A Gay in our midsts? Top GOP senators call on Larry Craig to resign

[Taco John]

GOP Senators Says Craig Should Resign

Aug 29 03:56 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent


WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Senate Republican colleagues, including John McCain, called Wednesday for Sen. Larry Craig to resign. The White House, too, expressed disappointment in the case of the Idaho Republican caught in a men's room undercover police operation.
Arizona Sen. McCain and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, the state where Craig was arrested, became the first senators to join Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., urging Craig's resignation.

McCain told CNN the decision was Craig's to make, "but my opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve. That's not a moral stand. That's not a holier-than-thou. It's just a factual situation."

"I think he should resign," McCain said.

Coleman said in a statement, "Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator."

Hoekstra said Craig "represents the Republican party" and that "his conduct throughout this matter has been inappropriate for a U.S. senator."

Craig pleaded guilty in August to a charge of disorderly conduct following his arrest in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport. He said Tuesday he had done nothing wrong and was sorry he pleaded guilty.

Senate Republican leaders have called on the ethics committee to review Craig's case, and White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he hoped the panel could do its work quickly.

Stanzel made no expression of support for Craig. "We are disappointed in the matter. It has been referred to the Senate Ethics Committee, so they will have to deal with it," he said.

There were other signs of difficulty for Craig.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, issued a statement calling on the senator to consider stepping down. The organization is a self- described conservative government watchdog group.

"Senator Craig admittedly engaged in illegal activity that brings serious disrepute to the public office he holds," Fitton said.

Fitton's suggestion that the senator leave office suggested tenuous support among conservatives who make up his core political supporters.

Craig, 62, a third-term senator up for re-election next year, defended himself Tuesday against a police report alleging he attempted to engage in a homosexual encounter with an undercover officer.

Flanked by his wife, Suzanne, Craig stated three times that he was not gay. He cast his arrest for lewd conduct as unfounded and his subsequent guilty plea to disorderly conduct as an error in judgment spurred by frustration with the state's biggest newspaper prying into his past.

The Idaho Statesman published a lengthy story on Tuesday, a day after the June 11 arrest was first reported, detailing allegations of homosexual behavior by Craig. The senator denied the allegations and contended the paper was engaged in a witch hunt. In a statement, the newspaper said its story spoke for itself.

"While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in hopes of making it go away," Craig said. "It's clear, though, that through my actions I have brought a cloud over Idaho. For that, I ask the people of Idaho for their forgiveness."

The Idaho Republican Party took a measured, wait-and-see stance while Democrats remained mum, content to let Republicans sort through the fallout. The GOP's biggest names reminded voters of Craig's tenure in the Senate and his powerful seat on the Appropriations Committee.

"I would encourage all Idahoans to avoid rushing to judgment and making brash statements about a man who has dedicated his life to public service," GOP state party chairman Kirk Sullivan said in a statement.

Ignoring that plea, some social and religious conservatives and right- wing radio talk show hosts called for Craig's resignation. And political analysts said Craig will have trouble convincing Gem State voters that his 27-year political career is worth sparing.

In Idaho, with its 1.4 million people, politicians know many supporters by name. The state also likes its Republicans. The GOP controls the statehouse and Congress, and President Bush carried the state in 2004 with 68 percent of the vote.

More than 166,000 residents are Roman Catholic and more than 385,000 Mormon.

Republican leaders in the Senate called for an Ethics Committee review of the case.

"This is a serious matter," they said in a written statement issued in Washington over the names of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party leader, and several others.

Two Republicans seeking the party's presidential nomination didn't mince words. Mitt Romney, in whose campaign Craig was playing a prominent role until he quit amid the scandal, told CNBC, "He's disappointed the American people." McCain called for the resignation.

Craig signed a guilty plea on Aug. 1 and later paid $575 in fines and fees and was placed on unsupervised probation for a year.



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RASVHO1&show_article=1

[patteeu]

I think he should resign too. I don't think he was really guilty of a crime (aside from the plea of course), but I'm pretty confident he was there for the reason he's being accused of being there.

[Taco John]

I don't think he should have to resign. What is this? A misdemeanor of some type? It's a speeding ticket.

I think everybody is over-reacting to this. Not suprising to me, considering it has to do with the ghey, and I know how republicans, especially republicans in Idaho, are about that.

[HolmeZz]

Don't know how much it has to do with being gay. I'd hope these people would have the same positions if he was trying to solicit sex from a female.

[patteeu]

I don't think he should have to resign. What is this? A misdemeanor of some type? It's a speeding ticket.

I think everybody is over-reacting to this. Not suprising to me, considering it has to do with the ghey, and I know how republicans, especially republicans in Idaho, are about that.

Come on Taco, don't play with words. He doesn't *have* to resign and as far as I know, no one has said he has to.

He should resign, if for no other reason than because his decision not to would be selfish and would damage the party's causes. It's not like refusing to resign would be some kind of principled position to take.

But beyond that, some types of behavior should be beneath a person's dignity, and I expect my Senators to be somewhat dignified. I consider cruising public bathrooms for anonymous public sex to fall in that category. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. I'd think the same thing if Ruth Bader Ginsberg was caught by the local news crew giving blowjobs at a truckstop for crack or if Dick Cheney decided to masterbate on Nancy Pelosi at the next SOTU address while the President called for less partisanship. It doesn't even have to do with the fact that sex is involved. I'd feel the same way if Barbara Boxer and Trent Lott went on the Howard Stern show to perform America The Beautiful using flatulence instead of musical instruments.

