Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig
From Conservapedia
What's CP's view on Larry Craig?
- CP is not one person, and should be expected to have one view. Why don't you ask, "what's the view of the Encyclopedia Britannica on Larry Craig?"--Aschlafly 21:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- You're absolutely right; that's a ridiculous question.
- Hey, people who monitor Talk:Main Page - what do you think of Larry Craig, his situation, the media coverage of him/it, et cetera? Me, I think he clearly got caught soliciting lewd acts in the men's room. I also don't think it has any bearing on the Republican party or conservatism in general. It paints HIM as a hypocrite, given his voting record and speeches, but that's his problem. Aziraphale 23:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT) <-I'm only one man, I can only do so much...
- Actually, CP does present one view on many subjects. For example, the official view of CP is that there's liberal bias in the mainstream media, or how liberals use deceit copiously to get their ways. Another example would be an opposition to evolution. That's what I was asking. ATang 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- I think it's too early to tell; we need to let liberal homophobia and anti-gay hate speech run its course and then look at the sources and evidence. Rob Smith 22:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- So liberals are pro-gay and anti-gay, and homophobic at the same time? How is homophobia a "liberal" concept? ATang 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- ABC News already reported on this, "Secret Signals: How Gay Men Cruise for Sex When Men Cruise for Sex in Public Places, Police Take Notice, Some Gays Say It's Unfair" [1] This appears to be related to gay rights and the homosexual agenda. The article quotes Steve Sanders, a lawyer and gay rights activist, "Citizens have a right not to confront lewd activity in public places, but if there is evidence that a sting is motivated by anti-gay animus, that may represent a more troubling issue." The article goes on to advertise restrooms at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and websites with how-to instructions to avoid discrimination and arrest.
- So, this is the test to see how really compassionate liberals are. Above someone blasts Craig’s voting record; what does that have to do with any of this? I'd love to see the convoluted reasoning in this, how his "private sex life", which "is nobody's business" is connected to his hypocrisy in voting for Congressional Appropriations, or any other matter. Even if he voted for something like the Defense of Marriage Act, doesn't he (a) have the right to vote his conscience, and (b) have the responsibility to represent his constituency over any personal interest or motive? And wouldn't voting a certain way to serve some personal, self interest or motive itself be a conflict of interest worthy of condemnation? Finally, after hearing for more than a decade now that "what a person does in their private sex life is nobodies business", the writer above calls Craig a hypocrite. I'll lay a $10 bet that same writer was a defender of Clinton, and spoke harshly of Republican House managers. Care to carry the discussion further on hypocrisy? Rob Smith 01:04, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- OOOooo, let's. First of all, I want my ten dollars. ("Oh sure, prove it," says Rob, which just goes to show how safe his accusation was to make.) I "blasted" his voting record, in that I said it painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another. So yeah, I'm down with a further discussion of hypocrisy. How is his behavior NOT hypocritical? AND BEFORE YOU TRY AND GO THERE - me calling him a hypocrite is not me defending a homosexual lifestyle. He wants to be against homosexuality, that's entirely his right and I'm not trying to stop him. But to legislate against "lewd behaviors" and then to conduct said behaviors himself is... hang on, there's a word somebody just tried to tar me with, what was it... ponder ponder think think... right, hypocritical.
- What *I* want to know, and given the absolutely crap-tastic response to my earlier post Rob gave I think an answer is in order, is why there's a need to defend the guy? Can a single Republican not do wrong without it bringing down the entire conservative establishment? What the heck is so important about Larry Craig that the point can't ever be conceded that he's a hypocrite? I've voted Republican plenty of times (don't know if it's more or less than half, counting state and local elections, but it's not insignificant) and I couldn't care less if there's a scummy Republican out there. Guy's no good, guy goes away. Same thing happens to Democrats, and it's not like... er, ... it's not like anybody tries to undermine... tries to undermine the entire party that way...
- Oh. Got it. I'm going back to categorizing, nobody votes for those. Aziraphale 10:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT) <-not at all impressed...
I don't care if you're straight, gay or Klingon...sex in a public place is *NOT* acceptable.--Porthos 11:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Porthos: Craig did not engage in sex in public, and your suggestion that he did is an exaggeration. What? would you prefer he engaged in private sexual activity in the workplace, as Clinton did, with a subordinate while on the time clock? Would that make it acceptable & excusable?
- Aziraphale: to legislate against "lewd behaviors"; cite one instance in the voting record where this occurred. In fact, cite one instance in any federal legislation where this is the purview of the federal government.
- Can a single Republican not do wrong; isn't this a bit hypocritical, I thought homosexuality was normal and acceptable? What's "wrong" with it? even ABC News went out of its way to publicize entrapment of gays for "being themselves" is "unfair".
- painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another; cite one instance, any example, to support this claim.
- And finally, you have not addressed the simple underlying claim the Craig is not at liberty to allow personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record. And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think? Rob Smith 13:14, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Dude, the point is not whether homosexuality is wrong. The point is that he was accused of signalling for sex in a public place. The ABC article you cited says that clearly - the public has the right not to walk on any lewd activity going on in a public place - which was the next step if Craig wasn't caught (hence Portho's comment regarding sex in a public place). BTW, the workplace is still a public place, and you need to do better than drag Clinton into an argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. And with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record" - I believe that's the basis of accusations of hypocrisy for liberals; see last month's "Breaking News" about an anti-gun democrat shooting a would-be thief. In that case his "personal" agenda is to shoot people, but by your logic, he has taken the high ground and took an anti-gun stance, against his personal motivations. I can't see how one could apply that definition of hypocrisy only to one party. ATang 13:28, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Two wrongs don't make a right. And this is not hypocricy?
- The ABC News article says, "In an effort to curb lewd acts in public — or as some gays argue, in an effort to persecute gay men — undercover police began sting operations..." Apparantly societal and systemic homophobia is operative, according to gay rights activists, in this case. The article continues, "police would have to prove that actions such as foot tapping were known signals....What constitutes probable cause?..... police officers would have to produce evidence to say here is how we can say with certainty this is was really a lewd act"
- with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record, this relates more to accusations such as Bush got us into Iraq to benefit his friends in big oil, IOW, the record of elected officials, not an example such as you cite. Rob Smith 13:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- 1. [Ok.] 2.Don't put words in my mouth, it's a filthy habit that can lead to mad cow disease. I didn't say that homosexuality was wrong. His hypocrisy is wrong, and his commission of a crime is wrong. I frankly don't care how the guy wants to have sex. Since you're asking me to do your research for you re: his voting record, please help me out by showing your previous support for the political bias of MSM and your attacks on those who say the MSM supports values outside the norm. Otherwise, explain to me why I should care what ABC News says? 3. Please don't speak in gibberish, CP hasn't installed a language translation module as yet. I'll let you win your $10 back if you can successfully diagram your sentence that begins "And finally" without uncovering one or more errors that makes it impossible to parse.
- That said, you say "And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think?" No, I don't think, and if you think it you're delusional. What personal belief, or set of actions, can I lay claim to that run counter to any professed belief of mine or public statement that I've uttered? Come on Rob, lay it out for me, step by step: how has User:Aziraphale been hypocritical? You lay it out clearly and I'll a) publicly apologize to you and b) leave you alone except for those times when you hypothetically might ask me to speak with you. Don't expect me to just accept whatever you say, though, if it doesn't stand up you'll be deservedly ridiculed for trying to hang false accusations around my neck to win an argument by any means necessary.
- This also doesn't change the subject, by the way. How is Craig *not* at the very least, a liar? You read the officer's report (which is available to be read, not just rumored about) and there is NO WAY to believe anything other than that Craig was following LONG established methods for sussing out... well, frankly, gay sex in a public men's room. Why does this need defending? Shoo him on and elect a new Republican to take his place, or whatever Idahoans want. Aziraphale 13:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT) <-You can say "whoops" now...
- Rob S, I'm replying in the style of your defense of Craig - which also doesn't have anything to do with Bush - unless your view only applies to elected officials, as once they get that position, they're above hypocrisy?
- How is "two wrongs don't make a right" a hypocrisy? Elaborate, please.
- Tell me, how does someone mistakenly plead guilty (mind you, it's not a no-contest. It implies admission of guilt)? If he's confident he didn't signal for sex, he would've pleaded otherwise, instead of pleading guilty, then say that was a mistake; then proceed to argue with the arresting officer how he was trying to pick up a piece of paper. ATang 13:56, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
<--
Ok, let's not parse and drag this out. Let's simply compare the Clinton case, where a sexaul act actually did occur. Clinton survived in office, despite negative publicity & condemnation.
We can go back & forth on hypocricy all day. Bottomline, no one has connected the alleged rumors of Craig being homosexual to his voting record. Rob Smith 14:09, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Well, not really. I'm pretty sure you cannot apply your definition of hypocrisy without being hypocritical (unless it's under your definition as well - now my head hurts). And you still haven't answered my question regarding "two wrongs don't make a right". How can that be hypocrisy, when it is simply a statement regarding debate conduct?
- Ok... Clinton survived in office... how does that relate to what we're talking about? No comment was made on whether Craig will finish his term... And I've already stated that Clinton was wrong (I mean, come on, sex with an intern at the workplace? That guy needs a spanking), and bringing that up doesn't make Craig right in asking for sex. (As to whether a sexual act "actually" occurred, try using that defense in undercover prostitution stings.) ATang 14:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Ok, let's cut to the quick on this, Should Clinton have been removed from office for his conduct, yes or no? Rob Smith 14:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- The Senate didn't seem to think so.--Porthos 14:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Reponding to Rob from 14:09, not anything that follows after
- Sorry, Rob, I appreciate that you want to back down but your "bottom line" is wrong. [Here's the same link I provided earlier.] If you're having problems understanding the link, let me know and I'll spell it out for you.
- And you're trying to change what we were actually talking about: I said a)Craig was a hypocrite, and b)not worth defending because he doesn't stand for anything larger than himself. You decided to lay on the "nuh unh, you're a hypocrite" defense. You say "let's not parse and drag this out," but you're the one who decided to lay waste with the accusations. You don't seem to like that your tactic roused a spirited defense, but too bad - you accuse someone of something that isn't true, you get to swallow the consequences.
- But to be more courteous to you than you have been to me, I will continue to directly respond to what you say. Yes, by all means, let's compare the Clinton case. Clinton lied about what he did. He perjured himself. That is a very bad thing. Craig solicited sex in a public men's room; skip the homosexuality if you want, this wouldn't be any less illegal if somehow it had been a woman in that men's room stall. He committed a crime, which he pleaded "guilty" to. That is a very bad thing. You've apparently conceded my ABC News point, and my "Aziraphale is a hypocrite" point, so here's another chance to win back the $10 you owe me for betting I was a Clinton supporter who complained about Republican House managers. This time, I want you to show me that you maintained a "live and let live" attitude during the Clinton impeachment saga, or even easier, that you think the whole thing was overblown in retrospect. I've been pretty nice about these bets, I don't even hold you accountable for the ones you've lost other than your original proposition.
- If "let's not go back and forth all day" was some kind of milquetoast apology, please clarify. Aziraphale 14:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Yes please spell it out; Craig appears to have voted "yes" to the Defense Appropriation Act that included "Don't Ask Don't Tell", unless I'm reading it wrong.
- Clinton lied under oath, which was an impeachment charge. Lying under oath did not "rise to the level" of removal from office. Craig did precisely the opposite: plead guilty, and not nolo contendre, to a sex-related charge. Guilty implies intent, which by biblical standards is the same as the act itself, as in the Clinton case. Craig did not "lie" about the guilty plea, he expressed regret that he did.
- So apparantly at this point, lying about sex does not rise to the level of removal from office, but being a victim of institutional homophobic laws warrants character assassination. That seems to be the status of the case. Rob Smith 15:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Rob, I'm not really sure I see the parallel you're trying to draw between this case and Clinton. Whether, morally, Clinton should have been removed from office is a wholly separate matter from the Senate vote that acquitted him. Legality (or legislation) does not imply morality or vice versa.
- Also, I'm really confused about your use of the term "homophobic". Let's put it this way...I'm 100% conservative when it comes to some things, like the right to bear arms. But I'm pretty liberal (or libertarian?) when it comes to social issues like private sexual expression. But even *I* don't think that sex in public places is okay. The laws against public lewdness are not homophobic; they apply equally to men and women and straight and gay.--Porthos 15:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
<--
- Clinton lied under oath about sex, which did not "rise to the level" of removal from office. Craig confessed under oath to intent (the same as the act). How does this "rise to the level" of removal from office?
- Our homophobia article links to several American Psychological Association (APA) papers about "societal homophobia" and "internalized homophobia." Let's forget the internalized part in this discussion, and look at "societal homophobia." Groups like NARTH say societal homophobia is a crock, whereas more (shall we say) "liberal" inclinded authors and organizations such as the APA maintain homosexuals are societal victims of homophobia, and "institutional homphobia," such as laws that target gays such as outlined in the ABC News article. Many gay rights activists view the sting operation that netted Craig as discriminitory. So we are back to the issue of hypocricy, once again. Rob Smith 15:34, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Well...I don't think there's anything close to an impeachment case against Craig. The pressure he's feeling to resign is from forces within his own party.
- And *I*, at least, do not view sting operations to nab cruisers as discriminatory. If straight people cruised in the same manner that gay men do, I would want them nabbed as well. Cruising is so incredibly dangerous, since (opinion, I have no figures to back this up) most people who cruise for sex don't use any means of protection when they do it. It *is* true that for the most part, only gay men are arrested for cruising but that's because really, only gay men cruise. I don't think even gay women cruise.--Porthos 15:42, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- Good answers, and I thank you for them. Spoken which much compassion for the "victim" here, a victim of his own stupidity and conduct. Can we agree there's enough hypocricy to go around on everybodies part, and let him who is without sin cast the first stone? Rob Smith 15:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Too much blathering, unrelated to improving the Main Page or the (now unprotected) Larry Craig article. Any reason I shouldn't move all of this talk to Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig? --Ed Poor Talk 14:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
- That makes sense to me.--Porthos 14:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
I just hope that the truth about this comes out considering all the flip-flopping on Mr. Craig's part, and that if he is guilty, that he will disassociate with the Republican Party for lying to the conservative base for so long. Such a thing is not acceptable here. -MikeZoeller 22:13, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
- I think Larry Flynt paid off the Minneapolis cops to set the whole thing up. Rob Smith 22:38, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
