Senator Craig: Guilty or Entrapped?

farmerEd said:
I have no doubt they will try to run as "small government fiscal conservatives once again"..?
Click to expand...

We'll know soon enough. If the Republican nominee is somebody running on "family values" and there's a lot of talk about "our Judeo/Christian tradition" then we can surmise that the present crowd has won the day. If the talk is about limited government, individual responsibility, and lower taxes, then maybe the folks with a Goldwater outlook have prevailed and there's hope for change.
If there's talk of higher taxes, more government intrusion in our lives, and less individual responsibility--well, you're probably at the Democratic convention.
IMO, the Democrats have a great chance to take the White House if they can just nominate a DLC-type (in the mold of Bill Clinton). Instead, the folks blinded by rage against Bush will likely carry the convention and they'll be on the outside looking in for another 4 years.

Which is all fairly far removed from ex-senator Craig, but I think we've probably said all that needs to be said about his situation.
 
Looking hate in the face - Washington Blade

hate.jpg
 
Texas Proud said:
why should someone who beats up a gay guy get a longer sentence than someone who beat me up:confused: This is the Hate Crime laws.... so I am being discriminated against!!!
Click to expand...

Yep. The crime against these gay men is assault, and the perpetrators should be punished for it regardless of what was in the "mind" of the perpetrator. If the perp also intended to intimidate others, then that, too, might be a chargeable offense.
Equal protection under the law--the constitution has something to say about it. "Special" is incompatible with "equal".
 
I feel sorry for hate crime victims and people that are discriminated against for any reasons but if I were gay or homosexual (which I'm not ) I would live in an area that's more accepting .Why have to spend your life as Larry Craig did pretending your something you are not ? Now Lazy I know you are going to say there aren't such areas but New York ,Mass.,New Jersey and most of the liberal areas are accepting of just about any lifestyle .
 
lazygood4nothinbum said:
YouTube - A Tribute to Hate Crimes Victims
Click to expand...


Didn't look at it (dial up).... but no matter what it has... you did not answer my basic question...

What is the difference in someone beating up some gay guy or some straight guy:confused: Seems to me both got beat up and the crime is the same... but, NO, you want special status that someone that beats YOU up should get a more severe sentence than someone who beats ME up... I don't get it..
 
farmerEd said:
If there are actually any "small govt/fiscal conservatives" in the Republican party, it must be a very small group of people - they would probably collectively fit into a bathroom stall all at the same time (and probably have).

We have already witnessed what the Republican party does when they control the presidency, the house and the senate...the ramped up spending and the national debt faster than democrats could ever have dreamed.

I have no doubt they will try to run as "small government fiscal conservatives once again"...I wonder if the American public is actually dumb enough to fall for it (again)?
Click to expand...

With Rudy "COUSINS" G, running and then the recent scandals of Foley, the poor devil known as Craig, Foley, Haggard, Gingrich, DeLay. Lott, Duke and the other embarrassments that has fallen upon the Republican Party one has to wonder if they will run under the banner of 'family values." If I was a betting man I would say YES and YES.

As for the ideal that they will run as small government fiscal conservatives that may be hard to do when they have the lobbyists and the special interest groups so far up their rear end that they can not sit.

As for the American public being dumb enough to fall for it again. I believe that it will happen again after all America elected Old George W twice to the White House (this was even after we knew him for what he was an incompetent DUFUS). and we were stupid enought to swallow hook, line and sinker his lies, half truths and outright BS on why we had to attack Iraq.

Maybe we should ask the GREAT Willie Nelson what he thinks?
 
Last edited:
Texas Proud said:
Didn't look at it (dial up).... but no matter what it has... you did not answer my basic question...

What is the difference in someone beating up some gay guy or some straight guy:confused: Seems to me both got beat up and the crime is the same... but, NO, you want special status that someone that beats YOU up should get a more severe sentence than someone who beats ME up... I don't get it..
Click to expand...

i am not a lawyer but from my very simple understanding of law i believe precedence here favors the concept (while granted in the opposite direction but on the same scale) of mitigating circumstances.

suppose you kill someone out of shear delight and suppose you kill someone because you just witnessed that person murder your mother: now can you see the difference?
 
Moemg said:
I would live in an area that's more accepting .Why have to spend your life as Larry Craig did pretending your something you are not ? Now Lazy I know you are going to say there aren't such areas but New York ,Mass.,New Jersey and most of the liberal areas are accepting of just about any lifestyle .
Click to expand...

oh goodie goodie goodie. we have a few safe places (well, but for that poor slob in the article i cited): homofree homofree homofree all.

happens moemg that i live in probably the second gayest area of the country. that doesn't mean that i do not feel shepard's pain or that i do not cry for his parents or that it does not effect my life.

don't step on the blue square. don't step on the green square. don't step on the yellow square and we will squash you if you step on the purple square. it is a wonder i ever leave my house.

edit:

as to the good senator, this guy is what? 62 years old? so if he is gay then he reached his gay 20s even before stonewall when gays were bashed on a pretty consistant basis even in one of your so-called liberal areas. bashed, beaten up and arrested, not for bathroom sex, but for holding hands and just for congregating and having a drink.

so it is not enough that he wasn't able to express himself in healthy ways in his youth (& i gotta tell you being young and gay can be so much more fun than any day you ever spent at disney), yet here's this 20 year old kid who wants to go into politics, scared to death of society, for damned good reason, simply because of his own sexuality. and you wonder why the only thing he can now bare to show of himself is his ring under a stall.

society sees this as a pathetic comment on the senator. but i see this as a pathetic comment on society.
 
Last edited:
lazygood4nothinbum said:
[Gross photo with projectile-vomiting shock value]
Click to expand...
C'mon, LG4NB, show a little mutual respect and cut the rest of the board some slack. This isn't what I wanted myself (let alone my spouse or my kid) to see while I'm eating my lunch.

Is it really necessary for a journalist to post these images to make his point? Goodness knows this board strays far from the subjects of the original posts, but this time I think you've crossed the line.
 
forgive this fag. next time i will post a warning.

warning: sister michelangelo's famous painting "ring finger under the stall"

img_552545_0_cd75ac8673cb7df7b4135b160f922d5c.jpg
 
Lazy ,I'm sorry if I offended you .I don't know what it's like to be gay .So I'm sorry if my post seemed offensive .
 
Lazy:

I hope it wasn't me that caused part of your discomfort. If it was, I can explain where I'm coming from a bit better.

I'm a bit of a hypocrite, and I share that with Larry Craig. When I was younger, basically in my twenties, I was a bit promiscuous. None, or little, of what I did was edifying. It was basically sex for the sake of sex. I lied at times, told the girl I really liked her, or I ignored her feeling so that I didn't have to address what was really going on. Bad me. . . . and in the process I discovered over the years that sex just for the sake of sex wasn't a good thing, it didn't improve my life one iota, that it, sex, really needs to be part of something greater. I've seen this over and over again. And I don't think I've ever seen a case where this early behavior of and like mine turned into anything good. I don't think any elder here would disagree with me--nor any parent. And I bet there are a fair number of folks that wish they would have done what their parents preached, that they would have been better people because of it--and that they were not hypocritical when they were trying to shape their children's lives (and thinking to themselves "do what I say, not what I did".) That would be almost perfect.

What folks do in the privacy of their own homes or in some private place is up to them--good for them. Positive happiness is a good thing. If they're adults no one should mess with them. Doing things that Craig did in a private stall located in a public place was simply wrong as best as I can see--if he actually did it, which I think he did at this point. His gayness or non-gayness was irrelevant. That he was voyeristic or needed some sort of extra thrill made possible by fear of exposure is not my idea of meaningful sex with a partner either--even it's shared by both of those in the stall or stalls.

This last comment is also is very judgmental of others. But I still believe it's true, although I can't prove it. I don't like promiscuity for the sake promiscuity.

Things have improved quite a bit since the 70s. There are far more freedoms. But I still don't want to see sex go too far in public. I like to see kids holding hands; I like to see oldsters giving each others pecks on the cheeks. I don't like to see anyone with his or her tongue down the throat of someone else--anywhere. I think the sex act is a private matter. To bring groups of watchers into it is degrading to everyone.

But at the same time I talk dirty here or sometimes imply lewd stuff. And I make mistakes at times. We're adults here. If I offend I'll try to modify my behavior. I always try to strike a reasonable compromise within the bounds of humor--which, I hope, is elevating--I do a little dance and try to hit folk's funny bones in a lively fashion. Sometimes I do a serious miss. :)

--greg
 
lazygood4nothinbum said:
i am not a lawyer but from my very simple understanding of law i believe precedence here favors the concept (while granted in the opposite direction but on the same scale) of mitigating circumstances.

suppose you kill someone out of shear delight and suppose you kill someone because you just witnessed that person murder your mother: now can you see the difference?
Click to expand...

Actually, no...

The 'crime' is the same... the punishment is the phase where the weight of all circumstances should be taken into account...

Let me give an example... I was on a jury with aggravated robbery.. that is defined loosely as someone who commits a robbery with a weapon... that weapon could be a bottle or a gun... as long as it is a weapon, it can get the aggravated part...