He doesn't have to resign, but he will, and IMO he should.

[Laz]

Don't know how much it has to do with being gay. I'd hope these people would have the same positions if he was trying to solicit sex from a female.
wasn't there a guy that did solicit sex recently who wasn't ask to step down? :hmmm:

[Taco John]

But beyond that, some types of behavior should be beneath a person's dignity, and I expect my Senators to be somewhat dignified. I consider cruising public bathrooms for anonymous public sex to fall in that category. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. I'd think the same thing if Ruth Bader Ginsberg was caught by the local news crew giving blowjobs at a truckstop for crack or if Dick Cheney decided to masterbate on Nancy Pelosi at the next SOTU address while the President called for less partisanship. It doesn't even have to do with the fact that sex is involved. I'd feel the same way if Barbara Boxer and Trent Lott went on the Howard Stern show to perform America The Beautiful using flatulence instead of musical instruments.

He doesn't have to resign, but he will, and IMO he should.


I think you're full of shit, because I didn't see you once call for the resignation of David Vitter. In fact, your response to that situation was to defend the guy (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165685&page=5) saying (in essence) that it's not hypocritical to espouse family values while banging hookers on the side.

[Baby Lee]

A midst is innately plural collective. No need to pluralize. ;)

[penchief]

I'm beginning to believe that there are more gays in the republican party than in the democratic party.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Baby Lee]

I think you're full of shit, because I didn't see you once call for the resignation of David Vitter. In fact, your response to that situation was to defend the guy (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165685&page=5) saying (in essence) that it's not hypocritical to espouse family values while banging hookers on the side.
Ahhh, the perils of 'essence.'

What he actually said

Besides, having fallen short of one's own values doesn't disqualify a person from advocating those values. In fact, in some cases having experienced the wrong course can make you a better advocate for the right course. . .

No it doesn't. This guy may be a hypocrite, although so far I haven't seen any indication of it. It's not hypocritical to oppose gay marriage and, secretly, frequent prostitutes at the same time.
So, he said one can espouse values you wish to espouse, and can oppose gay marriage, and not necessarily be hypocritical. He also admits the possibility that the guy was a hypocrite.

And I'm certain you can see the difference in 'levels of dignity' between a high priced 'companion' and trolling for sex in bathroom stalls.

[Taco John]

Oh wow! Look at all this NUANCE!

And no, I don't see the difference in 'levels of dignity.' Why don't you explain it to me? Seems like the same thing to me: money for sex.

[a1na2]

wasn't there a guy that did solicit sex recently who wasn't ask to step down? :hmmm:

Doesn't history tell us that a now prominent democrat was involved with the death of a young woman and got clean away from it, plus is now one of the most powerful democrats in the Senate?

Wrong is wrong and it seems like the "law makers" tend to have a free pass regardless of which side they are on.

Time for the laws to be enforced equally between Bubba the poorest of the poor and Edward the richest of the rich.

[Adept Havelock]

Don't know how much it has to do with being gay. I'd hope these people would have the same positions if he was trying to solicit sex from a female.

Heck, Vitter paid for it from a female, but no mention of asking him to resign.

I'm sure that the Gov of his state being a Dem doesn't have anything to do with the double-standard.

[Baby Lee]

Oh wow! Look at all this NUANCE!

And no, I don't see the difference in 'levels of dignity.' Why don't you explain it to me? Seems like the same thing to me: money for sex.
You're arguing just to argue.
Seems like there are three prongs to levels of dignity, sex in public versus sex in private, sex with strangers versus sex with someone you know, and consensual versus nonconsensual sex. At least to me, if it's consensual sex, in private, with someone you know outside the immediate sex act, the world's your oyster [or keilbasa, if that's your thing].
In the case of bathroom trolling, it's seeking anonymous sex in public places. Presumably consensual, but missing on the other two prongs.
In the case of paid companions, it's pretty much like any other consensual relationship, except with quid pro quo payment.

[penchief]

Doesn't history tell us that a now prominent democrat was involved with the death of a young woman and got clean away from it, plus is now one of the most powerful democrats in the Senate?

Wrong is wrong and it seems like the "law makers" tend to have a free pass regardless of which side they are on.

Time for the laws to be enforced equally between Bubba the poorest of the poor and Edward the richest of the rich.

Okay. I'm tired of this bullshit.

Why in the hell do you guys get to keep bringing up Kennedy and Clinton every goddamn time your guys shit the bed? That's some screwed-up shit, IMO.

Kennedy's ****eduppedness happened four to five decades ago. Since then he's dedicated hisself to public service. Not the phony kind of public service (ala, Bush), but to the people who are less fortunate than he is.

One thing you won't find is Ted Kennedy visiting a stall in a notorious bathroom seeking unprotected sex and risking everything he stands for.

You can Bash Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton all you want but their money is where their mouth has been.

POLICY IS WHAT MATTERS MOST.

They don't feign public service while serving the interests of their paymasters like republicans do.

[Baby Lee]

Okay. I'm tired of this bullshit.

Why in the hell do you guys get to keep bringing up Kennedy and Clinton every goddamn time your guys shit the bed? That's some screwed-up shit, IMO.

Kennedy's ****eduppedness happened four to five decades ago. Since then he's dedicated hisself to public service. Not the phony kind of public service (ala, Bush), but to the people who are less fortunate than he is.

One thing you won't find is Ted Kennedy visiting a stall in a notorious bathroom seeking unprotected sex and risking everything he stands for.

You can Bash Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton all you want but their money is where their mouth has been.

POLICY IS WHAT MATTERS MOST.

They don't feign public service while serving the interests of their paymasters like republicans do.
Teddy's indiscretions didn't end at Chappaquiddic. He may long in the tooth these days, I don't know. I do know that the 70s and 80s were a blur of drunken lunches, hitting on waitresses, and the occasional under the restuarant table assignation. There's a lengthy and well researched article [I want to say it was published by Time] on the specifics and the the halt it put on his aspirations, including dooming his presidential run in 80, somewhere on the net.

And just because you are on board with Clinton and Kennedy's policies doesn't make the support the policies of the likes of Graves', and the passion of that support, inferior. MoF, if policy is all that matters, there's no evidence that the policies Graves espouses serves his constituency any less effectively than Clinton or Kennedy.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Okay. I'm tired of this bullshit.

Why in the hell do you guys get to keep bringing up Kennedy and Clinton every goddamn time your guys shit the bed? That's some screwed-up shit, IMO.

Kennedy's ****eduppedness happened four to five decades ago. Since then he's dedicated hisself to public service. Not the phony kind of public service (ala, Bush), but to the people who are less fortunate than he is.

One thing you won't find is Ted Kennedy visiting a stall in a notorious bathroom seeking unprotected sex and risking everything he stands for.

You can Bash Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton all you want but their money is where their mouth has been.

POLICY IS WHAT MATTERS MOST.

They don't feign public service while serving the interests of their paymasters like republicans do.

Translation: People from MY party did some effed up crap BUT IT WAS IN THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE. Since Someone NOT from my party did the same thing, he/she should be CRUCIFIED because it is the topic of the present. :rolleyes:

[penchief]

Teddy's indiscretions didn't end at Chappaquiddic. He may long in the tooth these days, I don't know. I do know that the 70s and 80s were a blur of drunken lunches, hitting on waitresses, and the occasional under the restuarant table assignation. There's a lengthy and well researched article [I want to say it was published by Time] on the specifics and the the halt it put on his aspirations, including dooming his presidential run in 80, somewhere on the net.

Any of us are susceptible to being alcoholics. I've been one myself.

But I judge people by their intentions and not by their words.

When people are constantly using words of condemnation and then not following through with their own actions, then I have reason to be disillusinoned.

And just because you are on board with Clinton and Kennedy's policies doesn't make the support the policies of the likes of Graves', and the passion of that support, inferior. MoF, if policy is all that matters, there's no evidence that the policies Graves espouses serves his constituency any less effectively than Clinton or Kennedy.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said here. But it could be because I am drunk. If you really do have a legitimate point in the above statement, please repharase it to suit my inferior interpretation skills.

[Taco John]

You're arguing just to argue.




I'm not arguing just to argue. I'm arguing because I think Larry Craig has been a good Senator for Idaho for a good long time. I've been supportive of his campaign since I first heard him speak in High School, where he helped form my political foundation at the American Legion Gem Boys' State convention.

I'm disappointed in him to be sure, but I disagree that all this nuanced flailing has any merit. I find that stuff laughable at best.

He's gay. He's done. It's as simple as that.

[Ugly Duck]

Not all righties want the Republican to resign... Michael Weiner thinks Mr. Widestance has been set up by the libs. Sez he's afraid to go into a men's room now cuz a song might go through his head and he might inadvertantly tap his foot to the internal tune. Silly righties...

[a1na2]

Okay. I'm tired of this bullshit.

Why in the hell do you guys get to keep bringing up Kennedy and Clinton every goddamn time your guys shit the bed? That's some screwed-up shit, IMO.

I don't remember saying anything about Clinton regarding this issue. Why is it that you guys always pull out the stops when something goes on with a conservative and turn a blind eye to the liberal side of the house?

[QUOTE]Kennedy's ****eduppedness happened four to five decades ago. Since then he's dedicated hisself to public service. Not the phony kind of public service (ala, Bush), but to the people who are less fortunate than he is.

So murder and dui are OK if you did it 40-50 years ago? Dedicated hisself (how about himself) ? Why do you always bring Bush into the argument? That's pretty ironic considering he has not broken any laws that he hasn't already paid for. Everyone is less fortunate to Kennedy so he is what, helping his other fat cat Senators add pork to bills so they can gain in the being fortunate like Kennedy.

One thing you won't find is Ted Kennedy visiting a stall in a notorious bathroom seeking unprotected sex and risking everything he stands for.

There is no way on this green earth that you can make that statement unless you are sitting in his back pocket 24/7/365. That is just as asinine as anything ever said on this board as well as the rest of the internet.

You can Bash Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton all you want but their money is where their mouth has been.

POLICY IS WHAT MATTERS MOST.

They don't feign public service while serving the interests of their paymasters like republicans do.

Once again you are totally viewing the liberal shortcomings with blind eyes. George Soros and illegal campaign contributions to your current candidates ring any bells? How do you feel about the POLICY in those matters?

[penchief]

Translation: People from MY party did some effed up crap BUT IT WAS IN THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE. Since Someone NOT from my party did the same thing, he/she should be CRUCIFIED because it is the topic of the present. :rolleyes:

Translation: The people in your party used the effed up shit from the last party to do even more effed up shit. THE LAST TWO ELECTION CYCLES ARE RIGHTFULLY IN QUESTION.

Since someone not from your party did shit that your party condemend them to Hell for, shouldn't those who did the condemning be vigorously asked about their hypocricy?

Republicans are being exposed for the bought-and-paid-for phonies that they are. If people want real public servants they should turn to the party that has consistently stood for a level playing field.

[a1na2]

Translation: The people in your party used the effed up shit from the last party to do even more effed up shit. THE LAST TWO ELECTION CYCLES ARE RIGHTFULLY IN QUESTION.

Since someone not from your party did shit that your party condemend them to Hell for, shouldn't those who did the condemning be vigorously asked about their hypocricy?

Republicans are being exposed for the bought-and-paid-for phonies that they are. If people want real public servants they should turn to the party that has consistently stood for a level playing field.

Which democrats are not bought and paid for? I don't think you have a clue as to the workings of politicians. Party does not come into play with being crooks. How many politicians start out wanting to be "fair" and end up retiring rich fat cats? None of the democrats you say? I say all of them as well as all of the republicans and the independents.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Translation: The people in your party used the effed up shit from the last party to do even more effed up shit. THE LAST TWO ELECTION CYCLES ARE RIGHTFULLY IN QUESTION.

I'm not a Republican sir. Thanks for playing.

Since someone not from your party did shit that your party condemend them to Hell for, shouldn't those who did the condemning be vigorously asked about their hypocricy?

Sure. But those doing the condemning should make sure their houses aren't made of glass, no?

Republicans are being exposed for the bought-and-paid-for phonies that they are. If people want real public servants they should turn to the party that has consistently stood for a level playing field.

That party doesn't exist...except in the minds of the most delusional and 'led by the nose' sheep. Wouldn't it be great if Democraps would actually think for themselves? LMAO

[Baby Lee]

Any of us are susceptible to being alcoholics. I've been one myself.

But I judge people by their intentions and not by their words.

When people are constantly using words of condemnation and then not following through with their own actions, then I have reason to be disillusinoned.



I have absolutely no idea what you just said here. But it could be because I am drunk. If you really do have a legitimate point in the above statement, please repharase it to suit my inferior interpretation skills.
First off, I read your first response as not caring so much about their private deeds if they're promoting 'good things.' And my convoluted response was pointing out that there are reasonable and passionate people who thing that Graves was up on the hill promoting 'good things,' and just because they aren't things you're on board with doesn't make them inferior positions.

It seems in your follow-up that you've changed to express your ire at those whose who espouse things, and don't live up to them.

Well to that I'd counter with Kennedy's PRESENT position on environmentalism in general, versus wind power off Martha's Vineyard.

We've already had the conversation on whether the activities of the espouser informed the validity of the positions he espouses in the past, so I won't rehash.

[penchief]

Which democrats are not bought and paid for? I don't think you have a clue as to the workings of politicians. Party does not come into play with being crooks. How many politicians start out wanting to be "fair" and end up retiring rich fat cats? None of the democrats you say? I say all of them as well as all of the republicans and the independents.

I will always lean toward the party that advocates a level playing field.

Many of you prefer choosing the party that hypocritically uses rhetoric to inspire us while leaching off of our inspiration.

Just because someone wears a mask doesn't necessarily mean they represent that face.

[penchief]

I'm not a Republican sir. Thanks for playing.



Sure. But those doing the condemning should make sure their houses aren't made of glass, no?



That party doesn't exist...except in the minds of the most delusional and 'led by the nose' sheep. Wouldn't it be great if Democraps would actually think for themselves? LMAO

One party more than the other, for sure. To deny that is to be in denial.

I agree that phonies shouldn't throw stones.

Democrats are far more equipped to speak for "the people" than are the corrupt republican sycophants.

Modern history is our best guide.

[Cochise]

I think he ought to resign because what he did defames the office of Senator. It wouldn't matter if it were lewd conduct in public with a guy in a bathroom stall or with a woman, or drunk driving or whatever else. We ought to be able to expect a little more respectable behavior from a public official.

We're a long way from presidents who saw coat and tie as required dress of the oval office. Of course others have treated it as pants-optional.

Especially since he admitted guilt to what he was accused of, he ought to resign. To have a Senator pleading guilty to this sort of a crime is just disgraceful.

Now, where is that line? I guess it depends. A seat belt ticket does not defame the office in the same way as trolling for a sexual tryst in a public restroom does. A minor citation would not in my opinion meet that standard, but doing something lewd in an environment where the unwilling, perhaps children might be exposed to it does. I'd say the same for things like if a Congressman were arrested drunken driving while in office or whatever.

It's interesting to see where the chips are falling. Some are saying that character doesn't matter, many probably don't even see anything wrong with doing what he admitted guilt to. I'm not saying we should try to craft some kind of Senate rule or whatever.

I'm just saying that he ought to step down, because... shouldn't we be able to expect a little better?

[ChiefaRoo]

He should resign.

[penchief]

[b]I don't remember saying anything about Clinton regarding this issue. Why is it that you guys always pull out the stops when something goes on with a conservative and turn a blind eye to the liberal side of the house?

It's not "us guys" that always whips out the Clinton Card. It's you guys. Clinton is always your first line of defense no matter how incompetent or ideologically idiotic your hero, Bush, is. We only respond by pointing out the idiocy and the hypocricy.

