Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Well you guys may not like me for this but I just read the transcript and I really have my doubts about this whole thing. He may well have been solciting gay sex but the case seems very shakey to me. Maybe I need to see the video instead of just reading it but I actually felt he held his ground and maintained that he wasn't doing anything to intentionally solicit sex.

    Dunno...just trying to be fair here. I think this cop was a pretty junior officer that was quite nervous about nabbing a senator...but I also wonder how much he may have embellished once he knew it was a senator.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog
    I just heard it... why people don't lawyer out is beyond me... if you are ever caught by the police you let the lawyers do ALL of your talking, no matter if you are guilty or innocent. He could have made this go away if he would have kept his mouth shut and let the lawyer handle it...
    CNBC's Countdown played the full audio of that interogation last night.

    A good lawyer could possibly have beaten this.

    The cop's voice and "presentation" was not as authoritative and assured as it might have needed to be to persuade a jury or judge. The cop was no doubt a little intimidated by having arrested a Senator in a bathroom stall.

    But Craig was similarly unpersuasive and nervous.

    Was he innocent ??

    The cop had no way of knowing whose sanctimonious body belonged to the foot that tapped on his shoe beneath that stall.

    Presumably he was assigned that disgusting "beat" because of numerous complaints about that apparently notorious bathroom.

    Craig regularly transits through that airport, and presumably knew where to go, and knew the "code".

    All of Craig's previous alledged gay transgressions would have been inadmissable (i.e. an encounter in the bathroom of Union Station).

    Craig took the plea deal offered (misconduct, not lewd behavior) because fighting the case would generate attention that would affirm the already widely whispered allegations that he was gay.

    Given that it was approx. 2 months since that arrest and that he nearly slid by, its hard to retrospectively say that he should have gone to court to contest the charges.
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/31/2007 at 10:58 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #22  
    All of Craig's previous alledged gay transgressions would have been inadmissable (i.e. an encounter in the bathroom of Union Station).
    What about habit?
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    What about habit?


    what are you saying ?
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #24  
    I’m just musing, and am probably way off base.....but you said it would be inadmissable. Because of hearsay issues? I was just thinking about some of the exceptions to the hearsay rule and whether any were applicable.

    I was trying to make his actions fit within this legal rule: Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
    If he's done it before......?
    Last edited by Iago; 08/31/2007 at 12:34 PM.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    I’m just musing, and am probably way off base.....but you said it would be inadmissable. Because of hearsay issues? I was just thinking about some of the exceptions to the hearsay rule and whether any were applicable.

    I was trying to make his actions fit within this legal rule: Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
    If he's done it before......?
    its my understanding that in general past behavior, a pattern of behavior, or even bad acts are not evidence -- and not admissable as proof in a trial regarding a current crime.

    Just because I have a notorious history as an intolerant tyrant is not proof that I am an abusive boyfriend.

    Past acts, reputation, and criminal records are reviewable only after conviction, when sentencing is to be decided.

    I am not a lawyer, so you may have a better insight on this.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #26  
    I don't seem to get it. Hypocrisy because one has values within a group that stereotypically is associated with religion seems to be your main concern, as if to say the same action would have been okay with a Dem because they are not religous. Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy no matter what religious affiliation or lack of is involved. So then do I assume since when this happens on the Dem side, you are not very upset...because they are not religious? If you say one thing and do another you are hypocrite.

    If you take the Holier Than Thou defense....wouldn't the whole campaign with the fight against corruption have any say if the topic is hypocrisy? With the statements made by the Dems during that time, I would think the same appalling reaction would be the same with the scandals with the Dems in power now....just like when the Reps were in power. No different. What is wrong for one is wrong for all.

    I agree with Toby....arguements like these is why I do not hold any political loyalty to any party....and largely why I generally I have stayed away from them for the past several months.
  7. #27  
    I thought he was saying that Craig was one of the many Republicans who had been vocal about "immoral" behavior, and then got caught himself doing "immoral" behavior.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  8. #28  
    Hypocrisy, Democrat, Republican, Homosexuality, all aside.

