I'm unable to think of anything positive to say about Mr. Moore. If I could vote, I would vote for Mr. Jones. He's decent, respectful of women and others.

GOOD LUCK MR. Jones!

what is truly scary over 70% of the voters in his state don't believe the accusation(s).
AND what is even worse very doubtful the senate would eject him if elected.

And, yeah, he deserves his day in court...but.....yikes

“And yeah, he deserves his day in court...but.....yikes"

You say this as casually as swatting at a fly.

Incredible.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

There is not one shred of proof and the accusers, much like Trumps, will disappear the day after the election.

Res, the 'presumption of innocence' applies against the mighty power of government criminal prosecution of an individual. There's no government involved here, and sadly, the criminal statutes of limitations regarding child molestation and sexual assault have surely run.

Rather, it's a situation of his word against a whole bunch of folks with little to gain, and lots of privacy and other important things in life to lose. There's the eight women who've come forward (ever wonder how many have not?), the police chief, the mall employees, etc. All of those 'shreds' weave into a sufficiently damning garment.

And the real question here is not "should he go to jail" but "should he go to the Senate?" Or, has former US Attorney and successful prosecutor of Klansmen Doug Jones demonstrated the kind of character better suited to leadership?

We're already scraping the dregs in the White House - it's better not to further infest the legislative branch.

I completely agree with @ Tom Cushing we already scraping the dregs in the white house.
Web Link

Tom,

Ok, let's take your premise that quantity of accusations/action = guilt.

How would you explain then Bill Clinton accepting invitations to a known registered sex offender and pedofiles island retreat on the famous “Lolita Express", and going more than was officially known?

To the tune of 26 times!!!

Web Link

If we are to use your standards, then Bill Clinton, he of blue dress fame, is GUILTY of trafficking in sex slaves.

What say you?

I maintain that if Moore wins, this story will die down quickly. Just as I predicted with Flynn last week.

And don't look behind you, Alcee Hastings (D-Florida), once impeached and kicked off a federal judgeship, was found to have paid $200k to settle sexual harassment charges.

I'm actually glad the Dems are still focusing on this hunt. It's exposing them for the hypocrites they are. And if we catch republicans, all the merrier.

Res: more "butwhataboutism" and Clinton obsession. Or is it "Moore butwhataboutism?" The problem is that it tries to defend someone's wretched misdeeds by saying "he's not the only one - there are other wretched people" - which is really no defense at all, even if true. Why do we want a(nother) wretched Senator when there's an alternative?

Now, Bill's not running for US Senate, but IF he was a pedo in addition to a horn dog, it's just as wrong. That said, your source was Fox News (red flag), and the other outlets dealing in this story were the Daily Caller and Alex Jones (flag smolders and burns-up right before our eyes). All thoroughly disreputable - you're wasting our time, when you might consider changing the channel.

You are so predictable.

Did you read the article, or just look at the source and decide ‘if it isn't Huffpo, it just can't be true'!

I guess I could watch CNN who were recently caught hyping a lie about dates of emails to Trump Jr and made themselves look like the partisan liars we all know they are. And of course, ABC news and the Brian Ross debacle.

Yeah, let's trust THEM. /s

I'm glad you agree (barely) about Bill. Now contrast the associations of Bill with the accusations of Moore. Not even close.

He said/they said is NOT the basis of justice. No matter how much moralistic preening the Dems try pile on, you lost the moral arguement when you defended Bill Clinton back in the 90's. Now you want to railroad someone with less (no) evidence of sexual assault?

Get lost.

We can go back and forth all day long, but the proof in the pudding will be the complete blackout of these accusers the day or days after tomorrow's election, regardless of who wins.

I'd be willing to bet on it, would you?

Again, Roy Moore's misconduct is the issue, here - nobody else, and not even your sorry preference for the neverland of conspiracy media. Try to stay on-point.

As an aside, there are a few stirrings that the (current) Prez will be getting his own "Me Too, moment," so maybe 'disappear' is too strong a word? "We'll see" (said the zen master).

oh Resident: If I had just said 'please hold judgements until proven guilty' that would have outraged the other silly screen names here (also unregistered). So, at least I put something about 'due process' in there.

Sure, he should be charged, go to jury trial etc etc. With that said until said cloud is moved he should have dropped out. He can run afterwards, no? Well, assuming he is cleared or not found guilty.

