Senator Craig’s Interrogation Tape

Senator Craig actually has interchangeable hands. Yeah. Little known fact about Idahoians.

Perhaps the right walks their talk instead of re- electing the ones in their party that get caught, like the left has done ?

Because Craig confessed.
And he expects our country to buy his liesIf he had come clean insted of bullshitting and backpeddeling he might be in better shape
I’m on the right, I dont care about sexual prefernce.

Yea it changes it.
The left excuses breaking the law by re-electing those that break it { jefferson etc..}
The right is just less tolerant of it.
Gay is not the issue, breaking the law is.

This is bullshit ! How do you come to this as a fact !
“Perhaps it’s because homosexuality is such a greater crime in conservative circles than adultery and prostitution.”

Oh come on !
Now your just being silly.
Even you can find the dems scandals.

Besides that , YOU made it a homosexuality issue with your staement above being one of delinate fact that its a crime in conservative circles. Thats not a generalization. Thats just a flat out lie.

You dont think its just because he pleaded guilty because your a democrat, just like you think its a crime to be gay on conservative circles.
Who can argue with you when you make a statement like that with no proof ?

Mark Foley does not make your case, you lied.

He admitted to a lued act involving a minor.
Craig was nailed for his hypocrisy and admitting to soliciting sex.

Heres your lie. A ststement with nothing more than a suspicion based on conspiring to impose it on me and who ever else as truth. Its an opinion with no facts.

You said;
“it’s because homosexuality is such a greater crime in conservative circles than adultery and prostitution.”

I am in conservative circles.

Here.

James McGreevey - Democrat - New Jersey Governor . Admitted to having a gay affair. Resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, rumors of being blackmailed on top of fund raising investigations and indictments.

Melvin Jay Reynolds (b. 1952) - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1993 to 1995. In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994. Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Jerry Springer ( b. 1944 ) — Springer was elected to the Cincinnati city council in 1971. He was forced to resign in 1974 after admitting to hiring a prostitute. The episode was uncovered when a police raid on a Fort Wright, Kentucky “massage parlor” unearthed a check Jerry Springer had written for its “services”. Jerry Springer came clean at a press conference. His honesty helped him win back his seat in 1975. In 1977, he was chosen to serve one year as mayor by the Cit

Gerry Eastman Studds (1937-2006)- Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page. (Revised: 10-17-06)

Gary Condit - US Democratic Congressman from California. Condit had an affair with an intern. Condit, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing. No charges were ever filed against Condit. Her remains were discovered in a Washington DC park.

Thats just the sex stuff, check out all the other ones that got PUT BACK IN OFFICE after conviction

http://bodegabay.blogs.com/north_coast_curmudgeon/2005/11/democratic_s can.html

My point was that dems re-elect criminals more than repubs do. I think that is true with what has been shown.

I myself said and believe Craig was nailed for being two faced {hypocrite} Dems have proven to be more forgiving in all arenas.
Vitter involved adults and the rest I’ll look at tomm.
tired.

Jro asked;
“How many Democrats have scandals? Besides Clinton and Jefferson (that’s 2).”

I answerd that question in abundance above in post #15
And proved my point that dems will re-elect criminals more often than the right.

You also asked;
Again, I ask you why Vitter is being treated differently than Craig. I don’t think it is just because he pleaded guilty. You’ve got a better explanation?

Vitters problem happened several years ago and when it surfaced he explained to the public that his wife and God had forgiven him. Since then he has proven to of redeemed his ways. Craig is getting nailed for being inconsistent and insulting everyones intelligence.
Its one thing to commit a crime. But to expect the congress and the whole world to swallow bullshit is even worse in my book. Vitters didnt make a big fiasco out of his deal.
First Craig said he was guilty and then tried to take it back. I’m sure that tape was all over Capitol hill before we even knew it existed, this happened three months ago.

As far as that long deflection you put up, it doesnt change my pointing out that you flay out lied when you put up that statement about the right, now you call it a ” generalization”.
Read it and tell me it wasnt trying to state it as fact that being gay is more of a crime than adultery and prostitution in the right.

I mentioned my accusations of the left in the form of a question.
And also proved it with historical content to be true.

You havnt done this in your case. The closest you came was with a theory about three paragraphs long. And then you base your arguement on that theory.

Kinda thin compared to this statement; “it’s because homosexuality is such a greater crime in conservative circles than adultery and prostitution.”

You call that a generalization ?

Heres your rationalization for lying;
“And I do admit to a generalization, though honestly I believe it is more true than not.”

I guess a list of court records doesnt prove anything,huh ?
Read the list, its a mile long and says who got re-elected

You still went from a lie to a theory.

I gave you documentation proving what I said

Here’s the diffenece between you and I,
I said ” perhaps” on the part of the right.

On the part of the left I said; ” like they have done”
I proved what I said the left “has done” with the list provided.

I made a definate statement and backed it up.

You only supply theories.

Walking their talk is another issue I said might or perhaps be true, meaning its not as important as the definate statement.
You asked mre to prove something and I did
Why dont you go see if the right re elects as many criminals as the left.

Yea , I know how english works.
It works better when you say what you mean.
You cant make up the rules of grammar, even if it is your website.

You get caught in a lie and you say; ” oh but that’s my opinion” after the fact.
You can pretend all you want
I’ve come too far to buy that shit.

Trying saying this to someones face and see if they take it as opinion;
” perhaps its because you fucked your mother”

Heres your statement in comparison,

Perhaps it’s because homosexuality is such a greater crime in conservative circles than adultery and prostitution.

If you operate on those standards all the time you can never be taken seriously.That is not how english works my friend.

5th grade english huh?

That explains everything

In a way I’m going to highjack this thread for a minute because there is a definate double standard going on.
Heres my case.

Anyone who reads above will notice that it botherd me the way the headline was presented.

I’ll save everyone the trouble of scrolling up.
It reads as follows;

“Perhaps it’s because homosexuality is such a greater crime in conservative circles than adultery and prostitution.”

I felt that this was a misleading and unproven characterization of my party. It was being put forth as common knowledge and as fact.
By not including aay words such as “maybe it could be”, or “it seems”, or “could it be true?” The author worded it as definate.
It was explained to me that everything here in print is “the expressed opinion of the individual”.
And that a fifth grade math teacher says to never include ” I think” or ” its my opinion” as this should always be assumed in your writings.

A few weeks back a friend of mine{ arclghtzero} made a statement on this thread and it went like this;

archlight said;
Micky, it’s kind of a moot point. History means very little to most of the liberals out there. I mean, ok, I hate to generalize and all, but it seems that history is either completely misconstrued or taken out of context or just completely ignored all together by the left these days.

If you notice, archlight says ” it seems that history… }

Here was the response he got from the Seminals editor;

“arclightzero, that was a stupid generalization. I advise you to watch it on this site. Any reading of my work will show you that I study history seriously.”

This is a double standard, no doubt.

I get told that its ok for the editor to make a definate statement with no proof of the claim in the headline, and that it should be understood that its his opinion and his fifth grade teacher says its ok to print anything with the assumption its your opinion.

He is allowed to say anything without challenge. This bullshit disclaimer keeps him from ever having to answer to devicive and misleading journalism.

Archlightzero on the other hand is told to ” WATCH IT” when he expresses something as “IT SEEMS”.

So this revelation makes it apparent that its ok for a leftist editor to dish out bullshit portrayals of conservatives.
But its not ok for a conservative to question the actions of the leftist editor in a manner that clearly expresses a margin for opinion by saying “it seems”.
Instead he is told to “Watch it!”

The Seminal makes up the rules as it goes along when it is wrong or questioned legitimatly.

Whenever I have made claims to prove a point I have been consistanly asked for documentation, links or sources to prove it.
When the Seminal is in the same position it says ” oh ! Its just my opinion”.
If this were always the case, debates would be pointless and unfruitful and useless.

I was always told that if you ever want to prove anything it must be based on fact and not opinion.

A prime exaple of this reckless speech would be to say;

“Perhaps its because the Seminal is so blinded by partisan gain it prints lies to achieve that agenda.”

Now…
I can say this truthfully, because until the Seminals headline in question is proven true, it is a lie by use of generalization.

I have constantly been reminded by the Seminal that claims are not valid and that you have no arguement without proof or sources that prove it.

In this case the Seminal is proof against itself,

A correction to my last post.

“And that a fifth grade{ math teacher }says to never include ” I think” or ” its my opinion” as this should always be assumed in your writings.”

The above statement should read “ENGLISH TEACHER” and not math teacher. My apologies.

Construe nothing,
You plainly said ” it is “

Well, is it ?
I dont care what your 5th grade teacher says, I can read.

You can dish it out ,but cant take it unlees its on your own terms.
I’ll make this point again. Saying that it is to be assumed that everything is the opinion is B.S.

If someone less informed were to read your headline they would say; Wow, really? I didnt know that, is it true ?
Because EVERYONE I showed it to said the same thing.
We as readers should be able to trust that you give accurate descpriptions of a situation.
As a reporter you would immediatly be questioned of your source to back up this claim. And I have seen you do it to me and others.

This is how impressionable minds are warped, by printing crap like this.

Perhaps it is because…

Semantics is the key issue and you are just playing dodge.
Perhaps is placed in front of “it is” and behind “because”

“Because” get it!
Perhaps it is because the seminal is too chicken shit to admitt they got busted in an attempt to make a fact out of opinion.

You are not going to dismiss me with you febble ” I couldnt be botherd attitude”

Now, lets put in another way with the same meaning.
The reason this happened,it is because the seminal is too chicken shit to admitt they got busted in an attempt to make a fact out of opinion.

If you had put a question mark at the end of your headline, what you are claiming would make sense.

You were not asking, YOU WERE TELLING!

So let me get this right,
When a conservative guest is questioning the left with clear display that its his opinion he is told by the staff to ” watch it!”

But when the leftist does the same thing with obvious contempt, and phrases a lie as truth, the right is dimissed with” its my opinion and you’re being upset is unjustified”
You blasted archlight for his opinion,
But you cant be blasted for making a false statement?

That is bullshit two faced hypocrasy.
It is exactly what you accuse the right of being in your false statement.
This is the kind of shit that creates the divide.
You ask for answers and solutions just to look moral and as if you really care.
And yet you try to slip in shit that is only meant to hurt, mischaracterize, and decive.

Not to throw too much fuel on the fire, but I’mwith Micky on this one. This was actually one of the topics of discussion between the lib and I when we had our coffee meeting. We like to speak as if we’re talking facts. I don’t care if somebody’s teacher back in 5th grade told you to speak like this, it’s bullshit advice and it tends to close off conversation before it even has a chance to begin. By stating that “it seems that…” or “I think that…” it opens up the topic for conversation or argument. You can speak with authority on something if you’re talking fact, but how often is observation or opinion actually fact? It doesn’t make somebody any less of a man to speak with conviction while still leaving his words as opinion.

Oh, and by the way, I think this whole Senator Craig thing is a bunch of bullshit. It was an arrest that was made on assumption of crime, which isn’t a legitimate arrest. Regardless of his plea, it’s still a charge based on assumption. Had this happened to a democrat senator, you know damn well that they would be screaming for investigations into the cop, the police, the airport and the rest of the people in that bathroom…

Someone commented earlier that:

“Well, why are there calls for Craig’s resignation and not Vitters? How is that walking the walk? Why is homosexuality worse than paying for sex?”

I see several reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. First and foremost, Vitter admitted and apologized for his actions. Craig has obfuscated and minimized his actions.

Second, the level of sleaze involved in calling a prostitute for a private liaison in a hotel room compared with trying to arrange a quickie in the men’s room stall at the airport is drastically different. You or me (or more importantly my child) are not likely to walk in on Vitter and his paid escort in their hotel room, but the public restroom is another story.

It can hardly be the fault of heterosexuals that this kind of bathroom encounter isn’t as common among them- but after all since most bathrooms aren’t unisex people would tend to notice a woman walking into the men’s room. This form of illicit sex is disgusting and abhorrent for many reasons that go far beyond the fact that the folks who tend to engage in it are homosexual males. That is why I believe, had Vitter been busted in the act of trying to solicit a prostitute in a public setting he too would have been asked to resign.

Micky & J-Ro,

Here are my observations.

J-Ro hits hard with a false generalization that Republicans hate gays. Wow, once that is in print, how do you defend it?

Micky does a great job not only defending the right and pointing out that lie but also tearing apart the emotional logic that brought it to be.

However, even though Micky is correct and J-Ro is wrong, does Micky win this battle?

It could be said that no he does not. The bomb is all ready printed and out there far more than a comment section is. If nothing is learned here, let it be this, that what we put out here is important. It is not only important for us on the right but also for our contender’s on the left. We have systematically beat each other down to a place where no one listens to the argument anymore. We are both guilty of indifference and when the left’s logic is emotional and the rights logic is quantitative, there is a general disconnect you can view quantitatively when J-Roe attempts to dismiss the argument all together being backed into a corner.

What I am trying to say is this: What if we approached each other differently. What steps can we take to restore honor among combatants. In the theatre of War, military men and women will tell you they have the ultimate respect for their adversary. You have to have that respect in order to stay on your toes and not to underestimate them.

Here is my respect for the left: They win because they understand the emotional level of the argument is easy to get your message across to the most people regardless of their intellect. I want to learn how to package my conservative ideals this way. I admire that approach because it is very, very effective such as demonstrated here to vilify the Republican base. Even though I have gay Republican elected officials tell me here in Minnesota that it is easier to be gay in the Republican party then to be gay and conservative in the Democratic party. Now to me, that is powerful. How do I get that out there on an emotional level?

Micky did a good job fishing out the argument on a whole nother level. He backed his argument with facts and did not state anything he could back up with his tool kit of knowledge he has accumulated in order to factually ferret out the emotional argument. It is impressive and I think J-Ro would have to agree it is no fun when you have to defend your emotional argument against someone who operates on this factual level. Myself being a conservative Raku Clay Artist, I fluxuate somewhere in between the emotional and the factual. That is to my benefit but also to my detriment when I over reach and I underestimate my rival.

All in all, although micky tears apart this emotional statement and utterly proves his point, I call this a draw because published and emotional, “Perhaps it’s because homosexuality is such a greater crime in conservative circles than adultery and prostitution.” Is so very hard to counter since it is out there on the effective emotional level. No matter how Micky destroys the statement, it is still there. It is easier to read than the meticulous argument found in the comment section.

This could also prove to be an apology for us on the right that so doggedly defend ourselves from such false emotional statements that are simply devestating to our party and our message. We know that they are effective and there is little but what Micky has done here to defend ourselves from our adversary in the printed word.

However, what if both the left and right approached each other with more respect? J-Ro and Micky are not only effective and very good at the craft of writing, they can parse it out in an argument as well. They are opposite in their understanding of the world, but maybe with a shared respect, maybe the two will actually influence each other in the future. I am sure this will happen and they will sharpen their pens on each other’s labor.

However, there is a differential of power here between the published word and the comment section. This can easily be remedied by inclusion of the right or Micky in the published section. Let the market or readership then decide on a level playing field. If this is all ready occuring, you are two steps ahead of where I thought this dialogue could be.

I appretiate a good argument and the above is a good one on both sides.

If you wish to continue this conversation, you know where to find me: http://www.grizzlygroundswell.com

~Teddy Bear

First of all, the NY times is known to be the poster child for left wing propoganda, so what else would you expect ?
But the last sentence in the quote below make’s me feel better that even the NY times can see there is only a “minority” including Jro that feel this way.

“This senator and others said the different approach made it appear the party was simply less tolerant of homosexual conduct.
But that was almost certainly a minority view.”

It doesnt justify your convicting headline.

Your headline says that all conservative circles are guilty of making homosexuality a greater crime than adultry or prostitution.
If you put a question mark at the end or slipped in the Words “might be” or ” some conservative circles” you wouldnt look like such a bigot for assuming we are all that way.
But you’ve called me bigot before for not seeing homosexual issues your way, so I’m not surprised that you would put a label on the whole republican party as being intolerant to gays.
And by the way, all you need to do is find one conservative or republican who is tolerant and accepting of gays and your belief will be shot to hell.
But if you want to look at it cross eyed, you’ll never see him coming.