Craig can’t be honest about his failings
Please believe Sen. Larry Craig when he says he’s “not gay” and never has been gay. Assuming that the Minneapolis Airport police can be trusted, he’s just another sexual deviant in a position of trust who, for the life of him, cannot be honest about his failings.
I, however, am gay. I’m one of the millions of citizens who have embraced our natural disposition and have chosen to live healthy lives, either dating (outside of bathrooms, of course) or settled and married to our same-sex partners (well, not “married” as much as simply having children, raising a family and supporting each other for a lifetime — that sort of thing).
Unlike Craig, we gays avoid the kind of sexual depravity that he seems to have regularly engaged in and instead focus on honoring and supporting our families and community. In the debate of gay rights and sexual morality, this is an important distinction.
Andrew Nicholas, Denver
Andrew,
I believe you are wrong when you say Craig is not gay. I believe he is hiding who he really is.
Here is my theory about Craig and pretty much every other anti-gay activist: Craig is gay, but he believes he should not be. Since he is gay he assumes that everyone else is also consumed by the temptation of gay sex. The way to save them from themselves, he believes, is to make sure there are powerful social stigmas to counteract what assumes is a universal desire for gay sex.
He grew up believing that homosexuality was a sin; even more, he grew up believing that it was a choice. When he felt these urges in himself, it must have felt as though Satan was whispering in his ear. And he gave in to Satan, again and again, and each time he was sure it was an aberration, an occasion of sin, something divorced entirely from his true nature.
Andrew, ff you are secure in who you are, than more power to you. But in all honesty you can not say that is the case for all men either out or not.
A simple look at craigslist will show how many 'married' or with girlfriend men are out there who still desire another man for a quicky.
The issue is the hypocrisy.
Posted by Michelle on September 5, 2007 01:19 AMjust think of it this way, had Craig been a dumocrate this would be a non isssue.
hypocrisy michelle is a possibility as the GOP does stand for moral issues and family values. I guess that is why the dums can call it hipocrisy as they dont have any of these values.
I dont think a man or woman either married or in a commited relationship needs to behave like this no matter what political party they belong to.
One thing you can not deny is that the GOP as a party goes after their own to step down and not praise them as the other party does.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 05:46 AMIt is this hypocrisy which has become the standard of the GOP. Whether he is gay or not, shouldnt matter. Whether a man has an affair, shouldnt matter. Buut when you run campaigns attacking gays and the 'horror' of homosexuality. when you run campaigns attacking other men who strayed outside the marital bed, then yes you are a hypocrite as people like Craig, Vitter, Foley and Gingrich are. Now Craig is saying he won't step down, another lie Larry? Since they are so hypocritical of the Party line why on earth would anyone trust them again? Why expect them to follow thru on theoir campaign promises? I dont pity people like Craig and Vitter, I rather enjoy seeing them get what they deserve.
The Dems have the same family values as the GOP, they just dont bring them into politics.
Posted by Good Riddance on September 5, 2007 07:12 AMCraig is just another lying Republican (Powder Puff Derby - Liars Club). Bush lied about his military status and whether he actually completed his obligated military service, therefore we now have a UCMJ felon occupying the Oval Office. Mitt (daddy in Nixon's cabinet) lied that he had a high draft lottery number which kept him out of NAM. The reality is, just like Bush, Mitt got a "daddy draft deferment" just like Bush. Judge Alito is also a UCMJ felon. He joined the army's ROTC program and pimped and exploited taxpayers for 7 years of free college education (JD and undergrad degrees). Alito blew off his 11 year active military duty obligation, just like Bush.
Black Muslims Elijah Muhammad and his son, Wallace D. Myhammad, were sentenced to 3 years in federal prison when evaded the draft for religious reasons. Mitt is a white supremeist.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 5, 2007 07:24 AM40 acres is really saddens my heart that you are such a hate filled person. I wish you the best that you might fine some happiness in life and not continue to be so miserable.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:30 AM40Acres,
What's the matter, still no free government cheese? You can't even address an issue without whining about how victimized you are by the oppressors -- you are a pathetic excuse for a man.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:43 AM07:30 AM anonymous,
Why does exposing some truths about the current crop of politicians - who have run the country into one of the worst quagmires in its history - necessarily mean that the writer "hates"? "Hates" anything?
Could it be, perhaps, that when the truth hurts, it is a matter of those who prefer to sweep dereliction of duty under the rug who are showing "hate" for the "whistle blower"? There is a good deal of evidence to that effect all throughout this Administration.
I think "40 acres" is more to be praised than pitied when he calls the shots in this area.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 07:44 AMold grouch maybe it is becasue the 40 acres guy has about the worse outlook on life and is expecting everything for free. his comments are typical.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:49 AMgood riddance were you also thrilled that clinton was on national tv and shook his finger in your face and said he didnt have sex with that woman? pure family values getting it in the oral office and they little woman hillary wants to stand by her man as it was a witch hunt by the big bad mean old republicans. and dont forget teddy's buddy suggs and barney frank as they have show family values and all of them refused to step down or even their party refused to ask them to step down.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:54 AM40 acres is absolutely correct. His outlook is a gritty truth.
Posted by gadfly on September 5, 2007 08:27 AMOf course Old grouch will praise 40Acres. They both have a dep hatred of Bush and conservatives. If a conservative came out and said the sky was blue these two boneheads would stand and yell at the top of thier lungs that it was a lie.
If you look at all of 40 acres postings he always reverts back to the same old tired argument of Bush is a draft dodger (a falsehood proven so time and time again).
Old Grouch always takes the left side of an argument. Its like being stuck in a roomm with Sharon B while she is in that time of the month. Enough to drive you crazy with the inept and emotional lack of clear thinking on a topic.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 08:35 AMB-B-B-But Clinton...
Sorry, that's pathetic, 7:54. And I won't even get into your appalling writing skills.
Ordinarily, if Craig had been caught, he would have simply been the punchline for the late night comics and in a few weeks he would have been forgotten. But he keeps dragging it out with his denials and flip-flops. That and the added dash of hypocrisy of his being a "Family Values" congressman, with all the gay bashing and attempted moral uprightness, makes it an even better show.
The Republicans claim to be "The Adults", but they always seem to tripped up acting like spoiled children. Maybe they should worry about the things that actually matter and not the things they try to make us think matter, like their version of "Family Values" (On sale at Wal-Mart, cheap! Made in China)
Posted by Roger on September 5, 2007 08:41 AMAt least Clinton had sex with WOMEN, even if they weren't lookers. And he never had the gall to lecture anyone about morality.
Repubs like to lecture us about morality & family values - and then you find these same people soliciting gay sex in public restrooms, trying to hit on male pages, getting "massages" from gay prostitutes or appearing on the DC "madam's list."
And it's great that Sen Craig is deciding to stay on - keep this disgusting hypocrisy in the public eye as long as possible. The tenuous Republican hold on the levers of power just got another fistful of KY jelly - and it seems like they have a lot of that in the closet.
Posted by drew on September 5, 2007 08:42 AM08:35 AM, anonymous,
Thank you for proving my point. The truth about this Administration, and the real dereliction of duty on the part of some of its current members, really does hurt. Doesn't it?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 08:57 AMOG
"I think "40 acres" is more to be praised than pitied when he calls the shots in this area."
PUHLEEZE! Don't encourage Mr. Professional Victim, oppressed whiner and fabricator of facts as he snivels about how he was held down by "the man" who allegedly got away "high treason."