I suspect his state will do something that will embarrass it for a very long time and then the senate won't do anything either. Kinda feel sorry for the GOP; all this just for his vote.

“Again, Roy Moore's misconduct is the issue, "

You forgot the word “alleged".

Scott Hale,

Moore has repeatedly called his accusers liars and has denied all their allegations. The only credible evidence has just been blown out of the water because it's been tampered with by the accuser. Said evidence has not been released to independent third parties, nor has a color photograph been produced of the writing itself.

What the hell else do you want?

Be careful about going down this path of kangaroo courts, it will not have the desired results you want.

Tom,
Regarding Fox News. Would you like me to provide the laundry list of flat out errors CNN has made regarding Trump including the latest on from today?
Now before you dismiss this because it is from the Daily Caller do look at the source they use...CNN itself.

No doubt Fox News leans hard right/Pro Trump but every other network is very anti Trump. Are we not allowed to have opposition news?
Web Link

TomT: "Allowed"? Of course. Believe most of it? At your peril.

On the right side, Weekly Standard and National Review are often credible, as the WSJ used to be (except the editorials, which have been hilarious since at least the 1980s). Fox, Breitbart, NewsMax, Caller - awful, puppy crate liner, in my view.

I don't watch CNN, and I don't read HuffPo or the Chron. NYT and WaPo, though, are excellent papers. Liberal slant? - yeah, at bit - just like reality has one. ;-)

@Tom T : "Regarding Fox News. Would you like me to provide the laundry list of flat out errors CNN has made regarding Trump including the latest on from today?"

Everyone makes mistakes (well, everyone except for Trump). Outright lies are quite another thing, and Trump has told a lot of them for which he has never apologized:

Web Link

-----

What do I want? And, really, you believe all that comes out of Moore's mouth? I'm guessing you forgot he said he didn't know any of the women, then changed course when it became apparent he did?
AND, boy is your opinion skewed. A court of his PEERS would be a kangeroo court? What rock you been living under. The state LOVES him, well, 70+% do.

As far as evidence 'blown out of the water' please do take care to catch more sources of news or the latest updates because you are far behind.

I think he should have been charged way back when and currently I think any suits should go full steam ahead. Let's see him in court and the accusers. I wonder if he knows if elected that offers no protection?

Oh, btw, Trump too should have been in court and may land there eventually over the same type of thing, but not the huge age difference. We can't have a double standard, hey silly screen name?

Scott,

So over the last FORTY years, he acknowledged that he knew someone?

LET'S CHARGE HIM!

Do you see how stupid that is?

The voters are tired of libs double standards. You're still not getting it and Moore will probably be elected.

This is exactly how you got Trump, but please, keep politicizing morals.

What I hope we all want is one standard for all. Does X number of accusations mean that a person should be thrown out of office? If so are we not concerned that certain special interest (on either side) could provide enough fuel for this?
Franken, Conyers, Trump deserve due process. Moore looks like a loon to me and yes there are many accusations but if he has broke no law (at east charged) how can we deny him office if elected? This is very dangerous ground we are on.
Forget about party in any and all of these cases for a moment. Are we a nation of law or not?

@ Sam.
I know Trump has said some disgusting things that I will NOT defend. Thus far there is no proof that he has broken any law. If that changes I want him charged just like anyone else would be.

SCN: Yup, if enough evidence is available and the statue of limitations hasn't run out....charge him. Yes, this is American. THAT is how it works. And if there is no criminal case to pursue, the accusers should file civil suits.

Keep in mind, Moore was unfit for congress way before these accusations came to light. How many times did the Alabama supreme court remove him? How many racist pro-slavery public statements has he made? Yeah, lets get rid of all amendments after the 10th; that will get me elected.

Hopefully enough voters turn out, otherwise Alabama will be quite embarrassed for a long long time if they elect him.

I just hope congress isolates him. No committees, no nothing. And NO female staff members; the dude has history.

This is one of the best articles I have come across. Keep up the good work.
Web Link

@Scott Hale :"Hopefully enough voters turn out, otherwise Alabama will be quite embarrassed for a long long time if they elect him."

It has been pointed out that if Roy Moore wins, Democrats will make him the running mate of every Republican that runs for election or re-election. The controversy over Roy Moore won't fade away. It will be brought up again and again and again. You can bet on it.

Sam: I prefer if the Dems had their own issues and didn't just run negative crap. I think, just like Trump, all the accusations and what have you will fade away if he is elected. History does repeat itself, unfortunately.

I suspect there a lot of Democrats that are hoping for a Moore win. That will play well in the next election cycle.

haha

If tax bill passes, Roy Moore will be about all the dems have to run on. Good luck with that

The hypocrisy is staggering wrt to the Clintons...

Hmmm.......First Donald Trump's own Secretary of State calls him a “moron". Then National Security Advisor McMaster says that Trump has the intelligence level of a “kindergartener". And now we find that FBI agents are calling Trump an “idiot".
(Politico: Web Link )

I wonder if it's possible....just possible......that Donald Trump is not a 4D chess grandmaster?

Uh,oh. CNN has just projected a Doug Jones victory over Roy Moore. First Democrat elected Senator in Alabama in 25 years. Huge humiliation for Donald Trump.

oh, Trump will spin the Jones win somehow. voter fraud? Illegals voting? No doubt a twitter storm tomorrow.

haha you guys are funny

a decent candidate with no baggage easily wins

scott brown revisited..2018 it'll flip

short memories

dems were pummeled (too nice a word) during congessional races when obama was pres.

moore a terrible candidate, end of story.

@martens :"moore a terrible candidate, end of story"

Uhhh....yes he was a terrible candidate. A really, really bad candidate with many serious flaws. His opponent was relatively squeaky clean. And yet Donald Trump and the Republican Party supported the horribly flawed candidate named Roy Moore instead of repudiating him.That's the point.

FELICIDADES SENATOR JONES! VIVA!

THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN...A REMINDER OF HOW GREAT OUR COUNTRY CAN BE!

by by roy...

hmmm the GOP cheerleaders seem to be silent. Grief stricken? Embarrassed?

no Sam, it is you who is missing the larger point.

see previous comment re: the clintons. was moore ever accused of rape?

hypocrisy, to a level that is quite sickening to most normal people

poor stuart smalley..he is officially done now. sacrificed by the dems as they climb onto their faux high horse..

politics = blood sport

media sophisticates tripping over themselves to proclaim they now believe juanita broaddrick.

they along with the political class really have no regard for the intelligence of the average voter..in fact they have a huge amount of underlying disdain

@martens :"see previous comment re: the clintons."

Can't keep playing the Clinton card over and over and over again. Your side was supposed to be better than the Clintons, remember? You know, “drain the swamp" and all that. Now you're trying to justify Republican support for Roy Moore by saying he's no worse than Bill Clinton was? Even you must realize how laughably weak of an argument that is. Talk about setting a low bar.

Wake up. The Clintons are gone from national office. They're history. Finished. The only time that they're still mentioned is when conservatives like yourself try to bring them up in an attempt to excuse ethical and moral problems on your own side. Sad. Really sad.

Misguided sexual behavior is not limited to a political party, race, creed, religion or even gender. It is all part of the human experience. Good, bad or indifferent.

WOW of Bridle Creek:

Please explain what you mean by "Misguided sexual behavior" and "Good, bad, or indifferent". I don't understand the expression?

My work involves tracking down Catholic priests/nuns who sexually abuse children and vulnerable adults. It matters to me that others remain safe from sexual violence/assault.

Scott,

1. I've never said I'm a republican
2. What I predicted about the disappearance of these phony accusers was correct.
3. We have not seen the end of politicized sexual harassment accusations. It will happen more in the next election cycle.
4. Jones will last only till the next election cycle.
5. Republicans still hold the edge.
6. Tax reform cleared conference.
7. Hillary Clinton will never be President.
8. Winning


If i were you and your ilk, I'd get up to speed on what's happening at DoJ and FBI wrt Russiagate. Lots of Dems are going to be implicated in January.

Re/Tax legislation: It will not pass full vote in Senate.

You heard it here first.

(Though I hope I'm wrong)

@Resident

Hey, Resident. Who recently wrote the following? :

“Nope, and therein lies problem. This looks more and more like a political hit job the more time passes. The people of Alabama will undoubtedly elect Moore. They will elect him because they, like many others outside their state, will have seen this story for a sham."

Sam,

So I was wrong, once; deal with it.

And Trump is still president.

Once? I count four errors in just that one paragraph, and it had a lot of company.

I call that "Whining."

"... the GOP cheerleaders seem to be silent. Grief stricken? Embarrassed?"

Or maybe they're in hiding lest Mr. Moore try to date 'em? He's got some time on his hands, and you know what they say about idle hands.

Sinning.

Marm,

Prove it.

Well Marm, before you get on your high horse, you might want to pay more attention to an investigation that appears to be in serious trouble.

Mr. Comey has some more 'splaining to do Lucy.' Oh, and least we forget about the 'insurance policy' and texts by those Mueller has surrounded himself with.

If this investigation went to court as is, it would get tossed out without a thought.

SSN (silly screen name)
1) Nor did I.
2) Nope, fake comment. Accusers still doing their thing. On pervert Moore and others...daily...
3) Yeah, agree there. A lot of dudes elected have issues.
4) maybe, maybe not. 2018 midterms will trounce GOP.
5) For now, but losing badly. Will lose in 2018. Senate for sure.
6) And is now in deep trouble again. Please please research public opinion too. sheesh.
7) On some level I care?
Ilk? You certainly need to expand your media input as you don't seem to see what is going on currently. Fox News is the the end all, be all. Mueiller is still coming; deal with it. And the fact it appears Putin is our President as well. whap

@Corey

Try “splaining to us why Flynn was invoking the 5th about it if there is nothing here? Try “splaining to us why Flynn admitting lying about it to the FBI if there is nothing here? Try “splaining to us why many people associated with Trump were either lying or conveniently forgetting to declare multiple Russian contacts and meetings on their high level security clearance questionnaire forms if there is nothing here? Try ‘splaining to us why Trump thought it necessary to personally dictate his son's misleading statement on meeting with a Russian lawyer if there is nothing here?

Seems that you've got a lot of “splaining to do.

Unlike you, Sam, I have plenty of experience to understand when there is a serious issue regarding investigations. However, regardless of what side of the isle you are on, you should be open minded enough to see that there are some serious issues going on with Bob's peeps.

And btw, I wasn't talking about Flynn and his issues. I'm talking about the investigation itself. Also, when you say "many people" please be factual and list "all those people."

And finally, most of what you said in your recent post is hearsay; especially the part about the many people who were lying or conveniently forgetting to blah, blah, blah. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever at this point.

What is interesting though is that the GOP has turned its focus to FBI's McCabe after text suggests officials discussed anti-Trump 'insurance policy' in 'Andy's office'

Cholo, of course you don't understand it.

@Corey

The people who omitted listing all their Russian contacts and meetings on their security clearance investigation forms include Kushner, Flynn, and Sessions. Don't see how you can discount that as just “hearsay" since Kushner and Sessions themselves both publicly admitted to not listing all of their Russian meetings and contacts (Kushner blamed an assistant and Sessions claimed that he believed that he was not required to list all contacts and meetings). Oh, and Flynn's “issues" with flat-out lying to the FBI about his communications with Russia are clearly a relevant part of Mueller's investigation.

I have a good enough nose to recognize an orchestration by the WH to try to discredit Mueller's investigation, which is onto something. They are trying to pave the way for a replay of Nixon's Saturday night massacre. It didn't work for Nixon, and it won't work now - Archibald Cox and Bob Mueller are too good at what they do.

It smells like stress sweat, and it sounds like grasping at straws.

Somebody is grasping at straws. The question is who?

don't think Trump has the balls to attempt to 'order' Mueller be fired. As many don't even know, Trump can't directly do it. kersplat

@Sammy: Terrible dodge Sam. Me thinks you and the counselor here are one and the same.

I'm talking about the investigation itself. It is surrounded in muck. Let not your feelings lead you astray, Sammy. And besides, feelings do not count in a court of law.

@Cushing (aka Sam): The desperate one appears to be you. And judging by your resume, criminal law appears not to be your forte. Furthermore, it also appears that you are nothing more than a judicial philosopher who has never actually practiced criminal law (taught law yes, but never got his hands dirty)if you know what I mean.

I suspect we'll be hearing more about accusers being offered money to accuse prominent people: Web Link

Corey,

Exactly what I was alluding to in my response to Scott. Note that none of the libs here dare mention the dessimination of texts from the deputy director of counter intelligence of the FBI concerning Trump. That there now appears to be a conspiracy amongst the highest eschelon of the DoJ and FBI to oust Trump through that phony GPS360 doc is very interesting, no?

