Friday, April 20, 2018

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 2

We live in a time where technology continues to astound and amaze us with constant advances.  It seems there's nothing that can't be done.  With this in mind, I would think it should be rather elementary (for those techies who do this sort of thing) to have a means by which background checks could be almost foolproof.

Now, there are already background checks for all licensed dealers to make sure potential customers aren't criminals or insane people.  And from what I understand, it might not be the case that a customer's info is stored so that his purchases are recorded for future use...except, perhaps, by the actual dealer should he be questioned about whether or not Joe Blow bought a piece from him.  That is, the dealer is protected in this way because it establishes as well that he followed the protocols. 

I have to say that I am not very well educated on just what the procedures are to the extent that I could present them here.  Should I decide I wish to purchase a piece, I'll find out at the time.  I just know that procedures are in place.

But as control freaks demand "tighter" background checks...or whatever the heck it is they're demanding...I offer the following:

We know there is facial recognition software and for all who make their living selling firearms, access to a system that stores photos of criminals and the insane should be as immediate as possible.  If the government is to be involved in deciding who should not have guns, the government should have a system in place for this purpose.  It should be accessible by all branches of law enforcement, from the local cops up to the federal level, including Homeland Security, the FBI (of course), the CIA, the DOJ and any other law enforcement department. 

The thought here is that should a person seek to purchase a firearm of any kind, a state issued picture ID (I outrage, isn't it?) must be presented (which it is now) and the picture on it could be scanned at the dealership because the dealer has access to the system that collects the info.  Should the person seeking a firearm turn out to be a criminal or an insane person, the dealer will know immediately and refuse the sale.  At the same time, law enforcement is alerted that the criminal/loonie is attempting to purchase a firearm. 

Conversely, if one has no criminal record or hasn't been certified as crazy, the sale can go through without anyone but the dealer knowing about the person's desire to purchase a gun.  Because there is no reason why a law abiding citizen need inform anyone in government about his ownership of any weapon.  It's a "none of your business" reality with regard to the government. 

I also think they should be able to have on file fingerprints or possibly DNA samples (not that gun dealers would need to draw blood or anything, but simply to have all that info about a criminal readily available in the same place).  There are fingerprint scanners in use in a variety of businesses and government facilities for security purposes, and I doubt it would too much trouble to adapt that tech for the purpose of screening out bad actors from purchasing weapons. 

If those who should not possess firearms are prevented from buying from legitimate sources, there would only be the black market which is already well as illegal.  Of course, there's theft, too, but the point here is that the focus turns from scrutinizing the law-abiding to blocking the unsavory and the certifiable...which is where the focus should always have been in the first place.

As to exactly who should have their info stored for this purpose can be worked out.  Naturally those convicted of violent crimes would be among them, as would those certified as dangerous due to their mental issues.  Non-violent misdemeanors and non-violent psych patients might be excluded.  The concern here is not to permanently deny those who won't forever be a threat, but again, that can be worked out.  The point here is that this addresses the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them for ill.  Any techies out there who see this as an impossible task?

Wednesday, April 04, 2018

Reality, Delusion, Opinion and Fact

In two separate posts at Dan's blog (here and here), each discussion disintegrated into the usual diversionary accusations by Dan regarding things like "reality", "delusion" and "opinion versus fact".

Beginning with the third diversion...opinion versus fact...Dan determines to avoid dealing with points raised about Scripture with this favorite tactic.  If Dan disagrees with a point, regardless of how supported a point may be through citing Scripture, interpretations over the centuries by scholars, detailed studies of the original languages, etc...we mustn't regard our agreement with all of this as "fact".  Without an actual visit by God, complete with state ID so we know it's really Him, wherein He testifies that, yes, He really did mean what all that thousands of years of translations, interpretations, tradition and understanding verifies for us,  it simply isn't a fact, according to Dan, but only "human opinion".  And to Dan, we've proven we can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

But despite my asking, Dan has yet to explain why opinion is NEVER also fact.  This is not to equate the two, as "opinion" and "fact" are clearly not synonymous.  But Dan seems to believe that an opinion can never also be fact at the same time.  Here's the problem:  Dan dismisses, say, a young earth because according to Dan, the science has "proven" that the earth is very old.  Actually, it does not.  Scientific interpretation of available data, minus any consideration for the supernatural, only suggests an old earth.  That is, Dan takes as fact that which is only truly opinion.  It doesn't even matter that evidence may seem overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth.  It is still only opinion as we cannot prove beyond any doubt that the earth is as old as Dan believes it is.  As such, Dan is guilty of the very "sin" of which he accuses his debate opponents.  (This particular issue...old earth, young one Dan likes to bring up to make his point.  I've never taken a position on which I believe to be true because it can't be proved without going back in time.  But he uses it to pretend his point is solid.  Rarely are our differences on issues of this type.)

More importantly is that the question of opinion versus fact in Dan's argument depends upon one agreeing with Dan that what is seen as a fact is really an opinion, simply because Dan doesn't like the fact.  That is, he insists it is only an opinion because he doesn't like the fact and he rejects all evidences submitted to support the point as fact.  In doing so, he provides himself cover from the obligation to either defend his own position to the end, or demonstrate the other position is wrong.  Indeed, he plays this card when he finds his position has been exposed as incredibly shaky.  I would much prefer that Dan drop this diversionary tactic and put in the effort required to, not only make his case, but to defend it against all the objections, criticisms and questions his positions always provoke.  He cannot, so he plays the "just your opinion" card and disparages his opponent should he not cave to Dan's insistence that it can be nothing more.

"Reality" and "delusion" are actually the same charge Dan levels at his opponents who will "not see reason" as Dan perceives it.  And this is another diversionary tactic Dan employs to free him from responding to specific criticisms and questions, or when Dan's criticisms of opponent arguments fail.  One is unable to grasp reality or is delusional if they disagree with Dan and refuse to abide Dan's rules for determining what is reality and delusion.  It is notable that these rules favor Dan exclusively and are thus an insurmountable hurdle that protects him from accepting the errors in his own reasoning, or even facing the possibility that errors exist at all.  He covers himself by "admitting" that he's only putting forth opinion, but he treats them as fact.  His "opinion" defense also allows him to wallow in his own delusion about the strength of his position.  What he fails to grasp is that reality and delusion are no more than opinion to him, but opinion he demands we accept as fact.  This irony is totally lost on him, but again, it is his shield against the obvious criticisms of his positions.  Only Dan is the authority on what is reality and what is delusion.  Conveniently, as I stated, this always puts Dan in the driver's seat and he won't start the car until one agrees with the road upon which we will travel in our discourse.  While we wish to take the road to truth, Dan insists we take the road to what he wants truth to look like.

Sunday, April 01, 2018

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 1

So the debate centers around the question of what we can do to protect our kids from getting shot in schools.  Of course, the reality is that we really want to prevent mass shootings of anybody regardless of where they take place, but most of what follows can be considered with schools in mind.  It is my opinion that most of what can and likely should be impemented to achieve this goal does indeed include "common sense" solutions without resorting to any kind or level of "gun control"..."common sense" or otherwise.  That's because not only is it unnecessary to enact more laws and regulations on the manufacture, sales and possession of firearms, but rather because guns aren't the problem.  They never were.

So what is the problem?  Bad people, either criminal or insane, getting their hands on weapons of one kind or another and using them to murder.  The situation at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (henceforth referred to as "Parkland") points to the first point of emphasis:  adults doing their jobs. 

Due to the largest arrest numbers of juvenile offenders in the state, Broward County, FL. School Board implemented their "PROMISE" program (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education).  This well-intentioned program sought to reduce the possibility of young people being burdened with a criminal record for what was often misdemeanors.  The crime rate for teens did drop, and they report 70% of those in the program did not go on to commit other crimes (I would say "not yet" is the best that they can honestly say).  But two major problems exist simply by a quick review:  1.  Arrest numbers have to drop if fewer kids committing crimes aren't having their crime reported or recorded, and 2.  The Parkland case is the second where the failures of this system led to a national news story, the first being the Trayvon Martin case.  And as in the Martin case, Nikolas Cruz was a person who should have been arrested, and had that been the case, Martin would likely be still alive and Cruz would not have been able to purchase firearms.