Sheeesh...do you encourage a spoiled little 10 year old brat when they throw a tantrum; that's what 40acres is essentially.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 08:58 AMdrew on September 5, 2007 08:42 AM
"At least Clinton had sex with WOMEN..."
You left wing homophobia is showing through you PC front...for shame you hypocritical moron...
Posted by on September 5, 2007 09:01 AM8:35,
The kool-aid has you so overtaken that the Decider, Boosh could rape and strangle a 10 year old boy on national television, and you would stand and yell at the top of your lungs that ten year old boys are a danger to our freedom.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 09:17 AMit is really amazing how the extreme far left liberal dumocrats hate anyone who doesnt agree with them on everything.
roger you are correct clinton did have sex with a woman and pointed his finger at you and said he didnt. he lied and you still believe him that it was only a bj and doesnt count. well how about suggs from boston who had anal sex with a 16 year old and was proud of it? oops better not talk about the real thing should we. better just point fingers at someone doing nothing in the boys room.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 09:46 AMComparing Clinton to Craig is comparing apples to oranges. Clinton didnt run a campaign aimed at ridding the US of dreaded adulterers, he ran it on legitimate 'issues'. The GOP has got to stop pretending they are the Moral police and focus on REAL issues, not what people do in their bedrooms! Clinton's affair didnt bother me, it wasnt any of my business, it was between him and his wife period. Craig being gay doesnt bother me, BUT his pursecution of gays and being gay does! Vitter and Gingrich's affairs didnt bother me, but their attacking others who have affairs does! Haggard can snort meth and frolic with gay prostitutes if he wants to, but then he cant condemn others for doing the same. Rush is a drug addict and has been married how many times? And somehow people are supposed to listen to him on how to live their lives 'morally'? THAT is what their hypocrisy is, that is the hypocrisy of the GOP. R
Posted by Good Riddance on September 5, 2007 09:59 AMI enjoy the "but Clinton.." crowd. So mature is the "well he did it.." bunch. Just remember one thing. Clinton was impeached, and when GOP-controlled Congress had the chance to kick him out, they didn't, largely due to a lack of testicular fortitude, and they fact that most of them wouldn't have been re-elected (Clinton, if memory serves, enjoyed an approval rating in the high 60-low 70 range during this time). Right-wingers only have themselves to blame.
Posted by BO on September 5, 2007 10:01 AM08:58 AM, anonymous,
Ever tried listening to your "10 year old brat" when he/she is pointing out a home truth? Or, are you one of those who just dismisses anything, and everything, said by someone who doesn't express perfect agreement with your own closed mind?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 10:12 AM9:46AM - hey could you sign your posts? Or maybe you want to be treated as a number...
I'll be the first to say that Clinton handled it badly. Just as he handled the "smoked pot" question badly. Just as he handled Osama badly in that he should have kept launching missiles at Osama's bases instead of backing down while the Republics screamed about him trying to cover up his scandals with war. But for all his faults, Clinton is still the best president that I have lived under. That includes Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, & Bush II. He was a sleazy, manipulative man, but damnit he was an effective leader and that's what made conservatives so scared of him.
Back on topic. I'm glad Craig is thinking of staying. That means there will probably be a (D) next to the name of the man who takes over his seat in the next election.
Posted by Roger on September 5, 2007 10:27 AMWonder if Craig still loves his fellow Republics who like to tear him to pieces over this?
He can now join the Log Cabin Republicans, if they take hypocrites.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 5, 2007 10:49 AM40 acres is really saddens my heart that you are such a hate filled person. I wish you the best that you might fine some happiness in life and not continue to be so miserable.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:30 AM
40 acres saddens someone's heart who wishes he would find happiness and stop being miserable.
I'm glad the person did not attach initials because I've sworn never to reduce myself to namecalling; however, such wish is such a stupid sentiment I am appalled by the idiocy of the utter. I can only contend the utterer is a Christian since they don't think for themselves; they embrace the campfire talk of ignorant humans of thousands of years ago.
Christian: One who believes a jew (sic) sired "from the loins of David" is god (sic). Risen Ape: Richard Grimes while the utter is not yet "Risen."
Posted by RG r22037yahoo (ffrf.org for free copy of FreeThought (Deicide Grimes) on September 5, 2007 10:53 AMRoger...
Clinton was the best leader? why? I don't think bush is a great leader and I certainly don't think Clinton was. Clinton just happened to be prez when the economy was good and things were going well. What did he do that made him a good leader? Did he ever have a majority vote for him? nope. Did he do anything important that wasn't forced upon him, i.e welfare reform?
At the end of his career, the whole thing started to unravel, companies like Enron etc were found to be on precarious footings and the market dropped. dot coms were folding like bad origami. What did Clinton do?
I am not a fan of Bush's for various reasons, but to say Clinton was anything other than an opportunist is disingenuous.
Posted by Dravur on September 5, 2007 11:09 AMCraig is pathetic. Forget the toe tapping. He doesn't deny that he sized the officer up through the crack by the stall door. What?, he couldn't see the guys feet? Oh, I see, that would require an old man to bend over too far to take a look...so, when he pulled on the stall door and noticed it was locked, he had to look through the crack to make SURE someone was in there.
What a crock. The whole thing stinks like a government washroom. He's lucky he didn't pick the wrong stall and get a whuppin'. Oh, but he would probably like that. He's a naughty, nasty boy.
Posted by Seethroughcrack on September 5, 2007 11:23 AMIf Larry craig wants to withdraw his guilty plea then he will have to stand trial on the original charge. That will be a real circus. Additionally, he could hypothetically be cleared by the ethics committee, but, If I were a senator, I'd have to hold off going to the bathroom until I got home! (it's pretty sick to think that a public restroom could be a cruising ground for sexual predators...government officials, no less!)
Posted by mike h on September 5, 2007 11:39 AMHe's not gay, he's just boned big.
Posted by shaupeen on September 5, 2007 11:43 AM"You left wing homophobia is showing through you PC front...for shame you hypocritical moron..."
To anonymous dumbass wingnut at 9:01
Craig & his crowd - no doubt you as well - are the ones who call homosexuality an 'abomination", oppose gay marriage & deny benefits to gay partners - and then go looking for gay sex at a public restroom. -and I'm the one who's "hypocritical?"
If you don't answer this I know it's because you're probably down at Union Station tapping your foot in a stall in the men's room.
Posted by drew on September 5, 2007 12:12 PMIf you don't loke what 40 Acres has to say..pass him over!!! He has the right to vent !! It's a free country! Right away you all gotta start name calling and judging!!
Who really has the hate for your fellow VET> He did serve OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!
I see hillary's illegal Chinese financiar has jump bail.I believe he has died,probably a suicide.Like a bullet wound through a back window of a car like so many of the people who could of put the clinton's away in jail.
Posted by Keith on September 5, 2007 12:40 PMJust to thank Michelle for her meaningful post.
Posted by Truth on September 5, 2007 12:53 PMThis is a perfect case of intrapment.Just like when police pull somebody over leaving a bar,they blow in a breathalizer,show no alcohol so they callit a refusal.Just like when the police illegally send a minor into a bar or liquor store.There is a sign saying it is illegal to attempt to purchase alcohol.As soon as they try they are breaking the law.Who ever sent them in is a acomplice.If though they still bust the people so they get there money.
Posted by Keith on September 5, 2007 01:10 PMShould this story about Sen. Craig be true, what a tool to solicit sexual favors in a public restroom. Gay or not, I would think that is not only inappropriate, but very unsafe.
I find it sad that should he be gay, he is too afraid to be himself. If he is not, and this was a mistake, so be it.
