Senator Craig

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:14 am

Has anyone noticed that when a certain person on here gets challenged, he posts in bold, he posts in red and he does multiple posts, sometimes three in a row?

Hmm! Think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Brian Pedaci · Post by **Brian Pedaci** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:46 am

Please, Stephen, explain what the 'joke' was supposed to mean then. As my wife always says, if you say things for effect, don't be surprised when your words cause an effect. This board isn't your private journal - if what you're saying is meaningless, best keep it to yourself.

The comment about Vitter was not irrelevant as it shows a fundamental double standard at work here. Although Vitter has not been brought up on any charges, he has admitted to using prostitutes. And yet he retains his seat and gets an ovation? They're *both* nasty, bad, naughty boys who should be drummed out of national government.

David Scott · Post by **David Scott** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:47 am

I brought David Vitter up because Stephen indicated that the republican leadership was consistent in their condemnation of Bill Clinton and Larry Craig. So the treatment of David Vitter is inconsistent. Therefore, it is my opinion it is relevant to the discussion. Stephen, you might feel it is not and that is fine.

They are all politicians and playing to their base. If George Bush was found with an intern the Congress would be all over him also and if obscure democratic senator from the midwest was soliciting sex in a mens room he would be ostracized -- to think of anything different is delusional

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:06 pm

David Scott wrote:I brought David Vitter up because Stephen indicated that the republican leadership was consistent in their condemnation of Bill Clinton and Larry Craig. So the treatment of David Vitter is inconsistent. Therefore, it is my opinion it is relevant to the discussion. Stephen, you might feel it is not and that is fine.

They are all politicians and playing to their base. If George Bush was found with an intern the Congress would be all over him also and if obscure democratic senator from the midwest was soliciting sex in a mens room he would be ostracized -- to think of anything different is delusional

Let us follow the logic here.. Craig was a republican and the Republican leadership asked him to step down.. Please tell me how that is a double standard. What crime has Vitter committed? or been arrested for???

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:09 pm

Brian Pedaci wrote:Please, Stephen, explain what the 'joke' was supposed to mean then. As my wife always says, if you say things for effect, don't be surprised when your words cause an effect. This board isn't your private journal - if what you're saying is meaningless, best keep it to yourself.

The comment about Vitter was not irrelevant as it shows a fundamental double standard at work here. Although Vitter has not been brought up on any charges, he has admitted to using prostitutes. And yet he retains his seat and gets an ovation? They're *both* nasty, bad, naughty boys who should be drummed out of national government.

If you have never ever heard people joke about "Man rules or Man code of rules" then I cannot even begin to explain it to you.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:36 pm

David Scott wrote:I brought David Vitter up because Stephen indicated that the republican leadership was consistent in their condemnation of Bill Clinton and Larry Craig. So the treatment of David Vitter is inconsistent. Therefore, it is my opinion it is relevant to the discussion. Stephen, you might feel it is not and that is fine.

They are all politicians and playing to their base. If George Bush was found with an intern the Congress would be all over him also and if obscure democratic senator from the midwest was soliciting sex in a mens room he would be ostracized -- to think of anything different is delusional

Was Vitter in office when he saw the prostitute? No Was Bill Clinton and Larry Craig in office when thy committed their "acts"? yes

Brian Pedaci · Post by **Brian Pedaci** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:39 pm

What was he doing seeing a prostitute in DC if not while he was in office? There was a Louisiana prostitute who came forward, but that wasn't until after his number was linked to the "DC Madam".

Hiring a prostitute is against the law. Vitter admitted to it. The fact that he wasn't formally charged with a crime is a weak excuse. He was engaged in illegal activity, pure and simple.

I have heard jokes about the "man rules", but I'd like to hear how you think that's got anything to do with the conversation at hand? Once again, are you saying that the 'man rules' say it's OK it's tawdry, illicit heterosexual sex but not tawdry, illicit homosexual sex? If that's the joke you were making, fine. Just say so, don't be coy.

Steven Greenwell · Post by **Steven Greenwell** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:08 pm

There are some very good posts in this thread pointing out the hypocrisy of an individual who publicly supports certain values but then lives a secret life contrary to those values.

However, my concern is on a different aspect of this situation. News reports described the police as setting up a "sting operation" in the airport bathrooms. It seems to me that law enforcement resources in the Twin Cities, and many other places in the U.S. would be better focused on activities of drugs, violence, robbery (to name a few) rather than "catching" an individual soliciting another individual for sex. I don't care who someone chooses to have sex with. If they are being unfaithful to a committed partner then it is an issue of their morals or religious beliefs. Let's have police focus on monitoring laws that are more pertinent to public safety.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:56 pm

They do it at Edgewater Park all the time.

They solicit prostitutes, they bait john's. That's what a vice squad does.

Frankly, I don't care what anyone does sexually with another consenting adult.

What bothers me about Craig is the double standard. In one breath opposing gay marriage, on the other going into a public bathroom looking for another guy. So, anonymous sex is okay, but a committed relationship shouldn't be acknowledged? What's okay about that.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:07 pm

Brian Pedaci wrote:What was he doing seeing a prostitute in DC if not while he was in office? There was a Louisiana prostitute who came forward, but that wasn't until after his number was linked to the "DC Madam".

Hiring a prostitute is against the law. Vitter admitted to it. The fact that he wasn't formally charged with a crime is a weak excuse. He was engaged in illegal activity, pure and simple.

I have heard jokes about the "man rules", but I'd like to hear how you think that's got anything to do with the conversation at hand? Once again, are you saying that the 'man rules' say it's OK it's tawdry, illicit heterosexual sex but not tawdry, illicit homosexual sex? If that's the joke you were making, fine. Just say so, don't be coy.

I never said that the "man rules" ok'd anything. You need to get your facts straight. David Scott wrote that David Vitter received a standing ovation from the Republican Caucus yesterday. I wrote.. "Did you not read the "Man Code of rules" page 38?" Please tell me how that statement ok's anything? It is a question (rhetorical)that pokes fun of mans' behavior. The question does not judge homosexuality or ok the behavior of Vitter.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:23 pm

Could some one please post a link to an article that has the details (dates) on Vitters romp with the prostitute Thanks

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:34 pm

Brian Pedaci wrote: The comment about Vitter was not irrelevant as it shows a fundamental double standard at work here

David Scott wrote:
David Vitter recieved a standing ovation from the Republic caucus yesterday.

This definitely shows a double standard. They also gave Clinton a standing ovation with a couple of whistles.

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:15 am

This board isn't your private journal - if what you're saying is meaningless, best keep it to yourself.

Amen

Thank you, Brian, for eloquently and kindly putting words to what many others feel.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:20 am

Grace O'Malley wrote:
This board isn't your private journal - if what you're saying is meaningless, best keep it to yourself.

Amen

Thank you, Brian, for eloquently and kindly putting words to what many others feel.

In other words, keep your opinions that do not agree with ours off this board

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:52 am

No Stephen, that's NOT what was said.

You repeatedly make inane posts.

Had you said something with any substance that someone could disagree with, that would be a different situation.

You post links to off-the-wall sites and topics that are of little interest to most people and you don't bother to say what your purpose in posting the link was.
I'm net savvy, as are most of the people here, and I can "surf" the net and find what I want to read just fine, thank you.

Most of your opinion posts appear to be written "off the top of your head," and you will make multiple posts within minutes of the other, adding to that impression.

Frankly, I don't bother to read your posts, but that's just me and its a result of how and what you post.

Brian is right. Maybe a more judicious posting style would win you more readers.