As this story suggests, the program puts the schools over the cops in deciding whether or not an arrest is warranted.  This is a problem if a school district is looking to improve their reputation as well as preserve their funding by keeping kids in school...maybe when a kid should instead be incarcerated.

In any case, Cruz stands as an example of the system failing in an epic manner.  It is said that many people, from fellow classmates to federal law enforcement, were aware of this kid and no arrests ever took place, even after repeated visits by local police and numerous issues while he was a student at the Parkland school.   Adults didn't do their jobs.   Indeed, some of his actions constituted felonies which would not have fallen under the plan of the PROMISE program...he should have had a criminal record or some level of psychological record that would have denied him the liberty to purchase a firearm. 

So when we really decide to dig deeply, we can see that before we talk about ANY regulations or laws, we must look first to enforcing what exists and doing those jobs as the seriousness of the ramifications dictates. 

Naturally, the "adults must do their jobs" step must be a commitment of parents as well.  This is much more difficult given how so many people reject traditional notions of right and wrong and also differing notions of what constitutes good parenting in the first place.  But at its most basic level, good parenting demands close monitoring and guidance of one's children from their earliest years  until they are legal adults.   The idea of parents as "best friends" is a dismal failure and while in my case, the relationship between my kids and myself and the missus has been as friends to a great extent, there was always a distinct line drawn about who lays down the laws and who follows them.  I've been blessed with great kids who, now as adults (with the youngest about to complete her senior year of college) though less than perfect as the best of us are, continue to make me both proud and humble with their fine, upright character.   How typical is our case is another story. 

But for some, the best efforts fail and the kids go bad, and can go bad early.  It is then that other adults, teachers, counselors, law enforcement, must do their jobs as if lives depend upon them doing so...since we've seen that lives do indeed depend upon them.

So this is the first step of the solution, but only a first step.  It is one that must be addressed before any other step is taken because without adults doing their job, no law, regualtion, program or government theft of personal property (guns) or infringements upon liberties (possessing the weapnos of one's choice) will make a difference.  Where the criminal or insane have the will, there's a way.  They'll find it. 

Stayed tuned. 


It occurred to me that I didn't mention a thing about what to do should adults continue to fail to do their jobs and future mass shootings occur as a result.  Well, for those in positions of authority, such as law enforcement, at the very least, job loss is reasonable.  In some cases, perhaps even charges of negligent homicide might be appropriate.  There must be some threat hanging over the heads of those in whom we've put our trust...something that compels greater care in making sure the jobs are done properly given the possible tragic consequences of NOT reporting bad behaviors, or NOT transferring records of bad behaviors to others that might have need of them.  I'll be thinking more about this as this series progresses.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

The Great Debate: Guns---An Introduction

With the recent attack at that Florida high school, we are once again inundated with all manner of tired and useless suggestions about how to prevent the next one, all dealing with denying law-abiding citizens their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.  While these tragic events also compel facts and truths gun-grabbing, gun control advocates continue to ignore...if they ever take the time to actually research them in the first is incumbent upon rational, honest people to re-iterate those truths and facts every time.  With that in mind, I intend to post as many arguments for reason as is necessary in order to have them all aired in one place.  I will endeavor to support each one with links to evidence and facts that justify the positions I will put forth.

To begin, I wish to state my personal opinion on the issue of gun rights.  It begins with the United States Constitution.  This document is a restriction on government...specifically the federal government...and it acknowledges rights we already possess by virtue of the fact that we exist at all.  So, we don't possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because the federal government bestows those rights upon us.  We were born with those rights already a part of us in the same way we were born with two arms.  Government is obliged to respect those rights and the Constitution is the law that imposes that obligation by restricting the government from infringing upon those rights. 