Could you imagine if Ted Kennedy had been the one cruising bathroom stalls for gay sex? HOLY SHIT! Holy shit, I couldn't. I wonder how FOX is handling this. I hope they don't have an integrity meltdown.


Once again you are totally viewing the liberal shortcomings with blind eyes. George Soros and illegal campaign contributions to your current candidates ring any bells? How do you feel about the POLICY in those matters

Once again, you are missing the point. These are not issues that democrats hang their hats on. It is your party that has forsaken good policy for moral indignation.

Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. Help turn the political climate in this country back toward prudence and away from greed and self-serving aggression.

[a1na2]

I will always lean toward the party that advocates a level playing field.

Many of you prefer choosing the party that hypocritically uses rhetoric to inspire us while leaching off of our inspiration.

Just because someone wears a mask doesn't necessarily mean they represent that face.

That first line means that you must not support anyone. There is no party that really advocates an even playing field, they all want it tipped their direction.

What party did I vote for last election? I'm sure you have an opinion on that but how I voted might be a big surprise to you.

That last line fits both parties to a tee. They are all looking to pad their retirement fund and have very little emotion in dealing with what is important to the voting public. The only time any politician cares about the public is when they are hawking votes, when the election is over they are right back to looking out for #1 and none of us are #1.

[Cochise]

It's not "us guys" that always whips out the Clinton Card. It's you guys. Clinton is always your first line of defense no matter how incompetent or ideologically idiotic your hero, Bush, is. We only respond by pointing out the idiocy and the hypocricy.

This perspective is understandable. You don't like Clinton continually being brought up. It's not as if thinking Clinton was a generally good president means you endorse his lewd behavior in a federal building. But it's not invalid for someone to say, "You're condeming someone for X, do you also condemn somebody else who also did X?"

It is a little lame to say, "Clinton did it too." But probing for hypocrisy is not invalid.


Could you imagine if Ted Kennedy had been the one cruising bathroom stalls for gay sex? HOLY SHIT! Holy shit, I couldn't. I wonder how FOX is handling this. I hope they don't have an integrity meltdown.


I think he's proved definitively that mostly nobody cares what he did in the past.


Once again, you are missing the point. These are not issues that democrats hang their hats on. It is your party that has forsaken good policy for moral indignation.

Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. Help turn the political climate in this country back toward prudence and away from greed and self-serving aggression.

Does posting and re<i></i>posting and re<i></i>posting and re<i></i>posting and re<i></i>posting and re<i></i>posting this kind of "O'Doyle rules" trap really get us anywhere here? Do you think that railing about that is going to change anything in here? Really. It's just wasted keystrokes.

[a1na2]

It's not "us guys" that always whips out the Clinton Card. It's you guys. Clinton is always your first line of defense no matter how incompetent or ideologically idiotic your hero, Bush, is. We only respond by pointing out the idiocy and the hypocricy.

Could you imagine if Ted Kennedy had been the one cruising bathroom stalls for gay sex? HOLY SHIT! Holy shit, I couldn't. I wonder how FOX is handling this. I hope they don't have an integrity meltdown.




Once again, you are missing the point. These are not issues that democrats hang their hats on. It is your party that has forsaken good policy for moral indignation.

Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. Help turn the political climate in this country back toward prudence and away from greed and self-serving aggression.

Do you honestly believe that crap? Clinton was brought up by you in this thread, not me. Clinton is a douchebag but I didn't bring him up on this issue. I brought up the murderer you have in the Senate.

You don't know that Ted Kennedy hasn't been doing the same thing so that is not a good argument. When he gets caught it will be all over the news on Fox, the main liners will turn a blind eye just as before. We all know about his antics when he was younger and able to get it up, he chased every skirt out of eyesight of his wife. How many young girls are now getting hush money to keep his name out of the news?

You are right, democrats don't hang their hats on moral issues, this time I will bring up Clinton .. now there is a man with moral high ground!

Greed and self-serving aggression. You need to check history and see that both of those traits are befitting of all politicians not to mention the wannabe politicians that post on boards like this.

[penchief]

That first line means that you must not support anyone. There is no party that really advocates an even playing field, they all want it tipped their direction.

I disagree. When I talk about a level playing field I'm talking about sincerity.

I'm talking about Bush vs. The Environment.

I'm talking about Cheney vs. The Iraqi People.

I'm talking about The Almighty Dollar vs. America's future well-being.

What party did I vote for last election? I'm sure you have an opinion on that but how I voted might be a big surprise to you..

I don't know. I wasn't there. The only thing I can respond to is your comments on this board. If I make an incorrect presumption based on your comments, I apologize. But there is a reason we disagree. And what you say you believe has a lot to do with that disagreement.


That last line fits both parties to a tee. They are all looking to pad their retirement fund and have very little emotion in dealing with what is important to the voting public. The only time any politician cares about the public is when they are hawking votes, when the election is over they are right back to looking out for #1 and none of us are #1.

I have to disagree with you. I'm not happy with either party at this point but it is ABUNDANTLY clear that democrats are far more concerned with the public welfare while republicans are far more concerned with conning the public in order to rape this country of our national recources and our liberty for politically self-serving reasons.

That's not cool in my book.

[patteeu]

I think you're full of shit, because I didn't see you once call for the resignation of David Vitter. In fact, your response to that situation was to defend the guy (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165685&page=5) saying (in essence) that it's not hypocritical to espouse family values while banging hookers on the side.

