<p>Opie, you have missed the point. I do not think that you will get it. Some people are just too dense.</p>
<p>This is not really about Craig. This is about your own (and a few others) hypocrisy.</p>
<p>“Is Now A Proposal For Gay Sex Criminal Behavior”</p>
<p>Location, location, location… Don’t you get it?</p>
<p>Back in the bar, with you waiving your hand under sis’s chair, I can be out on the dance floor, giving that certain “someone” that look that let’s them “know” I’m a man’s man. (haven’t you seen the commericals?) And we can leave the bar and have as much unprotected sex as we want. Nobody cares. However, if I decide the best place to relieve myslef is the dance floor, will I get a ticket? Tell you what prove me wrong. ;)</p>
<p>It’s the location silly, not the preference.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>I will come back to really rub it in, when the guilty plea is withdrawn and the whole thing is thrown out. You also seem to be missing the point.</p>
<p>Opie</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Inviting someone to have sex with you is not criminal. And you can be WHEREVER as long as you do not do it THERE. I am surprised someone needs to be told that. The Honorable Senator from Idaho, did not wave his *****, he waved his hand and he did not get caught having sex there. Do you get it?</p>
<p>Your whole prostitute analogy is not even worth discussing by the way.</p>
<p>I think I got the point perfectly, thank you. The question you ask is in reality a “factual” one, and not linked to the ultimate outcome of the Craig guilty plea. The law stands, has been challenged in at least 40 states (and up to the Supreme Court) and passes musters. </p>
<p>Whether you happen to like it or not (or whether I happen to like it or not) is totally irrelevant to your question.</p>
<p>“This is about your own (and a few others) hypocrisy.”</p>
<p>What hypocritical about wanting to use a bathroom for 1 or 2? I don’t care how much hetro or gay sex any wants or has, I just don’t want somebody’s hand coming under my stall while I do my business. </p>
<p>And I wouldn’t really say dense is my particular problem in this one big guy. I would think trying to sell everybody on how this was a set up is pretty funny. Trying to spin this as a referendum against gay sex is also pretty funny. When it’s really about reinforcing the right to poo undestrubed.</p>
<p>mini</p>
<p>What law are you talking about?</p>
<p>The guilty plea may be able to be withdrawn (although not without the application of many more lawyers/dollars than is available to the average misdemeanor pleader). A conviction probably would have been impossible in the first place without a guilty plea, had Craig chosen to fight.</p>
<p>But. The political result is going to be the same no matter what. He got caught in a morally questionable (but not completely morally reprehensible) witch hunt, and he’s going to have to live with the non-legal consequences no matter what.</p>
<p>I had a client and friend to whom precisely the same thing happened many years ago. Except he wasn’t a Senator. We got the charge thrown out pretty easily. It was a great warning to him to get his conduct under control. It was a wake-up call to his wife, too.</p>
<p>Keep pluggin away! Somebody will buy your arguement. Right now it’s you, Craig and his lawyer. And he pays his lawyer to believe. ;)</p>
<p>Opie</p>
<p>This is not a referendum about gay sex. I have observed that liberals loved this story because it happened to a two faced, republican senator who was against gay rights and so on. That’s also the reason why all gays and lesbian groups are really very quiet about it.</p>
<p>The “sting” was set wrong, and the “sting” can be challenged in court. That is my point. I am looking at this from a judicial point of view.</p>
<p>Again, I refer you to JHS post.</p>
<p>“What law are you talking about?”</p>
<p>The law (and supporting circumstances) under which he was charged, and pled guilty.</p>
<p>The sting can be challenged, and has been, multiple times. It has been upheld in virtually every court that has actually heard it. (Whether it should have gone to court at all is another question entirely. Most often, the case doesn’t even make it into the court room. Larry could have gone that route, but, after six weeks, he decided of his own free, uncoerced will, with access to as many attorneys as he’d like and the support of his family, that he was guilty as charged, and paid his fine.)</p>
<p>Opie,</p>
<p>You are forgetting JHS who has made more intelligent contributions that all of you together.</p>
<p>mini</p>
<p>LOL…That’s the point…THERE IS NO LAW!..Don’t u get it??</p>