The 2nd Amendment, then, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose, primarily, of defending ourselves against the government, as well as for personal defense against all else.  Hunting and sport shooting was of no concern when crafting the 2nd Amendment.  With that in mind, where's the sense in allowing the government (federal, state or municipal) to dictate whether or not I own a firearm, when and where I can carry one and what type f firearm I choose for the purpose?  The Constitution considers government the threat...the "bad guy" in this equation...and yet we decide that the potential oppressor gets to dictate to those it seeks to oppress how to deal with the oppression to be inflicted.  It's really insanity.

Thus, my position is that it is absolutely none of the government's business if I own a gun, what kind of gun it is, how many I own and whether or not I can carry it openly or concealed on my person.  They have no Constitutional authority to regulate any of that so long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and that includes actual "military grade" weaponry, such as fully automatic weapons.

Oh, my!  He didn't just say that, did he?  Is he nuts? 

No.  I'm quite sane so far as anyone honestly can say.  Back in the day, when our nation was still pulling up its Pampers, all "military grade" weapons were produced privately, not by the government.  This was true well into the 19th century.  Even the Gatling gun was invented and produced privately and sold first to railroads (along with some others) to control striking workers.  The Army got them later. 

More importantly, the founders recognized that the able-bodied, law-abiding citizens...also known as "the militia"...needed to have weapons capable of fending off a rogue government.  This means that were Thompson Sub-machine Guns available at that time, the people would likely have had them first, and the founders would have been totally cool with it.  The concept is a simple one:  how does one keep the bully (despotic governments) at bay while giving the bully all the superior firepower? 

(Before going any further, I wish to insist that I can provide links with supporting evidence for all I say and believe, and will do so in later posts on this subject as needed.  Right now, I'm merely laying down a premise.)

Even the founders can be noted supporting these concepts.  They were inspired by an Italian guy named Cesare Beccaria, from his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, whence comes the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. 

     "A Principle source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility.  For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of know means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
     The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent.  Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance?  Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?  It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages rather than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons."

 This moral has been manifested repeatedly with regard to self-protection...or the lack thereof, and we've seen it with all of these school shootings where the unarmed are at the mercy of the armed.  But the poor thinkers believe that new laws can make a difference, as if the many laws already on the books on any number of behaviors has ever prevented someone from engaging in those behaviors.

No, the laws that people are seeking...those people who want the government to "do something"...are definitively, distinctly and by definition those that are examples of our inherent right to own and bear arms. 

The problem is not now, nor has it ever been guns.  It is the character of people.  It is the absolutely insane idea of posting for all to see the message that those within are totally and absolutely unprotected because they inhabit a "gun free zone".  It is the unwillingness to accept the reality of the existence of evil in the world (unless they want to apply the word to Republicans or Christians) and the ongoing struggle between it and goodness.  It is the rejection of the notion that a God exists and is waiting to judge us for our sins.  But it is not guns. 

That's all for now.  More to come in future posts.

Thursday, January 04, 2018

More Than Just "A Little" Biased

One of Dan's nonsensical attacks on Trump is Trump's attacks on the press, and how anti-American and damaging to democracy it is for a sitting president to call out the press.  Despite Dan's ignoring of the facts I presented showing that his guy Obama was truly the malicious one in how he dealt with the press, Dan regards Trump's legitimate concern with blatant and hostile left-wing bias as somehow of greater concern.  He has provided no evidence that Obama's attacks worried him one bit, demonstrating that Dan is no better than those he defends.

In any case, I thought I'd provide some examples of liberal media bias and "fake news" that justifies Trump's criticisms, but also justifies the general mistrust of the media by the American people in general.  I doubt Dan will peruse these offerings, but at least he can't say no evidence exists that justifies those critiques and lack of trust.  Here ya go:

I really could have spent a lot more time gathering such stories.  These cover the issue from a variety of angles.  Personally,  I don't have a problem with a given news source deciding what story deserves its attention.  It would be great if they could be held to account when the general public finds out that their choices do not inform us in a manner that is most beneficial or informative (and truthfully so).  Fortunately, there are so many more sources available now than ever before.  But UNfortunately, this requires more diligence by the consumer to find sources that are trustworthy and dedicated to bringing news that is indeed most beneficial and informative (and truthfully so). 