First of all, let me apologize for the tone of my previous post. I shouldn't have said "he should resign" as if it were an indisputable fact, I should have made it more clear that it's just my opinion.

As for your contention in this post, I obviously disagree. IMO, scrounging for anonymous sex in a public bathroom is significantly further down the dignity ladder than paying for private consensual sex with a call girl. All of the examples in my previous post are, again IMO, significantly more degrading activities than what Vitter did.

And it's not true that I said what Vitter did was not hypocritical. I questioned the basis on which people were calling him a hypocrite. Since I'd never heard of the guy before that day, I wasn't in a position to judge him on that score and I don't think many others around here were either.

[patteeu]

Heck, Vitter paid for it from a female, but no mention of asking him to resign.

I'm sure that the Gov of his state being a Dem doesn't have anything to do with the double-standard.

Oh yeah, that's the other thing I forgot to mention. Vitter doesn't have the additional reason to resign based on how resigning could limit the damage to the causes he believes in. If he resigns, it's automatic damage.

[patteeu]

He's gay. He's done. It's as simple as that.

Why do you say he's done?

[patteeu]

I will always lean toward the party that advocates a level playing field.

Republicans are the party of the level playing field. democrats are the party of the level scoreboard.

[a1na2]

I disagree. When I talk about a level playing field I'm talking about sincerity.

I'm talking about Bush vs. The Environment.

I'm talking about Cheney vs. The Iraqi People.

I'm talking about The Almighty Dollar vs. America's future well-being.

On one of your posts before you cried out because of the Clinton debacle. You have turned you story back to the administration. Most of the liberals here, as well as other places, have tunnel vision when it comes to arguments about politics and their arguments always come back to the same issue. There are other issues that are important that are always overlooked just so an attack can be mounted against the administration. That is getting old. What will you do when the next president gets in office and nothing changes, the war is prolonged and the same issues are happening ... and the president is a democrat?

The dollar against the future well being. I'd say that at the moment the economy is doing pretty well. I do know that in the past 2 years my 401k has tripled, from 1995 - 2001 I barely made any gains, the years between, 2002-2005 there was very modest growth.

There isn't going to be a magic bullet from the democrats that keeps the economy growing as it is now, that party tends to move towards social programs that do not work but cost plenty of money and eventually stifles the market and the economy.

I don't know. I wasn't there. The only thing I can respond to is your comments on this board. If I make an incorrect presumption based on your comments, I apologize. But there is a reason we disagree. And what you say you believe has a lot to do with that disagreement.

I am a conservative or republican, if you will. I voted in the election but I did not make a choice for President as there were no worthy candidates.

I have to disagree with you. I'm not happy with either party at this point but it is ABUNDANTLY clear that democrats are far more concerned with the public welfare while republicans are far more concerned with conning the public in order to rape this country of our national recources and our liberty for politically self-serving reasons.

How are the republicans raping the natural resources? We do not drill on the North Shore, we can't provide enough fuel for any interruption of service out of the existing refineries. The restrictions from the EPA have almost guaranteed that we will never have a new refinery. The politicians seem to be really concerned, both parties are out there driving suv's that get 12-15 mpg. There is no effort by the rich to curb the use of gas and other petroleum products, they can afford any price that is put on the fuel. Before you jump on the Bush and big oil bandwagon there are plenty of democrats involved with the big oil companies, I forget what the mix is but it is not 90-10 as reported by one news show.

That's not cool in my book.

You lost me with the last comment, it seems to be unreferenced.

[banyon]

How are the republicans raping the natural resources? We do not drill on the North Shore, we can't provide enough fuel for any interruption of service out of the existing refineries. The restrictions from the EPA have almost guaranteed that we will never have a new refinery. The politicians seem to be really concerned, both parties are out there driving suv's that get 12-15 mpg. There is no effort by the rich to curb the use of gas and other petroleum products, they can afford any price that is put on the fuel. Before you jump on the Bush and big oil bandwagon there are plenty of democrats involved with the big oil companies, I forget what the mix is but it is not 90-10 as reported by one news show.

Here are the First Term Highlights:

Toxic Releases Are Up
After years of consistent decline, the most recent annual inventory of industrial toxic releases shows an increase of 5 percent in the release of toxic substances into our air, water, and land. Data released in June 2004 document toxic releases from industrial facilities of nearly 4.8 billion pounds.

Environmental Enforcement Is Down
EPA data documents a 75 percent decline in the number of federal lawsuits filed against companies violating national environmental laws in the first three years of the Bush administration as compared to the last three years of the Clinton administration. Civil citations for polluters are down 57 percent since 2001, and criminal prosecutions have fallen 17 percent.


Pollution-Related Beach Closings Are Up
The EPA reports a 36 percent increase in annual beach closings due to unsafe water quality since 2001. Sewage contamination is an important and growing part of the problem.


Mercury Contamination Warnings Are Up
A total of 2,348 fish consumption advisories for mercury contamination were issued in 45 states in 2003. Seventy-six percent of fish samples from U.S. lakes were found to contain mercury levels unsafe for children 3 years old and younger to eat twice a week, according to the EPA. Every year more than 600,000 newborns may have been exposed to levels of mercury exceeding EPA health standards while still in the womb.

Hazardous Waste Cleanups Are Down
The pace of completed cleanups of Superfund hazardous waste sites, which increased dramatically in the later years of the Clinton era, has declined 52 percent since 2001, according to the EPA's own estimates. The Bush administration has refused to seek renewal of the Superfund clean-up tax on polluting industries, allowing the fund effectively to go bankrupt. The EPA reported 34 unfunded Superfund cleanups in 19 states in 2004.


Perchlorate Contamination Is Widespread
Perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel additive, is leaching out from military dumps and contaminating the drinking water of more than 20 million Americans. More than 90 percent of lettuce and milk sampled nationwide showed levels of perchlorate that may be unsafe for children. Despite recommendations from scientific experts at the EPA to severely reduce perchlorate contamination, the Bush administration has refused to take action.


Dirtier Air, Longer
In September 2004, EPA's inspector general concluded that the agency was not making sufficient progress in reducing the pollutants that cause ozone smog in the nation's population centers. According to EPA data, 159 million Americans (55 percent of our population) now live in areas with hazardous smog levels and 100 million people live in areas that violate the EPA's new pollution standards for harmful soot.


Less Oversight of Refineries
There has been a 52 percent decrease in EPA clean air inspections at refinerie since 2001, and a 68 percent reduction in the number of notices of violations issued to refineries over the same period.



Some of 2004's Worst Environmental Actions
It is a considerable understatement to observe that 2004 was not a good year for the environment. Below is a quick review of some of the year's most troubling Bush administration actions.


Letting Industry Draft a Mercury Proposal
In January 2004, the EPA unveiled proposals to regulate mercury emissions from power plants that were criticized as far weaker than enforcing current Clean Air Act law. In September 2004, internal agency documents were made public confirming that the EPA's proposal copied passages from a memo written by lawyers representing the utility industry.


Trying to Legalize Sewage Dumping in Our Waterways
According to EPA data, sewage releases onto our lands and into our waters occur thousands of time annually in the United States, and typically contain bacteria, viruses, fecal matter, and a host of other dangerous wastes. In December 2004, the EPA was poised to finalize a policy that would allow the routine release of inadequately treated sewage into waterways as long as it is diluted with treated sewage, a process the agency has euphemistically labeled "blending."


Managing National Forests for Forestry Companies
In December 2004, after President Bush proclaimed that his environmental policies have "improved habitat on public and private lands," the U.S. Forest Service formally nullified basic wildlife protections dating back to the Reagan administration. Under the new rule, the Forest Service will be able to eradicate many fish and wildlife populations that inhabit national forests.


Drinking Water Contamination to Remain Unregulated
In April 2004, the EPA formally decided to ignore the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding the regulation of additional substances not currently listed under the law. The EPA postponed consideration of the NAS recommendations until the issuance of a new list of contaminants not scheduled to be released until 2007 or later. Among the pervasive drinking water contaminants that the EPA has declined to regulate is the rocket fuel component perchlorate, which contaminates over 20 million Americans' drinking water. Over the past four years, the agency also has missed a series of Congressional deadlines for controlling new drinking water contaminants and strengthening current standards, and failed to conduct a pivotal review of the extent of waterborne diseases mandated by Congress in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments.



Ceding Public Lands to Energy Companies
The natural treasures threatened with oil and gas drilling and related activities as a result of decisions by the Bureau of Land Management over the past year include: Otero Mesa, a unique grassland in southern New Mexico; Nine Mile Canyon, in eastern Utah's West Tavaputs Plateau; the Western Arctic Reserve in northern Alaska; the Jack Morrow Hills in southwest Wyoming; and Valle Vidal, an alpine sanctuary for Rocky Mountain wildlife located near the Philmont Boy Scout Ranch in northern New Mexico.


http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/execsum.asp

[a1na2]

Here are the First Term Highlights:

Toxic Releases Are Up

Environmental Enforcement Is Down

Pollution-Related Beach Closings Are Up

Mercury Contamination Warnings Are Up

Hazardous Waste Cleanups Are Down

Perchlorate Contamination Is Widespread

Dirtier Air, Longer

Less Oversight of Refineries

Some of 2004's Worst Environmental Actions

Letting Industry Draft a Mercury Proposal

Trying to Legalize Sewage Dumping in Our Waterways

Managing National Forests for Forestry Companies

Drinking Water Contamination to Remain Unregulated

Ceding Public Lands to Energy Companies

http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/execsum.asp

Sounds like you are a strong backer for the NRDC. Will you still back them if a democrat is in office and attempting to do some of the same things? Where were they when Clinton was in office? Bush I? Reagan?

Your source is biased, as they should be, to stand against anything they feel endangers their philosophy of what the environment should be. What is the other side to all of the issues that you have posted? Where are the offsetting arguments for each of the issues? Somewhere there should to be a rebuttal from those that can answer to those charges.

I'm not taking the time to research them, I'm sure someone has already issued those rebuttals and used credible information in those rebuttals.

I do appreciate your effort to give me an answer to the question.

[banyon]

Sounds like you are a strong backer for the NRDC. Will you still back them if a democrat is in office and attempting to do some of the same things?

Yes I am and I will.

Where were they when Clinton was in office? Bush I? Reagan?

Doing the same things mostly, they didn't really take it easy on Clinton, but they didn't have their hands as full as they do with W. They were founded in 1970.

Your source is biased, as they should be, to stand against anything they feel endangers their philosophy of what the environment should be. What is the other side to all of the issues that you have posted? Where are the offsetting arguments for each of the issues? Somewhere there should to be a rebuttal from those that can answer to those charges.

Very typical of the intellectually lazy culture that has usurped our media over the last 10+ years. There are no more facts, just 2 sides to every story. And because there are two sides, that creates some sort of false equivalency between the merits of the arguments. Not really, sometimes one argument just sucks. I think you'll have a pretty hard time finding the detailed expose on how great Bush has been for the environment by anyone with even a shred of credibility.

I'm not taking the time to research them, I'm sure someone has already issued those rebuttals and used credible information in those rebuttals.

Yes, your mind is completely closed. Thank you for confirming what has been evident for so very long now. By all means, keep letting others do your thinking for you.

I do appreciate your effort to give me an answer to the question.

I'm sure.

[BucEyedPea]

I think Guilietta should pick Craig as his VP and campaign in drag! ROFL

[RJ]

Translation: People from MY party did some effed up crap BUT IT WAS IN THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE. Since Someone NOT from my party did the same thing, he/she should be CRUCIFIED because it is the topic of the present. :rolleyes:


Actually, I think that is a very fair statement. Not the crucified part, but certainly the event that is in front of us now is far more important than the even that occurred almost 40 years ago. Since most of us on this board were either children or not yet born at that time I fail to see the connection to current events.

[a1na2]

Yes I am and I will.

Sure


Doing the same things mostly, they didn't really take it easy on Clinton, but they didn't have their hands as full as they do with W. They were founded in 1970.

I doubt that you have done the research to see exactly what they were involved with before GWB took office, your political coloring seems only interested in pointing out failures of the other party.


Very typical of the intellectually lazy culture that has usurped our media over the last 10+ years. There are no more facts, just 2 sides to every story. And because there are two sides, that creates some sort of false equivalency between the merits of the arguments. Not really, sometimes one argument just sucks. I think you'll have a pretty hard time finding the detailed expose on how great Bush has been for the environment by anyone with even a shred of credibility.

I never said that Bush was not bad for the environment, I'm disputing the one-sided facts that are put out by the green group. People that are trying to make a stand on issues seldom write the whole story into their papers, it would be detrimental to the desired outcome when others read their papers. Weak minded people don't look further than what their favorite organization say.




Yes, your mind is completely closed. Thank you for confirming what has been evident for so very long now. By all means, keep letting others do your thinking for you.

My mind is closed because I'm not interested in spending time searching for a rebuttal to your organizations papers. You are speaking with a forked tongue. You are accusing me of letting others think for me when you have bought their story without researching the other side of the issue. Bad move dude, you just nullified your insult and basically indicated that you are the lazy thinker here.



I'm sure.

I was, but not now that I see your true colors - green regardless of the facts.

[banyon]

Sure




I doubt that you have done the research to see exactly what they were involved with before GWB took office, your political coloring seems only interested in pointing out failures of the other party.




I never said that Bush was not bad for the environment, I'm disputing the one-sided facts that are put out by the green group. People that are trying to make a stand on issues seldom write the whole story into their papers, it would be detrimental to the desired outcome when others read their papers. Weak minded people don't look further than what their favorite organization say.






My mind is closed because I'm not interested in spending time searching for a rebuttal to your organizations papers. You are speaking with a forked tongue. You are accusing me of letting others think for me when you have bought their story without researching the other side of the issue. Bad move dude, you just nullified your insult and basically indicated that you are the lazy thinker here.




I was, but not now that I see your true colors - green regardless of the facts.

Well done. Not a single argument on topic or factual assertion in the whole reply. Just a bunch of finger pointing and laziness. As usual.

[a1na2]

Well done. Not a single argument on topic or factual assertion in the whole reply. Just a bunch of finger pointing and laziness. As usual.

What makes that different than what you posted?

Hello Pot! And a coward to boot!

[Taco John]

This forum is better when people aren't arguing with Tom and dragging discussions down bottomless wells.

[a1na2]

This forum is better when people aren't arguing with Tom and dragging discussions down bottomless wells.

This forum is better when you aren't here.

Try getting into the discussion that was going on before banyon started his bs again.

[Taco John]

You mean the one between you and a drunken penchief? Yeah. Riveting.

[CRONUS]

This guy should be voted out for illegal acts if convicted but not for being gay.

[Taco John]

You want him "voted out" for a misdemeanor?

[CRONUS]

You want him "voted out" for a misdemeanor?I think while you are in office you should be clean of criminal activity. Like I said voted out, not thrown out of office by the Senate.

[Ugly Duck]

Clinton .. now there is a man with moral high ground!

Greed and self-serving aggression.

Huh? All he got wuzza blow job... no rough stuff....

[penchief]

You mean the one between you and a drunken penchief? Yeah. Riveting.

You take everything so literally.

[go bowe]

Well done. Not a single argument on topic or factual assertion in the whole reply. Just a bunch of finger pointing and laziness. As usual.finger pointing has become an art form for him...




yo, banyon...

please, please...

do NOT feed the troll !!

[go bowe]

This forum is better when people aren't arguing with Tom and dragging discussions down bottomless wells.omg, i actually agree with you...

i hope this is not going to ruin my reputation... :p :p :p

[a1na2]

Thread done, he resigned.

Now what do the libs have to whine about?

[banyon]

finger pointing has become an art form for him...




yo, banyon...

please, please...

do NOT feed the troll !!

I have corrected my feeding habits. :thumb: