Republican Senator - family values!

[lieberalism]

when will these liberals learn that you cant hide bathroom sex crimes from america? things arent looking good for liberals.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Wait....what?

 

[Bern80]

when will these liberals learn that you cant hide bathroom sex crimes from america? things arent looking good for liberals.

Right on!!!! Everything about this post is spot on.

Everyone knows all Dems are that way. Oh yeah, except for the whole Larry Craig is a Republican thing. Have a little integrity would ya.

P.S. For the rest who aren't a day late and a dollar short, the first two sentences are tounge firmly in cheek.

 

[mattskramer]

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

Okay. There may be a small difference between pleading guilty in order to get an incident behind you and fighting until you decide to settle. Yet, I consider the difference to be minor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2827347220070828

Republican Senator Larry Craig said on Tuesday he is not gay and had made a mistake in pleading guilty to disorderly conduct after he was arrested in a men's toilet at a Minnesota airport in June.

"While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away," he read from a prepared statement.

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

Check out:

http://craigwestover.blogspot.com/2006/02/column-liberal-hypocrites-should.html

Ted Kennedy, champion of a steep inheritance tax, lives quite well off a Kennedy family trust that avoids just such a tax — set up on the island of Fiji. Funding Kennedy's inheritance (and nephew Robert's environmentalism) are oil profits enhanced by Kennedy-sponsored depletion allowances.

Also check out

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385513496/bookstorenow700-20[/ame]

“Do As I Say, Not As I Do”

While acknowledging that conservatives can be high-profile hypocrites as well, Schweizer employs a double standard, arguing that "when conservatives betray their publicly stated principles, they harm only themselves and their families," but when liberals misbehave, they harm their principles first and foremost. Sometimes his research uncovers significant contradictions, as when Schweizer points out that Noam Chomsky, who tends to demonize the military establishment, wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force and the Office of Naval Research. But many of his charges are egregiously hyperbolic, as when he suggests that Cornel West is a "segregationist" because he bought a home in a largely Caucasian suburb. Schweizer clearly knows the limitations of his argument, since he backpedals from many of his most damning statements in his closing remarks. For all its revelations, in the end, this volume reads less like a critique of liberal philosophy than a catalogue of ammunition for ad hominem bloggers.

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?

I am not familiar with political history of the specific state of Maine. Yet, over all, I don’t think that there were more peaceful times between Democrats and Republicans when you consider America as a whole. There have practically always been vicious attacks by each side against the other throughout America’s political history.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

BS!!! BS!!! BS!!!

Dems aren't running around campaigning for anti-gay marriage amendments to the Constitution or opposing gay rights or vilifying gays, while trying to play footsie with the guy in the next restroom stall. This guy did. Now, I'm sorry the republican tent is so small that a gay congressman needs to closet himself and resort to airport restrooms for solace, but they created that closet for themselves.

So it is fair to call these guys hypocrites.

It is NOT, I repeat, NOT intolerant to call them on their garbage. And, no, not every republican politician is a hypocrite, but if they're going to push policies which try to prohibit for other people the very behavior they engage in, they'd better be ready for the push-back.

And it's not just Dems saying it, real conservatives (as opposed to the radical right) are saying it too.

So, Using your example and your claims I can now claim that since Ruby has declared the US a Terror State, our troops mass murderers and Nazis, that ALL Liberals believe this and support her.

Glad you could help me like this.

 

[Edward]

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 won't speak for her but I can say that nothing you have listed here is impossible. Had someone compared Hitler, and Nazi Germany to previous dictators in democratic countries than they would have been right. That every supporter of Hitler would have attacked them and their opinion is obvious. In fact, I can hear you saying; I VOTED FOR ADOLF HITLER AND HE ISN'T A DICTATOR. HOW DARE YOU COMPARE OUR DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY TO A DICTATORSHIP. GERMANY IS A REPUBLIC. So the point is that it is you who is over-simplifying what she has said and attempting to make it sound extreme just like those who warned the German people about Hitler were accused of being extreme. Does this make her right? I don't know but I do know that Bush has behaved in a very similiar manner to Hitler and short of doing the EXACT same things he has done things that fit a pattern where leaders in democratic countries subvert the process and claim that they are doing so to fight "terrorists." Let's not forget that the reason Adolf Hitler rose to power was because of what appeared to be a terrorist act against Germany and that he labeled those he claimed were responsible as terrorists and talked about preserving freedom, fighting terrorism, defending Christianinty and western civilization. All very familiar. People who compare historical events are practicing historical analysis by seeking patterns in events, and persons. No two events or people will be the exact same but when you compare two events and subsequent events you can conclude that there are enough similiarities to make a comparison. I find it interesting that conservatives can compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler but no one can compare Bush to Hitler. The faux outrage! So unlike her I can say that I am open-minded enough to consider the possibility that Bush is very much like Hitler and I hope I would have done the same if I lived in Germany and people pointed out that Hitler and the democratic government of Germany were taking on the roles of a dictatorship.

 

[Edward]

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.

You would probably say the exact same thing about those who dared to stand up to Adolf Hitler, and to point out that the behavior of the German Government was not democratic even though it had the vestiges of such a government. When you look at this without emotion and with objectivity you can safely conclude that the conduct of the United States in response to 9-11 is comparable to the conduct of Germany to the terrorist attack on the Reichstag. You can further see that the Legislature of Germany gave Hitler unparalled powers through the Nazi Enabling Act as did Congress with the U.S. Patriot Act. That both Hitler and Bush speak of freedom, western civilization, fighting terrorism, etc as a means to gain more power to the executive should be of major concern. The German people were not a bunch of evil people instead they had family, friends, and believed in freedom and were willing to fight for it and that is why when Hitler told them that the war he was fighting was basically a "war on terrorism" they believed him. When he told them that their society, and that western civilization was under attack they believed him. When he told them he needed more power to conduct the war against those who had committed a terrorist attack on Germany they believed him. When he started using concentration camps people believed him but worst they believed him when he told them that the Jewish people were behind the Reichstag fire and that they posed a threat to western civilization. This is very similiar to what we are now being told about Muslims and those that have been housed in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. We can talk about parallels and recognize a pattern and learn from the mistakes of Germany or we can repeat them. Will Bush exterminate the Jews? No, but that doesn't mean that what he is doing isn't the same sort of thing Hitler did. That they aren't the same person is obvious. No two dictators are the exact same nor are those who support those dictators. I find it interesting that those ignorant of history tend to be conservative while those who have a greater knowledge of history can make a comparison and recognize that the study of history is so that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. I will not attempt to justify anything anyone else has said on this matter but I do know that had you been alive in Nazi Germany you would probably say the same thing about those who criticized Hitler and the German government.

 

[Edward]

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?

As a liberal I can say that you are a liar and that I would personally do no such thing and that I know of very few liberals (or Democrats) who would say that this was a misuse of police power because it was used against a Democrat or a minority. Obviously, if this is true than Craig is a homosexual which means that he is a minority and yet there isn't a liberal yet who has defended him and say that this is an improper use of police power against a minority. That is the distinction you fail to make. The problem here isn't that Craig may well be a homosexual, but that he committed a crime, and plead guilty to that crime and yet you seem to be quick to defend him when he begins to retract his confession even though you wouldn't do so if a murderer who wasn't a member of your party in Congress decided to retract their confession after pleading guilty. The whole point of our legal system, even though it is seriously flawed, is to allow someone to defend themselves and to proclaim their innocence even on death row. That there have been people who have done so and have been innocent (and guilty) should go to show that Craig, who has the mental capacity to know his constitutional rights, confessed to a crime that he didn't have to confess to and he would most likely not have been convicted. What his motivation was to confessing is irrelevent since it is very rare for an innocent person to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit when there is so little evidence of their guilt.

 

[Edward]

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]


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.

Indeed, that Craig is probably a homosexual and therefore a minority has no relevancy on the crime he committed. I don't know of any liberal or Democrat who would defend his actions or accept the retraction of his confession after learning that he is a minority. It doesn't matter whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. His actions are repugnant because they were done in a public place against someone who did not desire his attentions which means it was sexual harrassment. No man, woman or child deserves to be sexually harassed in a public place. It is repugnant to the mind and yet once again Republicans are defending Craig just like they defended Foley. Why is this? The answer to that is that they are putting their party ahead of the rights of others. If Craig wanted sex with a man he should have had an affair with a consenting adult instead of sexually harrassing a man in a public bathroom. He could always give Foley a phone call. That he chose to do so and that it is illegal to do so is obvious based on his confession and on the law.

 

[Edward]

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.

Nor does someone who enters a bathroom expect to be propositioned by a stranger. They expect to have some sort of privacy even when using a public restroom. To be propositioned in this manner is repugnant. If you find another man or woman attractive you can at least have the decency to approach them in a public place where you are both fully clothed and on equal footing. To put a person in a position like this is sexual harassment and I cannot believe that anyone would think otherwise. I find it completely reasonable for police to take actions to prevent lewd conduct in a public restroom and it doesn't matter to me whether the person is a Democrat, Republican, gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, male or female. It only matters that this sort of conduct is unacceptable because if it isn't than we cannot live in a civil society. We have boundaries and those who cannot abide by those as Craig chose to do should be prosecuted for their actions. That he confessed is all that is relevant to me. That he chooses to renounce his confession when he was of sound mind and body doesn't fly with me. That he is a member of Congress also gives me pause because he should be more knowledgable about the constitution and about his rights. I am tired of sick people like RetiredGySgt defending people who behave in this manner because they belong to his party and that goes for Democrats and anyone else who is sick enough to think this sort of conduct is okay.

 

[Diuretic]

I read the report from the cop. In my jurisdiction if someone had put that in it would have gone out of the door so fast that it would have whistled past Craig's ears as he was hurrying out to consult a lawyer for false arrest. Now that's not to say that the report doesn't show "lewd conduct" in Minn. but as I said, here it would have been, well, dumped.

 

[lieberalism]

another liberal in sheeps clothing.

i bet larry craig watches the daily show all night.

 

[Edward]

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.

That some Republicans are defending Craig proves to me that they have a serious problem with their capacity to make sound judgments. It is true that we hear from Republicans about family values, and about how we should vote for them because they support such values and yet those very supporters of these so-called family values tend to do the exact opposite (i.e., Foley sponsored legislation dealing with pedophiles and was himself a pedophile) of what they say. This is a valid point and should be discussed and it isn't intolerant to point out hypocrisy. It seems to me that the problem is in them not wanting to deal with their own emotional, mental and spiritual health so they feel forced into behaving like this. Craig had choices. He could choose to have sex with a consenting adult male or he could choose not to do so but the choice to sexually harass a man in a public restroom was not an acceptable choice no matter how much RetiredGySgt defends him. I doubt that a Democratic Senator would behave like this because Democrats are more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle and therefore Democrats can be openly gay or secretly gay as they wish. They don't need to cover their tracks to be elected or to hold public office. We have openly gay members of Congress, state legislatures, etc. The question I have is "how many of them are Republicans?"

 

[lieberalism]

edward, i suggest u read my post on the main page and maybe google some facts, foley was no republican, u have been fed lies from the liberal media.

its amazing how blinded u all are 2 the truth

 

[Bern80]

another liberal in sheeps clothing.

i bet larry craig watches the daily show all night.

If you're America's friend, who needs enemies? For correcting a very basic fact that is readily available damn near anywhere, I hate America?

Take the time to remove your foot from your mouth before posting, k?

 

[Diuretic]

another liberal in sheeps clothing.

i bet larry craig watches the daily show all night.

By the way this bloke isn't a liberal conning you, he really is as thick as he seems.

That should get me a third red rep eh?

Keep 'em coming. I feel like listening to Tull "Thick as a Brick"

 

[bush lover]

The liberal media are again spreading their filthy lies about people who celebrate and uphold traditional family values of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, being faithful to one spouse and respecting the sanctity of the family. Sen. Craig respects our family values, practices them and espouses them. Now the leftist media are impugning his reputation because they hate our heterosexual family values and want to destroy the sanctity of the traditional family. God bless Sen. Craig and please fight back against the evil-doers in the press.

 

[Diuretic]

The liberal media are again spreading their filthy lies about people who celebrate and uphold traditional family values of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, being faithful to one spouse and respecting the sanctity of the family. Sen. Craig respects our family values, practices them and espouses them. Now the leftist media are impugning his reputation because they hate our heterosexual family values and want to destroy the sanctity of the traditional family. God bless Sen. Craig and please fight back against the evil-doers in the press.

Bullshit, the report from the cop is on the net. Craig pleaded guilty.

 

[Edward]

not at all, I'm suggesting that if you are a republican and you see a democrat fall down on a non issue that perhaps you would be better served down the road if you were considerate of the FACT that such roadbumps happen in both parties. Obviously you think your own shit doesn't stink. When your house is made of glass I guess you find the largest stones to throw, right?

keep showing me all about that famous lefty tolorance, dude. It's probably not true that you are about as credible in this thread as Pat Robertson preaching about bombing muslims.

What.. two.. three weeks until the right has something on some democrat that puts egg on collective left wing?

Keep throwing stones you shit stained motherfucker because your shit stinks as bad as anyone elses. Let me be as clear as I can so you can dismiss me as just another person who hates you or who is intolerant. You are a piece of shit, you have demonstrated that you are a bastard, and that you think you are better than everyone else. It is also obvious that you are an egocentric bastard who gets off on thinking you are on some moral high ground and you accuse others of resorting to ad hominems in the same post where you call their attitude shitty. If that isn't hypocrisy than I don't know what is but I do know that you are a fucking idiot and that those who say this about you are right and that you are wrong in your assessment of yourself. Of course you don't want to believe you are a fucking idiot and that is why on election day you cast a vote for those who talk out of their asses and make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about yourself. I suggest you wipe the shit off your face because you are starting to smell as bad as those you vote for.

 

[ReillyT]

Perhaps we have gotten off on the wrong foot, and this has made you unable or unwilling to actually read what I am writing. Or, perhaps, I haven't been clear enough. I will try one more time.

First, political affiliation is irrelevant except insomuch that it draws out the hypocrisy.

Second, we are not talking about the hypocrisy of all Republicans or all Democrats or all Greens. We are discussing the hypocrisy of specific politicians (in this case, Craig), be they Republican or Democrat or whatever.

"An elected politician runs on a platform promising to keep the lobbies out of Washington. It is discovered that his campaign was funded by private interest lobbies. Is this relevant? Can we discuss this, or is it merely lowering the dialogue?"

I guess that would depend on WHAT party this politician belongs to and how close you identify with said party. After all, it's big news for you when a republican takes money from a lobby but.. I just.. don't ever see.. you bitch about dems taking the same money from some other lobby... After all, if one politician gets busted with, say, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN THEIR FREEZER, then it MUST reflect upon the entire political ideology, right?

First, I don't bitch about private interests at all, because I think that is just part of the game. This is purely hypothetical.

Further, this one was directed more at Democrats, who preach more about taking the money out of Washington, but still accept large contributions from private interests. As for Jefferson, that isn't so much hypocrisy as flat-out corruption. Still important, and I have no problem with anyone pointing this out.

"An elected official runs on a platform stressing bringing equality to the masses of invisible in our society. Oooopppsss, turns out he is a member of the Klan. Is this relevant? Can we discuss this, or is it merely lowering the dialogue?"


You tell me. How many Byrd jokes does it take to razzle you? Or the reality of dixiecrats. Praytell, how often shall we bring this stuff up? Before or AFTER the congress sessions ends after a lackluster democratic majority? Just RAISING THE DIALOG when a conservative on this board slaps the shit out of you with a couple pages of Byrd jokes, right?

Bring the Byrd jokes on. I have no problem with anyone pointing out hypocrisy. However, the effect is lessened somewhat when a person confesses their past and states that they have changed. It is similar (but not exactly like) someone who was an Vietnam protester when they were young, but now is a pro-Bush Republican. It isn't so much hypocrisy here. It is more just that someone's mind changed as they got older. Happens to all of us.

Yet I'm only talking about yours and not the entire democratic affiliation.

Once again, none of this is directed at parties as a whole, just individual members.

I guess you can't see the opposing question then, eh? why should others be tolorant of your acceptance of homosexuality while spouting off your OPINION on who is a hypocrit? Did that come too fast at you? Why should you be? Because you don't apply the same standard to your own side.

If you can show me a thread where you have pounced on your own with as much ferver as you would theright then post a link and prove me wrong.

Everybody has views that someone else disagrees with. Pointing out a case of hypocrisy doesn't change this. Yes, it is my opinion that Craig is a hypocrite, but it is not exactly a groundless opinion in light of recent events. I apply the same standard to all politicians. I am perfectly okay with anyone pointing out the hypocrisy of a Democrat (although I may not always agree that the assessment is accurate).

I don't know if I have ever "pounced" on a Democrat for being a hypocrite (other than Reid earlier in the thread). I guess I just post in the threads that move me. However, I have no problem with anyone else pointing out the hypocrisy of democratic politicians. If Al Gore is driving a hummer or flying in a private jet, I think this is fair game. In fact, I think it is healthy for democracy that this stuff gets pointed out.

Am I talking about you specifically based on your input to this thread or, say, the entire political affiliation of anyone who agrees with you on a given issue?!

Generalizing is usually a bad idea (although not always). We are talking just about Craig, not Republicans in general.