| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:30:05 AM |
Okay so I'm really not clear yet as to if he has been back to court and sentenced.. could you provide updated information for us? The article does not make it clear, only that Craig was charged.. if he has not been sentenced and found guilty yet than he's really no different than William Jefferson (D) who has been under investigation for over 2 years on more serious charges and he's running for re-election. And he was chosen by Pelosi to be on an Ethics committee. So please provide updated information on Craig if you can.
He PLEADED guilty, and you can go look up the police report yourself to the nitty gritty details of events leading up to getting arrested. Then, someone explained to him that he can pretend he didn't PLEAD GUILTY. and maybe get the guilty plea tossed. So now he's paying some lawyer to lie for him and say he didn't mean GUILTY when he said guilty. But then he would have to have the evidence the cop gathered (a tape recording) heard publicly in court. It's all a big mess when you first PLEAD GUILTY and then try to say you're not GUILTY OF PURGERY by saying you LIED when you plead GUILTY
Now, he didn't actually have sex with a cop, he only flew a few hundred miles to an airport to use the bathroom. The bathroom just happened to be known as a place where gay men can meet to have sex with other men that are strangers to each other. He was just going to use the bathroom and fly right back.
I guess there were some silly straight men there that complained about being accosted by strange gay men while trying to crap. It just so happened the man 'trying to crap' in the stall next to criag was a cop who was trying to eliminate the activity and had to get craig to invite him for sex, which craig did.
Now craig's family and constituents are having to deal with the repercussions and they need a counter argument when someone mentions 'public bathroom'. When anyone refers to public bathroom sex in their presence, they can say he tried to have a constitutional ban on immoral acts. | |
|
| |
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/7/2008 2:41:12 PM |
Okay so I'm really not clear yet as to if he has been back to court and sentenced.. could you provide updated information for us?
Look it up yourself. I'm quite sure you're capable.
The article does not make it clear, only that Craig was charged.. if he has not been sentenced and found guilty yet than he's really no different than William Jefferson (D) who has been under investigation for over 2 years on more serious charges and he's running for re-election. And he was chosen by Pelosi to be on an Ethics committee. So please provide updated information on Craig if you can
I can't find anything that states Jefferson was chosen by Nanci Pelosi to be on an ethics committee. In fact, this is what I found on Jefferson ~not that it even pertains to the two men the thread is about, but just for kicks here it is~
Following Jefferson's reelection (in 2006), Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi announced that he will not regain his seat on the Ways and Means Committee as long as he is not "cleared of wrongdoing in an ongoing federal corruption probe".
Regardless of Jefferson, I don't see how anyone can not shake their head at the two men proposing this bill and think what the eff. Seriously. You can argue all day long if that's all you like to do, but if you fail to see the irony of it, there's something seriously clouded in your judgement. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/7/2008 4:19:53 PM |
I just hope and pray that someone defeats Larry Craig in the next election so that it can be sent packing from Washington!
Actually I believe he's not seeking another term.
Should make it interesting to see what his constituents do. I think they might be in shock, thinking they were electing a guy based on his morality to find out he's a pervert.
I mean it was blatantly disgusting activity that he pleaded guilty to, ironically, to keep it from being public.
How did he find out that one public bathroom of all the public bathrooms he could have flown to?
I wonder what the other senators do when he walks in to their shared bathroom. Do they sit discuss his 'family protection', bill or do they scatter? | |
|
| |
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/7/2008 7:32:52 PM | I'm not sure I have that big of a problem with what Craig did...
I mean... sure it's pretty dumb and it is adulterous... but is it any worse than some married senator who tries to pick up on a waitress at a bar or flirts with some campaign supporter?
That stuff happens all the time and people aren't nearly as inclined to get bent out of shape over it...
If it wasn't for the rampant homophobia/hypocrisy in our society wouldn't people in the public eye be a bit less pressured to create facades of 'normalcy'... if homosexuality could be openly declared without concern would men still need to skulk around in bathrooms and rest-stops? If gay men/women could approach people they were attracted to without fear of violent confrontation wouldn't they be a lot less likely to be 'sneaky' about it? | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:41:03 PM | Oh, the irony and the scandal of it all. After all, a couple of Republicans who sponsored a bill to keep marriage traditional between a man and a woman are themselves adulterers and about to enjoy the gay nasty on top of it. Shall we all ooooh and ahhhh? For Pete's sake, how could they?!!
