Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I was unaware Clinton's life had been ruined forever. Last I heard he could be the first "First Man" with a shot at being "a roaming ambassador, using his talent to repair the tattered image of the United States abroad."

---

Of course not, Clinton had the good sense to get his in private. But you can be assured of the fact that if he had been the one ‘peeking through the crack and making overtures with his hands’ his life would be ruined too. These kinds of indiscretions transcend Party lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Why am I not suprised you can't make the distinction.;)

---

A public rest room at Union Station is publicly owned property. The Oval Office is, technically, publicly owned property. The public restroom is a place where one is SUPPOSED to expect a bit of privacy in order to take care of bodily functions. The Oval Office is the official office of the President of the United States, with functionaries all around at all hours of the day, where no privacy is or should be expected. If anything, having sex in the Oval Office is a greater violation of public trust than having sex in a restroom.

You want distinctions? You got distinctions.

But I wasn't asking for distinctions. I was asking if having sex in the Oval Office counts as "in private" more so than having sex in a public restroom. I don't think so. There are more people in and around the Oval Office on most occaisions and for longer periods than there are at any public restroom.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

A public rest room at Union Station is publicly owned property. The Oval Office is, technically, publicly owned property. The public restroom is a place where one is SUPPOSED to expect a bit of privacy in order to take care of bodily functions. The Oval Office is the official office of the President of the United States, with functionaries all around at all hours of the day, where no privacy is or should be expected. If anything, having sex in the Oval Office is a greater violation of public trust than having sex in a restroom.

You want distinctions? You got distinctions.

But I wasn't asking for distinctions. I was asking if having sex in the Oval Office counts as "in private" moreso than having sex in a public restroom. I don't think so. There are more people in and around the Oval Office on most occaisions and for longer periods of time than there are at any public restroom.

Elliot

---

You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact that you can freely make use of the public restroom he did, but I feel pretty certain you can’t freely walk into the restroom in the oval office; in fact I don’t think you can get past the barricade in front of the citadel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Of course not, Clinton had the good sense to get his in private. But you can be assured of the fact that if he had been the one ‘peeking through the crack and making overtures with his hands’ his life would be ruined too. These kinds of indiscretions transcend Party lines.

---

One would hope DC, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Craig is being held accountable by the GOP - as opposed to say how the Dems treated the guy caught with 90k in his freezer. He was re-elected handily and Pelosi's plan was to "place him on a lower-profile committee and hope the controversy dies down," Bill Clinton is a Democratic god and McGreevy gets a college gig teaching "ethics, law and leadership."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

One would hope DC, but it doesn't seem to work that way. Craig is being held accountable by the GOP - as opposed to say how the Dems treated the guy caught with 90k in his freezer. He was re-elected handily and Pelosi's plan was to "place him on a lower-profile committee and hope the controversy dies down," Bill Clinton is a Democratic god and McGreevy gets a college gig teaching "ethics, law and leadership."

---

I certainly agree, more often it's who you know, than what you did.

This guy in the toilet is not very bright; for instance, had it been Clinton he would have denied everything, had the witness paid off or desecrated, and Clinton would have walked away with the news media writing stories about how the witness was unstable or a flat-out criminal

I thought it was the term "wrongwingers that got you into the trouble excon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I certainly agree, more often it’s who you know, than what you did.

This guy in the toilet is not very bright; for instance, had it been Clinton he would have denied everything, had the witness paid off or desecrated, and Clinton would have walked away with the news media writing stories about how the witness was unstable or a flat-out criminal

---

Yep, any idiot that plans on pleading his innocence to the public and blaming a newspaper for his troubles should not first plead guilty and pay the fine.

I had not planned on discussing BJ Clinton but since he may become First Philanderer soon then maybe he is still relevant.

Everyone concentrates on the consentual sex he had . There were many reasons that was in extremely poor judgement . But it was a minor sexcapade in my view compared to the sexual harassment allegations and in one instance a convincing allegation of rape that the press to this day sweeps under the rug. The whole revelation about Monica only became important because of his pergured testimony during a law suit by Paula Jones over sexual harassment .

These instances make playing footsie with an undercover cop look minor league . Yet Clinton is still treated like a rock star. Go figure. Feminist who should be outraged at his abuse of women cream when they see him.

Was what Clinton did worse than what Larry Craig did ? I would ask Juanita Broaddrick , Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones,and yes... even Monica Lewinski, what they think.

Quote:

---

These kinds of indiscretions transcend Party lines.

---

I'm not sure of that . Barney Frank had a gay prostitution business being conducted in his apartment and he still serves in the House.

Where excon has a point is that if you are going to play on the moral high ground you had better walk the walk also .

Hello again, El:

This is an educated man who MAKES law. He has access to the BEST legal minds in the country. If he didn't know enough to get a lawyer, then he was suffering from slippage of the mind. Further evidence of his long slide is his recent attempt at recantation... Because you can't recant a guilty plea. You just can't.

Before a judge accepts a guilty plea, he goes through a litany of questions, making absolutely certain that a defendant knows and fully understands what he is about to do, and what the full and complete consequences are. Then he's asked again.

Given the above, he's facing an impossible task. I can only imagine his torment, that he would humiliate himself and his family, instead of simply speaking the truth.

But, he gets no sympathy from me. If he was just some schmuck who got caught with his pants down, I'd feel sorry for him. But, he's a LAWMAKER. He makes laws based on how much he hates himself. That kind of guy SHOULD be publicly scorned, and he's doing a great job of doing it to himself. If you live by "family values", then you die by "family values".

Of course, you'd think the Dems had something to do with it.

excon

PS> What happened to your post? Chicken??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm not sure of that . Barney Frank had a gay prostitution business being conducted in his apartment and he still serves in the House.

Where excon has a point is that if you are going to play on the moral high ground you had better walk the walk also .

---

Guess we will see how it all plays out.

I stand by my judgment; “Public Toilets” is where people often have to take their children, and there is no Toilet constituency to vote Larry Craig into, or, out of office. Frank remains one of the Democrats' most respected members and continues to fight for gay rights, including same-sex marriage; no comparisons exist between the two.

I don't think, high moral ground, makes t hoot of difference in this particular case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, he gets no sympathy from me. If he was just some schmuck who got caught with his pants down, I'd feel sorry for him. But, he's a LAWMAKER. He makes laws based on how much he hates himself. That kinda guy SHOULD be publicly scorned, and he's doing a great job of doing it to himself. If you live by "family values", then you die by "family values".

---

He gets no sympathy from me either, ex... I don't think he gets sympathy from any of us here. I have no sympathy for anyone that solicits sex with strangers, especially perverts of any orientation that can't get from one airport to another without controlling themselves in public restrooms. He's getting the scorn, and deservedly so, but for different reasons. Republicans are angry and disappointed over the damage he's caused, Democrats are all over this for political gain, and gays are upset that he just doesn't come on out. I can only imagine how his wife feels.

I do agree that "If you live by "family values", then you die by "family values," but still can't help wondering why the left seems immune to accountability to any standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Contrary to Republicans, the Dems don't think homosexuality is wrong, therefore practicing it doesn't violate any standard. Makes sense to me.

---

Ex, not on any specific issue, I said and meant "any standards."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

still can't help wondering why the left seems immune to accountability to any standards.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I think the Dems have a standard or two that rank much HIGHER on the moral playing field. Things like torture, like being illegally searched and spied upon, like habeas corpus, like having our justice department turned into an arm of the Republican party. Things like that...

Indeed, in terms of standards, I think the Dems have better ones.

excon

This is not necessarily the case, excon, “…the Dems don't think homosexuality is wrong”. Perhaps they only feel it is wrong to discriminate against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

PS> What happened to your post?? Chicken???

---

Nah... I decided it was worthy of a sepparate string. Have you ever known me to duck out of a political debate?

excon Huh? The Dems don't discriminate. They believe in same sex marriage...

How is believing in same sex marriage discrimination?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

How is believing in same sex marriage discrimination?

---

Hello again, DC:

I'm missing something here.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, DC:

I'm missing something here.

excon

---

When you find it let me know;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I think the Dems have a standard or two that rank much HIGHER on the moral playing field. Things like torture, like being illegally searched and spied upon, like habeas corpus, like having our justice department turned into an arm of the Republican party. Things like that....

Indeed, in terms of standards, I think the Dems have better ones.

---

I see, like the Goracle and his support for renditions that Bush is excoriated for; "Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ." It seems there have been a lot of standards that the Clinton administration set that only the GOP is held accountable for, renditions, regime change, attorney firings, etc. You know as well as I do that neither side is virtuous, but again it appears the GOP is held to even the same standards unequally. This is no defense of Craig, the idiot should go, but since the issue of accountability was raised (and has been many times) it seems fitting for someone to explain the double standard.