<p>JHS
</p>
<p>Ok people, stop replying to me. Just argue this.</p>
<p>“LOL…That’s the point…THERE IS NO LAW!..Don’t u get it??”</p>
<p>Duh. You can’t be convicted unless you broke the law. What’s so difficult to understand? You can’t plead guilty to a misdemeanor that doesn’t exist, and with which you haven’t been charged. And the government can’t extract a penalty for a crime that isn’t committed. </p>
<p>There’s nothing much to argue. He pled guilty to a crime, breaking a law under circumstances (a sting) which have been well-adjudicated. He probably could have gotten off without ever seeing a courtroom. But he CHOSE to plead guilty to breaking the law.</p>
<p>I heard the taped interview between Senator Craig and the police interogator a couple of times. The “I’m a well repected man”, oops, so he says, says during the interview, when asked about waving his hand under the stall, he claims he wa “picking a piece of toilet tissue off the ground!” Let’s get real here, there is not a single person that would EVER pick up random toilet tissue off the ground in a public stall! Also, the hand that the police officer saw was the opposite hand that was on the side dividing them, and, oops, who picks up “random toilet tissue” with a wave of the hand with the palm facing up?</p>
<p>“The “sting” was set wrong, and the “sting” can be challenged in court. That is my point. I am looking at this from a judicial point of view”</p>
<p>Have you set up many “stings” before? ;)</p>
<p>Any ticket can be challenged in court. Sometimes they get thrown out, sometimes they don’t. Mr. Craig had several weeks to decide what to do. He pays people good money to help him think. It isn’t golf, ya don’t get a mulligan. </p>
<p>I’m not that liberal anyway and yes I agree that liberal enjoy this story much in the same way you enjoyed mr Clinton’s efforts. It’s just their turn to gloat. Recently, they’ve had alot to grin about, give it time, it will swing around. It always does. If this is the first time your amazed at anyone’s “outrage” over someone’s misdeeds on the other side, you must be about 3 weeks old. Which would be amazing how bright you are for being so young. Check your history, a president/vice president/senator/congressman screws up…Find a year when one nimrod from this group doesn’t screw up. That’s a bit harder isn’t it?</p>
<p>Sorry for forgetting about the topic, yes, he did break the law, he lied to the police!</p>
<p>With my libertarian leanings, I think it’s abhorrent that sexual propositions are illegal. There are lots of laws already for this stuff - if he was being physical about it, assault, if he was too persistent, harassment, if it was a minor, the charges are clear, and so forth, but I think when you criminalize the very act of innocently propositioning sex (no matter how inappropriate a place), you’re going too far into a person’s private life.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s not a great place to ask for sex. But I believe those moral judgments should not be up to the government to decide, nor to us. If he wants to ask random guys for gay sex in a washroom, on the street, whatever, that’s absolutely his right, as far as I’m concerned. As long as he’s not infringing on anyone’s rights (and until h committed some other criminal behavior, like assault or harassment, I’m not willing to accept that simply asking for sex is infringement).</p>
<p>That said, I love it as much as anyone else that his hypocrisy was finally brought out in the open. The more of these “family-values” (aka controlling moralist lunatic) Republicans that have this kind of stuff happen, the merrier, in my opinion.</p>
<p>
this quote from mini, of course.</p>
<p>This is one of the silliest and most narrowed minded statements that I have seen here. Tell this to the many people who get convicted without breaking any laws, some of them spending YEARS in prison and some others even on DEATH ROW. Your ridiculous statement implies that “a guilty plea, means that you are guilty” You seem to be either too naive or very ignorant of our judicial and legal system. People take guilty pleas all the time because of convenience, lack of money or a good attorney to defend themselves or because they are getting a better deal. The prosecution does not want to go to court and lose cases either. They will offer anything sometimes unless they can really win.</p>
<p>Part of the problem with this topic has to with something 1of42 touches upon which is my point exactly, without the republican crap. It applies to anybody. </p>
<p>Opie, I hope that you really know how to count and keep track of the statements here.</p>