The party that champions morality seems to have two men within it who have managed to fall from grace and have sinned, giving the Democrats ammunition to name-call and cast stones in retaliation that these men dared to make a moral issue out of marriage to begin with. Pray tell, how will the Republican party ever get over such rampant scandal and humiliation? And don't we all just love it?
Yes indeedy, this is a delicious, ugly blot upon the reputation of all Republicans even if they haven't sinned. This destroys their message of family values and morality, because, of course, everyone with a message about morality must be pure as the driven snow in order to be respected, despite the fact that all have fallen short of the glory of God, every single one.
Step right on up. Let's watch he who is without sin continue the barrage of stones.
| |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:20:06 PM | If it wasn't for the rampant homophobia/hypocrisy in our society wouldn't people in the public eye be a bit less pressured to create facades of 'normalcy'... if homosexuality could be openly declared without concern would men still need to skulk around in bathrooms and rest-stops? If gay men/women could approach people they were attracted to without fear of violent confrontation wouldn't they be a lot less likely to be 'sneaky' about it?
The problem is Craig ran on a anti homosexual platform, and continues to actually run his politics this way. He is perpetuating the very problem you're talking about!
Step right on up. Let's watch he who is without sin continue the barrage of stones.
Pardon me, but isn't it Craig and his ilk that are throwing stones at homosexuals with exactly this sort of legislation? If we must be sinless in order to judge their behavior, why doesn't the same expectation apply to them when they're judging others behavior?
Because the issue isn't about the homosexual solicitation, it's about the lawmaking. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 3:02:40 AM | | Some people have a deep abiding need to feel guilty about their pleasures and they can't stand it that others feel no guilt about the same things. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 3:20:00 AM |
He PLEADED guilty, and you can go look up the police report yourself to the nitty gritty details of events leading up to getting arrested. Then, someone explained to him that he can pretend he didn't PLEAD GUILTY. and maybe get the guilty plea tossed. So now he's paying some lawyer to lie for him and say he didn't mean GUILTY when he said guilty. But then he would have to have the evidence the cop gathered (a tape recording) heard publicly in court. It's all a big mess when you first PLEAD GUILTY and then try to say you're not GUILTY OF PURGERY by saying you LIED when you plead GUILTY
Well I agree it's not a good idea to flip/flop on the plea but it's not all that rare.. what I'm curious to know is where is his case now? What was his fine? and did he get any jail time? | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 3:28:19 AM |
Pardon me, but isn't it Craig and his ilk that are throwing stones at homosexuals with exactly this sort of legislation? If we must be sinless in order to judge their behavior, why doesn't the same expectation apply to them when they're judging others behavior?
Because the issue isn't about the homosexual solicitation, it's about the lawmaking. You make a good point that his is about lawmaking but politicians and men don't always practice what they preach. You'd be shocked to know all the "normal" men who lead decent family lives yet they lead double lives related to sex addiction or they are just perverts. The internet is a perfect tool for male perverts to take advantage of women. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 3:30:30 AM |
Some people have a deep abiding need to feel guilty about their pleasures and they can't stand it that others feel no guilt about the same things. Or they may only feel guilt IF they are caught. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 3:31:37 AM |
Well I agree it's not a good idea to flip/flop on the plea but it's not all that rare.. what I'm curious to know is where is his case now? What was his fine? and did he get any jail time?
Does it matter? Would it change the fact that as someone pointed out, he's run an antihomosexual campaign and now wants to propose this bill that is actually worlds away from where the country is headed on this issue? The fact that he was so involved in this in the first place--no denying it even if he gets off (no pun intended) because he was busted by this police officer for soliciting sex--tells me he is a hypocrit. Doesn't require a whole lot of thinking if you ask me. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 6:28:46 AM | [Somebody point to where I claimed that Democrats hadn't committed crimes]
Although you feel as if your toes were stepped on, the message,I wrote was in reference to another posters message.
If you choose to laugh about Clintons indiscretions, that is cool. YOu are entitled to the pursuit of life,liberty and happiness are you not? As long as that dosen't deprive someone else of the same. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 12:20:56 PM | Uhhhhh I don't think Apologist understands what she posted. That doesn't mean they voted in favour of it, only that it is sent to commitee. It's been introduced, not voted on (where it will get crushed just like all the other hair brained defense of marriage schemes)
Congradulations. Ive been told quite a bit here in these forums but never that even I dont understand what I write.
WTF?
I simply wrote that these men hear/read the peoples voices and are responsible for repeating ours. Much like they have.
Pluuuuese dont tell me that you believe that these two righties are behind the whole "gay marriage bann" thing, cuz uhhh..damn..
Once again, the sponsors are adulterers, attempting to take the moral high ground on marriage. "family values" my ass. The republicans are pandering to the homophobic elements of their base. Republicans are homophobic? Broad generalizations are a no-no. (It's in the book, page 13 I think)  | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 12:31:32 PM |
Republicans are homophobic? Broad generalizations are a no-no. (It's in the book, page 13 I think)
When one has a seriously weak position, all one can do is generalize, Amy Lee.
Tsk tsk. Grasping at straws, like what's going on in a couple of senator's bedrooms in order to make one's party appear superior is a desperate place to reside. Best of luck with that, Dems.
Edit:
In reference to family values and morality being legislated, this country is so far off kilter to the left that all traces of family values and morality have left the building. The USA is in extreme decline in the family values/morality area. We badly need some of the more conservative Republican principles and ideas put back into this nation's structure, even though I personally don't happen to support this particular bill. I don't care who wants to "legislate morality" whether it be Democrat or Republican, and it certainly doesn't matter to me whether said individuals are the picture of pristine perfection in their personal lives. Just get some morality back into this nation, yesterday. I don't want my child growing up with the current void of morality present.
| |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 12:51:24 PM |
If the majority of the people wrote their leaders and demanded that they voice an opinion that outlawed slurpies, they have the responsibility to due so.
An example of the concept "tyranny of the majority." This is part of the reason why a pure democracy (which the US is not, BTW), is not such a hot idea. Actually, a pure political ideology of any kind is not a good idea. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 1:31:56 PM |
Tsk tsk. Grasping at straws, like what's going on in a couple of senator's bedrooms in order to make one's party appear superior is a desperate place to reside. Best of luck with that, Dems.
As I said before, adultery is one thing. What happens in people's bedrooms should be kept private, as long as no one is breaking the law. Neither of these two were in their bedrooms, and both of them broke the law. They are lawmakers. Party b.s. aside, they are hypocrits. It seems that some of you have such contempt for "lefties" that you would embrace or condone the behavoir of these two men simply because the OP pointed out that they are both republican. Tsk tsk indeed. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 1:48:00 PM | Neocons may as well elect Manson to define justifiable Homicide, or
David Duke to define Civil Rights, or
Rush to define integrity and honor, or
Bush on what is means to serve in the military. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 3:23:53 PM |
Neither of these two were in their bedrooms, and both of them broke the law. They are lawmakers. Party b.s. aside, they are hypocrits.
It has already been stated that if the law weren't as it is, these men's sex lives wouldn't even be an issue. I'm not even going to get into a gay man's right to solicit sex in a public bathroom because that isn't the point or the topic. In reference to hypocrite, there are countless hypocrites on both sides of the aisle and if you must judge these people then you should judge them purely on a case by case basis and stop the generalizing. One doesn't generalize from a couple of righties who got themselves into trouble to the entire Republican party's lifestyle, moral stance, and beliefs. This thread attempts to infer that Republicans are truly immoral hypocrites who say one thing and do another.
It seems that some of you have such contempt for "lefties" that you would embrace or condone the behavoir of these two men simply because the OP pointed out that they are both republican. Tsk tsk indeed.
Wrong. I don't condone their behavior nor do I embrace it. It's not my place or my business to take their personal sexual inventory. I'll leave that to God above. I have contempt for anyone, Democrat or Republican, who is so desperate to make their party and their candidate look good that they'll tear down and make a character issue out of the sex lives of the candidates or elected members within the parties. This is simply to score points for your side and make the Republicans look bad. I think this is desperate, bottom-feeder, low-class kind of tactics and have little respect for it. Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with it. | |
|
| |
| |
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 4:32:36 PM |
I think this is desperate, bottom-feeder, low-class kind of tactics and have little respect for it. Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with it.
Yea bottom feeders eat scum but bottom feeders are good for the ecology. Without them, the scum would overtake the environment so I applaud them.
This thread attempts to infer that Republicans are truly immoral hypocrites who say one thing and do another.
There was no inference that I saw, just the facts about the hypocrisy of these 2 republicans.
There's plenty of other things to point out the immoral hypocrisy of republicans in threads about their illegal war in Iraq, defending bush for outing our own agents no bid contracts with mercenaries, etc. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:31:07 PM | It has already been stated that if the law weren't as it is, these men's sex lives wouldn't even be an issue.
And the interesting thing is that they are trying to make same sex marriage illegal.
In reference to hypocrite, there are countless hypocrites on both sides of the aisle and if you must judge these people then you should judge them purely on a case by case basis and stop the generalizing. One doesn't generalize from a couple of righties who got themselves into trouble to the entire Republican party's lifestyle, moral stance, and beliefs. This thread attempts to infer that Republicans are truly immoral hypocrites who say one thing and do another.
Um.....I hate to point it out to you, but the only people I see generalizing on this thread are the ones who think these guys are justified.
Wrong. I don't condone their behavior nor do I embrace it. It's not my place or my business to take their personal sexual inventory. I'll leave that to God above.
And it's ok for these two men to essentially be judge and jury to homosexuals who wish to have a legal life partner and use the term married?
I have contempt for anyone, Democrat or Republican, who is so desperate to make their party and their candidate look good that they'll tear down and make a character issue out of the sex lives of the candidates or elected members within the parties.
But yet so many have seemed to jump on the 'Hussein loves Rev. Wright' bandwagon pretty quickly......
This is simply to score points for your side and make the Republicans look bad. I think this is desperate, bottom-feeder, low-class kind of tactics and have little respect for it. Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with it.
I see no desperation, and there is no way the OP is low class. If you think the republicans look bad, that's on you. These two men in the original post look bad. There was never an inference of all republicans doing the same behavoirs. | |
|
| Adulterous Republicans champion marriage.
Posted: 7/8/2008 7:16:24 PM |
And it's ok for these two men to essentially be judge and jury to homosexuals who wish to have a legal life partner and use the term married?
These two men have their own individual beliefs and principles, which they are entitled to just as you and I are. It is a little odd that they are supporting legislation that would prohibit gays from marrying, when they appear to be engaging in somewhat risky sexual behavior with other men; regardless though, they apparently believe marriage should remain a traditional matter between a man and a woman. They are entitled to this belief, even if it seems illogical based upon their actions. As has also already been stated, they won't be able to pass such legislation on their own and I doubt they came up with it on their own either. They were backed by their colleagues and the people that support them.
But yet so many have seemed to jump on the 'Hussein loves Rev. Wright' bandwagon pretty quickly......
That is entirely different. Rev. Wright is a racist, bigoted minister who has spiritually advised and mentored Barack Obama for twenty years of his personal life, impacting his perception in countless unknown ways that may or may not be appropriate for one who will become the president of the free world. The relationship between these two men had nothing whatsoever to do with someone's private, personal sexual behavior and thus it is quite reasonable to scrutinize it. I have no idea how you correlate this example to what I said regarding demeaning someone's character based upon their personal sex life and preferences.
I see no desperation, and there is no way the OP is low class.
Well, of course not. I, on the other hand, see it as being akin to sniping about the length of Cindy McCain's skirt, or huffing and puffing about John McCain's former marriage and his very personal, private divorce. It's right up there with tabloid, tacky, and trailer park. Of course, this is just my own personal opinion and we all have a valid one here at POF, don't we?
| |
|
Home
login 