And Tom can also prattle on about Flynn, he lied on a procedural matter, not a criminal one. Just like Scooter Libby.

I find it highly ironic that Tom and the other libs here are distressed over Trump associates not correctly putting down Russian contacts because RUSSIANS BAD, while at the same time touting the GPS 360 document which, in large part, was gathered using Russian intelligence personnel.

Square that one, boys and girls.

Traveling, but these recent comments appear designed to share comfort in a darkening night.

Whatever gets you through, fellas.

Somebody on BART was blasting a computer out loud: sean hannity is waaaay mad, mad, mad, just like corey, resident, wow, and martens...Web Link good gracious!

I paid my respects to Mayor Ed Lee and road BART back...so many R's be angry angry angry angry that the Mueller investigation is getting closer and closer and closer to the prez and his children and buds...

sad

No matter what side of the political spectrum one is, this is sophomoric. Just how much time do you have on your hands to jump into the fray in this manner?

@ Resident.

I would caution about any type of conspiracy towards Trump at this point However, the court of public opinion, along with factual evidence (Comey's use of legal lingo, Bloom's issues of not yelling the truth, etc.) is causing a large amount of disarray.

@ Tom

I never knew that someone's "good enough nose" replaced evidence.

Have a safe journey, professor.

SSN: You still going on about the texts? Mueller, once he found out, removed said agent. He did the exactly right thing. Mueller has NO power to fire anybody at the FBI or Justice dept. Plus, texting is hardly a firing situation. Agents are allowed to have personal opinions and views.
Not exactly sure what else you want to occur?
Move on.

@Scott Hale.

Mueller does have the power to get rid of people.

Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation.

Mueller is the head of the Special Counsel. He was hired by the Justice Department.

Corey: it was a riff on your own "I have plenty of experience to understand" comment (2:15 AM yesterday). As if experience - especially claimed but not named - is evidence? On the internets, you could be a dog, for all we know Web Link

It's particularly ironic in light of your concurrent demand that others "be factual and list all 'those people.'" Just who, you might muse, is the ultimate author of all those "People are saying" whoppers?

Hint: he leads Mr. Obama 124-to-2 in the Annual rate of blatant Presidential Lying sweepstakes. Web Link

Dimming.

@Tom

Me? Just 30 years law enforcement - real world - experience, Tom. And we retired law enforcement guys tend to be a little on the shy side due to the very nature of our business. And that, Mr. Cushing, is the reason I remain anonymous.

As for you, I remember some years back where you substituted your name in place of another. You were called out on it. Remember? So please, stick to the topic at hand, and try not to let your emotions get in the way. Facts have no feelings.

Corey - you've trained your weapon on a straw man - and missed him, too.

Of Course you can post anonymously (as do I occasionally, when I want to) - it's in the rules. What you Can't do anonymously, is claim credibility you might get if you stood behind your opinion with your name. You may be in law enforcement - or you might be Rover, or the King of Siam. We'll never know. Straw man argument.

And anyway, if true, 30 years in law enforcement is still not "evidence" - it's the basis for a hunch. Good for you. You missed your own point.

I might also suggest that you're projecting in your 'facts don't have emotions' line, for which you've built no foundation. Ever notice that often the person doing the charging is also doing the charge?

@Cushing

Thank you for admitting that you are not who you say you are - at times. After all, credibility and reputation matter.

What I find comical though is that you have attempted to become the guardian of Sam; least he be but one and the same?

Carry on counselor, there are more important issues at hand.

Corey,

Mueller might have “immediately" removed him, but he and the DoJ did not report on his removal for 4 months.

The lack of transparency is breathtakingly obvious.

@Resident,

I agree. And let's face it, Mr. Comey's lack of credibility hasn't helped.

Oh Corey, really? A popular "othering" ploy among Northpaws is to suggest that all those who disagree with you just Must be the same person. The poster who calls himself 'American' does that all too often whenever he's not on self-imposed hiatus - any liberal he assumes to be me, it seems. I won't accuse you of being him, but you may need to recognize that you're a minority voice hereabouts.

Here's a news flash: this readership is full of liberals, and we aren't all the same - in person, or philosophy. Sam is not me - I'd have no idea how to build a 10-megawatt generator in my backyard, but I hope he (or she) succeeds.

“Oh Corey, really? A popular "othering" ploy among Northpaws is to suggest that all those who disagree with you just Must be the same person."

Corey is making a fool out of himself yet again? What a surprise.

Yeah, Corey, why don't you spend some time using your impressive “law enforcement expertise" to parse, analyze, and compare the writing style, syntax, and grammar of “Tom Cushing" and “Sam from Oakhill" to see whether we are or are not actually the same person? It's a mystery only that only you can solve!

@Cushing

Tom, you sound as dry as the law itself.

However, kudos to you for admitting your transgressions.

Good luck with the generator.

@Sam, aka... LOL!

Northpaws? Is that your alter ego getting in the way again?

Look Sammy, labeling is a tool that humans use to resolve the impossible complexity of things they grapple to perceive.

Take a deep breath.

so Mueller removed the agent and did report it. But not to the media. Why are the gop cheerleaders upset with that? Unhappy your boy Trump leaks like the titanic, but Mueller's team doesn't?

OK, time to move on to the next GOP cheerleader dance.

@Scott

Investigations must be free of bias. That's why Mueller got rid of Strzok. Strzok's bias towards Trump naturally makes people question the investigation.

BTW, Of course Mueller reported his dismissal of Strzok. That is not the issue. Do you comprehend anything?

As for cheerleaders... Well, know your routine before you speak. Your thought process appears out of sync.

Educate yourself Scott. You sound a bit sophomoric.

Haven't been following the latest news on this so I looked up a story:
.......
“In a seven-page letter to the House and Senate committees involved in the Russia probe, Trump for America lawyer Kory Langhofer said that Mueller violated the Fourth Amendment by asking for, and getting, the emails, which were housed on government servers. The main question concerns whether or not the special counsel's office needed a subpoena to retrieve the emails, which were handed over to the office.
Legally speaking, Trump's assertion doesn't carry much merit. As a General Services Administration official told BuzzFeed, "No expectation of privacy can be assumed" when using transition devices."
Salon.com: Web Link
......

Claiming the 4th Amendment for protection? Claiming the 5th Amendment for protection? Lying to the FBI? Oh, yeah, this is all one big “Nothingburger" all right! LOL!

Corey: I'm aware and made clear Mueller did the RIGHT thing. You seem to be confused. WHAT else do you feel Mueller should have done when he found out. Notify YOU? Close the investigation and give up? Please be real and don't inhale Fox News drivel as much.

Mueller did NOT report to the media, he reported to his supervisor; deputy Atty Gen. who btw, IS supervising Mueller. Not the lone wold the GOP cheerleaders preach that Mueller is on his own.

Defenders, cheerleaders, head-in-sand, outright LIARS. All fit. Calling the full time defenders cheerleaders is polite, you should try it sometime.

Please increase your IQ b4 launching drivel here, Corey. Or whomever you are now. Quite a few cheerleaders bounce around screen names but forget to change their writing/drivel style.

Mueller is still coming and the GOP diapers are quite soggy at this point. Scared much?

Sam,

You realize the emails Mueller asked for were TRANSITION emails, not CAMPAIGN emails.

If Mueller is supposed to investigate the Trump collusion with Russians during the campaign, why is he taking transition (re/after campaign) emails?

You realize that Trump can and should be consulting with anyone he choses after being elected, right?

Do try and keep up.

@Resident :"You realize the emails Mueller asked for were TRANSITION emails, not CAMPAIGN emails."

That's right. Why would you think that I wasn't aware of that when that was alluded to in the very paragraph I just quoted???!

Try to keep up.

“"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for? The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" - Donald Trump

Why, indeed?

@Sam (The angry man)

Did you ask Lois Learner that when she took the 5th?

Allowing politics to harness your anger distorts the truth.

Take care Tom, uh, I mean Sam.

Ouch. Good one Corey! Kind of like when Al Franken bumped his gums about sexual harassment, only to find out that he too was guilty of the same thing.

Sam needs to chill out.

When archaeologists or aliens review the written record of our civilization, this thread will not be among its finest hours. It has deteriorated rapidly to the pointless needling stage, and I am tired of (babysitting) it.

To avoid further embarrassments to posters' progeny, I am closing Comments. Fittingly, it appears to be comment #86. There'll be a whole new opportunity along soon.