<p>^ Personally, I find your username not in good taste.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I thought so, too. Reminded me of mating rituals of birds…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The founding fathers intentionally designed a government that:</p>
<p>a) requires compromise to accomplish anything</p>
<p>b) make it intentionally difficult to institute change</p>
<p>That’s a democracy. Those two characteristics are key to protecting the interests of the minority. The very structure of the legislature resulted from horsetrading: two Senators per state to scratch the back of the small states; Congressmen apportioned by population to scratch the back of the big states.</p>
<p>If you are unhappy with your government, you have a very easy, and time-honored solution: vote the old bums out and the new bums in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have proof of this, mini, or is this just your supposition? </p>
<p>It is so much easier to make judgments if you’re not in the situation. It’s easier to believe that the spouse is stupid, inattentive, or ‘made an arrangement’, than to believe that she was deceived. Would it surprise you to know that there are an estimated 2 million mixed-orientation marriages in the U.S., and in a majority of cases, the straight spouse has no clue about the closeted spouse’s orientation.</p>
<p>For homework, review the case of former NJ Gov. McGreevey. Sorry, I don’t have a link right now.</p>
<p>Citing Tom Delay as an arbiter of moral authority is pretty funny in its own right.</p>
<p>On the subject of hypocrisy, I’m not sure who are more hypocritical:</p>
<p>–Conservatives who try to wrap themselves in the mantle of “family values” while looking for anonymous sex in concealed spaces in public restrooms.</p>
<p>Or</p>
<p>–Liberals who, in their giddy delight at the public humiliation of a political foe, are more than willing to overlook whatever revulsion they might otherwise feel at the use of young undercover law-enforcement officers to snare “older white male[s] with grey hair” (police report) who are willing to demonstrate that, alas, they are all too vulnerable to certain temptations of the flesh. (Don’t they have any real crime in Minnesota?)</p>
<p>Sorry, this was not entrapment, but part of an ongoing law enforcement effort to address a well known public nuisance, i.e., the use of a public restroom for sex (you think Craig wandered in there by accident?). </p>
<p>from CNN:
“On Wednesday, an airport employee who asked to remain anonymous told CNN that police had made at least 40 similar arrests since May, when authorities began monitoring restrooms after complaints of inappropriate behavior.”</p>
<p>I didn’t say that this was “entrapment.” </p>
<p>(Entrapment, by the way, is ordinarily a very difficult defense to establish, as it typically requires not only that you show that the police initiated the activity in question, but also that the defendant otherwise lacked the predisposition to commit such an act.) </p>
<p>But what I would like to know is this: When is the last time that liberals got so worked up over a “public nuisance” (albeit in a private stall) that involved sexual behavior between consenting adults?</p>
<p>No you didn’t say entrapment, you said "the use of young undercover law-enforcement officers to snare “older white male[s] with grey hair”</p>
<p>snare = trap, legal definition notwithstanding</p>
<p>Once again (and again and again): it is not the sexual behavior that is revolting (although the mandate to “get a room” should and does apply, irrespective of who is diddling whom). It is the hypocrisy of this being done by a homophobic “family values” so-called public servant.</p>
<p>I woke up this morning with some thoughts</p>
<p>THe whole situation is bizarre and ironic at its core</p>
<p>A public restroom should not be used for sex, one in a night club is very different from one in an airport- imagine sending you 10 yearold son into a bathroom with two consenting adults having sex in the stall next to him, but for some “conservatives” that is okay- I wouldn;'t want to sit on an airplane next to a straight couple going at it either</p>
<p>the other “glee” that some take, me included, is this man has based part of his career on wanting to deny gays basic human rights, while he himself has gay proclativeties= the proclamation that he is not gay, yet, there there he is…</p>
<p>there have been past rumors about Craig, for years and years, so if his wife ddn’t know, she ignored or denied many signals, which is her right </p>
<p>what research has shown is that a lot of anonymous “gay” sex is with men who say they are straight, often married with kids</p>
<p>I don’t care if someone is gay or straight or inbetween, but I do care if people like Craig and his many R tagged comrades decide that being gay is wrong and evil or whatever</p>
<p>Guess its okay for an R to solicit straight sex and then find God and are forgiven, oh yeah and to pay for it, then some poor sad soul looking for contact in a bathroom</p>
<p>If Craig’s society had allowed him to be who he was, he wouldn’t need to look for physical contact in a toliet, he could openly walk down the street holding his Bfs hand without so much as a glance from Idahoans</p>
<p>Do you think the response would be different among his party if he was trying to pickup some hooker? Or if he had an affair with a woman? And if he did have an affair and his wife stood by him, would the Clinton haters bash her?</p>
<p>again, I don’t want sex in bathrooms by straight or gays- ick on both accounts- the get a room rule applies- it is just more obvious if a man walked into a ladies room and vice versa- and I only care that Craig is not on the totally hetrosexual side (if there is such a thing) of the bell curve, I do care because he sadly lived a lie and made it his work to put others down, feeding the hatred toward gays</p>
<p>If he was just a regular married guy looking to hook up, that would be one thing, but he isn’t, he is someone with power to affect lives and based his public persona on that disdain for gays…big difference</p>
<p>I admit that I had to smile when my D who’s an actor sent me this link. For those of you who have seen the Tony Award winning Broadway show Avenue Q, you will enjoy, and maybe even those of you who haven’t seen the show!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg</a></p>
<p>“Do you have proof of this, mini, or is this just your supposition?”</p>
<p>Yes. I have PROOF that the Idaho Statesman presented him, with his wife present, a series of at least 7 allegations, with the taped statement of one of them, detailing his furtive escapades, well before June 11th. </p>
<p>Whether she decided to disbelieve them as a psychological mechanism in order to retain her self-respect is something you’d have to ask her. </p>
<p>“But what I would like to know is this: When is the last time that liberals got so worked up over a “public nuisance” (albeit in a private stall) that involved sexual behavior between consenting adults?”</p>
<p>The last time “liberals” (of which I am not one) got wind of a liberal, anti-gay, publicly homophobic bigot professing “family values” got caught.</p>
<p>It is interesting: there are politicians who carefully avoid proclaiming themselves as “family values” folks because they know their pasts don’t bear scrutiny. We in MN have a senator of that ilk. And then there are those that think they can have it both ways. They usually cannot.</p>
<p>interesteddad–Re: post # 83 </p>
<p>I understand the spirit of the constitution, but you misconstrued the spirit of my post. </p>
<p>What I was alluding to was that I was concerned that these constitutional checks and balances are no longer functioning in the spirit that they were intended, and that the new Democratic majority is, in fact, powerless. People expected the mid-term elections to bring positive change, and that, of course, has not been the reality. The people did not want to stay the course, but they are being forced to continue to live with these unpopular policies. In the current climate, majority does not rule. The privileges of voting aside, the new boss is the same as the old boss. Inertia is a result of corruption, not of the spirit of democracy.</p>
<p>They are not powerless. They could cut off funds for the hostile, aggressive occupation any time they pleased. Actually it doesn’t take “the Democrats” - just one - either Reid or Pelosi - to refuse to allow a vote on the next round of killing appropriations.</p>
<p>mini: True in theory, but not realistic. Aren’t we between a rock and a hard place with regard to the occupation. Would you really support ripping off the bandage and letting it bleed? This type of rhetoric is not very helpful.</p>
<p>Both sides agree that the instability in the region creates an impossible situation. What would be the aftermath of a withdrawal? This inertia will continue as long as there is no acceptable exit strategy and no stability in sight. Also, what pol wants to be hailed as the unpatriotic one who abandoned the troops? After all, this is how it will be recorded in the spin zone.</p>
<p>I have no clue as to the aftermath (though, I think, as does the most experienced Democrat running for President - Bill Richardson - that it will be BETTER than if we get out later. He puts forward a scenario whereby there will be significantly less bloodshed in the long run as a result if we get out entirely no more than six months from today. But I don’t know - no one does.)</p>
<p>What I DO know is that Americans have no moral authority to even ask that question. When is the last time Americans, as a whole and as a government, showed ANY regard for the Iraqi people? Our responsibility is to provide war reparations in the tens of billions per year for at least a generation (with 1.2-1.7 million dead, and two million refugees outside the country, and 1.2 million internal refugees), to take in at least half a million refugees, and to provide at least a generation’s worth of funds to Syria, Jordan, and Iran to care for those that they now find on their hands.</p>
<p>The reality is that, with the exception of Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel, the Democrats (who bought the case for war in February 1998, well before the Republicans), will keep us there indefinitely to “defend vital U.S. interests”.</p>
<p>mini: Again, I agree with you to an extent–especially about Richardson and Kucinich (Gravel is a bit of a loon, though.) Does a man with real ideas stand a chance against a candidate with money or charisma? Do these ideas matter if they cannot be implemented anyway?</p>
<p>Perhaps our representative government has no moral authority, but I wouldn’t extend that to the American people who were sold a bunch of lies. Of course, most pols, even Dems, bought the lies too. Only those individuals who do extensive in-depth reading, or who subscribe to progressive blogs were even privy to any dissenting opinions. Mainstream media was very tepid in its questioning of the administration. Stories questioning the veracity of the administration’s assertions were buried and not followed up on. Politics of fear was winning out across the board. It’s easy to blame Dems in hindsight because they didn’t pay enough attention or acted like pols–afraid of being viewed as unpatriotic.</p>
<p>The US has a long history of defending its interests in the gulf and elsewhere. Most people do not understand the delicate balance of global interdependence that supports our way of life. Obviously, pols fear the economic consequences of a change in policy and the subsequent wrath of the people. There have to be actionable solutions put in place before changes can occur. Good luck, as they say. The end result, once again, is inertia.</p>
<p>“Of course, most pols, even Dems, bought the lies too. Only those individuals who do extensive in-depth reading, or who subscribe to progressive blogs were even privy to any dissenting opinions.”</p>
<p>On the contrary, the Clinton/Tenet lies of January 1998, about the imminent threat of Iraq, and the building of WMDs, used to provide cover for the genocide and the discovery that the U.S. was using the U.N. Inspection Teams as cover for CIA spies (confirmed by the inspectors themselves), was sold to Democrats, not to Republicans. It was bought by Biden, Levin, Gore, Lieberman, etc., who stepped up a drumbeat for war, resulting finally in the saturation bombing of Iraq in December 1998, after Clinton banished the weapons inspectors. It is highly unlikely that there would have been an invasion in 2003 without the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie of 1998 - that’s what made selling the hostile, aggressive occupation a “Slam-Dunk”.</p>
<p>By the time, Bush came 'round, the Dems couldn’t repudiate the (lack of) intelligence even if they’d wanted to - they’d signed on to the lies in 1998. Let’s remember what the “experienced Democrats” gave us:</p>
<p>Senator Biden: </p>
<p>"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq’s transgressions. [Congressional Record, 2/12/98]. </p>
<p>Senator Lieberman: </p>
<p>"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . " [Congressional Record, 2/12/98]. </p>
<p>Senator Levin: </p>
<p>“Mr. President, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal” [Congressional Record, 2/12/98]. </p>
<p>Senator Kerry: </p>
<p>"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . " [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.] </p>
<p>Al Gore: </p>
<p>“There should be no doubt, Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . …” (February 1998)</p>
<p>There wasn’t an iota of evidence that Saddam either possessed, was producing, or was prepared to deliver weapons of mass destruction toward the U.S. at any time between 1992-1998. For almost five of those years, inspectors kept on saying the same thing. It was created from whole (Democratic) cloth.</p>
<p>I’d give Larry Craig free reign of every public bathroom in American if it would move the Democrats beyond their murderous mistakes and outrageous deceits.</p>
<p>“There wasn’t an iota of evidence that Saddam either possessed, was producing, or was prepared to deliver weapons of mass destruction toward the U.S. at any time between 1992-1998. For almost five of those years, inspectors kept on saying the same thing.”</p>
<p>What hog wash.</p>
<p>You mean like Scott Ritter who in 1998 said:
</p>
<p>Or UN spokesman Fred Eckhard, who in January '98 said that there were video and photographic evidence of WMD experimentation on dogs.</p>
<p>Or this view from UNSCOM director Richard Butler:
</p>