Originally Posted by R.A.F.:If you want to disagree with their opinions then just say so, however intentionally trying to "pick a fight" is uncalled for.

Oh, come on already, SeanF! At least a smilie.As I said, just one example, from which one, if one takes the time and care, may infer the Senator's overall position on homosexuality, i.e., he's against it (in public).

Let's look at a sample of his voting record:

-Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
-Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
-Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
-Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

I won't bother to dig up other examples since they are likely to be misinterpreted in the same way the first one was and these probably will be.Yup, it sure does. And in the context of the Senator's public image of being virtuous, moral, and having a publicly approved attitude while really not possessing them but acting on that pretense, it means the things the Senator did and said constitute hypocrisy.

But around we go.

I forgot what applied over in FWIS applies here too. Therefore, since you've got to have it, the last word is yours.

I've made my points.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

You know what is funny?
A big deal is being made about how emphatic Senator Craig was on his stance about homosexuality...

And those making this stance about his stance are so emphatic about him being a hypocrite...



If you can draw a parallel between a NO vote on a law based on prohibiting sexual discrimination, which may have nothing at all to do with gays but with male and female discrimination- to anti-gay...

I personally have a slight problem with the whole idea of making "proposing" lewd behavior a crime. It kind of reminds me of the scene (maybe there were several) in the Borat film where Borat saw women on the street and said "Nice, how much?" It seems pretty draconian for me that a person can be convicted of a crime for giving covert signals in a bathroom stall, without actually doing anything lewd.

__________________
As above, so below

Because when a cop nails a perp the expression isn't supposed to be literal.

Especially when you're guilty. Was that your point, about the speeding ticket example?

Based upon my extensive experience, it's hard to imagine getting a speeding ticket if you're not speeding. I suppose it could happen...

Trust me it happens.

But that doesn't really address my question. I'm wondering why "soliciting lewd conduct" is a crime at all. Among adults, of course. Now, if a person solicits such conduct for a minor, I'm all in favor of locking the person up. But among adults, I fail to see why it should be a problem. Though I'm not certain of this, I think the real intent of the law may be to give police a way to regulate prostitution, because it is quite difficult to catch people in the act. But I still don't like it.

__________________
As above, so below

Bold mine. You hit the nail on the head.

Simply put? Revenue. The punishment for crimes is a money maker.
And justifiable too.

This "lewd conduct" sting that caught the good senator from Idaho sounds very similar to some stings they run locally from time to time which makes the local news.

At one time, rest areas on the interstates had become popular for that sort of thing and you had people complaining and afraid to go in. I mean do you want to pull in rest stop in dire need of a pit stop and walk in on some "lewd conduct" in progress. And besides that, there were muggings and all that going on as well.

So from time to time they will crack down on it. Public restrooms are just that, public. In the case of the rest areas, they are owned and operated by the state anyway.

And this case is actually typical. The above local stings always seem to catch some noteworthy fish, including the pastor of a large, prominent church once. Other "pillars of the community" have turned up as well.

It makes sense. This type of thing is very anonymous and is just the ticket for those who have these, uh, proclivities privately, but must keep it hidden at all costs. Someone might see them and talk if they did it in the normal venues.

-Richard

The thing I don't get about the guilty-to-just-make-it-go-away idea, is why not "no contest". That would have been much easier to spin in his favor.

"Yes, I was arrested. My plea was that of no contest because I didn't have time to deal with the hassle of pleading not guilty.

Guilty means you accept responsibility for the crime. Basically, that you're the guy.
Nolo contendre means, "No contest" and is neither guilty nor not guilty. It's basically an acceptance of the punishment (usually the same as a guilty plea) but there is no trial and nothing to be used for future civil hearings.
Not-Guilty is putting up an active fight.

If he were innocent but didn't want to deal wit the bother of the trial to save a $500 fine, why not go no contest?

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Spiraling into a black hole might be more attractive right now for poor old Larry.... I bet he thought this would just go away. People that are in the public eye can be so stupid. If this fellow does have a gender confused issue while in a public place. What was he thinking by changing his plea? He seems to be guilty of being an idiot. That may not actually be a crime yet.
Or had he dropped his cell phone and was feeling for it... No. I will judge him a fool. Not for his sexual preferences but just for being the fool.
This must be a NO News week. When this sort of thing makes the news, all is well.

Which was my initial point. Hypocrite or not, stupid fool or not, Craig was effectively charged with a crime before he actually committed it. That's what scares me about this.

I'm not particularly interested in whether he's a hypocrite. I imagine many closeted gay men have acted in a similar manner before being outed. The Senator's sexual proclivities, political stance, or abuses of public trust don't really matter to me in this case. I wouldn't vote for him or Romney anyway, even if I could. I'm actually pleased he's been forced out. Maybe now he'll moderate his position on moral issues, seeing as he's forever "one of them" in the eyes of those he's tried to court politically.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

By the interpretation I'm seeing, soliciting said act is par with committing said act. Ok, harsh, but then, Larryboy's one of the breed o'political cretin who pushed said laws governing maw-ruhl be-hay-vyer into the books, so seeing a conservative hoist by his own petard is actually rather amusing.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

My comment obviously wasn't directed at you, personally, yet your post to me can't possibly be taken as anything but a personal insult. To me, that demonstrates the quality of person you are.

I see now that it was a mistake not to put you on my ignore list back when I first started having "trouble" with you.

I have now "fixed" that mistake.

Buhbye...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Sorry, I thought that one was obvious.

But that's exactly my point - we don't know that he's "really not possessing them." We know that he occasionally fails to live up to them, but we all occasionally fail to live up to our own code. That's why calling such a failing "hypocrisy" makes the word virtually meaningless. This is basically defining hypocrisy as "doing something you're trying not to do," and that's far too broad.

Having tendencies towards some act while believing that act to be wrong does not make one a "hypocrite." Occasionally succumbing to those tendencies doesn't, either. Saying that act is wrong while believing that it really isn't would be hypocrisy - and Craig very well may be guilty of that. But we don't know it.

Ooh, I'm stung.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

That's the other part of it. Like Parallaxicality, I find the application of the law disturbing. I'm imagining that in the near future, guys will get arrested for whistling at a woman who passes by (offensive, perhaps, but not criminal in my book). But I do agree with you that if this had to happen to somebody, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but this whole thing reminds me of Roy Cohn. Not that I was alive at the time. I've just read about it.

__________________
As above, so below

Is that an Ad Hom?

I can see clearly now , the rain is gone...

More near than you think... That happens too.

This probably will tie into the sex offender thread but...

Friend back in California was walking down the street. As he passed a cute girl he turned around and walked backward a moment and oggled her, then turned and kept walking toward home. A well to do prim and proper neighbor saw this out the window. Called the cops. The cops pulled up on him as he walked down the street and began questioning him. ( I would call it more like harrassing). They searched him and found a page from a pornography magazine folded up in his back pocket.

He was arrested and charged with a sex offense.
He now has to register as an offender and can't get a job.

He was 21 (at the time) She was 17. What was his crime? He checked out a cute figure. Now his lifes down the tubes.

No, he's far more likely to go to the other extreme, actually. To prove he isn't really "one of them."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It seems like every other week a Republican is coming out of the closest.

The party should go from red, to pink.

Though, the Senator really shouldn't be charged. From the article, there's no way to determine that, in fact, he was seeking lewd acts. For all we know he was tapping the other guy, putting his hand other the stall and asking for some toliet paper, really.

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

No way other then the whole "I plead guilty" part, right?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Sen. Craig is guilty of monumental political misjudgement if nothing else. To paraphrase Talleyrand, even if it wasn't a crime, it was a blunder. In the world of politics actions can have strange consequences often unforseen. There was this guy who ran for President in 2004... war veteran, as I recall... not too Swift, by all accounts...

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

I must have missed that in the article.

Pink Elephant!!!


Oh, was it just me, or when I clicked that link, a virus attempted to download to my computer?

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

(bold mine)

Doubtful.

If I'm interpetrating Minnesota's statute correctly, the violation occurred when the Senator's foot crossed the line into the cop's stall to play footsie, thus an Intrusion on Privacy.

__________________
*

From the article given by the OP:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/W...ow/2318249.cms

It said the cop put his foot next to craigs foot after craig tapped his foot and rubbed it against him.
Therefore, the cop intruded on Craigs privacy first.

ETA: I had read it backwards somehow. Left my original error however- Yes he intruded on the officers privacy.
Funny I just now caught that.

ETA² : From FOX News:

It was the Errosafe virus. I tried to link that article on another forum. When I tested the link, it redirected me to it's home page and promoted an search and installation message. The option, was, OK.

Is annoyone wondering, maybe the Republican party is going a little house cleaning?

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

Although I stand by any and all statements I have made in this thread ( about how a plea bargain can seem much easier than to contest "not guilty" etc...), I must retract those made in favor of Sen. Craigs possibility of an "innocent misunderstanding."

At first I thought that maybe the shoe tapping and the setting of the briefcase were misconstrued. Maybe. A possibility.

Nope. Listened to the arrest tape and read the officers report. Craigs intentions were quite clear.
As was his fear of discovery and lying about it.

Now is it lawful? I'm not so sure. According to the reports, several complaints were issued regarding that conduct in that restroom.
I have made such complaints myself in other places so I can understand that.

The senator clearly indicated intent. Is that a crime? Well, sex in a public restroom is a crime. Children use public restrooms.

Threatening a persons life is a crime. Not as punishable as taking a life is. But do you want to wait until after the murder? When it may have been preventable?

A class c or b misdemeanor for that offense seems pretty reasonable for his actions.

They've (Idaho and Washington media) have known, or strongly suspected this about Craig for a long time, apparently. One of the Idaho papers just opened the flood gates on the various rumors and stories they've been sitting on but didn't publish because they didn't have enough proof. A lot of smoke but no fire, apparently. His arrest was just the fire they needed to unload it all.

They've got stories going back to his college days. But the biggest one of them all is a man who claimed to have had such a restroom encounter with Craig. The Idaho media knew that, had that man's claims on the record, but they didn't publish it until now.

That sort of makes you wonder what other stories they have about various politicians but are sitting on for lack of proof, or other reasons. And not just sexual stuff, but lord knows what sorts of corruption and similiar.

-Richard