Texsox

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) Oh come on. Kap, when was the last time we bombed a Christian country? OK, upon further review, I'll retract that as hyperbole. But it is an interesting fact of who we bomb and who we send money to.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:41 AM) Some things are pretty common sense. If you lose more of your paycheck you spend less money. If everyone spends less money, the economy contracts. It isn't rocket science. If spending money is the key, then it doesn't matter who spends it, public or private. The government at least has restrictions and usually has to buy American. Of course, it doesn't buy votes, whcih is why some politicans love tax cuts. And common sense also tells us that those loans have to be paid back, with interest. An economy based on borrowed money, is at risk. Why you are in favor of giving yourself a dollar today, so that your daughter has to pay back $5 later, doesn't make sense. If we can't afford it today, what makes you think we can afford the bigger price tag later?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) Wow, are you kidding? Seriously... OF COURSE they are left of where you are... because they are pandering to the fringe loony bins of the party to get through the primary. Now next spring, after the nominee is all but cemented, both sides will RUN to the center. It's pathetic, actually. Remember Kap, socially I am conservative, and I favor only spending what we collect in taxes (that use to be a GOP bedrock position), I am also in favor of restrictions on abortions and love my guns. So it is easy to see why many Dem candidates will be left of me. I also look at GOP candidates and they require me to love them exclusively and dislike the controls our Constitution places on them (Judges, Free Press). I'd also have to acknowledge the inherited superiority of old, white, guys. I'd have to love the death penalty, embrace killing people whose culture isn't like our own. So I am lost somewhere in between. . .

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) They have hit him hard on any mistakes he has made. To be honest, he is running his campaign too cleanly to beat Hillary. The only Dem who really could beat Hill is Edwards, because he isn't afraid to do whatever it takes to win. Hell he is an ambulence chaser for god's sake, how much more dirty can you get? He'll has taken the gloves off at every turn. His problem is that he abandoned the middle of the road that he held in the 04 election, and went way too far to the left. Hillary will beat him down because she will take everything in the middle. And the middle is where I want someone to be, but somehow they all seem left of me.

And while I am a big fan of soft science, economics is inexact.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) To be honest, the only top contender for the Dems I don't dispise is Obama. I do at least respect him. Richardson also seems decent, but he has zero chance at winning. I am not much of a Guiliani fan, but of all the repubs, he might be the most electable because he has some middle of the road positions. Romney has flipped flopped more than an IHOP, and the rest of them hardly merit a mention. Thompson is interesting, as he is really selling himself as a Reagan Republician, but I am in wait and see mode on him. I do wish more candidates had waited as long as he did to declare, but what are you going to do. That is pretty close to my asessment. Where's the beef?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:06 AM) Again, I think this is the BEST candidate field I've had in my voting lifetime (first Prez vote: 1992, so admitedly I've only had 5, including this one). The problem isn't a lack of decent candidates - its that the WORST ones from each party (Clinton, Giuliani) are the ones getting all the press. They are high in the polls because of their name recognition - not their abilities. And that, I am afraid, is the fault of the voting public. It is the best field of personalities.

Jenks, far more than 500,000 are working without a SS number. Employers are more careful than that. Plus, as has been pointed out before, most of these are low paying jobs and will result in a net loss in revenue, after benefits are paid. And it doesn't matter who is earning that paycheck. We actually save money when those jobs are off the books. Low paying jobs, and not specifically the people who work them, put the strain on the economy. We have so many programs to help the working poor. Health care, child care, education, etc. These are tied to income. So if we could magically convince a generation of US born and raised kids, born to US born and raised parents, that they should take these jobs, we would still have the same drain on the economy. And we would have wasted, in many cases, the tens of thousands of dollars we have invested in these kids through our public education systems.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 07:34 AM) And that law should change, NOW. You are correct. We will be spitting in the face of thousands of years of precedent, but back when Jesus was walking the earth, we were not as mobile, and the stakes not as high, as today. Living here on the border, I see clearly what a difference it makes in being born in hospitals literally only a few miles apart.

^^^^SS^^^^ I am still trying to warm up to a candidate. Early on I thought McCain would be the guy, but he's falling flat in my eyes. Edwards was intriguing, but I'm not matching up well with him. Hillary would be about my last candidate. I think I would prefer Edwards to Hillary. I'm thinking you may want Hillary as the Dem nominee, knowing she'd have a harder time getting elected. Although, no one on the Rep side is exciting me. This is the worse group of candidates in my lifetime, but, the most exciting speakers and personalities. We may have finally reached Hollywood, reality show, levels.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 10:45 PM) Ignorance is bliss. It certainly helped this President get elected, twice.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 10:46 PM) Why are you just beating the abosolute f*** out of this long, stinky, dead-ass horse? You have an infatuation with this whole thing, and it's starting to get scary. I direct you to the "not specific to this" I also would like to point out that you are continuing to read so it must be entertaining or in some way attracting your attention. Plus it is one of only two threads that anyone is doing anything with. So start another topic. BTW. my post count is not too far past PA or NSS BTW, if you read closely, NSS72 and Rex have changed my mind. Just be careful that you do not, like for example Wisconsin did a few years back*. accidentally stumble on some gay code and get arrested. *Wisconsin used an ad line in the early 80s, Wisconsin, You're Among Friends and decided to quickly withdraw the line when it was learned that it was a sort of gay code to identify a gay friendly environment.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) Interesting. Thanks for the info. I had thought it was a lewd conduct charge the arrived at. It its just disorderly conduct, the threshold is lower. I think he'd have a very hard time overturning that, not even to mention how unusual it is to try to overturn such a thing after voluntarily entering into a plea agreement. I wonder how much expectation of privacy one has in a public restroom? Not specific to this, but basically in some bathrooms the stalls have no doors (thinking the old Stadium). At a trough, all the dicks are hanging out. I would think there could no expectation of privacy?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) My town wouldn't have to hire the 8 spanish to english teachers they have in just the one school to help with all the spanish only or spanish forst students. They wouldn't have to have spanish as a requirement for the police department which would increase their applicant pool and be easier to hire good cops. The taxes we all pay cold go a lttle further towards all the pork our lovely politicians enjoy passing. Will your taxes change? hell, they almost never go down. but they may take a little longer before going up. What town has a requirement to speak Spanish to be a cop? They don't even do that here on the border.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:57 PM) The cop didn't have to know anything about his intent. He was charged because his actions were considered alarming (also for violating privacy, but that was dropped). It doesn't matter, legally, if the actions mean, "Let's have sex here" or "Let's have sex at my place" or "I was hoping you could give me the name of a good house painter". The actions themselves are the crime. Tapping your foot and offering a hand shake is alarming and therefor illegal? When did alarming become illegal?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) He motioned something with his hand, I honestly don't recall what they said the motion was. May have just been a wave. I have no idea. Regardless, the cop knew what Craig wanted, based on the illegal acts of others in the same situation, exhibiting the same behaviors. Are you comfortable arresting and convicting one person based on the actions of others?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:28 PM) You are again pointing at examples not in the same territory. Look again at the litany of actions Craig undertook. Then take that obvious motive to its end. The last link - the actual act - cannot be established for numerous reasons. So they get as far as they can with it. And they are doing it, I'd bet, because people were complaining about it. If it were a co-ed bathroom and they got complaints, they'd probably do something about that too. Calling a hooker over to a car isn't enough, just as simply waving a hand under a stall isn't enough. Too much doubt. Could be offering the prostitute money and then drives off. Could be the senator was out of TP. But with EVERYTHING Craig did, there simply is no reasonable doubt. Just like if you waved a hooker to your car, flashed money, pointed at your crotch then motioned her to get in. good point. I'm starting to agree with you. Did Craig motion to his crotch? Did Craig somehow indicate he wanted sex there and not someplace where it would be legal? Or was it the illegal actions of others that determined that he had an illegal act in mind?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) Come on...you know you want to. Same Bea photo with her eyes blacked out, right?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) You were the one who harped on the fact that no illegal act occurred. If the cop doesn't act, how else would it occur? I simply closed the loophole you were attempting to open. Here's is the calm question. Comparing this to other busts, why isn't calling a hooker/drug dealer/bookie over to a car enough? It seems to me that is the point where he was busted. And let's take this step by step with Craig. It appears that just intending to commit a crime is enough. Is two people in one stall a crime? No. Parents take their kids all the time. Is exposing yourself in a restroom illegal? No. You have to at a urinal. But any of these would be a crime, if the cop *knows* it will lead to a crime? I believe they cops are pinning their prosecutions on guys not wanting to be labeled gay. If this was a straight crime, they would need a lot more because the guy would be saying, yeah, I hit on her. She's gorgeous and I'd do her anywhere. Would I do her in a restroom? Damn yes if she was willing. Do you honestly believe he would have been busted? BTW, stall sitting has to be the worst undercover assignment. Think the guy kept his pants around his ankles?

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) Well yeah, who said that they should? That's more or less northside putting words into my mouth. Interesting that if Craig and the cop exchanged roles, the cop could have been busted as well. He clearly intended to engage in an illegal sex act. I fall way short in calling this entrapment, but that's part of the game. And, upon further reflection, we are talking about a misdemeanor. I'm not certain if the cops should have more or less leeway in such a minor victimless crime.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) Not sure what you mean, but you realize that Thompson served more years in the Senate than either Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, right? Nope, I forgot. Thanks for reminding me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) LEGAL intent. Not the psychological term intent. Important difference. Legal intent was clearly manifest here. Sting-type operations do not require the illegal act to be successful - the burden of proof is to get enough evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to the next act. You cannot expect cops to actually engage in the illegal act itself. I agree. Cops should not engage in the illegal act. Which of course this cop was by sitting in a known cruising restroom, waiting to be propositioned, exactly like a criminal would. He lingered way longer than what would happen if he was using the restroom for "the intended purpose". Why not have the cop ask, what do you want?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) With every subject. Kap wants a thousands replies all saying I agree! and You are so right!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) What, you mean this? I don't even have to follow the link

It was a crime because the cops *knew* the mating ritual and signals. They *knew* his intent. Using the hooker in a bar analogy. If he downed a quick shot and bought a condom, should he be arrested for talking to the hooker? If he taps his foot and winks? All I'm saying is I'd feel better if there was some verbal exchange where the criminal asks or offers public sex, same as the threshold for prostitutes. Although, in this case, I agree there may have been enough.