Now, there could be a guy who goes into a drug store and robs from the people there with a gun, but it was medicine to keep his child alive... OR it could be someone who took a night stick beat the crap out of someone and took their car...

Both are 'the same crime'... we, the jury had the option after we found the person guilty of giving the person a sentence of IIRC 10 years probation up to LIFE in prison... now, that is a wide sentence available to the jury, but it is decided by the jury...

The hate crime laws states that if someone beat up a gay guy, but not that bad, but he said "I hate gays" while doing it will get a harsh sentence JUST BECAUSE HIS VICTIM IS GAY... not that it was a horrible crime, but the victim was gay...

and if he beat me up even worse and yelled that "I hate old white guys", he committed a lesser crime, BECAUSE I AM NOT GAY... and more than likely would get less of a sentence...

You see, I see them making YOU a special class because of your sexual orientation... no other reason... and I think that is just wrong...
 
Texas Proud said:
Actually, no...
You see, I see them making YOU a special class because of your sexual orientation... no other reason... and I think that is just wrong...
Click to expand...

Dude, it's not about the victim, it's about the perpetrator. The special class is the person that attacks based on what/who someone IS. That person (the attacker) deserves special treatment! Can't you agree with that? Empathy?
 
Moemg said:
Lazy ,I'm sorry if I offended you .I don't know what it's like to be gay .So I'm sorry if my post seemed offensive .
Click to expand...

dear moemg, it seems to me from your writings that you come from good heart. i meant to show no offense taken in response either from you or earlier from sandy.

i did not mean to direct my comments to you personally but it happened that in your comment that you shared it serves as example of how homophobia creeps into speech of even those who think themselves accepting.

yes, in your heart you thought you were showing me concern by suggesting i surround myself in an area with people who might accept me for who i am. but what is the difference between that and suggesting that if i was black i should live in harlem, or if i was jewish that no gay man in israel would notice that i am circumsized or if i was native american that i should confine my life to the boundries of a reservation.

maybe i would feel safe in harlem, integrated in israel or maybe i could express myself more freely on a reservation, but you might as well send me to the moon, for there is no voice there nor someone to hear.
 
Texas Proud said:
Actually, no...

The 'crime' is the same... the punishment is the phase where the weight of all circumstances should be taken into account...

Let me give an example... I was on a jury with aggravated robbery.. that is defined loosely as someone who commits a robbery with a weapon... that weapon could be a bottle or a gun... as long as it is a weapon, it can get the aggravated part...

Now, there could be a guy who goes into a drug store and robs from the people there with a gun, but it was medicine to keep his child alive... OR it could be someone who took a night stick beat the crap out of someone and took their car...

Both are 'the same crime'... we, the jury had the option after we found the person guilty of giving the person a sentence of IIRC 10 years probation up to LIFE in prison... now, that is a wide sentence available to the jury, but it is decided by the jury...

The hate crime laws states that if someone beat up a gay guy, but not that bad, but he said "I hate gays" while doing it will get a harsh sentence JUST BECAUSE HIS VICTIM IS GAY... not that it was a horrible crime, but the victim was gay...

and if he beat me up even worse and yelled that "I hate old white guys", he committed a lesser crime, BECAUSE I AM NOT GAY... and more than likely would get less of a sentence...

You see, I see them making YOU a special class because of your sexual orientation... no other reason... and I think that is just wrong...
Click to expand...


Tex, it's not "just because" it IS because...if someone is targeting a person because of who they are (any random individual part of some group whether it's ethnic, religious, gender, etc) - the violence and emotional stress is felt by many people, not just the one (or however many) direct victims.

The intent behind the harsher sentences is to 1) dissuade this type of behavior and 2) recognize the broader impact these crimes have.

Say for instance you do live in small town USA and are a gay person...if that person is targeted either by actual violence for by harassment - that person is not the only victim...often the intent too is to get all of that group to disappear, or be less visible or whatever.

i have been with many friends during their contemplation and coming out process and i can tell you i went to a liberal school in a big city - and to see them go through so much stress was hard to watch. It's easy to say things are different these days...but when you're the one sitting there facing whether to accept yourself or not, tell others or not (constantly) etc...it is an arduous process...
 
This whole issue seems more or less incomprehensible to me. On the issue of gay displays of public affection, where I live I see as many men kissing men and women kissing women as I see men kissing women or women kissing men. In fact, today I saw some white guy plant a passionate one on an Asian woman while they were standing in a crosswalk. She seemed a little uncomfortable about it. Who knows, maybe she didn't want to get run over. Also interesting is hand holding. Same sex couples seem every bit as comfortable holding hands as mixed sex couples do.

