Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
uh.. like when you plead guilty and pay the speeding ticket rather than go to court four states away where you recieved the ticket?
Funny how you claim it is the hypocricy that is important....
but your entire focus hinges on his sexuality. A vendetta, if you will, against gays who DARE to be an elected republican.
Actually, if you read the police report (or at least what I have read of the police report) he did do more than this. I think I posted something a little more in depth earlier. Also, as I was noting earlier, when I worked during school at the DA's office, they had undercover cops that would patrol public restrooms (parks mostly) investigating these types of behaviors. Strange as it may seem, there is a code of conduct for these types of behaviors that the police learn and use to identify... whatever you want to call them.
On top of that, he plead guilty (not "no contest"). For some reason people seem willing to write that off, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Since when has it been the case that a guilty plea doesn't raise the presumption that the person pleading is guilty?
So, if I happen to be taking a dump and tapping my foot at the same time in a public restroom I can be cited for it? THAT is absurd.
So he paid off a ticket? I got one for speeding in AZ when I wasn't I just paid rather than drive back to AZ to contest it, and to be done with the issue. By doing so, I basically admitted guilt to doing something I was not for my own convenience.
Craig's statement is consistent with this. Happens all the time just for the sake convenience.
Had this been a Democrat caught with a freezer full of money the questions from the left would be, "Where's your evidence it wasn't his? Has he been convicted yet? Etc, etc."
Seems you're more than willing to extend the benefit of doubt one way and demand concrete evidence in the face of proof, but not the other.
And who called shogun a partisan hack?
And before anyone gets started, I'm not a Republican, don't know much about Craig and could care less. I'm addressing how this issue is being treated by the left.
Well, actually, a police ticket isn't classified as a crime. It is considered a violation. Only misdemeanors and felonies are crimes. Also, it is just silly to compare this to a speeding ticket.
The facts as to whether he commited the act are pretty important in determining whether he is a hypocrite you twit.
I guess that is one interpretation.
Are you telling me that you can concieve of NO circumstance where one might plead guilty, pay the fine, and walk away outside a gay republican busted at the glory hole?
really?
Sure, it may be silly because you don't want to admit that some people do, in fact, take their guilty plea and move on but whats new?
Looks to me like a cop made an assumption of on par with arresting some kid just because they used the numbers 4 and 2 and 0 in consecutive order.
not to mention how retarded it is acting like this charge is paramount to anything beyond your gay elected republican hating witch hunt.
There was more than tapping his foot. I pointed that out before, but you must have missed it.
Actually, it is not the left that is hitting him. It is the right.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/29/craig.arrest/index.html
This was a crime. Speeding tickets are violations. These things are different in the law. Also, this is clearly of greater consequence than a speeding ticket.
People keep bringing up Jefferson to me. I still don't really understand how it is relevant. Jefferson's corrupt. I have no problem conceding that (although technically, he is still innocent until proven guilty - not my rule, the law's).
The prinicple is the same. People pay off fines for convenience. In that regard, the comaprison is perfectly valid.
I don't care whether or not the guy is gay. He means absolutely nothing to me. And it sure isn't the right that's doing the hammering on him in this thread, is it?
Bet if I start yet another thread on "Monicagate" the same people hammering Craig would be defending Clinton.
And now I suppose you'll tell me there's a difference? Is that difference one was allegedly gay and one wasn't? Or is it just that one is a Republican and the other a Democrat?
One thing about this that disturbs me. If the bloke in the next stall had not been a cop and not been gay then he would probably have thought, "jeez that poor sod in the next stall has St Vitus' Dance." A gay man would have interpreted the initial invitation and may have decided to take it further or not (if he had a headache or something). But the cop saw the signal and apparently played along. I'm not arguing agent provocateur or entrapment here, I don't think that defence would go too far but I have to say that really, this is a pretty piss weak pinch. The "lewd behaviour" laws in Minn. are pretty restrictive it seems, here you'd have to be in the act before you got pinched. Craig has thought about this and is really ticked off at himself that he pleaded guilty.
Hindsight is 20/20. He was probably hoping it just passed under everyone's radar. It nearly did.
Which supports the idea he just wanted it to go away. Not that he actually was looking for a gay sex act. If he really were GAY, he would have known to fight the charge because of what would come next, being in the closet and all.
Wanting it to go away and having actually committed the act are by no means mutually exclusive. Whether you are innocent or guilty of an offense, you still want it to go away.
Yet you insist he is guilty. You won't even consider the other side. Other then to snidely comment " it isn't likely".
Yet you insist he is guilty. You won't even consider the other side. Other then to snidely comment " it isn't likely".
guilty, in this case, is a legal term.
I insist he is guilty.... hell, HE insists he is guilty. He PLED guilty, for crissakes!
By the way this bloke isn't a liberal conning you, he really is as thick as he seems.
That should get me a third red rep eh?
Keep 'em coming. I feel like listening to Tull "Thick as a Brick"
Okay, this thread has officially become some of the funniest sh*t I've ever read:
Who'd thunk that republican posters would be trying to spin for Craig, and argue that he's not guilty, and in fact he wasn't even trying to solicit gay sex?
I'm sure it was just all a big misunderstanding.