Regardless of this issue, family values should not be something preached by the politico. It should be something the FAMILY discusses. What is right for one family, may not be for the next. I would need to be convinced that it is in the best interest of the people to have values dictated to them from their political leaders. To me, that is why it is called a "personal relationship with God." Because it is personal, and not political.
It's time to take some responsibility for our government. The best first step will be to totally and literally clean house. With every single representative up for re-election in 2008, let's vote out every incumbent in Colorado, and infuse some new blood, minus the political corruption. Regardless of party affiliation, vote for new leadership!
Posted by Dan2 on September 5, 2007 01:16 PMYes, yes Keith...ok, we get it. Your DUI was a case of entrapment, or conspiracy, or little green democrats that poured alcohol down your throat, taped you to the wheel, and blocked your accelerator down...blah blah blah. Better not touch that keyboard, we're going to intercept your e-mail and send it to kiddie porn websites. Now go investigate that noise in your attic...it's not in your head.
Posted by UnderCover on September 5, 2007 01:49 PMDan 2,
I've asked before, and I'll ask again: Are you volunteering to run for the office?
Where do you propose to find this "new blood"?
How do you propose to get them through the Primaries?
Just how much experience in politics - in the real world that is - do you have?
Or is this just some more of the senseless old, "hate politics", "distrust anyone and everyone in government", and "still expect people to do the job" rhetoric that always expects "OTHERS" to take it seriously?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 5, 2007 01:57 PM40 arces,
You like to spout off about Justice Alito being a UCMJ Felon, yet you fail to mention that Justice Alito was commissioned as a Second Lt in the US Army Signal Corps, he finished his obligation in the inactive reserves and was HONORABLY discharged in 1980 after being PROMOTED to Captain. He also joined the ROTC at Princeton in 1970 after getting a high lottery number. He graduated in 1972, was in the Army Reserves from that time, and attended Yale earning his JD in 1975. So, the reality is that his schooling of 5 years was reimbursed by the US for being in the reserves. And since President Nixon began troop withdraws in 1970, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Calling someone a felon is slanderous, and in this specific instance, a flat out lie. Who is the liar now?
I am sorry that you had to serve, and that you have used that time as a crutch, to blame everyone else for your perceived problems in your life. But I think you can get off your high horse on calling people out for not fulfilling whatever obligation YOU believe they may have yet to fulfill.
For those that wanted the REAL TRUTH, there it is... I guess the truth really does hurt, when you actually look for it.
Posted by Dan2 on September 5, 2007 02:04 PMSheesh......so.... Craig is a Republican gay guy soliciting sex in a public restroom. Very sleazy!!! But...... could we have some headlines and at least two weeks of full commentary and pictures from the media concerning William Jefferson???
Jefferson (who remains in congress thanks to N. Pelosi) is a democrat who has been indicted on charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, money laundering, obstruction, of justice, and conspiracy.
Playing patty fingers in a rest room stall just doesn't seem to equate with Jeffersons dishonesty.
There are PLENTY of Republicans that are guilty of the same dishonesty as Jefferson.. but, the bias of the media where democrats are involved, is totally unfair, glaringly obvious, and quite disgusting!!
Posted by A on September 5, 2007 02:23 PMSeveral things have been bothering me about the reactions I am hearing to the Craig scandal, coming mostly from the democrats this time, though similar examples can be found on the republican side of the aisle. There is a lack of consistency. When Clinton was involved in his sex scandal, many democrats said that his sex life was his personal business, he lied about it which was wrong and illegal, but it never really belonged in the political sphere. It was a matter that was between him and his wife. It was a consensual act between two adults. The issue never should have made it to a level of hearings. Additionally, when Barney Frank was caught soliciting a prostitute, I remember no outcry from democrats. He was taken before the ethics board, but there was no national outcry.
Now Craig has done something wrong an illegal, and there is great outcry. What he did as far as I can tell, was plan to commit an illegal sex act with another adult. It is stupid and disgusting, but, I see it very much on the same level as what Clinton did and what Barney Frank did.
I would like to see consistency on this issue. If it is ok for the folks on your side of the aisle to engage in inappropriate sexual behavior, it has to be ok for the other side of the aisle to do so too. Or conversely if it is wrong when your opponents do it, it has to be wrong when your friends do it to. Otherwise you are not acting and speaking out on a moral principle you hold. You are acting on self interest or something else, but not a moral principal.
The excuse I hear for why it is different this time (vs. when Clinton or Frank did something wrong) is that Craig is from a party that promotes sexual repression and opposes gay rights. I hear people say that there is hypocrisy involved which makes it different. That excuse conflates two issues.
Craig is certainly a hypocrite. He engaged in behavior that was disgusting and illegal. It goes against his stated values and his parties. He is either lying to himself on a massive level or leading a hypocritical life saying one thing while doing another. Because he is in a position of power, he was essentially trying to exempt himself from an ideology that has the ability if enacted to harm people. He is a terrible hypocrite. Based on his ideology and voting record he would never have gotten my vote if I were his constituent, and he certainly would not get it now.
But his being a hypocrite does not allow mean its ok for democrats to be hypocrites too. Hypocrisy does not cancel each other out. Democrats either hold that a politicians sex life is their own business so long as it is between consenting adults and no one is harmed or they don’t. I do not remember the maxim at the time of the Clinton scandal being “a persons sex life is their own business unless they are a hypocrite.”
The Republicans are just as guilty of this behavior as well, someone does something wrong in the other party and they are very quick to point fingers, someone does something wrong in their party every effort will be made to make excuses.
The point is consistency is important in acting morally. Craig’s hypocrisy does not lend validation to other hypocrisy. We must apply our morals fairly even when it means it makes “our side” (which ever that is) look bad. Consistency is the first step towards accountability and personal responsibility. In this case democrats either need to drop the issue if they believe sex life is personal, or if they have reconsidered their position, they need to clearly state that the Craig issue does belong in the political sphere, and looking back so did democratic sex scandals. Republicans have the same obligation to either defend Craig or condemn him, but clearly articulate that there position applies equally to both parties.
f you don't answer this I know it's because you're probably down at Union Station tapping your foot in a stall in the men's room.
Posted by drew on September 5, 2007 12:12 PM
Keep your foot on your side of the wall.
Posted by on September 5, 2007 03:27 PMKeri,
Bottom line is this: Clinton did not break the law, BJs are legal and both parties were of age. Craig was not arrested by the Democrats, but by Policemen in a state where such bathroom crusiing IS illegal. Craig broke the law, Clinton's fun with Monica did not.
Semantics aside Pocraig, what Sen. Craig is ACCUSED of doing is illegal. Until it is proven in a court, he is innocent of everything but disorderly conduct, which he has already pleaded guilty too, and from what I understand, may switch his plea to not guilty. From a legal perspective, the odds of conviction are slim, as he did not necessarily solicit anything, but was engaged by law enforcement (which is entrapment).
What Clinton did and was impeached for, was perjury, lying under oath about a sex act while being investigated by the special prosecutors office, and the grand jury. That is illegal, and as a result, he was impeached.
Personally, I think this topic is a HUGE waste of time. I would hope that the people of Idaho decide to elect a new Senator. And, as a point of fact, I was 100% against the impeachment of President Clinton as well.
Posted by Dan2 on September 5, 2007 03:39 PMPocraig,
Dan2 has already pointed this out. But I was talking about the whole scope of the Clinton scandal, the sex act was not illegal, the lying was.
I also pointed out Frank, whose actions (hiring a prostitute) were also illegal.
