Quin Hillyer: Roy Moore's own words prove his falsehood
Quin Hillyer summarizes a core problem with the Republican Senate candidate from Alabama well in this article (I will quote the first few paragraphs here):
"Even if we don’t know for certain whether Roy Moore had sexual contact (of a sort) with 14-year-old Leigh Corfman, we now know that Moore has made a conscious decision to lie about his onetime relationships with teenage girls.
We know this from a combination of his own words and of new evidence that would be accepted as probative in any American court of law. (More on the evidence, shortly.)
The odd thing is that Moore’s initial reaction was to tell at least a simulacrum of the truth, only later to change to a flat-out lie. Often, a liar works in the other direction, at first denying everything and then admitting little dribs and drabs as new evidence warrants. Who knows: Maybe this strange evolution from partial truth to full prevarication gives an indication that, somehow, Moore’s conscience is warring with itself.
Either way, his willingness to move to full-fledged dishonesty helps undermine his onetime semi-believable denials of the worst of the charges against him. One fib does not prove that his other statements are lies, of course, but it does establish that he is not entirely trustworthy..."
Wednesday, December 06, 2017
Briefly on a Past Controversy...
It was brought to my attention recently that some parties with whom there were some some heated contentions with on some topics{1} has sought for reasons known only to themselves to try and goad persons such as your humble servant into a recurrence of those prior disputations. It is not my intention to mention any names on this, only to remark briefly that (i) I am aware of what they are trying to do and (ii) considering how it has been my practice for nearly ten years now to only discuss the issue in question at the time of year when it can properly be considered a live issue{2}, their attempting to raise it outside of that very limited time frame seems to indicate a hope on their part that they could get away with slipping their latest text dump by without comment to thereby proclaim that said latest text dump was "unanswerable" by persons such as myself.
I will only note briefly at this time that if the party in question had bothered to actually read what was written at this humble website and elsewhere many years ago, they would have learned that nothing they are offering now makes a dent in what was said here and elsewhere on the subject in question and their presumptive "smoking gun" in recent days is far from what they think it is.
It was brought to my attention recently that some parties with whom there were some some heated contentions with on some topics{1} has sought for reasons known only to themselves to try and goad persons such as your humble servant into a recurrence of those prior disputations. It is not my intention to mention any names on this, only to remark briefly that (i) I am aware of what they are trying to do and (ii) considering how it has been my practice for nearly ten years now to only discuss the issue in question at the time of year when it can properly be considered a live issue{2}, their attempting to raise it outside of that very limited time frame seems to indicate a hope on their part that they could get away with slipping their latest text dump by without comment to thereby proclaim that said latest text dump was "unanswerable" by persons such as myself.
I will only note briefly at this time that if the party in question had bothered to actually read what was written at this humble website and elsewhere many years ago, they would have learned that nothing they are offering now makes a dent in what was said here and elsewhere on the subject in question and their presumptive "smoking gun" in recent days is far from what they think it is.
I will however leave it at that and note that maybe if said parties want a real dialogue on the issue, they can act in a fashion more fitting of a dialogue{3} and approach this issue directly and during a relevant time for such discussions{4} if that is what they really want. I suspect it is not but I note these things briefly at this time nonetheless and with that will say nary a word on these matters prior to the relevant time to do so{5} if even then. It is too bad that others do not do likewise and while I suspect there are monetary reasons behind such reticence on their part, that is all I will say about these matters at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Particularly one of a rather incendiary nature.
{2} Namely, the month of August.
{3} For a change.
{4} See footnote two.
{5} See footnote two.
Notes:
{1} Particularly one of a rather incendiary nature.
{2} Namely, the month of August.
{3} For a change.
{4} See footnote two.
{5} See footnote two.
'Holy crap': Experts find tax plan riddled with glitches
I do not remember Politico being so concerned about "glitches" back when the "Affordable Care Act" was being rolled out...
I do not remember Politico being so concerned about "glitches" back when the "Affordable Care Act" was being rolled out...
Tuesday, December 05, 2017
Tax reform should reduce payroll taxes, cut corporate levy
This is what Congress should be doing with tax policy!
This is what Congress should be doing with tax policy!
Sunday, December 03, 2017
Saturday, December 02, 2017
Briefly...
The growing list of "moves" struck from the old "playbook" in recent months include...
--The mall troll
--The strip-to-ones underwear (with or without robe)
--The ass smack
--The backrub into a six inch hand slide (up or down)
--The boob grab (from the front or the reacharound)
--The innocent kiss into a tongue probe
--The winkie presentation
The growing list of "moves" struck from the old "playbook" in recent months include...
--The mall troll
--The strip-to-ones underwear (with or without robe)
--The ass smack
--The backrub into a six inch hand slide (up or down)
--The boob grab (from the front or the reacharound)
--The innocent kiss into a tongue probe
--The winkie presentation
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Points to Ponder:
“Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of ‘life, liberty, or property.’ That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches. Here, there is no state action. Roy Moore will not lose his life, liberty, or property if voters reject his bid for high office.
Due process protections, absolutely, positively do not prevent voters from evaluating the veracity of news reports and judging whether a politician is fit for public office. It was entirely fair for voters to analyze the available facts about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the available facts about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation without waiting for the outcome of a civil or criminal proceeding. It is entirely fair for members of the public to evaluate Juanita Broaddrick’s claims against Bill Clinton without a trial. Similarly, it’s entirely fair for the public to analyze the available facts about Roy Moore before deciding how to vote.” [David French]
“Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of ‘life, liberty, or property.’ That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches. Here, there is no state action. Roy Moore will not lose his life, liberty, or property if voters reject his bid for high office.
Due process protections, absolutely, positively do not prevent voters from evaluating the veracity of news reports and judging whether a politician is fit for public office. It was entirely fair for voters to analyze the available facts about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the available facts about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation without waiting for the outcome of a civil or criminal proceeding. It is entirely fair for members of the public to evaluate Juanita Broaddrick’s claims against Bill Clinton without a trial. Similarly, it’s entirely fair for the public to analyze the available facts about Roy Moore before deciding how to vote.” [David French]
Monday, November 27, 2017
Points to Ponder:
Free Campaign Strategy Advice For Republicans:
If you want to keep Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to recognize the gift you have been given in Nancy Pelosi. When the leader of congressional Democrats has a colleague who has serious charges of sexual impropriety against him two of which he has been sued and also settled out of court on respectively and she refuses to call for their resignation for political reasons, you need to point this out. You need to hammer on the example of Conyers as well as Leader Pelosi's blatant assertion that Rep Conyers is too important politically to be sacrificed and say "see, it is obvious they do not give a damn about women and accusations of abuse, its all politics with them." Dare them to force Conyers to resign and publicly say they have no credibility on these matters until they force him out.
Yeah its a huge distraction but when you have been given such a juicy club with which to beat your opponent senseless with, you need to use it. If you do this enough, you will likely retain enough Republican and Independent voters to win Jeff Sessions' seat in two weeks time.
If you want to keep Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to recognize the gift you have been given in Nancy Pelosi. When the leader of congressional Democrats has a colleague who has serious charges of sexual impropriety against him two of which he has been sued and also settled out of court on respectively and she refuses to call for their resignation for political reasons, you need to point this out. You need to hammer on the example of Conyers as well as Leader Pelosi's blatant assertion that Rep Conyers is too important politically to be sacrificed and say "see, it is obvious they do not give a damn about women and accusations of abuse, its all politics with them." Dare them to force Conyers to resign and publicly say they have no credibility on these matters until they force him out.
Yeah its a huge distraction but when you have been given such a juicy club with which to beat your opponent senseless with, you need to use it. If you do this enough, you will likely retain enough Republican and Independent voters to win Jeff Sessions' seat in two weeks time.
Free Campaign Strategy Advice For Democrats:
If you want to win Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to present the appearance of moral high ground. The eight or nine accusations against Roy Moore are for the most part serious and credible. However, those against John Conyers are even more so insofar as one accused him, one filed a lawsuit against him, and he agreed to settle with a third. If your leader Nancy Pelosi cannot even admit that Rep. Conyers should resign over his indiscretions (to say nothing of his seeming senility!), do not expect Alabama Republicans to take any calls you make for Roy Moore to step aside or any claims you make about Moore's unfitness for office seriously.
In short, if you want the moral high ground to castigate Moore and his supporters, you need to call for Conyers to resign and if you do not: brace yourself for Senator Roy Moore!
If you want to win Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to present the appearance of moral high ground. The eight or nine accusations against Roy Moore are for the most part serious and credible. However, those against John Conyers are even more so insofar as one accused him, one filed a lawsuit against him, and he agreed to settle with a third. If your leader Nancy Pelosi cannot even admit that Rep. Conyers should resign over his indiscretions (to say nothing of his seeming senility!), do not expect Alabama Republicans to take any calls you make for Roy Moore to step aside or any claims you make about Moore's unfitness for office seriously.
In short, if you want the moral high ground to castigate Moore and his supporters, you need to call for Conyers to resign and if you do not: brace yourself for Senator Roy Moore!
"Because Trump SoHo is doing so well financially that its tough to keep up with it all, I have decided I need to remove my name from the project!" [Donald Trump]
Final Nights at the Trump SoHo Before Trump Checks Out
Final Nights at the Trump SoHo Before Trump Checks Out
Thursday, November 23, 2017
"One From the Vault" Dept.
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from November 26, 2005...
Last night, I did not sleep more than an hour (if even that) due to a phone message I received about my friend Chris. We were five months apart in age and back in the days when titles such as "best friend" were used, he was my best friend. And the phone call was to say that Chris died the day before Thanksgiving in a hospital in Arizona. Pardon me if what I am about to write is disjointed...I am working off of virtually no sleep and because of the news from last night, my mind may not be clear. (Certainly my emotions are not stable as I write this.)...
...
I have had in mind for a while to see several people I have not spent much time with in recent years in the coming year (2006). And while I still intend to do that; nonetheless, I am hardly saying something original in noting that we all have those people whom we are close to who for a variety of circumstances we do not see much of over what can be a long stretch of years. Of course when this thought comes to our minds, many of us defend ourselves by saying that we will get back in touch with them "someday." Well, one of the first people on that list (if not the first) was to be my oldest friend Chris. But he died before I could do that and I will be asking myself for a long time when I think of him what I could have done differently...is there anything I could have set aside as truly less important to focus on what truly was more important.
One would think after all the family deaths in recent years that I would have gotten over putting friends and family aside as I did with my oldest friend. I told myself that I would see Chris "next year" aka "someday" and just because it was supposed to be next year does not remove the beam from my eye... [Excerpts from the Rerum Novarum Posting Remembering Chris (circa November 26, 2005)]
I do not have many things in my life I truly wish I had a reset button on but this is one of them. I miss you amigo and pray for you and the repose of your soul often.
Note:
{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from November 26, 2005...
Last night, I did not sleep more than an hour (if even that) due to a phone message I received about my friend Chris. We were five months apart in age and back in the days when titles such as "best friend" were used, he was my best friend. And the phone call was to say that Chris died the day before Thanksgiving in a hospital in Arizona. Pardon me if what I am about to write is disjointed...I am working off of virtually no sleep and because of the news from last night, my mind may not be clear. (Certainly my emotions are not stable as I write this.)...
...
I have had in mind for a while to see several people I have not spent much time with in recent years in the coming year (2006). And while I still intend to do that; nonetheless, I am hardly saying something original in noting that we all have those people whom we are close to who for a variety of circumstances we do not see much of over what can be a long stretch of years. Of course when this thought comes to our minds, many of us defend ourselves by saying that we will get back in touch with them "someday." Well, one of the first people on that list (if not the first) was to be my oldest friend Chris. But he died before I could do that and I will be asking myself for a long time when I think of him what I could have done differently...is there anything I could have set aside as truly less important to focus on what truly was more important.
One would think after all the family deaths in recent years that I would have gotten over putting friends and family aside as I did with my oldest friend. I told myself that I would see Chris "next year" aka "someday" and just because it was supposed to be next year does not remove the beam from my eye... [Excerpts from the Rerum Novarum Posting Remembering Chris (circa November 26, 2005)]
I do not have many things in my life I truly wish I had a reset button on but this is one of them. I miss you amigo and pray for you and the repose of your soul often.
Note:
{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Miscellaneous Musings on Political Squabblings About Sex Abuse Accusers in General:
The following is a Rosetta Stone to all the above political wrangling:
--All claimants are liars and all accused are innocent and we need an impossibly strict burden of proof unless the claimants are against someone we do not like. If the latter is the case, then we pull a 180 whereas claimants are truthful and all accused are guilty and we need not even a reasonable burden of proof but instead, anything on any fringe site however badly sourced is adequate to indict them.
--All news sources we do not like are dismissed as Ferrk Nerrz unless the same source has something we like. If the latter happens, we will pull a 180 and cite the once-reviled source as suddenly reliable and above suspicion while forgetting our previous dismissal wholesale of said source.
--In all things #OurTribeRight and #YourTribeWrong.
Am I missing anything?
The following is a Rosetta Stone to all the above political wrangling:
--All claimants are liars and all accused are innocent and we need an impossibly strict burden of proof unless the claimants are against someone we do not like. If the latter is the case, then we pull a 180 whereas claimants are truthful and all accused are guilty and we need not even a reasonable burden of proof but instead, anything on any fringe site however badly sourced is adequate to indict them.
--All news sources we do not like are dismissed as Ferrk Nerrz unless the same source has something we like. If the latter happens, we will pull a 180 and cite the once-reviled source as suddenly reliable and above suspicion while forgetting our previous dismissal wholesale of said source.
--In all things #OurTribeRight and #YourTribeWrong.
Am I missing anything?
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
This Just In: Mike Pence’s Rule Against Having Private Dinners With Random Women Is Not Christian
"...In public relations you learn, very early, that P = R, that is, Perception = Reality. What you actually do is less important that what you are perceived to be doing.
In this point, both Catholic theology and Federal ethics regulations come into sync. Catholics are told it isn’t sufficient to avoid sin, you must avoid the occasion, i.e. exposure to the possibility, of sin. So if you are an alcoholic it is not sufficient to avoid drink, you need to avoid places where alcohol is served. As 'scandal,' that is behavior that could cause other to do evil, a person in a leadership position has the obligation to avoid situations that could lead to rumors being spread. Federal ethics regs say it isn’t enough to avoid impropriety, you must avoid the appearance of impropriety..."
"...In public relations you learn, very early, that P = R, that is, Perception = Reality. What you actually do is less important that what you are perceived to be doing.
In this point, both Catholic theology and Federal ethics regulations come into sync. Catholics are told it isn’t sufficient to avoid sin, you must avoid the occasion, i.e. exposure to the possibility, of sin. So if you are an alcoholic it is not sufficient to avoid drink, you need to avoid places where alcohol is served. As 'scandal,' that is behavior that could cause other to do evil, a person in a leadership position has the obligation to avoid situations that could lead to rumors being spread. Federal ethics regs say it isn’t enough to avoid impropriety, you must avoid the appearance of impropriety..."
Monday, November 20, 2017
Public Service Announcement:
For those who do not like President Trump and talk about impeachment, even if somehow it is successful remember: impeachment does not actually remove a president from office. Instead, it is basically an indictment and as I said already, would have to be based on "high crimes and misdemeanors."
To prosecute said indictment against the president, it would involve a trial before the whole Senate which would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Then after the trial, if the charges were somehow proven, it would still involve a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to remove the president. That would mean all Democrat and Independent senators as well at least 19 Republican senators would have to vote for removal. And even then, you would simply get Vice President Pence as your new president.
Again, simply hating President Trump or not liking his policies is not sufficient.
This has been another public service announcement...
For those who do not like President Trump and talk about impeachment, even if somehow it is successful remember: impeachment does not actually remove a president from office. Instead, it is basically an indictment and as I said already, would have to be based on "high crimes and misdemeanors."
To prosecute said indictment against the president, it would involve a trial before the whole Senate which would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Then after the trial, if the charges were somehow proven, it would still involve a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to remove the president. That would mean all Democrat and Independent senators as well at least 19 Republican senators would have to vote for removal. And even then, you would simply get Vice President Pence as your new president.
Again, simply hating President Trump or not liking his policies is not sufficient.
This has been another public service announcement...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)