TheProgressiveLiberal

Ben Roethlisberger was suspended for his rape allegation without a charge or arrest.

Alabama fan who shot Auburn fan over Iron Bowl dispute appears in court before judge who graduated from Auburn https://www.seccountry.com/sec/alabama-fan-shot-auburn-fan-iron-bowl-dispute-appears-court-judge-graduated-auburn Posted 11 hours ago AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to More3 You can’t make this stuff up. In the latest twist to a case that provides an entertaining although cautious side-story to the Alabama-Auburn Iron Bowl rivalry, a judge who graduated from Auburn presided over a hearing for a suspect who is an Alabama fan and reportedly has an Alabama tattoo on his neck. Earlier this week the original story surfaced of a fan from each side of the rivalry getting into an argument, when the Alabama fan shot the Auburn fan in the thigh. Here’s what happened in the Mobile, Ala. courtroom on Friday, according to J.B. Blunno of WKRG. “Rodney Lorenzo Alexander’s bond hearing was before Judge Bob Sherling, who received his Bachelor’s and Masters degrees from Auburn University, Blunno says. “In fact, Sherling presided over Alexander’s hearing with an Auburn Tigers mug on the bench.” Here’s look at the judge and his mug, via WKRG: You gotta wonder if Sherling knew he would preside over this case today and brought the Auburn mug especially for it, or if he reps the Tigers every day. Blunno further reports that Alexander’s bond was set at $15,000, and he will have another hearing on Tuesday. No word yet on if Alabama or another SEC school will be represented by the judge on that day. The victim in the shooting — the Auburn supporter — is still in the hospital but is expected to recover soon.

That poll released their internals and it way oversampled Democrats. The Indians of North America died of disease long before the settlers moved into new territories. For instance, diseases from European explorers to the north wiped out most of the population in New England, making the area seem nearly uninhabited when the Pilgrims showed up. The same thing happened across the whole continent. Nature had determined that most of them would die at the first point they came into contact with people from any other continent. As for the fighting, the Indians gave as good as they got on that front. Many of the tribes were generally friendly. Many other tribes were amongst the most brutal and savage people who have ever existed. Gang raping captured females until they died and such. Their side just lost. Edited to satisfy Welshy.

Uh no. Again, Mr. Moore's lawyer was asked why he would ask permission from parents before dating someone over 18. The implication being that this arrangement makes no sense to the lady asking the question. Mr. Moore's lawyer said that perhaps some people in Alabama in the 1970s had different courting rituals than the interviewer experienced. I've never known anyone to ask permission before asking a woman out. I would have thought that died out quite awhile before the 70s. But I wasn't alive during that time period. Why not let the man make his point? Instead she started yelling and switched to talking about 14 year olds. Either she can't control herself or she's a bully. I'm not sure which. The law in Alabama states that you can f**k anyone with or without their parents permission once they reach age 16. That's fairly standard for US states, though some are stricter. Was just looking up the exact numbers. Interestingly, Canada just moved their age from 14 to 16 in 2008. Roy Moore should have looked into a change of country.

You're the one who's bringing up white. The fact is that these hosts reacted like they just saw a lynching because he brought up a cultural difference that exists when asked why a man would seek permission to date an adult woman. They start yelling about "Canadian." What does where he grew up have to do with anything? He could be from Jamaica or Hong Kong or anywhere else and the fact would remain that he almost assuredly knows people in arranged marriages because of his cultural background. It's a weird tick that the left has where everyone is so diverse until there's even the hint that a negative stereotype might be creeping in (even if it's not meant to be negative) and then it's just "American," "Canadian," "British," etc. It's nonsense. And most people watching that clip know it's nonsense. The fact that the left is interpreting that exchange as bigoted on the lawyers part is hilarious. Right now a bunch of poor people in Africa have incentive to kill those animals and the local governments don't have their shit together enough to stop the killings or implement policies which would allow the animals to thrive. We can agree on that correct? Maybe an influx of money from rich hunters can get things working properly.

Right, but he's not Gordie MacKenzie from Moose Scrotum, Saskatchewan. He's a first generation immigrant son of global businessman parents. He is of South African Indian / Pakistani origin. It's almost certain that he knows people who are in arranged marriages. Those two hosts are people who got where they are probably based on 45% who their parents were and 45% having a higher than average IQ. Maybe 10% of their own doing. They shouldn't be punching down on the small town lawyer who went to Troy University on a football scholarship. He was answering their question. There's no need to grandstand and yell at him. I'm guessing they saw the same video Mr. Henry posted before they did the interview and had him marked out as a bigot. I'm also guessing that they've never met the type of conservative evangelical Christian who's as anti-racist as the most hardcore SJW, but who thinks any homosexual activity is a grave sin. It's not a type they run into. He seems like that type to me. They were probably looking for bigotry and missed that he might actually think the presenters diverse background really is neat. Paul was a Jew according to the Bible. I guess it depends on whether you would define a Jew who grew up in a Greek city as "Greek."

He was responding to the question as to why Roy Moore would have asked permission from the parents if he dated a woman who was over 18. The response by Stephanie Ruhle is exactly why people in middle America don't trust and hate our elites (I looked up her background on the internet). The lawyer was responding to a question. He made an innocent comment in a polite trying to demonstrate that sometimes there's cultural difference in courting rituals. Faux outrage, virtue signaling, and an obvious bias towards assuming what her guest was saying had to be bigoted in some way. Then she switched to yelling and intimidating tactics about 14 year old girls when the question he was answering had to do with why someone would ask permission to date a woman over 18. Next she yells about her co-host being from Canada, as if no Indian/Pakistani people in the West could ever be intimately familiar with marriage customs other than those practiced here. Also, Wiki says the co-host was born in Africa and lived in Pakistan for a time while growing up. What a massive c**t.

Not sure what the laws are in Alabama. But if the man who raped you was your judge, you'd remember. She did not mention this in her press conference and specifically denied having later contact with Judge Moore. There's no reason a judge would remember a random divorce case. Why is that bizarre? Right now the short term economic incentive for poor people with corrupt governments is to kill the animals, but not to maintain a stock for the future. If rich people want to pay to hunt the animals that changes the incentives.

Haslam is a big University of Tennessee booster I think.

A woman has claimed Judge Moore made her uncomfortable with his flirting and grabbed her ass when she came to his law office to sign the paperwork giving up custody of her son. Classy. Two more women who worked at the mall have come forward and said he flirted with them as teenagers and asked them out. Judge Moore is saying that the woman who accused him of sexual assault lost a divorce case in front of him in the late 90s. She did not try to have him removed from the case at the time or mention this in her press conference. Judge Moore is also demanding the yearbook be given to independent forensics experts. He says their are inconsistencies with how it's signed, especially the initials after his name, that make him think it was copied from his signature in the divorce proceedings. It looks like the best case scenario for Judge Moore is that he was a creep in the late 70s, it was well known, but he did nothing illegal. The two women who have accused him of illegal behavior would have known the rumors, and therefore known what topic to use when constructing a damaging lie. Doesn't seem likely this is the case at this point. I'd say that unless he comes up with some sort of smoking gun fairly soon he needs to drop out. Here's the attorney for Mr. Moore:

Yeah. Trumps an idiot with what he's chosen to prioritize with Congress. He's picking issues where 30-40% of the country is with him like health care and taxes instead of the issue where 50-60% (including his base) is with him. IMMIGRATION, MUSLIM BAN, WALL, TRADE, INFASTRUCTURE!!!!!! Don't get me wrong, he's done a lot administratively to move the right way on those issues. But he's done nothing to change the permanent situation for when a Democrat gets back in office.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm interested in the story and this is a message board. This is the appropriate thread. There's zero reason any of us have to or should assume that allegations are 100% true for any crime when almost no hard evidence has been presented. And just one year ago almost every single one of you wanted a Presidential candidate to win who has been accused by multiple rape victims of seeking to intimidate them. Don't get on your high horse. Interesting. It says they started to become standard on luxury cars in the 50s. I talked to my dad and he said he couldn't remember having a car with the feature until the early 90s. I'd imagine holding other demographic features constant, you be less likely to end up poor, but also less likely to become rich. You'd probably have a better shot at a stable family life. You'd probably be a more generous person.

Rush Limbaugh had an interesting question. Mr. Moore's latest accuser says he locked her in the car. When did cars start to have the ability for the driver to lock every door? Wiki says the 80s. What type of care did Mr. Moore drive in the 1970s?

Two strange things on the newest Roy Moore accuser. People are wondering why he signed "Merry Christmas" on her yearbook. Yearbooks come out at the end of the school year just before summer. Also, someone claiming to be her step son says he suspects she's lying. Here's the video. Who knows if it's real or what's going on in that family. Here's Roy Moore and his wife last night after the new allegation.

So basically the Jewish law laid down in Exodus through Deuteronomy. The "shellfish" argument and not much more. The relationship of Gentile Christians to Jewish law is all pretty clearly dealt with in various parts of the New Testament. Acts 15 and Ephesians 2 most prominently. Any literal reading of these passages wipes away most of the law. There are plenty of other verses which deal with specific Jewish laws here and there.

Which prominent points do they ignore? Just the shellfish, or are there more? I'm actually curious what people with fancy pants degrees on this subject think.

This article isn't a good look for Moore. Lots of talk from his hometown. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html No rumors of assaults, but lots of talk about creepy behavior towards young women in the 1970s. I was wondering when we'd get around to this. I currently live in a county about the same size as Mr. Moore's, 100k. Mr. Moore is the most famous person in his county by far. There are a couple people where I live that have national fame. I know all the rumors about their behavior. I figured we'd get the full run down on his behavior. Looks like it's starting to trickle out. I suspect we will know soon if there's anything beyond creepy behavior decades ago that crosses into illegality or assault. I also suspect that the right wing media like Breitbart is frantically attempting to blow holes in the stories of his two serious accusers. We should have the end of this well before election day.

I'm defending the idea that you can be a Biblical literalist without following Jewish law as laid down in Leviticus. Being a progressive liberal I read the NIV, not the King James. I'm aware that the academics who study these things do not believe that the New Testament was literally written by the apostles in the decades after the death of Christ. I'm aware that there's a lot of doubt as to whether Christ actually existed. I haven't personally studied such topics so I can't speak beyond that. Not sure what it has to do with whether you can be a consistent Biblical literalist while still eating shellfish.

You don't think a direct apostle of Christ in the New Testament saying that Christians don't have to follow those rules is consistent with literalism? I've never claimed to be a literalist, by the way.

Lady seems credible on my initial reaction. Watching her on CNN right now.

The new accuser says she was a 16 year old waitress. He offered to drive her home. She says he locked the car and groped her.

I don't think I'm especially smart. I think I'm above average on certain topics. Christianity is one of them. The argument that Christians are being selective by ignoring dietary laws from Leviticus is complete nonsense. The application of Levitical law to Gentile Christians was dealt with very, very clearly in the New Testament. It doesn't take post grad education to understand. It's written clear enough for everybody to understand. I apologize for not realizing that you know this.

Thought the SNP fought to give 16 year olds the right to vote in your referendum. I have consistent opinions on the subject. It's a matter for the voters unless there is a criminal conviction or really, really solid evidence is made public for the accusations. I'm wondering why the rest of you don't.

Right. If true. The other three allegations in the Wash Post don't put Judge Moore in the best light by average societal standards, but ultimately they are irrelevant to political questions 40 years later. The 14 year old is a different story. There's no cultural context that can explain that story as just borderline weird behavior that happened decades ago. The Wash Post was trying to establish a pattern that would make the 14 year old's story more believable. I'm not sure I agree with that logic. The 14 year olds story has to stand on it's own. The election is a month away. We will see what more comes out.

Nobody is debating that this particular allegation is terrible if true.