Republican Senator - family values!

When I was in law school, I worked in the Manhattan DA's office, and they had a collection of undercover police officers that would stakeout public restrooms (mostly in the parks) to arrest people for lewd behavior. Odd as it sounds, there is a sort of "code of conduct" for people wanting to engage in certain types of behaviors in public restrooms. My guess is that Craig's behavior corresponded to the common code of conduct and that is why he was arrested. It may not be explicitly asking for it, but I bet the police officer had sufficient grounds for the arrest.




That is a gross simplification of Ruby's argument, which it wouldn't hurt you to try to understand. I do praise her as an intelligent and articulate poster, although I do not always agree with her.

Nothing Gross about it, except her opinion. She has stated that the US is a terrorists State. She has STATED that American troops are involved willingly in targetting and killing innocent civilians. She has STATED the US military conduct is JUST like German Army conduct in WW2. She has stated the Bush Administration is just like Nazi Germany. She has STATED American citizens are just like German citizens in WW2, allowing the Government to commit crimes because they are to "afraid" to speak out.

No simplification at all. Other then your excuses to cover her opinion.
 
Nothing Gross about it, except her opinion. She has stated that the US is a terrorists State. She has STATED that American troops are involved willingly in targetting and killing innocent civilians. She has STATED the US military conduct is JUST like German Army conduct in WW2. She has stated the Bush Administration is just like Nazi Germany. She has STATED American citizens are just like German citizens in WW2, allowing the Government to commit crimes because they are to "afraid" to speak out.

No simplification at all. Other then your excuses to cover her opinion.

I guess we can just agree to disagree on whether you are fully and accurately elaborating her arguments. Since you and Ruby are discussing this issue on several other threads, there is no need for us to hijack this one.
 
I guess we can just agree to disagree on whether you are fully and accurately elaborating her arguments. Since you and Ruby are discussing this issue on several other threads, there is no need for us to hijack this one.

You can agree to pretend she hasn't said what she has. Just further evidence that to a liberal the ends justify the means. Toe tapping is code for sex BUT actually calling American Troops terrorists is a nuianced position that us neocon knuckle draggers just can't seem to grasp.
 
Good. get rid of the guy.

See unlike Democrats, when Republicans actually act badly we hold them accountable.

Of course Democrats will probably try to make it worse than what it actually is... Im not sure how thats possible but they always try to.

Meanwhile another Democrat Representative assaults people in the airport and its completely ignored by the media and the Democrats who dont want to address their candidates hypocrisy for being such a violent anti violence candidate.
 
What on earth are you talking about? He's referring to the Repub's double standard... you know, prosecute 'em and vilify 'em if they're a dem.... talk about how unimportant the indiscretions are if they're a repub.

Dems aren't the ones who think they're the party of Jesus and running around preaching morality. So I figure the right should be held to their OWN standards, don't you? After all, y'all set the bar.

It's better to acknowledge morality and fall short than to live a lie and pretend it doesn't exist.
 
you know.... if you guys didn't want to politics to sink this low, you should have thought of that when you forced the entire country to stand still while you impeached a president.

what goes around comes around and trying to stand on the moral high ground given the track record of the right on this issue is really pretty fucking disingenuous.

If you didnt want your President impeached you shouldnt have elected someone who was willing to obstruct justice in order to cover up his sexual harassment/rape/affair charges.
 
You can agree to pretend she hasn't said what she has. Just further evidence that to a liberal the ends justify the means. Toe tapping is code for sex BUT actually calling American Troops terrorists is a nuianced position that us neocon knuckle draggers just can't seem to grasp.

Actually, there is a consistency. The statement/action taken in context possesses a greater complexity than it would otherwise suggest. However, this isn't the right thread for this discussion.

However, to get back on track...

He did plead guilty to the charge. Not no contest, but guilty. It is possible that he did this just to avoid a trial on the issue, but I don't think that one could say that because of this possibility, his guilty plea means nothing. After all, considering the nature of the charges, wouldn't he more likely want to defend himself and demonstrate that it was merely an accidental brushing of the shoes and nothing else?
 
Actually, there is a consistency. The statement/action taken in context possesses a greater complexity than it would otherwise suggest. However, this isn't the right thread for this discussion.

However, to get back on track...

He did plead guilty to the charge. Not no contest, but guilty. It is possible that he did this just to avoid a trial on the issue, but I don't think that one could say that because of this possibility, his guilty plea means nothing. After all, considering the nature of the charges, wouldn't he more likely want to defend himself and demonstrate that it was merely an accidental brushing of the shoes and nothing else?

Already explained by the Individual. Do though keep pretending otherwise.

I will have to remember that Liberals have no problem with police power when used against Republicans when the same type of power would be decried as unfair, illegal, unacceptable and a slew of other words if used against a Democrat or any "minority".

So tell me, besides happy feet, what else must I avoid doing in a bathroom to avoid some cop arresting me for minding my own business and taking a dump?
 
Already explained by the Individual. Do though keep pretending otherwise.

I will have to remember that Liberals have no problem with police power when used against Republicans when the same type of power would be decried as unfair, illegal, unacceptable and a slew of other words if used against a Democrat or any "minority".

So tell me, besides happy feet, what else must I avoid doing in a bathroom to avoid some cop arresting me for minding my own business and taking a dump?

Well, he did do a little more than just brush his foot against the person in the next stall. [However, this in itself is more than just a little odd. I have never been in a restroom stall that was so narrow that I actually placed my foot under the divider to touch the person next to me]

According to Roll Call, the arresting officer alleged that Craig lingered outside a rest room stall where the officer was sitting, then entered the stall next door and blocked the door with his luggage.

According to the arrest report cited by Roll Call, Craig tapped his right foot, which the officer said he recognized "as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct."

The report alleges Craig then touched the officer's foot with his foot and the senator "proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times," according to Roll Call.

At that point, the officer said he put his police identification down by the floor so Craig could see it and informed the senator that he was under arrest, before any sexual contact took place.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html

I really don't know how to respond to your generalizations about liberals, as I am pretty sure I would think the behavior in question is problematic regardless of who is doing it.

As for things you shouldn't do in a restroom stall, I don't have a list for you, but I suppose the actions complained of represent a good start.
 
Why did Clinton negotiate a settlement instead of continuing to fight Paula Jones’s appeal if Bill Clinton were not guilty? Perhaps a fight would be too much of a bother and he just wanted to move on.

settling in a civil case is a different animal than pleading guilty to a crime



What is Larry Craig’s specific position on such conduct? Is he a hypocrite? I’d rather vote for the candidate than on a straight party ticket (pun unintended). Besides, I suspect that there are some democrats who have preached the “moral high ground” who have been caught in compromising positions. Neither party holds exclusive rights to hypocrisy. It comes down to statistical “bean counting” if you want to find out statistically which party is less hypocritical. Again, that is why I prefer to judge the individual and not an entire party based on the antics of a few members.

what you suspect, and what is the case are not always congruent. Quite honestly, I do not recall any democrat who ever claimed that, becuase of his or her superior morality, that the voters should chose them over an immoral republican...whereas, republicans HAVE made morality a centerpiece of their national campaign




Republican supporters jump on stories about unethical conduct committed by Democrats and Democrats jump on stories about unethical conduct committed by Republicans. Still, two wrongs do not make a right.

I can recall a time, not too long ago when the democratic and republican senators from the state of maine were best of friends and co-authored a novel together. collegiality and friendship used to be possible between democrats and republicans. when do you think that all started to really change?
 
The guy plead guilty to lewd conduct.

Obviously this went beyond mere tapping of feet. You don't get arrested merely for tapping feet.

What is wrong with these republicans? There's been a slew of lewd behaviour from the party that expressed such faux shock and outrage over clinton's consensual affair

You're right, the apparent "invitation to treat" (sorry to the lawyers on the forum, I couldn't help myself) isn't an offence in itself, there has to be more obvious behaviour than that. But of course a guilty plea can be negotiated which means that ALL the facts in the case won't be put to the court at sentencing. Not that I give a rat's. However, I would suggest he did more than a tap dance.

And anyway, what the heck are cops doing this type of work for anyway? It's ludicrous. Fair enough if there's a been a child molester there, bit just plain pinching gays, well, to me it's a waste of scarce police resources.

As for Senator Craig. He's a hypocrite.

And you folks bringing up Clinton? A tired, old refrain. Take a tip. Admit that there are hypocrites, crooks, womanisers, thieves, perjurors etc in all political parties and you'll feel a lot better.
 
And anyway, what the heck are cops doing this type of work for anyway? It's ludicrous. Fair enough if there's a been a child molester there, bit just plain pinching gays, well, to me it's a waste of scarce police resources.

I give you that this isn't exactly the most important task that the police are assigned with, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the police want to prevent lewd conduct in public restrooms - especially an airport restroom. Nobody wants to take their kids into a restroom and find a couple (man/woman or man/man or whatever) giving head to one another.
 
I give you that this isn't exactly the most important task that the police are assigned with, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the police want to prevent lewd conduct in public restrooms - especially an airport restroom. Nobody wants to take their kids into a restroom and find a couple (man/woman or man/man or whatever) giving head to one another.

Quite right. That's why a uniform cop wandering in at random times works. They scare the whatsit out of anyone that isn't there for legitimate purposes, be they junkies, sexual opportunists or shoplifters trying to sort out their stash. Placing plainclothes officers there with the express intention of responding to (have to be careful to avoid agent provocateur/incitement allegations) coded invitations for gay sex isn't necessary.
 
Hillarious!



Police Report
An undercover officer just happened to be investigating complaints of lewd behavior and cruising in the men's restroom there when Craig decided to repeatedly leer between the cracks into the stall the officer was in, then proceeded to enter the adjacent stall and play footsie and gesture under the partition for sex. Larry, btw, learn to flush.

Karsnia showed his police identification under the stall.

"With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit," the report said.

"Craig responded, 'No!!!'

I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn't want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom."
 
"we don't need too damn many more of those fucking republican perverts in the senate to be "exposed" and 60 votes after 08 will be a cakewalk!"


RETARDED STATEMENT ALERT!


Dude.

stop it.

The premise of your first post is as glaringly stereotypical as Gunny's observation of the Falwell thread. When the story of a yet to be busted gay democrat prowling park restrooms or whatever becomes the next suprise politico flavour of the day you'll be fed these words by republicans who, rightly so, could extrapolate the actions of one person to the entire policial party after your example.

stop it.
 
"we don't need too damn many more of those fucking republican perverts in the senate to be "exposed" and 60 votes after 08 will be a cakewalk!"


RETARDED STATEMENT ALERT!


Dude.

stop it.

The premise of your first post is as glaringly stereotypical as Gunny's observation of the Falwell thread. When the story of a yet to be busted gay democrat prowling park restrooms or whatever becomes the next suprise politico flavour of the day you'll be fed these words by republicans who, rightly so, could extrapolate the actions of one person to the entire policial party after your example.

stop it.

hyperbolic? certainly.

inflammatory? meant to be.

seeded with truth? of course....

Ooops! the party of moral superiority's red garter belt is showing.... their miniskirt has raised up and is exposing their crotchless panties.

I wonder - after Foley, and this guy, not to mention their top tier spiritual advisor Haggerty (to name but three) all falling from grace - will they have the balls to still work that "we are the party of family values" line? Just how brazenly hypocritical can they be?
 
They kick the left in the balls on the subject of tolorance because of this kind of stuff.

stop it.
 
They kick the left in the balls on the subject of tolorance because of this kind of stuff.

stop it.

Why?

He pointed out the political ramifications to the Republican party of the moral lapses of its leaders.

He pointed out a bit of extreme hypocrisy by a socially conservative member of Congress.

I don't recall him ever saying that all Republicans are perverts.

I don't understand what he did that was so wrong.
 
They kick the left in the balls on the subject of tolorance because of this kind of stuff.

stop it.


You don't get it.

The point is, the GOP has presented themselves as the defenders of public morality and "family values". They are the ones that waved the the banner of "morality matters!", in the 2000 election.

Democrats, on balance, have always accepted that human beings are imperfect. They haven't made as big a deal about a perfect moral code.

So, the point is hypocrisy. Its not that humans are imperfect. Craig campaigned as a super-conservative, against the gay agenda. And it turns out, he likes gay bathroom sex.

Now, I don't care what happens to Craig. I'm not calling on him to resign. I don't think his crime - while hypocritical - was the worst thing in the world. I don't even care if he's gay. Its up to the people of Idaho to determine what happens to him.
 
Why?
He pointed out the political ramifications to the Republican party of the moral lapses of its leaders.
He pointed out a bit of extreme hypocrisy by a socially conservative member of Congress.
I don't recall him ever saying that all Republicans are perverts.
I don't understand what he did that was so wrong.


"we don't need too damn many more of those fucking republican perverts in the senate to be "exposed" and 60 votes after 08 will be a cakewalk!"


turnabout is fairplay, dude. The thread blossomed into the same ole recycled dialog where both sides point fingers and drudge up crap back to bill "I did not have sex with that woman" clinton. You tell me, did this thread find common ground or another round of polarization no better than GunnyL commenting on Falwell threads? Again, when the next bit of democrat drama hits the fan you'll be reacting exactly how the righties have been posting here while taking your own turn on this retarded teeter-totter. Believe it or not there are probably republicans out there who believe in a different set of morals and are not secretly prowling steam rooms and parks. Even if a fraction of the republican membership are secretly gay. At what point is this story important beyond some Gotcha Politiking? Turnabout, dude.

which, by the way, are the details even out yet besides some vague nonsequiters?
 

Forum List

Back
Top