Craig may or may not have committed an illegal act, that is up to a court of law to sort out.
I was merely advocating for consistency.
If your moral rule in the case of political sex lives revolves around the legality of the actions, (which is not an insensible position) then THAT rule must apply across the board.
Personally, I could care less who is sleeping with whom or where in politics provided there was not abuse, and it is between consenting adults. I feel that way regardless of which party is involved. The Craig thing is a non-issue to me. His beliefs, ideology and voting record are relevant to me and he would never get my vote on that basis. I am happy to discuss his political actions, but I don’t care about his sex life. Same goes for Clinton and Frank in my book. My ethical maxim is clear and consistent.
Decent citizens
Don't do that in public. Stay
Closeted with Keith.
--a haiku from...
Posted by the anti-Keith on September 5, 2007 04:14 PMThe problem I have with it is the hypocrisy. The GOP seems to think and feel thay have the market cornered on Family Values, Religion, morality and patriotism. Yet it seems time and time again they spout their family values, morals etc. and are so disgusted by others behavior yet they are as bad or worse. Newt is a great example going after Clinton with both barrels regarding an affair, yet at the same time having an affair for years. I was disgusted by Clintons actions, all he had to do was admit to the mistake and move on, but he wouldn't and that is what got him into more trouble. I find it interesting the GOP of family values always berates Hilary for working it out and making her marriage work, or at least staying with him. As if stating Hilary (stand by your man) Clinton is a bad thing. If Craig had not had an anti-gay agenda this would not have been that big of a deal. Just like Haggard, if he didn't constantly bash gays and the lifestyle it wouldn't have been such a big deal. Is there a GOP candidate for president right now that has had only one Marriage? There is nothing funnier to me than listening to how sacred marriage is from 3 time divorced Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by Mike D. on September 5, 2007 05:37 PMDan2 said:
"...what Sen. Craig is ACCUSED of doing is illegal. Until it is proven in a court, he is innocent of everything but disorderly conduct..."
So the lie we should believe is that he is guilty of "disorderly conduct", and the truth we need to discard is that he is gay.
It's like that time I was going 89 in a 55 and I went to court. I ended up pleading guilty to "failure to signal" and getting fewer points shaved off my license. Since I plead guilty to that, that's what happened right? I never sped that night. Poof!
What color is the sky again?
"Personally, I think this topic is a HUGE waste of time."
So you're an admitted timewaster? I plead guilty...
Posted by Charles B on September 5, 2007 10:13 PMHow is it that Barney Frank can have a homosexual protitution operation run by his room mate and operating out of their townhouse and the whole thing is blown over?
Wouldn't possibly have something to do with media bias now would it?
No pun intended on that last post.
Posted by skeptical on September 5, 2007 11:22 PMMaybe Craig is a woman trapped in a mans body and can`t afford the surgery.
I heard today that he may try to get out on a technicality. Wow, a member of the "get tough on crime" bunch claiming he wasn`t read is Miranda rights.
Boy if this is not irony then nothing is.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 12:25 AMKeri,
What you are proposing then is a situation in which a Republican has speical consideration. He/she is to be held "not guilty" of the original accusation; and everyone is to completely disregard the plea of Guilty to the charge as bargained down; because the original charge "has not been proven in a Court of law".
This is a wonderful form of double standards; but, in truth, is basically what is to be expected from the Republican point of view. For them, the little niceties of legal proceedures are dispensible trivialities, since their "moral standards" and/or "moral standing" is above mere technicalies that apply to common people.
It won't sink in, of course; but the simple fact is, Craig pleaded Guilty in a Court of Law.
Now, he says he wants to change his plea. Never mind the simple fact that he had every opportunity to go to Court, on the original charge, and force the State to prove the guilt. And, never mind the simple fact that he was offered the opportunity to plead to a lesser offense, and DID.
So, because he's a Republican, his change of mind concerning his actions should completely remove him from any and all current consequences, which consequences are directly connected to his original plea of Guilty.
And, of course, since he's a Republican, everyone should realize that he is entitled to this special consideration, since his plea of Guilty in a Court of Law is of no real importance, or consequence; Republicans being totally above the trivialities of Law.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 07:35 AMskeptical asked:
"How is it that Barney Frank can have a homosexual protitution operation run by his room mate and operating out of their townhouse and the whole thing is blown over?"
It has to do with the fallacy of guilt by association and a verdict rendered by his constituents, who re-elected him.
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 07:36 AMBarney Frank is as slimy as Craig and how it is that people like him and Marion Barry get re-elected is proof that all men are depraved.
Yes, Charles B., all men, all of us, are depraved.
Posted by skeptical on September 6, 2007 09:43 AMOld Grouch,
You have misunderstood Keri. She is not asking for special treatment for Republicans. She is asking for a single standard that will be established uniformly.
You have it backward.
Keri,
The Democrats who crriticize Craig do so based not on his putative homosexual behaviour. They criticize him for being a hypocrite. In fact, they are very careful not to criticize him for his actions in the rest room. This is "hypocrite hunt" is purposeful.
The Democratic purpose is to descredit Republicans as hypocrites for advocating a system values which they do not practice.
Democrats think they are immune from the charge of hypocrisy since they do not advocate for any values beyond tolerance. And tolerance of course is not actually a value.
So the double standard is built-in. Republicans are expecte to behave morally while Democrats can behave any way the chose.
The left don't
Posted by James Jones on September 6, 2007 10:38 AMskeptical,
Depraved? Is that something a good dose of Epsom Salts won't cure?
As to "slimy"; Most of us in the city have running water in the house, and even a bath-tub, which gets used nearly every Saturday night - whether or not it's needed, that is. I expect even out in old Foggy Bottom - Washington, D.C. - they've learned about indoor plumbing, and when to take a bath.
Oh! But I forgot! You folks fly around in the upper stratosphere, on your nice white wings, in your long white robes, assessing just how ugly, bad , and inferior those mortals on earth are. So you don't need anything like soap and water, having already been dunked at least once, and thereby raised above all that.
I guess the rest of us just aren't able to deal with the brain damage the oxygen starvation out there in the rareified regions of self-righteousness seems to induce. But, that's all right, I am certain there's company enough for you already. Even some who condescend to post here.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 11:18 AMJonesy,
Your writing certainly shows just how much YOU "understand" - generally, damn little about anything.
Do try to construct an English sentence, at least once in a while. i know it's hard work, to have to bother with little details such as that for one who is all inflated with "theology"; but, for those of us down here on earth, it might even make some of what you write readable.
Since your last concatenation of words without structure lacks not only readablility but any point, or sense, as well, I'll just have to stick by what Keri really said - after weeding out all the blather designed to ridicule Democrats and obscure the issue by useless obfuscation of the facts.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 11:32 AMSkeptical,
You have to be careful in discourse with Charles B in defining your terms.
You used the word "depraved" to describe morally corrupt behaviour with the assumption that certain behaviours would be generally agreed on as fitting the adjective - even by Charels B.
For instance, you probably assume that incest is depraved. The problem is Charles does not agree.
In a recent thread on marriage I asked if society should legalize marriage between family members, i.e. father and daughter.
Here is his response:
JJ, RE:
"Should family members (Father and daughter) also be able to marry?"
What part of "consenting adults" don't you understand?
Posted by Charles B on August 25, 2007 08:02 AM
Here's the link
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/08/aclu_1.html#comments
So you can't use words like depraved with Charles B without specifying the specific behaviour. You have different standards.
Old Grouch,
"Since your last concatenation of words without structure lacks not only readablility but any point, or sense, as well, I'll just have to stick by what Keri really said ..."
OK. Let's look at the record. Keri posted:
The point is consistency is important in acting morally. Craig’s hypocrisy does not lend validation to other hypocrisy. We must apply our morals fairly even when it means it makes “our side” (which ever that is) look bad. Consistency is the first step towards accountability and personal responsibility.
Republicans have the same obligation to either defend Craig or condemn him, but clearly articulate that there position applies equally to both parties.
Posted by Keri on September 5, 2007 02:42 PM
And later
I was merely advocating for consistency.
If your moral rule in the case of political sex lives revolves around the legality of the actions, (which is not an insensible position) then THAT rule must apply across the board.
Personally, I could care less who is sleeping with whom or where in politics provided there was not abuse, and it is between consenting adults. I feel that way regardless of which party is involved.
I am happy to discuss his political actions, but I don’t care about his sex life. Same goes for Clinton and Frank in my book. My ethical maxim is clear and consistent.
Posted by Keri on September 5, 2007 04:12 PM
You read those posts and came to conclusion
Keri,
What you are proposing then is a situation in which a Republican has speical consideration. He/she is to be held "not guilty" of the original accusation; and everyone is to completely disregard the plea of Guilty to the charge as bargained down; because the original charge "has not been proven in a Court of law".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 07:35 AM
So you see Grouch you are nowhere near undersatnding "what Keri really said."
Posted by James Jones on September 6, 2007 12:05 PMJJ:
I stand by my position. That doesn't mean I encourage or support incest, which is what you try to imply. I simply don't think it's the business of the United States Government to dictate to consenting adults what to do with their genitals.
Strip away all the dogma that forms your beliefs, and what have you got? A desire to regulate others use of their genitalia without any valid reason. Just say it's "depraved" and there you go! No need for any thought at all..
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 01:14 PMJJ,,
Posted by Keri, 04;12 PM 08/05
"Craig may or may not have committed an illegal ace, that is for a court of law to sort out."
In point of fact, that was already "sorted out". Craig had already pled GUILTY to an illegal act.
Posted by Keri, same time.
"If your moral rule in the case of political sex revolves around the legalityy of the actions . . . then THAT rule must apply across the board.."
Well and good. Clinton was impeached; and NOT removed from office after trial by the Senate (i.e., being found in effect NOT GUILTY) - the (sex) act NOT being illegal, and NOT even forming part of the Articles of Impeachment.
The "legality of the action", with respect to "sex life" was not at issue, then or now. What "lack of consistecy" exists?
Barney Frank was accused of soliciting a prostitute - or "hiring" one. While the act was allegedly illegal, there was no prosecution. That is a matter for the District Attorney and the Court, NOT so called "consistency in politics".
However, Frank was brought before the Ethics Committee, which did investigate the matter. There being no evidence of guilt for commission of an illegal act, the matter ended there.
As I wrote earlier: "It won't sink in, of course; but the simple fact is, Craig pleaded GUILTY in a Court of Law."
Keri wants special consideration for Craig. He "may or may not have committed an illegal act", she states as her main premise.
The premise is false: He is GUILTY, by plea thereof.
The nature of the illegal act IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue lies with Craig's following insistence that, even with a GUILTY plea, he has "done nothing wrong". And, since, even with the GUILTY plea he feels that he's "done nothing wrong", he should not have to suffer any consequences resulting from the GUILTY plea - or he'll change the plea - if the Court will allow that.
But, even if the Court won't allow a change of plea, he still "did nothing wrong", because he's a Republican Senator, and he's "not gay"; so he's really "not guilty", even though he entered a plea, in Court, of GUILTY.
THERE'S THE HYPOCRICY!
And that hypocricy is exactly what Keri is supporting; i.e., Special privilege for a Republican, on the theory that "he may or may not have committed an illegal act", even with a GUILTY PLEA. Very typical Republican thinking.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 01:44 PMskeptical,
I knew you would have company up there on your Judgment Throne. And, sure enough, along comes James Jones, our resident Pluperfect Pundit in "Theology" to give you the benefit of his great wisdom in the area.
You should feel mighty flattered, sonny.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 01:53 PMCharels B,
I have never said that you encourage incest.
However, in legalizing intra-family marriage you support incest in that you would prefer a society that tolerates marraige, and therfore sex, between family members. That much is clear.
I think that marriage between family members should be illegal for the express purpose of asserting that incest is not tolerable under any circumstances. So I do think that the use of the genetalia of consenting adults should be regulated to at least that extent.
In fact, I will even give you another example. I think it should be illegal for consenting adults to expose their genetalia to the public. There may be other restrictions I wuld favor that do not immediately come to mind.
You view this as the misuse of state authority by the tyranny of unwarranted intrusion. I see these restrictions as required by basic decency. Perhaps someone else is interested in explaining the difference to you.
For my part, I will simply leave it as a difference of opinion.
The point is, Skeptical needs to be more circumspect when discussing the issues of morality with you. It's not a good idea to take too much for granted.
Posted by James Jones on September 6, 2007 01:54 PMJJ,
And since when are your ideas of "basic decency" - or "morality" - to be made matters of "state suthroity" in the first place?
Boy! You certainly do think highly of yourself.
We all understand the "basic difference", Jonesy. It's the difference between a vastly over-inflated little ego - pretending to be an authority on something, about which it actually knows little or nothing - propounding personal ignorance, imagination, and stupidity as universal absolutes; and the reality of a Government based on guaranteed rights of its citizens not to have that egotistically pompous little twit's nonsense, superstitions, fears, and fatuous flatulence made into Laws.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 02:11 PMWow, fail to check the thread for have a day, and look what happens, you guys are arguing about what you thought I meant. LOL. Anyhow, I apologize for any lack of clarity in my posts. Let me jump in and explain further.
As a side note, one of the think I enjoy most about these forums, is that when I oppose anti-smoking laws, or defend meat eating, or argue for consistency in the Craig case, it is assumed by some that I am a conservative. In fact on one thread I was accused of being paid by some right wing corporation to write on these forums (and I swear if there is some company who wants to pay me to write my opinions on a local paper’s website, I would happily apply). When I advocate for gay rights, an essentially federalist interpretation of the constitution, the strong separation of church and state, or evolution, it is assumed I am the most liberal of liberals. It cracks me up, I always look forward to seeing who assumes I side with whom.
OG,
I think you misunderstand me. I was not really addressing the legal side of this issue. If you want my take on that, he was attempting to engage in, or make a plan to engage in sex with a stranger. There has been a history of this sort of thing at this restroom, people complained, the police investigated and set up a sting. Craig got caught in the act. He plead guilty. I don’t know why he did that, it seems pretty dumb because, since no sexual activity occurred, and there was no unambiguous plan to engage in sex, it is very unlikely he would have been convicted. But he did plead guilty. I don’t know much about the legality of changing a plea at different stages of a court case, if that option is available to all other defendants it should be available to him. If it is not available to everyone then he should have to deal with the consequences of his actions. He should receive no special treatment by the courts. The whole point of the rule of law is that there should never be special treatment.
I was addressing much of the criticism levied at him and specifically the calls for his resignation. I was asking people to really examine their motivation. I was saying, is if you did not call for Frank’s resignation, or Clinton’s, but are calling for Craig’s, you are applying moral rules unevenly.
I restate that I think Craig is a hypocrite, a closet case and that he was seeking anonymous public sex. People who do that are enjoying the “risk” of getting caught, that’s what makes the experience enjoyable for them. So it’s hard to feel too bad when they get caught and have to face the consequences.