The bottom line for the purpose of this post is that Dan's concern that Trump is wacky and a liar for calling out the press and for lamenting the proliferation of "fake news" is no more than scraping for evidence with which to indict Trump.  The more Dan can find to demonize Trump, the better, because Dan embraces grace.  

Count this as another area that Dan is completely wrong about Trump. 

Friday, December 22, 2017

Lefties Are Liars

Is it wrong to defend Hitler against false charges against him?  It would seem so to listen to those on the left.  How about unsubstantiated, unproven charges?  Again, the left would have us do so. 

According to my understanding of our American ideals (as set forth by our founders and supported by Christian principle), it is no less a lie when false charges are brought against an evil person that against the good. 

The recent dust up over the Roy Moore candidacy is the perfect example.  Let's assume that Roy is as racist, homophobic and...well...whatever else people thought of him before the allegations leveled against him in the eleventh hour of the race for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.  Do these flaws justify our knee-jerk acceptance as truth those allegations of sexual impropriety from forty years ago? 

Now consider:  from how I understand things, Roy Moore's "racism" is based on two things. 

1.  Some comment he made about how long it's been since America was great (or something to that effect).  He said it goes way back to the days of slavery.  This has led lefties to say that he wants us to return to slavery today.  Yeah.  I know.  It's absurd to pretend that one means the other. 

2.  His position on the election of muslims in government.  Based on the teachings of islam, I fully agree that such is a risky proposition.  Our founders agreed.  They, too, saw islam as incompatible with our way of life.  That's not racist.  That's pragmatic, realistic, logical.  Incredibly common sensible. 

Moore's "homophobia" is also based on his understanding of the facts about homosexuality.  I've posted several posts dealing with the many lies upon which the LGBT agenda is based, and Moore simply has similar common sense positions. 

It is not hate to deal in realities.  One isn't necessarily hateful of another who is not worthy of selection for the baseball team.  In the same way, one isn't hateful, or bigoted, of someone who isn't worthy of elected office or a marriage license based on truths used to reach the conclusion.   Lefties would insist, however, that holding those positions are proofs of hate...because it's just easier to so insist.

The second point leads to a third area that led to Moore's rep as a bad dude:  Decisions he made as a judge.

1.  He opposed the Obergefell decisions as that which forces Alabaman county clerks to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.   But Moore understands two things of great importance here:

a)  Those clerks are not working for the federal government, but the Alabaman governments (state, county, municipal) and are beholden to them, not the SCOTUS.

b)  The SCOTUS is not authorized to make law.

2.  He stood firmly behind his decision to place a Ten Commandments monument on public property.  There is no Constitutional breech at play in doing so.  Nothing in the Constitution forced him to remove the monument.  Only those with a bad understanding of the first amendment did. 

So these are the main areas of contention between Moore and those who use these situations to justify their hatred for him.  How dare he stand in the way of saintly homosexuals!!!  How dare he question the motives of angelic muslims who by their faith can lie at any time!!!   How dare he have a sound understanding of Constitutional principles!!!  The hatred that these positions provoked in the leftists meant that this guy could not fart out loud without being accused of some great evil.

Now come the allegations of sexual improprieties just before the actual vote was to take place.  "We find the women credible" they said, without any actual reason to do so.  No counter testimonies speaking to his character in a positive way would ever be considered credible now, and they weren't.  There's no way to verify that the allegations were true, but solely due to already bad sentiment against him, Moore was guilty.  And his crimes were made worse by the purposeful use of words chosen specifically to inflame negative passions against him.  It's not enough to say that Moore dated young women, most of whom were over the age of consent.  Let's call him a pedophile!! 

During the course of this "scandal", I found two or three articles that spoke to Moore's upbringing and background, the application of the term "credible" to the women making the worst allegations, and one that listed a dozen women who offered themselves as character witnesses for Moore, some of them going back to those days forty years ago.  None of it mattered once the allegations were out there marketed with the worst possible embellishments by those "reporting" them. 

Falsehood wins.  And those of us who insisted we wait until something akin to proof could be found were also victims of falsehood, as we were labeled as defending "a pervert", as if he was actually proven to be one.  And we're the ugly ones.  This is the character of the left today.  Whatever it takes to push the agenda.  Whatever it takes to demonize and defeat the opposition.  Lies will do the trick nicely. 

Sunday, December 10, 2017

An Open Letter To Dan About His Open Letter To Alabama

Dear Dan,

Having read your letter to Alabama, I felt it a better option to respond in kind here rather than at your blog.  Hence, this letter to you.  It will be pretty much the same kind of response I would post in the comments section under your nonsensical letter to Alabama, in terms of style.  That is, copying the various statements one by one with my reply following.

"We all are aware of the bitter divisions that separate this country..."

...mostly as a result of center-left forces pushing the culture toward perdition with too little resistance by the center-right.

" I was raised as an extremely conservative..."  "this former raging-conservative"

In all the years we've been going at it, you've not once demonstrated a grasp of what it means to be either a political or theological conservative.  It's just a word you throw around because you think it helps you to posture yourself as thoughtful.  You do the same with the word "progressive" (as do most who refer to themselves by this term) as if it means you're doing something or supporting something new and more beneficial. 

"If faced between what I consider two evils/two wrong/two immoral choices, I cannot and will not choose a "lesser evil.""

This is true.  You choose the greater evil every time.  If you voted for Obama, you chose the greater evil.  If you voted for Hillary or Bernie, you chose the greater evil.  Go back farther.  If you chose Al Gore or John Kerry, you chose the greater evils.

You define evil as it suits you and your posturing.  This posturing is the support of evils of the kind you refuse to recognize as evil...such as abortion or homosexual behavior, or the confiscation of the wealth of the productive to name just a few...twisting these evils to appear as "progressive" and beneficial when they neither and never have been.

" It's just saying that I can not and will not vote for a candidate that crosses certain basic lines."

As much as I detested the sophomoric braggadocio of Donald Trump, and his infidelity and alleged adultery, it is absurd to consider these wicked characteristics as so horrid as to allow either a Hillary Clinton or a Bernie Sanders to prevail, when those two presented a far greater danger to the republic.  To stand down from one's duty to country over such things and then pretend to be morally sound is no more than rank preening.  I'm not impressed in the least, but rather disgusted by its falseness.

"But perhaps the greatest problem, the most serious line that we should not cross, is the ease with which they make false claims, spread false messages and - whether or not it's their motive/intent - told lies."

This is particularly egregious given the people you do support.  Bernie Sanders is a proud socialist.  Socialism is a lie.  Obama and Hillary are a step or two away from admitting the same of themselves.  Their own lies are well documented, but you've said nothing about them.  Most of those lies are far worse than how many showed up for an inauguration, or how great one's tax plan is or any of the many insignificant things Trump has said that you add to the list as if they're akin to "if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance" or "our people died because of a video".  The lies of Obama have helped to double the national debt. 

And then of course there are your own lies...lies that are perpetuated by other so-called "progressives" regarding the aforementioned social issues.  Your candidates spew them as a matter of party policy, and despite all evidence, you pretend they are truth and facts.

"When he says things like, “It is more likely that Doug Jones and Democrat operatives are pulling a political stunt on Twitter and alerting their friends in the media.” ...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim."

No.  He is suggesting a possible explanation as to why these allegations are being made at the eleventh hour of a political campaign in which he is solidly leading his opponent.  

"He is saying that they many women who now have made these claims are liars. Period."

Why wouldn't he if the allegations are untrue?  And really, he is only basically saying that the allegations are untrue.  It is YOU, with your progressive Christian "grace" that chooses to interpret his denials as accusations of lying.

"Here we have many women who have independently and, so far as anyone knows, without any influence from the Democrats or "the media," made these allegations."

And by "many" you mean "three".  Each of which have been found to be less than credible in their "recollections" after all.  (Not saying it makes their claims untrue, but far less believable--if they ever were--than when first presented.)

" But based on what?"

Maybe on the fact that none of it happened.  That would be a good basis for suspecting the claims are untrue or even outright lies.  How can it be proven one way or the other? 

"Why would they make up these stories? What do they have to gain by exposing themselves in this manner?"

Are you kiddin'?

"Look, I fully know that, in some extremely rare circumstances (and if you're not familiar, look at the research - it's a tiny minority), women have made false allegations about harassment/abuse. But these are the extreme minority."

You know nothing.

"IF you have one allegation made against you by a woman, maybe she's one of this tiny minority that have made false claims. But when you have five... eight (what is Trump up to, now, 20??)"

Three.  You have three who have alleged Moore engaged in some form of abuse or sex with a minor.  Each is suspicious for a variety of logical reasons.  But hey!  If we can up the number to 20, why not?  Right Dan?  That's called "grace", not casual lying.

"And then, when you add to that charge that these women are liars (a very serious charge!),"

More serious than charges of sexual abuse or statutory rape?  Your shock and outrage is crap.

"...a new CBS News poll found that 71 percent of Alabama Republicans say..."  "Based on what?"

Based on the low regard so many people have for the honesty and integrity of the the Democratic party and their media lapdogs.  It's a bed you people made and you refuse to sleep in it, although you must despite having peed in it.

"I would not vote for a casual liar and Trump and Moore are casual liars."

As you reiterate this incredibly principled stance, I reiterate that you instead choose more egregious liars, those who think out their lies and plan to implement policy based upon them...lies you prefer to the truth despite all facts and evidence that has already exposed them as the lies they are.  Because you're a flaming progressive and that's how you roll.

"People of Alabama, I'm asking you to not cross that line now...snip... Write in a vote. But don't cross that line."

Not that you want Jones to win, mind you.  Only that you don't want that line crossed!  Nonsense.  The support of Jones for the aforementioned social issues and other left-wing policy lies is far better for the country than to continue to vote for someone strongly believed by his supporters to be a victim of a sham.

Should the people of Alabama take you up on this suggestion, it will only lead to more right-wing candidates being accused of evil behavior anytime they have a solid lead on the lefty who opposes them.  Allegations and accusations are proof of nothing more than someone is alleging and accusing.  What is known about Jones is far more harmful to the nation than what is alleged to have happened to three young women forty years ago.

"But with Trump and Moore, we have men who, by all the data we have available, are men who've abused, mistreated, oppressed or sexually assaulted or harassed women."

But that's the thing, you more-than-casual liar.  You have no data that is stronger than allegation.  That can't be good enough for honest people.  There must be more based upon our American philosophy for judging guilt or innocence.  Your pretense of honor is not fooling anyone.

"I don't need to know anything else about the candidate or his opponent if I know he has abused/mistreated women/girls."

But YOU don't "know" anything, especially about Moore, except that you dislike his positions on your favored sexual immorality.  That's enough for you to gin up these allegations to known fact...which makes you a liar.

"When the stories about Bill Clinton came out, there were two... then three women"

More like eighteen.

"People of Alabama, the evidence against Trump and, now Moore, is greater than that against Clinton."

Bull.  There is no comparison, except for perhaps Trump and Clinton, but even then, to say it's greater requires an in depth study for another post.  Feel free to do so, but make sure you use actual evidence rather than progressive sources.

Your plea to the voters of Alabama is crap, Dan, and I'm not at all surprised by it.  Your objections to Moore have nothing to do with these allegations from forty years ago, but are simply due to his accurate understanding of Scripture on human sexuality, his reasonable concern about voting for muslims for public office in our federal government and these allegations provide you with cover to encourage his supporters to abandon him in favor of someone who supports the same lies and abominations you do.  That's no casual lie on your part.  It's far more heinous.