    When did trying to get laid become a crime? Let's say he did try to pick some guy up in a rest room for sex, men and women try to pick each other up everywhere for sex, when did that become illegal?

    There was no money offered or public indecency that I've heard, what exactly is the crime here?
  9. #29  
    This is the US, remember? Everything sexual is illegal.

    In this case, I think people complained about getting advances from guys they didn't know, and/or there was public sex going on in the bathrooms. The public sex and soliciting for sex(even if not for money) is probably the indecency part. It's a "morals" crime for sure and I'm sure Idaho has better uses for it's tax dollars!! Although public sex is not good if someone walks in with their kid. But the cops should just issue a ticket for a small fine and drop the matter!
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I don't seem to get it. Hypocrisy because one has values within a group that stereotypically is associated with religion seems to be your main concern, as if to say the same action would have been okay with a Dem because they are not religous. Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy no matter what religious affiliation or lack of is involved. So then do I assume since when this happens on the Dem side, you are not very upset...because they are not religious? If you say one thing and do another you are hypocrite.

    If you take the Holier Than Thou defense....wouldn't the whole campaign with the fight against corruption have any say if the topic is hypocrisy? With the statements made by the Dems during that time, I would think the same appalling reaction would be the same with the scandals with the Dems in power now....just like when the Reps were in power. No different. What is wrong for one is wrong for all.

    I agree with Toby....arguements like these is why I do not hold any political loyalty to any party....and largely why I generally I have stayed away from them for the past several months.
    Hey Hobbes !!! its been too long ...

    Just a brief comment cuz I guts to go asleep--


    Hoisted by their own petard

    (Meaning: To be injured by the device that they intended to use to injure others)
    .


    part of the GOP's problem is that they presented themselves as protectors of morality -- the fighters against San Francisco Democrats, the bulwark against free love, abortion, and naked monkeys in the streets.

    They won election after election by deliberately running ballot initiatives opposing gay marriage that they knew would motivate their conservative base. They'd shout about the GOP being the party and people of family values -- while liberal democrats favored terrorists and queers.

    Pure unadulterated hyprocisy is being revealed to be exactly what they taunted and ripped others for being.

    Like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen -- sanctimonious super patriots, who are too too late discovered to be traitors.

    Like priests being revealed to be child molesters.

    Like Newt Gingrich cheating on his sick wife at exactly the same time he opined about Clinton's morality.

    Clinton didn't pretend to have a faultless life. He readily acknowledged that he was but a flawed man. He never acted like a preacher and denigrated the private behaviour of others.

    I heard of someone once saying something about those who were without sin were entitled to throw the first stones.

    repugnicans are hypocrites because they're consumed by the very sins that they slander and reproach others for.
    Last edited by BARYE; 09/01/2007 at 02:57 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    This is the US, remember? Everything sexual is illegal...
    You're so right. Sex is behind ( ) almost everything.

    Its what motivates so much of what we do. And in a twisted way, its underneath much of what drives conservatives.

    They fear naked raw sensuality. They fear obsessive, bestial, unquenchable physical needs -- needs far more powerful than intellect or morality.

    Needs we all have -- no matter our pretense.

    Needs that the right is terrified to acknowledge to be within themselves -- and which they wish to proactively suppress in the lives of others.

    Its at the root of the right's obsessions about sodomy, contraception, and abortion.

    They have a fundamental fear of anything that unchains the link between sex and marriage. Anything that unleashes the connection between sensuality and consequences. Anything that liberates the creation of pleasure from the creation of babies.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #32  
    Dems have the unique luxurious position of NEVER being at risk of appearing hypocritical.

    The definition of hypocritical implies that you stand, or at least appear to stand, FOR something.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Dems have the unique luxurious position of NEVER being at risk of appearing hypocritical.

    The definition of hypocritical implies that you stand, or at least appear to stand, FOR something.

    So what are you saying? You’d rather be seen as a hypocrite who “proactively suppress the lives of others,” as opposed to having your good name sullied by the dreaded liberal label? The label that readily acknowledge “needs we all have–no matter our pretense?”
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    So what are you saying? You’d rather be seen as a hypocrite who “proactively suppress the lives of others,” as opposed to having your good name sullied by the dreaded liberal label? The label that readily acknowledge “needs we all have–no matter our pretense?”
    Precisely the thing that baffles me to this day - the mentality that continues to vote for the obviously more evil of two evils because they "stand for something" yet they willfully ignore that much of what they stand for is morally and ethically reprehensible to the extent that it threatens the state of our union, civil liberties, and global standing.

    I guess progressive thinking can be frustrating to those that need their politics dished to them in USA-Today-like bullet points. Fortunately I think this country is based on progressive thinking and we'll survive this recent trend toward blind "loyalist" thinking. I mean had it not been for progressives we would not be a nation; there'd still be slaves; and we'd be paying VAT on both our tea and Miller Lite!
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Precisely the thing that baffles me to this day - the mentality that continues to vote for the obviously more evil of two evils because they "stand for something" yet they willfully ignore that much of what they stand for is morally and ethically reprehensible to the extent that it threatens the state of our union, civil liberties, and global standing.

    I guess progressive thinking can be frustrating to those that need their politics dished to them in USA-Today-like bullet points. Fortunately I think this country is based on progressive thinking and we'll survive this recent trend toward blind "loyalist" thinking. I mean had it not been for progressives we would not be a nation; there'd still be slaves; and we'd be paying VAT on both our tea and Miller Lite!
    Well, I hope you’re right about loyalist thinking. The last six years have been filled with a lot of anxiety for me. Watching one bungled government response after another, scandal after scandal,
    all the lies/contorted spinning add nauseam......In thinking about it, one of the things that angers me the most is how stupid they think we are. The Bush administration has simply been unbelievable.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  16. #36  
    Who was it that said Republicans are always complaining about how government doesn’t work....then they get themselves elected and prove it. Hahaha That’s so true. But you know I’m starting to believe that it’s not so much basic incompetence as it is greed. You see they love contracting out government services. Making a few contractors very wealthy, who in turn shaft the working men and women who previously held that good paying government job. The ultimate welfare leach I’d say. But I digress... sorry for the detour.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Dems have the unique luxurious position of NEVER being at risk of appearing hypocritical.

    The definition of hypocritical implies that you stand, or at least appear to stand, FOR something.
    Not the case. Democrats believe in NOT denying same sex couples equal rights and benefits like those applied to opposite sex couples.

    Republicans used the gay minority to whip up their base in the past several elections, Craig being one of the loudest voices decrying homosexuality during these debates.

    THAT is your hypocrisy.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    So what are you saying? You’d rather be seen as a hypocrite who “proactively suppress the lives of others,” as opposed to having your good name sullied by the dreaded liberal label? The label that readily acknowledge “needs we all have–no matter our pretense?”
    I am saying that if you stay on the fence about EVERYTHING then its easy to fall to one side or the other then just claim you were already on your way


    Which btw is why Kerry and anyone like him will NEVER take office.

    I still believe the Dems putting a moron like that up slay is pure genius. It allows this comfort zone of constant complaining and not actually having to produce to continue.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Dems have the unique luxurious position of NEVER being at risk of appearing hypocritical.

    The definition of hypocritical implies that you stand, or at least appear to stand, FOR something.
    NOT true for Dems who actually remember who and what the Democratic Party is supposed to represent!! I however have trouble telling the newer ones apart from Republicans, and I usually align with Democrats!!

    Except for maybe Obama and Gutierrez(Yes I'm from IL).

    Once they get in office, Dem or Repub, they almost all seem to forget what they stand for or they just provide lip service and nothing else!
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    I am saying that if you stay on the fence about EVERYTHING then its easy to fall to one side or the other then just claim you were already on your way


    Which btw is why Kerry and anyone like him will NEVER take office.

    I still believe the Dems putting a moron like that up slay is pure genius. It allows this comfort zone of constant complaining and not actually having to produce to continue.
    Well....you just described all the major Republican candidates as well. So I guess ultimately, it just depends on what side of the fence you're already on.

    Incidently, wouldn’t you rather have a leader who understands the nuances in complicated issues as opposed to one who sees the edge of the cliff coming up, but doesn't have the good sense to stop?
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions