office (say Roy Moore) is a bigot. Or not. How can this historical fact have any bearing on that question?

"But Kitty and the mouse in her pocket all know that all the racists moved from the Dems to the Republicans right around Nixon! Duh!...Really? Al Gore Sr. filibustered the Civil Rights Act, didn't see him or his family go Republican. Then there's Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Robert Byrd, who died 3 heartbeats from the Presidency, put there by Democrats. Dozens of others..."

I never mentioned any historical issues in any of my posts. I don't know enough history and I'm interested in today's politics, anyway. So all these horrible accusations are just silly because I didn't make any claims along these lines.

"But conservatives are the racists, not us, nuh uh! All our sins are yours now!"

I have been very very careful, in all my writings here, to be respectful. And to be truthful. I would never write anything that implied "conservatives are the racists". It would not be respectful or truthful. I do think that, if I had said it, it probably wouldn't be "the vilest most rancid smear in all the human history of politics", though.

If you want to talk more (obviously assuming you probably don't, because I am infuriating!), let's take this to the most recent post. (PS I love that mouse in my pocket!); 12/12/17, 2:06 PM