On the issue of public sexual bids, who are we kidding? If you don't find a partner in public, how do you find one? Call an escort service?

Maybe it is just like what Lazy said- nobody wants a nice thing like sex to get mixed up with a yucky one like defecation?

Ha
 
thank you greg for your concern but i am no more uncomfortable here than i am any time i leave my home. this is hardly the first time i have found myself at odds with a preponderate of heterosexual opinion.

there are lots of way for people to express themselves. painting is not the only good art. baseball not the only good sport. tofu pad thai not the only good meal. lying for art, sport, a meal or sex will rarely bring lasting satisfaction. honest & open expression does.

as to the senator’s behavior, i realize this is hard to swallow but it really is none of my concern. perhaps i would feel otherwise if i had unsupervised children utilizing airport bathrooms. if i were to condemn him i would have to condemn society which i see as having shaped him. this does not mean that i don’t see him as being responsible for his own actions. i simply see mitigating circumstances.

compared to the ensuing discussion, i consider the genesis practically irrelevant. it would be like forgetting everything we know now and discussing only the instant of our arrival without understanding how that might have come to be or where it might lead. i would rather discuss—because i think it is more germane if only to our sense of purpose—not only how we got here but where we go. because i think that is better than being stuck in a topic that will otherwise only go round and round but never get anywhere. though i will not be surprised when this too is merely swept under the bathroom mat.

as to honesty in living our lives, there is a big difference between enjoying sex for sex’s sake and lying to get some. healthy sex between two (or more) people, when none of whom are fooling themselves, is not only satisfying, but amazing. i realize this is not in the moral majority’s morale, but then neither is mercy (i.e. the death penalty), so i’ll just have to be ok with that.

it must be nice to hold hands or give a peck on the cheek and not give a second thought about having a rock tossed at your head. i’ve never known such security. i’ve never lived in such a world and yet i am your neighbor. how lucky it must be to have been born heterosexual. as for me? i happen to enjoy potato chips.
 
lazygood4nothinbum said:
did not mean to direct my comments to you personally but it happened that in your comment that you shared it serves as example of how homophobia creeps into speech of even those who think themselves accepting.

.
Click to expand...

Lazy ,my comment comes from personal experience .My son was gay and I saw how much predjudice he encountered and how difficult it was for him .I wish things were different but in many places they just aren't .I felt bad that his life was restricted .That's why I was glad he lived in New York City and had a more accepting life .So my remark came more from a Mother's concern than a political anything .By the way I say was because my son died of food poisoning at 32 .
 
bright eyed said:
Tex, it's not "just because" it IS because...if someone is targeting a person because of who they are (any random individual part of some group whether it's ethnic, religious, gender, etc) - the violence and emotional stress is felt by many people, not just the one (or however many) direct victims.

The intent behind the harsher sentences is to 1) dissuade this type of behavior and 2) recognize the broader impact these crimes have.

Say for instance you do live in small town USA and are a gay person...if that person is targeted either by actual violence for by harassment - that person is not the only victim...often the intent too is to get all of that group to disappear, or be less visible or whatever.

i have been with many friends during their contemplation and coming out process and i can tell you i went to a liberal school in a big city - and to see them go through so much stress was hard to watch. It's easy to say things are different these days...but when you're the one sitting there facing whether to accept yourself or not, tell others or not (constantly) etc...it is an arduous process...
Click to expand...

I disagree.... the crime was to that one individual... anybody who feels 'victimized' is doing so for some other reason...

And I also said that the jury could take all aspects into consideration for sentence... the problem I have is that the state has made a crime against gays more harsh than a crime against straights...

Let's say that a guy beats up someone gay, and the guy has a black eye and bruises... but nothing serious... but it meets the law for the 'gay' crime.. and that same guy then beats up some 95 yo woman for her SS check and she is in the hospital with major injuries for months...


Which crime is worse? According to the law, the first one is worse. WHY? Because the gay community was able to brow beat the legislature into making it a 'hate' crime... yet the result is the second is worse...

And if I was on a jury, I would want to put that second guy away for many more years than the first...

NOW, if that first guy had other convictions... then YES, put him away for 20 years also... but I am saying that this is the first crime for both of them so prior acts are not involved...


I was going to say 'I am sorry to say", but in truth, I am not sorry... I do not think gays are a special class... I think they are normal people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sengsational
Meditation Resolution
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
ERD50
E
K
Lost phone, recovered from perp
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Gremlin
Gremlin
M
My Talking Head Confession
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Stormy Kromer
S
M
I admit, I'm a bit shellshocked
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
EastWest Gal
E
M
  • Locked
Profanities
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
4K
MichaelB
MichaelB

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom