No "do-overs" for Larry "Wide Stance" Craig
Minnesota judge denies Craig's attempt to argue that when he plead guilty, (weeks after the offense) he meant the innocent kind of guilty.
It remains to be seen if Craig will continue in his state of denial and attempt to remain in Congress or resign.
UPDATE: This is delicious, Craig apparently has announced he's not going to resign but will serve out his entire term.
I can't wait to see the restroom in Minneapolis become a shrine to Republican hypocrisy during their convention.
All sane Republicans must be livid.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 10/04/2007
16 comments
16 Comments:
Clearly no one cares about a hypicritical gay congressman any more than they care about an openly gay congressman - Barney Frank, so I supose this is a good place to ask you a question...
A recent poll of 900 registered Democrat voters asked the following question,
Do you personally believe that the world would be better off if the United States lost the war in Iraq?
19% - YES
20% - Don't Know
39% of the Democrats that were asked could not answer this question with a YES!
This immediately made me think of you, Dope, as I suspect that you in your twisted thinking might likely struggle supporting the U.S. with a -Yes-
What has happened to turn the Democrats so against the United States?
Larry Craig's changing his mind about resigning reminds me of Barack Obama changing his mind (about serving out his Senate term) and deciding to run for president.
I don't condone Larry Craig's actions and for all I care the Senate can expel him. But at least Craig is willing to do his job as a Senator. I cannot say that much for Barack Obama.
HA! You're truly a joke.
And your utterly unsourced bullshit poll results also reminded me of YOU... since that's pretty much all you can rely on to try to make points, since reality doesn't back you up.
Provide the source and then we can judge just how accurate those supposed results are. I'd lay 10 to 1 that it's a phony poll by some right wing outfit. (or at the very least, you've completely skewed and misrepresented the actual results.)
Odd reasoning there Nico.
One guy is a closet gay cruising bathrooms for sex, the other is a gifted and charismatic Senator with a huge and rabid following.
Yeah, they're just the same.
No wonder you're miffed that Obama chose to run.
Frankly, the very idea of even minding that he changed his mind seems rather small potatoes.
But as far as Craig "changing his stance"... he's done it what, three times now?
Even if the guy was utterly innocent in some legal way, everyone knows what he was up to, and the fact that his credibility and ability to achieve anything politically has been destroyed should be enough for an honorable person to justify resigning immediatly. But not Craig.
Obama on the other hand, though not able to devote 100% to his senatorial duties, actually does cast votes and is active in sponsoring legislation. It's not as if he's doing nothing at all.
Ok Dope, how would you answer, I am a little curious,
Do YOU believe that the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq?
Simple question. I would hope that you could provide a simple answer...
First of all, if I wanted to have a discussion of the so-called "war" here, the post would have been about it. It's not.
But here's your simple answer, (which identifies you as a rightie, since they like to think the world can be dealt with in comic book shades of black and white with simple explanations and simple answers)
We've lost the "war" already.
And yes, in hindsight, I think we'd be MUCH better off if we hadn't blundered into Iraq.
I think we should have kept our focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan where the actual terrorists who had attacked us were and where they operate, and never have took our eyes off the ball to indulge in a bunch of megalomaniac weirdo ideologue's dreams of oil empire.
The Iraqi people are worse off, the terror threat is much more wide-spread, the standing of our country globally is in the tank, we've utterly squandered our economic future and recklessly passed the collossal debt onto our grandchildren, and we've weakened our military and our economy to the point that we're more vulnerable than we've been in the past 100 years.
So yeah, maybe we'd all have been better off without invading Iraq.
I could explain my reasoning further, but I don't want to burden the short attention span crowd.
Humor me by actually answering the question. It is, indeed a black and white question...
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THE U.S. LOST THE WAR IN IRAQ?
This really is a simple question that can be answered by a yes/ no answer.
Not some misdirection of, "yes, we would have been better off not invading Iraq," but a simple answer to a simple question based on the REALITY of the present situation.
I know that someone with your vast intelligence can handle a simple question based on reality, even if it does not have much theory in it.
For your simple black and white mind, here's a simple black and white answer:
We lost the "war" the minute we invaded the wrong country and botched the aftermath so thoroughly one wouldn't have thought it possible, so it's a moot question.
It's such an unwinnable mess that the best hope possible is for us to find the least worst course and minimize what already is an intractible global disaster.
That's the best "victory" anyone's going to get, and that's from the mouths of top brass as well as many Republicans.
PS. If that reply is too long for you to comprehend, try to ask someone nice to help you with it.
Dope, that is not even a fair attempt at a dodge.
1. We are in Iraq.
2. We are fighting in Iraq.
3. No clear thinking person would state that the war in Iraq has been lost (although I would love to see Hillary make that claim!),
So, I will ask again...
DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THE U.S. LOST THE WAR IN IRAQ?
Yes - or - No?
(soon, I suspect that you'll censor this as you seem unable to answer a simple question).
Anon 5:42.
Not exactly. Soon I'll "censor" your obsessive and thick headed argumentitive statements because you won't accept the clear answers I've given over and over again.
Just because you want to ignore my answers doesn't mean you can then say I haven't answered.
And yes, MANY "clear-thinking" people believe this so-called "war" was lost long ago, including many generals who were commanding the troops in Iraq.
The fact is that the situation in Iraq will never be, and by definition can never be, "won".
The fact is abundantly clear to everyone, (except yourself and maybe a third of the population stuck in denial) that there can no longer be a continuation of the "do nothing but flounder and play for time" non-strategy of this administration.
Our entire mission must (and will) change if we're to at least try to extract our military presense and minimize the ultimately disasterous results.
The alternative is to simply continue to spend billions of dollars every few days, continue to send soldiers into a killing field where they're nothing but targets for factions in a civil war, and continue on the path to further weakening and ultimately destroying both our military and our country.
We WILL have to get out at some point. This is much like Russia in Afghanistan. It simply can not be sustained indefinitely, no matter what chest thumping irrational war mongering you do.
You can continue to hemmorhage billions and trillions of dollars and gallons of U.S. blood and change the equation there not enough to notice, or you can try to find someway, even if it's ultimately costly, to at least bring it to an end.
You can dismiss this view which is held by a majority of those who know the score and are or have been intimately familiar with the situation on the ground if you want, but simply dismissing it all isn't an argument.
WE ARE NOT BETTER OFF FOR HAVING INVADED IRAQ.
If you can't comprehend that, then yeah, your drivel will be "censored" because you're laboring under the weird obsession that you can somehow get me to say what you want simply by asking the same question over and over, and ignoring any answer you don't agree with.
I've already given you my answer several times. Suck it up and go away.
You have an interesting means to answer a YES or NO question!
Anon 9:46.
I'm really sorry that you're too thick to realize that not all questions can be answered with yes, or no, and that apparently you think that if it can't, then you win.
To answer a yes or no question, both choices have to be actual real choices, not some imaginary fantasy that exists in your head.
This is going to be the last time I waste my time with you.
Listen carefully.
Your question MAKES NO SENSE. It's a bogus question.
It's like demanding a yes or no answer to "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?" or "Is it as hot in the summer as it is on the farm?"
Your question is based on the premise that we will either "win" or "lose".
It assumes that there even exists a possibility of somehow "winning" or "losing".
That's simply invalid in this situation as the "war" was lost from before it started as it's put us in a position from which there can be no conceivable "win". OK?
There IS NO "win" or "lose" involved, as it was an incredibly ill-conceived and reckless action to begin with, and compounded by simply stupid and ill-advised decisions both in planning and in handling the aftermath by largely ideological right wing functionarys as well as the Bush administration.
This is already more than well documented.
You can't demand that I evaluate what it would be like if we "lost" a war that's not even a "war" to begin with, and to which there is simply no possible definition of "winning" that isn't some fantasy.
At this point, anyone who knows what they're talking about knows full well that there is no conceivable "victory" or "winning" involved.
It's either try to stand down from the current (and utterly failed) military presense and "strategy" (actually no strategy whatsoever) or believe that if we just continue to funnel billions upon billions of dollars and thousands upon thousandsd of U.S. military into Iraq with absolutely NO perceptible signs of real progress in any area, and continue to do this indefinitely, 20, 30, 100 years into the future.
Is your idea of "winning" establishing the world's most expensive armed outpost in the middle of a soverign country and using it as a base to try to militarily control the population and the region?
That's been going well.
And what the hell do you consider "losing"? That I'd like to know.
You demand a yes or no answer to a question that makes no sense on it's face.
If by "losing" you mean admitting a mistake and taking steps to mitigate the damage, then yeah, I'd say we'd be better off.
It just so happens that most of the country as well as the rest of the civilized world agrees.
I'm sorry you're reduced to being unable to understand anything which involves something beyond "yes" or "no". I know there's several good programs for folks like you, ARC is one. Look into it.
Do you personally believe that the color blue is prettier than the color green?
Do you personally believe that cupcakes are better than carrots?
Do you persoanlly believe that ceramic tile is better than carpet?
These are all simple questions of opinion, no different than,
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THE U.S. LOSES IN IRAQ?
You certainly understand that it is a question of your opinion, and you certainly understand what losing is.
Why is it so difficult for you to provide YOUR OPINION on a simple question?
You moron.
YOU can't even tell us what "winning" or "losing" is, so don't try to characterize your nonsense demand for me (or anyone rldr) to offer an "opinion" between two completely unknown and impossible to define choices.
If you can't process the responses I've already wasted enough time giving you, then I can't help you.
Go waste someone else's time.
Go away.
Dope, no one is ever going to convince a simpleton that wars are not won and lost but instead fought to achieve political objectives.
And when the simpletons can't even explain the political objectives, it's a lost cause. They'll just keep looking for a scoreboard that doesn't exist, as if they're sitting in a stadium waiting for the game to end.
Wars biggest cheerleaders are the spectators that never unass themselves to join the fight.
Well said Huck.
I'm still getting comments from this braying ass insisting that I'm against America winning any wars. Incredible.
Post a Comment
<< Home