But as despicable as he is to me, and as happy as I would be to attack his political record and public speeches, I think that adultery, purchasing sex with consenting adults, picking up a stranger for sex, and other similar sexual antics are all poor choices, but are essentially private choices. I did not endorse the investigation into Clinton’s affairs, or the impeachment (even though there were legal transgressions). I didn’t call for Frank to resign (again legal transgressions, though he did not get caught by police) therefore, as much as I dislike him, I can not call for Craig’s resignation for this incident. I would have no problem voting against him, or calling for his resignation on other issues if I were his constituent. I even realize that Craig would be the first in line to call for a resignation if it were a democrat who was in this situation instead of himself. But just because Craig himself would make a wrong moral choice in this situation, does not give me permission to make a wrong moral choice.
JJ,
First let me say that I am using the terms democrat and republican here very loosely and I recognize that just because someone belongs to one party or another they do not necessarily fit my descriptions. I am just using the terms to keep my argument a bit simpler, but I fully recognize that party lines are not the best representations of what people actually believe.
I agree that the uproar is not about his sexuality, at least not the democratic uproar. The noise about that is coming from the republican side. I do think that there are many people (both politicians and normal people) who are making the kinds of attacks that they have claimed were wrong or irrelevant when it was one of their guys. So I do think the focus on the issue itself is purposeful, but you are right they are distancing themselves from that purpose a bit by talking about Craig’s hypocrisy.
I think you are also right that the democrats have jumped on this opportunity to attack the republicans for failing to adhere to their own principals. I think this is a huge mistake. No matter what values system you advocate, there will always be someone (usually a vociferous participant) who is going to get caught violating those principals. Saying your principals are wrong because not all your people follow them, is a poorly constructed argument. For example, Thomas Jefferson personally believed in the abolition of slavery yet he didn’t free his own slaves till the end of his life. His principal was correct (slavery is bad) even though he did not live up to it. That made him a hypocrite and morally wrong, but it does not invalidate his principal.
I think that rather than latching on to the hypocrisy, the democrats in the federal government should clearly and directly state their principals and defend them with sound logic, evidence and reason. I think the republicans should do the same. If each side of any issue were honest and clear about their positions, understood and acknowledged their logical and ethical underpinnings, and insisted that they be applied consistently, issues could be resolved far more easily. If your principals are strong, fair and consistent they will hold up to debate. Sadly, both sides engage in poor argumentation, attacks, they compromise their positions for personal or party gain (not because they come to agree on compromise as the best course of action), and they defend inconsistency and hypocrisy.
To get back to the issue the democrats should be using their time, power and microphone to vocally challenge the anti-homosexual agenda of the republicans. They should back up their challenge with sound logic, evidence and reasoning. They should go far farther than they have, to ensure that the rule of law is applied fairly to all people (i.e. should be fighting for either gay marriage or civil marriage for all people and let religions issue religious marriages as they see fit, ensuring equal ability to adopt, and workplace protection, etc.).
I think you are off base with your perspective on tolerance. First you are being polemic, democrats have never made any claim that all they believe in is tolerance, just as republicans have never claimed all they care about is Christianity and money. The Democratic Party does value tolerance. The Republican party does value Christian based ideology, and maximizing capitalism and profit. But in neither case, is it entirety if their position.
Also, I do think tolerance is a term that is vague, but if you are saying that tolerance is important to you, you are indeed expressing a “value”. I don’t really want to try to delve into the collective mind of the Democratic Party and sum up what the word tolerance encompasses to them. So instead, let me insert my definition of what it means and demonstrate that it does not exempt me from the potential for being a hypocrite.
Were I to define the position meant by the sound bite “tolerance” I would say that it means something along the line of (and this is very broad, it would take volumes to clearly, fully and soundly articulate): In order to ensure the maximum freedom for all people in a pluralistic society, we must allow as many different choices as possible (so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others) and we must base legislative decisions not personal preference, but on something that stands above all personal choices (reason, freedom, the rule of law). Judicially, we must rule fairly showing no favoritism to one group over another. On a personal level, we must behave with respect towards those who make choices different that ours, even when we vehemently disagree with them, though we can respectfully state our disagreement, and even dislike each other, so long as we do not attempt to infringe on the rights of each other.
If this is my value (and indeed it is) I could certainly be prone to hypocrisy. In fact I am certain I have behaved hypocritically on this issue from time to time. I have been guilty of not behaving respectfully to those I disagree with, and not advocating as hard for their freedom as I do for the rights of those I agree with. I do my best to avoid this sort of hypocrisy. I try to apply my moral code evenly. I try take responsibility when I fail and admit I was incorrect when my poor reasoning is pointed out to me. But that doesn’t excuse the transgression.
I do think that, as poor as they may be at adhering to it, the Democratic Party probably does have a similar underpinning regarding “tolerance.” But even if they did not, simply asserting that tolerance is not a value, and that the Democrats believe “tolerance” somehow makes them immune to hypocrisy is a poor argument. To make your position “hold water” so to speak you would need to demonstrate first why tolerance is not a value, and then show what it is that is intrinsic to this value that exempts it from hypocrisy, and then show that it is representative of democratic positions, and go further to show that it is the basis for all of their opinions.
OG,
I just wrote a big long post to explain, but incase it gets buried to respond to your 1:44 post. You are mis-using my words. I did use the example “If your moral rule in the case of political sex revolves around the legality of the actions . . . then THAT rule must apply across the board.”
I used several examples of how to apply a position consistently, but I also stated that the above, is not MY position. My position is that sexual acts (legal or not convicted or not) that are between consenting adults (involving no abuse) are private acts that are not relevant in the political sphere.
I also said the “...court of law to sort out” because it I was under the impression it was still an active case (which was my mistake). I thought the sentencing had not yet been handed down. So in the future I would say he was convicted.
Grouch,
"And since when are your ideas of "basic decency" - or "morality" - to be made matters of "state suthroity" in the first place?"
Since birth. I was born in a democratic republic. The government protects my freedom of thought and exprsession from intolerant bigots who reflexively work to silence dissent.
The way it works is each citizen formulates a moral sense based on personal vaules. They use that morality to determine postions on the issues of the day and vote on legislation as instructed by their morality. That's what makes my opinion a state matter.
For instance as I told Charles,
I think that marriage between family members should be illegal for the express purpose of asserting that incest is not tolerable under any circumstances.
Now according to you that is
"pretending to be an authority on something, about which it actually knows little or nothing - propounding personal ignorance, imagination, and stupidity as universal absolutes"
and
"egotistically pompous little twit's nonsense, superstitions, fears, and fatuous flatulence"
You will be interested to learn that it is also the current state of the law in the US. Apparently a significant number of twits think as I do.
I do not need to present my bona fides as an expert in incest to hold that opinon. You of course are perfectly free to presnt your own if you think it will make you casemore persuasive. But my freedom to express what I think and why I think it is part of "the reality of a Government based on guaranteed rights of its citizens" you were raving about.
If you think we should revoke the current laws forbidding incest and normalize intra-family marriage then it is your responsiblity to argue the merits of your case.
You have helped illustrate the point I made originally to Keri - the left is morally bankrupt. Just look out the sputtering outrage resulting from my plain statement that incest is indecent behaviour.
Keri,
You make several good points but, I plead constraints of time and will address only the concept of tolerance you asked about. I use the term in the plain sense of accepting that which one dislikes or disagrees with.
Liberals would not admit that they have no values beyond tolerance and that tolerance is not a value. I charged them with that.
Tolerance is not of itself a value. It is a virtue that is a manifestation of values. For instance:
American conservatives believe in the marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. We also believe that the authority of government in the private lives of citizens should be limited. Now within that context let's talk about Hugh Hefner.
Hugh is perfectly free, in fact he has done quite well for himself, living with seven bunnies. Conservatives may disapprove of the life style but, don't especially care or interfere.
However, if Hugh tells us he wants to marry the seven bunnies - now we care and will interfere. We are opposed to bigamy whihc we think would damage the social construct of the family.
So we have two values in conflict and will tolerate the disapproved behaviour up to the point that it threatens to materailly damage society.
That is what I mean by tolerance being a virtue but not, of itself, a value.
Posted by James Jones on September 6, 2007 04:48 PMJJ,
I know you were addressing OG, but I have a question for you based on your comment. You assert that because this is democratic republic, each person decides on a moral code and then should elect the person who best represents them. Your argument seems to go on to imply that at that point it is an issue of fulfilling the wishes of the majority. Your example is that if a majority wanted to legalize incest, then that would be acceptable.
My question is, how do “Inaliable Rights” fit in? Could a majority overturn one of our inaliable rights? Or is there something bigger than the will of the majority built in as a “check” to the will of the majority? If you do think there are “Inaliable Rights” that even the majority should not be able to overturn, how do we know what they are? Is there a larger principal that unites them? If so should that principal hold greater weight in making personal choices?
There seems to be a hole in your position.
I think the idea behind our government was to maximize freedom, while protecting basic rights, not to simply allow for the whims of the people no matter what. There was supposed to be a balance between giving the people the power to control the government while still ensuring basic rights.
Keri,
That is not the point I intended. I am a firm believer in the concept of Natural Law which is the larger principle.
There are certain things (slavery, incest) that are always wrong irrespective of social views.
The government is just to the extent that it protects the rights (life, liberty, pusuit of happness) with which we are endowed by our Creator.
The Lincoln v. Douglas debates were about exactly that point. Douglas held slavery was just because it had been authorized by a free society. Lincoln hled that slavery was always wrong. I agree with Lincoln.
My only point to Grouch was that my statement that incest is immoral is not as bizarre as he insists.
Posted by James Jones on September 6, 2007 05:12 PMOld Grouch,
You & Charles B. try to disguise it, but you guys always sound a bit apprehensive concerning "judgment".
Keri,
Well, there was confusion there. One very large part of it was the equation including Clinton. The "critics" didn't just ask him to "step down", they Impeached him, and put him through Trial by the Senate, trying to forcibly throw him out of office.. Certainly, that was not a matter of "lack of consistency" in application of either the criticism or of the consequences.
And, as to Frank, again the critics didn't just criticize and ask him to step down. They referred the matter to the Ethics Committee.
The "reason" , or ""motives" for the CRITICISM is beside the point - sex, embezelling funds, or whatever. What is the need for "consistency" there? The ACTION - Inpeachment, Ethics Committee Investigation, Dismissing from Committee Posts - was both consistent, and appropriate to the individual's position and Office. I still don't see how you see "inconsistency". Especailly when all 3 named had action taken against them.
Or is it your position that the results of the action - Impeachment, etc., - must always come out the same?
In any event, the matter is really moot. "Consistency" in "motives" is too ambiguous to argue about. And the real consistency in ACTIONS speaks for itself.
Jonesy,
NO ONE is attempting to silence dissent. That's just another example of your imagination running away with you.
Unless, that is, your argument is that those who dissent with YOUR views are to be silenced, which is another imaginary flight of fancy you seem to regularly indulge in.
The question was, simply: "Since when are your ideas to be made matters of 'state authroity' in the first place".
All you are saying, reduced from its hysterical hyperbole, is: "Because they're MINE, and I have the right to impose them on others. And those who disagree can't refuse that."
You DO, as does anyone else of voting age, have the perfect right to express yourself, and to attempt to get others to accept your position as their own; AS DOES ANYONE AND EVERYONE ELSE.
Just as I have the equal right to refer to, and regard, your opinions, and your ideas, and your values, with scorn and contempt as being the dogmatic effluvium of a half-baked, and very unknowledgable - but highly egotistical - little twit.
Gee whiz! Diddums get his widdle feewings hurt? Well, T.S. old man.
I said nothing at all about incest. And I have no idea whatsoever - except for my knowledge of your pattern of never sticking to the point, and never honestly presenting what the other person said in the first place - how that has anything to do with the matter.
Your ideas about the left being "morally bankrupt" are as ridiculous as the rest of your fatuous flatulence.
So, you wouldn't go to a nudist colony. Well and good. No one would welcome you there to begin with; but that's peripheral. Just because YOU descry nudity does not make others "morally bankrupt" who do not hold to your particular views.
That's the point, Jimmy boy. YOUR "morals" are in no way whatsoever better, superior, or otherwise more entitled to enshrinement in Law than anyone else's.
And, insofar as anything goes to prove anything else here, your response certainly goes to prove what I've said for quite some time. You belong in the Pulpit! You are well qualified for it. indeed, your are! You're full to the brim with the egotistical idea that you know all about how others should live, behave, and think; while at the same time you know nothing at all about what you are preaching.
You'ld make it big in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$. And in Romanism too - so long as you managed to keep your hands off the Altar boys that is, which one may take for granted you would - since you are just as well prepared, and just as bright, as any of the rest of them, up to and including the pudgy little pompous twerps in purple nightgowns who tell you what to think, and how to think it, in the first place.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 05:43 PMskeptical,
Are you falling into the Jones habit? That of letting your imagination run away with you?
What "Judgment"? The one supposedly to be invoked according to whichever one of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ (Protestant) fantasies happens to have provided the best horror show, and induced the most fear and trembling?
Well, that's not worth the time, effort, or energy to bother with further anyway? And when a time comes I need a "keeper", I won't know it anyway, bedridden in one of the old folks warehouses as would be.
Until then, I don't attempt to be anyone else's "keepe"r either - except professionally. And that's not germaine here. Climb back up in your Pulpit, sonny. I ain't even begun heading for the sawdust trail.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 05:56 PMGrouch,
You continue, somehow, to reach ever-new heights of irrelevance.
Posted by James Jones on September 6, 2007 05:57 PMJJ,
And your productions are relevant to what?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 06:39 PMGrouch,
Even Gas Bags are made in God's image. It was wrong of me to dismiss you in that way (5.57). As my penance I will respond to your question in re the relevance of my productions.
10:38 AM
I entered this thread with two points. I pointed out that you had misunderstood Keri's point on balanced treatment. I explained to Keri that the source of the double standard was the fact that while Republicans argue for values, Democrats are value free (except for tolerance which is actually not even a value) which they think exempst them from the charge of hypocrisy. I pointed out that the attacks against Craig from the left always avoiding criticizing his behaviour and instead accusing him of hypocrisy.
11:32 AM
You replied that I misunderstood Keri and you would stick by what she actually said as opposed to my misinterpretation.
11:51 AM
Poor old Charles B had wandered in earlier
with one of his "this is all a waste of time posts" when I remembered an earlier exchange we had supporting the point I had made to Keri.
Charles B, always the dedicated leftest, had attempted to prove just how tolerant he truely is by coming out for intra-family marriage. Of course he hadn't thougth his position through so when I pointed out the he was arguing that incest was tolerable he started retreating. Charles B doesn't have the integrity to admit he had gone overboard so he has been trying to make the case that he is in favor of intra-family marriage but has taken no position on incest. I think even he understands at some level how lame that is.
I presented Charles B previous post supporting intra-marriage word for word.
01:14 PM
Charles B. reaffirmed his position favoring intra-family marriage while ducking the incest question. Typical.
01:44 PM
You returned repeating your charge that Keri is a hypocrite.
01:54 PM
I returned and explained to Charles B. that I was opposed to intra-marriage because normalizing the practice would legalize incest. I told him it was for me a matter of common decency and was not willing to debate the point.
02:11 PM
You asked me when my ideas became a question of state and called me a little twit trying to make nonsense, superstitions, fears, and fatuous flatulence into Laws.
03:35 PM & 3.50 pme
Keri re-explained her position to you that she was calling for even-handeness.
04:33 PM
I told you that my ideas had been a matter of state since birth and that incest was currently illegal and not just the idea of some twit.
05:43 PM
You addressed Keri saying there must have been "some confusion' which was true but after 4-5 explanations you finally figured it out.
That brings us up to date and I will finish by addressing you last remarks:
You wrote
The question was, simply: "Since when are your ideas to be made matters of 'state authroity' in the first place".
All you are saying, reduced from its hysterical hyperbole, is: "Because they're MINE, and I have the right to impose them on others. And those who disagree can't refuse that."
Actually my answer to your question was much shorter. It was "From birth."
The answert you attributed to me and put in quotes was false. You do that sort of thing alot. You must think the quotes make itmore believable.
"Gee whiz! Diddums get his widdle feewings hurt? Well, T.S. old man."
To be truthfull it's always a bit painful to listen to a grownup speaking in Baby-talk. But then there's nothing I can do to keep you from making a fool out of yourself so, don't worry about me - I'll get over it.
"I said nothing at all about incest. And I have no idea whatsoever - except for my knowledge of your pattern of never sticking to the point, and never honestly presenting what the other person said in the first place - how that has anything to do with the matter."
Now that is interesting. The only topic I had discussed was incest and I produced Charles B. post supporting intra-marriage in full. That statement is simply irrational.
I would be interested in hearing what point you thought I made.
"So, you wouldn't go to a nudist colony"
Actually I said was that I am opposed to what is known as indecent exposure, that is - exposing genitals in public. I suspect people who frequent nudist colonies would resent your charge since they make every attempt to keep the nudity private.
But then again, you typically prefer to attribute something to me I haven't said and call me names for it as oppose to addressing the points I actually make.
"That's the point, Jimmy boy. YOUR "morals" are in no way whatsoever better, superior, or otherwise more entitled to enshrinement in Law than anyone else's."
Again, I obviously said nothing even remotely like that. I had spoken of my right to make my own moral values known.
Then you went into rour standard anti-religious tirades, putting $ in place of "s" in Christ's name and so on which, of course, is completely irrelevant. But then you seem to enjoy the rant so you never let the absence of religious argument get in the way of displaying your contempt for religions and religious people.
I think that's about it. What is the relevance of your post? Well you misunderstood Keri but eventually came around - sort of?
You ignored my arguments about tolerance, values, intra-marriage and incest. You fasley attributed a host of things to me i never said and then insulted me with every name your limited imagination could come up with. Pretty standard Grouch fare.
For my part? I explained some of Keri's post to you and discussed topics suggested by the Craig affair using general characterizations followed by specifoc examples.
There - penance done!
Actually I enjoyed it.
Posted by James Jones on September 6, 2007 09:16 PMJJ:
You spin a fascinating tale.
...as good liars generally do...
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 11:26 PMCharles B,
On this page you can run but, you cannot hide.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 06:26 AMJJ:
Rather than point out the numerous inaccuracies and mis-characterizations of my positions in your 9:16 post, I recommend readers go back and read the relevant posts if they're interested.
Why do you feel the need to embellish when you can simply quote the things I actually said rather than making stuff up to add color to your bogus narrative?
Because that's your M.O.. You simply make stuff up.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 07:31 AMWell, it's nice to learn that the website's resident "theology" expert is always ready to jump into things, and "explain" what one party really meant, when another party is asking; having as he does a so much greater knowledge of what "ought to be" than even the first party has of his/her own posting. I am sure we can all look forward to having his assistance - uninvited, of course - whenever we are seeking to clarify something soneone else wrote in the first place.
Just think! How simple it's all going to be. No more need for thought on any subject. No more discussion. No more exchange of ideas. Just post a screen name; and James Jones will do it all for you, since he knows it all, already, about everything. And, he'll even set up straw-man arguments in your name for him to knock down; so you can learn just what's what about it all.
And, of course, he'll admonish you - and everyone else along the way - about all your mistakes, and the errors of your ways - set up in his imaginary straw-man - just to make certain you understand that he is "morally superior"; while you, and those who might agree with you, are "morally bankrupt"; or even worse yet, have never had any "moral standards" at all.
Indeed, that's his favorite talking point; HIS vastly superior "moral" standing - so completely above those who would "tolerate" difference; tolerance, for HIM, NOT being a "value".
Brings to mind an old song - from back in Depression days, before everything had to be "politically correct", or anything "correct" for that matter - the last few lines of which sums it all up:
Who takes all that chicken breast;
Leaves the giblets for the rest?
Lordy Lord! And Hallelujh!
Deacon Jones!
Charles B,
JJ, RE:
"Should family members (Father and daughter) also be able to marry?"
What part of "consenting adults" don't you understand?
Posted by Charles B on August 25, 2007 08:02 AM
I didn't make that up. You did - there's no hiding here.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:51 AMGrouch,
I will continue to correct you as I did here in re Keri's post. I have seen your m.o. too many times. You atrribute a false argument, the target explains and you accuse them of changing positions and, of course, hypocrisy.
That vile tactic you commonly employ is made more difficult when someone other than the poster intervenes.
So I will continue to walk my beat here and spank you when you need it but as for relevance, I have held the door open - it is you that refuses to enter.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:59 AMI really want to jump back into this conversation with replies to earlier posts from JJ and OG, but I don't know that I will find the time today. If not I guess I will catch you all on another thread sometime.
Posted by Keri on September 7, 2007 08:15 AMKeri,
I would enjoy hearing from you. I think we were working our way to a mutual understanding - before Preacher Deacon James Jones interrupted, that is - and, I believe we are really looking at matters from parallel points of view, rather than conflicting ones.
However, since the Preacher Deacon has decided to explain what both of us are "supposed to mean" - according to him, that is - it might be better to meet on another topic - though that is no guarantee Jones won't butt in anyway. But, it would be an opportunity to develop the backgrounds from which our views are currently presented.
I will look forward to seeing you again. Have a pleasant, and profitable, day.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 08:58 AMGrouch,
You've gone from
THERE'S THE HYPOCRICY!
And that hypocricy is exactly what Keri is supporting; i.e., Special privilege for a Republican, on the theory that "he may or may not have committed an illegal act", even with a GUILTY PLEA. Very typical Republican thinking.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 6, 2007 01:44 PM
To
I think we were working our way to a mutual understanding
Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 08:58 AM
You see what I mean now about the spankings? They are actually for you own good.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 10:04 AMJonesy,
No particular thanks to your butting in, of course.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 07:39 AMJonesy,
And just by the way, did you ever consider that your inordinately passionate concern with "spanking" other people just might be somewjat inappropriate for one posing as a "theologian", and "morally superior"?
Or are you one of those old "schoolmaster" types fixated on the "nether regions", as with those other Romans who are always minding everyone else's business, especially that of their Altar boys?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 07:48 AM