Roy Moore


No, RWNJ’s observation.


What I meant was that those three men “resisted” government interference in their chosen lifestyles and paid a severe price for doing so.


The one from the helicopter that I can’t find any more. The one that was reasonably clear, with the camera angle from over Finicum’s right shoulder


Yep, I misunderstood you the first time. My apologies.


No apology necessary, qix.


Here is a good video…It’s enhanced and stablized.

Same video B&W inversion

Sure looks to me that he’s moving, he’s reaching for his waistline.

I don’t know why he’s moving his hands. Some people have claimed he was shot by “sponge” bullets, but I have no idea and neither do you. That is to say, I know the police had them (sponge bullets) and I believe it was reported they were used, the question is, is that the justification for his apparent motions in the video.

We know from his own words several minutes before he was shot that he was being defiant and literally daring police to shoot him. I think this was a case of suicide by cop by a man willing to die for his cause. I think he wanted to be a martyr.

Now he was stopped earlier and disobeyed a lawful order to surrender.

Here is video from inside the truck prior to the event that led to his death.

Then he tried to run a roadblock

When a black man is shot we’re often told that he should have done what he was told. Mr. Finicum could have done what he was told and lived to fight another day. But somehow I know you’re going to tell me how this was different, right?

If he didn’t want to die he should have laid face down in the snow with his hands out to his side.

Now, as far as missing video, when I do a Google search I don’t see any claims of a missing video…?


‘Enhanced and stabilized’. That screams ‘edited’ to me.

Video aside, however, the case against Bundy et al was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE for prosecutorial misconductcand law enforcement excesses. The cops involved were not engaged in the discharge of their legitimate duties. Whatever the law says, to me, that makes it murder, and the cops (s) who shot him should be shot down in the same place in the same way.

I’m out of sympathy for law enforcement until they clean up their own houses.


No, it’s not edited at all. It’s a computer stabilization software you can buy for $20.

You said the video was nowhere to be found, I found tons of videos, you’re welcome to watch the unstabilized original and tell me if you see edits. If you can’t find it, let me know, there a zillion places to find it.


  1. The video is freely available

  2. He appears in the video to reach toward his waist

Do you deny this?

I have no problem with that, regardless of how I feel about the conduct of Mr. Bundy et. al. It is extremely important that law enforcement be held to the highest standard and if they fail to live up to that standard, then, potentially, the guilty (in some cases) might go free to prevent sloppy or heavy-handedness from imprisoning the innocent.

How is it murder? You think that if you believe that a traffic stop is unlawful, you don’t have to follow the instructions of the police?

Look I’ll be the first one in line to say police tactics often result in needless deaths, but the fact is, Mr. Finicum failed to obey the police and acted in a way that increased his odds of being shot, and he was.


Who made the police or the FBI Levoy Finicum’s master? Is that how you see it? The police are the masters and we are the slaves to do as we are told by our “betters”? The police are not bound by the law, but are free to interpret it in any way suits them at the moment, including shooting down innocent men like dogs?

Remember what I said? ‘Scratch a liberal…’

EDIT: I get it: Levoy Finicum was a criminal. His crime? He asserted his rights as a free man in the face of an illegitimate authority, said crime being punishable by summary execution without the benefit of jurisprudence. And you’re okay with that.


CSB, I still don’t have a response to your long post. I tried tackling some of it point by point, but that didn’t seem feasible, especially since there seems to me to be a lot of redundency as to the central issues. I’ll still try to get back with you, but I expect it will be a general overall response, rather than point-by-point.


Decided only by the random firings of His own “neurons” and self-interest. Yup. And yet, with the power to enforce it, His will still defines good and evil. What good is your “good” and “evil” or your “rights” when it is trumped by an evil child God? Fortunately, that’s not the universe you live in.

As an aside, I feel for my poor Sims back in Sim City days. Thank God they’re not real people because I am just mean at some point in the game. What do you mean you have property rights? Rezoned! Oh, and how about a tornado and a big monster to shake things up a bit!

Never mind that murder may objectively improve lives only at the expense of suffering for one poor guy. I think that’s really the nut of the argument for the Final Solution.

Eh, likewise. Just to be clear, I have some strong dissimilarities with most of the folks here.

You get used to it. As an MMT guy, you should be used to it by now :wink:

I’d be bored in an echo chamber. Seriously, what’s there to say when you just agree with a post?

Indeed, yet they clearly described a set of rights that make real sense, literally prohibiting people and governments from harming other people and serving as the foundation for our nation’s philosophy. That framework has no room for positive rights.

And society. Society can declare “dishonest” good. They frequently “declare” many things good that are not. There are the obvious big examples: Slavery, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. History is full of it – and it’s arbitrary.

He valued his and those around him as well as German lives, as long as they weren’t certain kinds of lives, which made the German people objectively suffer in his view.

Lack of values is not a risk to life. Ask the peaceful Christian martyrs down through the ages. A lack of values probably improves your chances of survival overall, at least for the shrewd.



Where did I ever say that?

Or this?

I never said he was a criminal, though when he was pulled over and refused to stop, he broke the law. Was his infraction so egregious that he should pay for it with his life, no, absolutely not!

Having said that, he’s not a criminal until he is convicted by a jury of his peers, even if he breaks the law.

But having said that, how upset were/ are you about the killings of men like Freddie Gray, Daniel Shaver, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice or John Crawford?

Now, I don’t recall having a conversation with you about any of these men, but I will say then when I have conversations about cases similar to these I’m often told that many of these cases are the result of the suspects failure to follow the instructions of the police and that if they would have just have done as they were told, most of them would still be alive.

So what you say you?

Here’s an example.

This man is pulled over. He refuses to show his license and eventually drives off. The officer shoots him for driving away. At this point the officer knows NOTHING about him, doesn’t even know his name.

Would you agree that he was murdered?

How about this guy?

Given your outrage over the way police kill people I assume statistics like these upset you?

36% of unarmed people killed by police were black in 2015 despite black people being only 13% of the U.S. population
Unarmed black people were killed at 5x the rate of unarmed whites in 2015

Only 13 of the 104 cases in 2015 where an unarmed black person was killed by police resulted in officer(s) being charged with a crime. 4 of these cases have ended in a mistrial or charges against the officer(s) being dropped and 4 cases are still awaiting trial or have a trial underway. Only 4 cases (Matthew Ajibade, Eric Harris, Paterson Brown Jr., and William Chapman) have resulted in convictions of officers involved, with a fifth case (Walter Scott) resulting in the officer pleading guilty.

Of the 4 cases where the officer(s) involved have been convicted and sentenced, none were sentenced to serve more than 4 years in prison. Only 1 of 2 officers convicted for their involvement in Matthew Ajibade’s death received jail time. He was sentenced to 1 year in jail and allowed to serve this time exclusively on weekends. The officer who killed Paterson Brown was sentenced to only 3 months in jail. Deputy Bates, who killed Eric Harris, was sentenced to 4 years in prison and Officer Cobb, who killed William Chapman, was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison. Officer Slager, who killed Walter Scott and pled guilty, has yet to be sentenced.

So yeah, I absolutely disagree with the way Lavoy Finicum was shot and killed. I don’t think there was any reason to sentence him to death for what he had allegedly done to that point.

I think Finicum could have been captured alive, but I can’t help be feel that the outrage, if not by you, by others on the right, is awefully selective.


And how can you possibly know this if you cannot evaluate “good” and “evil” without god?

In other words, you have a chicken and the egg problem here…

What comes first, your understanding of good and evil or your being told what is good and evil?

If it’s your own understanding than you admit you don’t need god to understand them because you know what these things are via your own experience.

If you tell me it’s god that tells you what good and evil is, then you can’t possibley tell me that god commands these things because they are good as you’ve admitted you lack the capacity to evaluate them without god telling you what they are.

See the problem?


Yes, I don’t mean to paint with such a broad brush, I did so only in the interest of brevity.

Exactly why I come here. I think everyone should subject their ideas to scrutiny. I think it was Aristotle (though I might be mistaken) who said, " the Mark of an educated mind is a person who can entertain a thought, even if they don’t accept it".

I listen and even discuss the points made here with other “liberals” who are either undisciplined or uninterested in hearing the kinds of opinions given here. Frankly, I think people on the right tend to show better discipline than those on the left if I can paint with that really broad brush again.

And yes, MMT keeps my skin nice and thick.

A subject that deserves it’s own thread. :slight_smile:

Yep, society can make the wrong choices, but I’d argue it’s not arbitrary. They don’t decide to do things at random.

Decisions are made for very specific reasons. However, as Russia, Germany and China have proved, society can fail, but I don’t think it would be difficult for me to point out similar failings driven by peoples belief in god.

In all cases, people need to make choices. I prefer choices be grounded in evidence rather than peoples subjective interpretation of vague rules written by anonymous authors hundreds or even thousands of years ago.

You say he valued the lives of Germans but he caused them great suffering, did he really value the lives of Germans? I don’t think so.

Totally disagree. If you value only the means to your own ends regardless of others that you harm, most people will find themselves ejected from the group, incarcerated by the group or put to death.

Now if you have the power, as Hitler and Stalin did, that doesn’t change the fact that many people would kill Hitler if they had the chance because he didn’t value anything that wasn’t a means to his own end.


CSB, I finally got my response done (alas, long-winded like yours):

I don’t necessarily see a division between what God calls good, and outcome (although I believe that the former preceeds the latter). I do believe that humans (including myself) are often lousy at predicting outcomes of choices and situations, and that God, being all-knowing, knows exactly what He’s doing.

On the subject of “logical fallacy,” did you know that logic sometimes fails? Scientists and mathematicians have uncovered any number of paradoxes that logic cannot explain. I have no doubt that there are explanations; but for now at least, the paradoxes remain.

As to “arbitrary” vs. “subjective,” I do indeed believe that your human-centric premise is indeed arbitrary, unless humans have innate value. How can you objectively determine that? How can we assigned value to ourselves without conflict of interest issues getting in the way? 'Nutjob used the biblical illustration of the potter and the clay; I submit that only the Potter is in an objective position to determine our value.

Can I acknowledge the objective outcome of valuing life? Sure; but I still believe the subjectivity of the choice which is inevitable from a secular worldview is based on an arbitrary assigning of value to life. And I insist that an objective basis for valuing life is necessary, or the resulting moral concepts are unstable. Obviously, I believe that our innate value comes from the God who created us.

So pigs lack moral value because of low level of awareness? How much awareness is necessary for value? Does a Down’s Syndrome person fail to qualify? An infant? The unborn? The elderly with dementia? A certain I.Q. level? I know that many on the left use some or all of these as disqualifiers. This question must be answered soundly if the resulting morality is to be meaningful. The Christian answer is that we’re made in the image of God.

As to the hypothetical alien scenario, you felt that humanity would in turn respect the aliens’ value. How so? Half the time, we don’t even respect each others’ value (wars, crimes, and other cruelty attest to this). We make a lot of bad choices when left to our own devices. We’re like an inflated and unknotted balloon that is released; we fly around rapidly and completely aimlessly, making a noise like flatulence, until we fall uselessly, helplessly, and ridiculously to the ground on our rear ends.

As to realizing our human potential (through your premises of morality), how can there be any meaningful realization when, outside of supernatural intervention, the universe and everyone (individually and collectively) in it is going to die of entropy? In the godless context, we, the universe, and everything in it will be too dead to care. How, then, does it matter whether we wipe ourselves out, or the death of the universe does? Wiped out is wiped out.

I can’t remember enough of the context (I only have your post here on my own computer, to type up the answer offline) to go into detail, but I do recall that I felt certain that 'Nutjob’s comment did not depend on the presupposition of God’s existance; I believe it stood on its own.

As to verifying God’s existance, I have a bunch of points to offer (what preceded is half of my post; here’s the other half).

I cited scripture, but that scripture relates to a basic fact that anyone can confirm: That a vast and wonderous universe exists. Its very existance demands an explanation. I submit that it can only be accounted for by a supernatural event (which implies a supernatural source; admittedly, that doesn’t in itself specify the Judeo-Christian God, but I’ll get into more specific evidences later); I’ve never heard a sound explanation for the origin of the universe without one.

I can also cite in my own life things that have changed in my heart for much the better since I turned to God (a couple of which were addictions of the heart which I’d tried more than once to beat on my own, and couldn’t; Alcoholics Anonymous operates on the premise that addictions can only be conquered with the aid of a higher power, although they don’t specify that power).

Also, I submit that biblical scripture isn’t a case of it’s-true-because-it-says-so. I don’t claim to understand it all (and will admit to even having discomfort about some elements), but it isn’t just a fairy tale pulled out of thin air. Whether on not one believes the supernatural elements (I’ll get into that in a moment), it’s a historical document of real people, places, events, governments, etc. frequently supported by outside documentation and archeology.

Except perhaps recently (generally, atheists seem more aware that Jesus’ very existance presents them with problems that their atheism can’t answer, so they have to attack it), the vast majority of secular historians accepted the biblical scriptures in a general historical sense. They agreed that Jesus did exist, that his disciples believed he was the son of God, that he did many miracles, and that he rose again after he died on the cross (as well-known Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias stated, there’s more documentational evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Plato).

And that most of those disciples were put to death for refusing to recant that belief. I can’t remember if he was quoting someone else or not, but there’s a preacher on the radio who pointed out that man will die for a conviction, but they won’t die for a concoction. If the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus were a fabrication for their own gain, why would they die for it? Self interest argues against it in that context.

And if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, the Romans and the Jewish religious leaders themselves had strong interest in proving he didn’t. And the most conclusive way to do so would have been to have presented Jesus’ dead body. Certainly they had the power to find it if it were to be found; and they couldn’t do so.

Another thing is that the biblical account of the first person to see Him was a woman. Even in the Jewish culture of the day which was head and shoulders above the rest of the world in terms of respecting women, a woman was not considered a valid witness. If the disciples concocted the resurrection, it’s unlikely that they would have claimed that a woman was the first to see him, because they would have wanted to present someone who would have been deemed a valid witness.

Jesus’ own remarkable teachings also argue that He was very much out of the ordinary. And contrary to those who claim he was merely a good teacher, He made claims that don’t leave room for that. He made unprecedented claims of deity which could not be mere mistake. Either He was nuts, or engaging in blasphemous deceit, or He was Who He said He was. Or as Christian apologist Josh McDowell put it: Lord, liar, or lunatic. There is no room for mere “good teacher.”

All this is just a taste of the many arguments (objective, I submit) that have been made for the existance of God. I submit that the only way they (and the scriptures) will mean anything to you is if you’re genuinely open to the possibility of God’s existence and sovereignty.

I could go on, but I think I hit the main points.


I agree with this post…


No. I have no idea what you’re driving at here.

After asking a question, I just pointed out in what I thought was a light-hearted way that clearly you do not live in a universe with an evil child God because you don’t spend all your time objectively suffering.

It is arbitrary. It just is what society says it is. It could be different tomorrow, the whim of a majority, the tyranny of the masses based on ever-changing values – a moral framework built on easily shifting moral sands.

That statement is a subjective opinion. Hitler and the German people may well have felt at the time that they were doing what was best for the German people, whom they all valued highly – except for the wrong kinds.

Or elected president.

That’s a joke, but also a serious point. Only the clumsy failures will be ejected, incarcerated or put to death. Plenty of other, more clever folks, will successfully manipulate others, improving chances for personal survival as well as prosperity.


From what I know of the Ohio case, that cop murdered an innocent man, and was allowed to walk away Scot free. Iirc I was pretty upset by the Freddie Grey case, (Baltimore, the ‘rough ride’? Easily manslaughter imo) but I might be confusing cases. I cant keep them all straight. Every case of police excess is cause for outrage and alarm, but i don’t pick which ones get media attention in which markets. Mostly, i dont have enough information to render an opinion on those cases (and ‘don’t know’ means ‘don’t know’, not ‘avoiding the subject because they might reveal inconsistencies in my position’. I don’t ‘know’ about the Ferguson (Mo.) case: the ‘victim’ was terribly unsympathetic, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence (of guilt on the officer’s part, that is). I consider the probability of wrongdoing by that officer ‘too low to worry about’, since I haven’t seen any evidence or credible testimony of it) (excuse the nested (), my computer died, I’m working from my phone, it’s a pita…)
Your ‘troubling’ statistics are easily understood: the institutional culture of the black inner city is to hate, fear and defy police, while the institutional culture of the police is to dominate and suppress defiance. It doesn’t help that police work in many municipalities has been reduced to no better than a ‘shakedown’, finding (or inventing) any and every pretext to squeeze the public for money. Those statistics are the natural consequence of the clashing of cultures. All it takes to fix it is reinventing two cultures from the ground up…

And to think, all we have to do to keep from being shot down like dogs is OBEY. Isn’t it great to live in a free country?


Since you’ve chosen to ignore my request to dispense with editorials, hop on the soap box, embrace sophistry, and equivocate (example forthcoming) TWICE now, I might as well engage and speak to your issues one by one.

  1. The use of the word “Creator” in the DOI.

If your belief is that the founders did not wish to establish a state religion (i.e. Christianity, although Christianity itself is not a religion . . . anyway, you know what I mean), then I agree with your view. (And I think you’ve expressed that opinion).

Your “Well, now that depends . . .” paragraph is an example of an editorial, soap box, and most of all . . . SOPHISTRY. (No worries though . . . I’ve frequently been a long winded bag of hot air myself. Brevity does not come easy to you or me.)

In any case, whether the “Creator” is The Great Pumpkin, a Giant Cucumber, the Spaghetti Monster . . . or whatever, He (She?), according to the DOI "endowed us with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”. Do you agree that this Creator (whoever or whatever you may think He/She/It is) did so?

  1. Thomas Jefferson (and this is the BIGGIE):

Your argument is just the flip side of the same coin that the evangelicals use.

C’mon, CS, are you really using the tired old worn out “Jefferson was/wasn’t . . .” tactic?

For those that haven’t seen this plain vanilla strategy before, here’s how it goes:

You cherry pick some Jefferson quotes to show that he supports your POV.

Wanna’ show that Jefferson WAS a Christian? Piece a’ cake:

Jefferson said . . .

Of Christ’s instructions, he said they were . . .

He pushed the notion that we should . . .

He suggested that the defeat of Napoleon

In his first inaugural address, he invoked the blessings of

In his second inaugural address, he sought the blessings “of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life.”

Want to show that Jefferson WASN’T Christian? Another piece a’ cake:

Jefferson said . . .

Jefferson said that the authors of the Bible were . . .

Of the concept of the Trinity, Jefferson said it was . . .

(“mountebanks” means . . . fraudsters or charlatans.)

And finally, he said . .

And (to use a George Bush utterance), Brownie did a heck of a job coming up with more.

Was Jefferson a deist who believed God rolled the dice and then walked away from the gaming table?

Was Jefferson NOT a true deist because he believed in a God who intervened in the course of history?

Who knows?

Don’t bother arguing these quotes, Brown . . . minds much greater than yours (or mine, for that matter) have been arguing over this for two centuries. Both Christians and secularists have cherry-picked Jefferson quotes to “prove” that the sage of Monticello was a believer . . . or not.

So which Jefferson was the genuine Jefferson . . . the sober Christian or the mad apostate?

My opinion? Both. Jefferson’s creeds don’t correspond to the stereotypes created by modern culture gladiators. He was anti-Christian and pro-Jesus. He was anti-religion and pro-God. He was against unquestioning belief and he advocated reason-based belief. He resented being considered a heretic because he believed that his approach to God and Jesus was more faithful to both of them.

Why is it so important to win the Jefferson trophy? If the argument espoused by you or your tribe is enhanced by Jefferson, you’ve won a tremendous ally. You or your tribe can say even TJ agrees. Having the famous Jefferson on your side advances your argument. And having him on the other side is bad news.

{digression} The hero worship myth has created a picture of a flawless individual running for saint-hood. TJ was, as unAmerican as it may sound, blemished in many ways.

For example, he was a plain vanilla lying filthy politician . . . and would make Trump and Hillary look like ho-hum amateurs. In the 1800 campaign against John Adams, TJ hired a “journalist” (hatchet man, really) named James Callendar to do his malicious lying for him. Mudslinging and yellow journalism/fake news got its start back then and had more vinegar than even today. (Callendar later served jail time for slandering Adams.)

To be fair, TJ had a huge intellect (brilliant, really) and his authorship of the DOI (although it was edited by Ben Franklin and others before it was finalized) was an example of how cerebral he was. He was a patriot, perhaps the most prominent Founding Father, and despite his faults and flaws, deserves the veneration and admiration he has gotten. {end digression}

Change gears . . .

I’m a little confused. On the one hand, you claim to be agnostic (i.e. you DON’T KNOW if there is a Creator . . . I’m OK with that though. . . I was that way myself for a long time). Then you say, “I just don’t share your idea of a Creator” (i.e. you DO KNOW there is a Creator, just not the same I believe in).

So, which is it? You DO know, or you DON’T know? If you DON’T know, then how can you KNOW your Creator is different from mine?

Before I go on much more, let me address the thread drift here. Roy Moore ⇝ beliefs ⇝ DOI/Creator ⇝ Thomas Jefferson.

In the realm of thread drift . . . it’s not that bad, but I don’t want to make it any worse.

So, Mr. Brown, if you choose to reply to this, you might consider starting a new thread . . . with a title something like DOI, or Creator or maybe even Jefferson. Your call.

Coupla’ more points. (Now I’m on the soap box.)

The Jefferson Bible
In 1804, TJ edited the Bible (he actually did this twice . . . 1820 a second time, but a copy of the first effort does not exist). He removed the miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection and any suggestions that Jesus was God.

The result has been called The Jefferson Bible.

Some have argued that this is “proof” that Jefferson was not a Christian.

Some Christian chroniclers claim that since Jefferson had earlier signed a law appropriating federal money to subsidize missionary work among the Native Americans, that suggests that perhaps Jefferson’s cut-and-paste Bible was designed to serve as a sort of Reader’s Digest condensed version for American Indians.

I don’t buy that. TJ never mentioned that idea in his letters (or at least I can’t find it). The only reference to it I found was in a letter to John Adams, saying that he created the book “for my own use.”

My theory? He was just flat out . . . BORED out of his skull (the curse of the intellect . . . and TJ’s intellect was gigantic.)

He just did it to exercise his mental muscles.

Over the last century, numerous editions of the Jefferson Bible were released, many containing prefaces that attempt to prove that Jefferson held the same religious views as whoever was writing the introduction . . . Jefferson as Baptist, as evangelical, as agnostic.

Eyeballing the Jefferson Bible should inform people on all sides of the debate to be very cautious when someone of their tribe quotes a Founding Father to prove that he was an ally in their cause. It’s easy to cherry-pick the Founding Fathers’ quotes to ‘prove’ that they were either orthodox Christians or they were secular. They were neither. Their religious views were complex and fascinating and they don’t lend themselves to being pigeonholed or used in the modern culture wars.

Finally, your question about dishonesty being good? Nutjob and FC have answered that question, and I agree with them.


You’re saying this thread was about Roy Moore?..


Who’s Roy Moore?