Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[Dionisio]

No, it is true, and your statement that "he pled guilty because he IS
guilty" is unsubstantiated - you have no evidence as to what went
through his pointy little head. The facts are that he denied being
guilty over and over and over after the incident was reported in the
media.

Oh let's just cut to the chase: No One says politicians have a tendency to discard the
truth. No One believes Craig. I believe Craig discarded the truth too. We're in agreement;
But that shall be denied till the Second Coming.

Oh, and one of us is a hypocrite.

--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

Math and alcohol don't mix! Please don't drink and derive!
(A message from Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving.)

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

Why can't you answer that simple question?

I'm asking for your position.

Curse you! Curse you and the duck you rode in on!

Toying with those of us who have dirty minds like that!!!

(Fortunately, I bought some bleach yesterday at the supermarket, so I'm not as bad off as
those poor unfortunates who don't have even Mental Floss(TM). But still...)


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

The best way to keep your children out of hot water? Put some dishes in it.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[No One]

Oh let's just cut to the chase: No One says politicians have a
tendency to discard the truth. No One believes Craig. I believe Craig
discarded the truth too. We're in agreement; But that shall be denied
till the Second Coming.

Oh, and one of us is a hypocrite.

The hypocrite is you (and FYI I never claimed Craig was factually
innocent, just that the prosecution had a very weak case.) Nor did I
ever claim to believe him - you made that up - but I don't think the
evidence is conclusive either. In fact, it is rather flaky -
circumstantial with nothing really definitive. I put the
probabability that he was soliciting sex at around 98% given the
evidence, but that IMHO is not sufficient to satisfy the "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria jurors are supposed to use.

Now, explain why noting that politicians (in general) have a
tendency to ignore the truth when it suits them can be mapped into
a statement that Craig lied in this case in particular? Also
explain why you think you can use the signing of a plea bargain
as proof of guilt when it can be done merely for expedience?

 

[Dionisio]

I never said that. What I said is that there was a lack of evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt. I quoted some of what he had said (e.g.,
in the police interview tapes) because that is part of the evidence
they would use, and it just wasn't compelling.

LOL! You have more faith in ye ol' Senator than some Fundamentalists have in God; Pray
tell us what we're supposed to make of that.

ROTFLMAO. The guy is a U.S. senator! They do deals. It is part of the
job. If "moral folks don't do deals" as you claim, then there are no
"moral folks" in the U.S. Senate.

Shades of "believe what I say, disbelieve what I do."

(And yes, we know he says he's innocent. We also know that he signed -- on penalty of
perjury -- a document in which he personally, and specifically, confessed to something a
mite less than innocence. But maybe a person earning more than $100K per year is too poor
to afford a lawyer...
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htm )

Maybe that passes as evidence in Homophobiaville, but anyone with
half a brain would consider it laughable. If that's the best they
can do, the evidence is pretty weak: if Craig is gay, he must be
nearly celebate.

Funny you should bring his family life into this... Now, about his kids...

(Not his *wife's* kids, *his* kids.)


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"I was court-martialed in my absence, and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they
could shoot me in my absence."
-- Brendan Behan

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[No One]

LOL! You have more faith in ye ol' Senator than some Fundamentalists
have in God; Pray tell us what we're supposed to make of that.

Another of your lies or inability to read. Here are the facts: the
whole case amounted to "he said, the police said," with what the
police said requiring the police to read Craig's mind to infer
any criminal activity.

<snip - Dionisio is just ranting like he usually does.>

 

[Dionisio]

Another of your lies or inability to read. Here are the facts: the
whole case amounted to "he said, the police said," with what the
police said requiring the police to read Craig's mind to infer
any criminal activity.

Oh, sure... You believe that he's 98% guilty, and you also harp -- most prolifically --
that "he says he's innocent." But let's not spin things...

As for the facts: Craig decided to side with the police, sort of. Shades of a deal? Yep.
Shades of innocence? Nope.

<snip - Dionisio is just ranting like he usually does.>

Now this is fun! What didn't you like? Oh, dear. His family life!

Funny you should bring his family life into this... Now, about his kids...
(Not his *wife's* kids, *his* kids.)

Name his biological progeny. Go ahead. What's that? Are you suddenly suspecting that he's
as celibate as a Catholic priest?

<snicker>



--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

You know you've created God in your own image when He hates the exact same people that you do.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

The hypocrite is you (and FYI I never claimed Craig was factually
innocent, just that the prosecution had a very weak case.) Nor did I
ever claim to believe him - you made that up

"Craig says he's innocent."

"Craig says he's innocent."

"Craig says he's innocent."

"Craig says he's innocent."

"Craig says he's innocent."

"Craig says he's innocent."





- but I don't think the

evidence is conclusive either. In fact, it is rather flaky -
circumstantial with nothing really definitive. I put the
probabability that he was soliciting sex at around 98% given the
evidence, but that IMHO is not sufficient to satisfy the "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria jurors are supposed to use.

Now, explain why noting that politicians (in general) have a
tendency to ignore the truth when it suits them can be mapped into
a statement that Craig lied in this case in particular? Also
explain why you think you can use the signing of a plea bargain
as proof of guilt when it can be done merely for expedience?

--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

What are all these homophobes REALLY afraid of? Catching gayness? The answer of course is:
YES.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

I put the
probabability that he was soliciting sex at around 98% given the
evidence, but that IMHO is not sufficient to satisfy the "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria jurors are supposed to use.

Accidentally hit a key and posted before I meant to. Apologies.

Now on to the funny observation: It is curious that juries don't tend to get to listen to
defendants who voluntarily, of their own free will and sans coercion, sign confessions.
Don't you think?

No duress alleged. No torture. No extortion allegations. No Coercion. No death threats.
Not even a taser.

Pen. Paper. Signature.

Jury? Out the window.

Your red herring smells -- oddly enough -- fishy. (Which, curiously, isn't a scent he's
known to have detected outside of a market that sells aquatic denizens.)

Shocking.

Now, explain why noting that politicians (in general) have a
tendency to ignore the truth when it suits them can be mapped into
a statement that Craig lied in this case in particular?

Simple. He's a politician, and it suited him. (Like a fifty dollar rental, but thems the
facts.)

Also explain why you think you can use the signing of a plea bargain
as proof of guilt when it can be done merely for expedience?

Expedience? You want me to explain "a quickie" to you?!?

Ask Larry.


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

If you didn't make mistakes, there would be nothing to learn.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[No One]

Oh, sure... You believe that he's 98% guilty, and you also harp --
most prolifically -- that "he says he's innocent." But let's not
spin things...

As for the facts: Craig decided to side with the police, sort
of. Shades of a deal? Yep. Shades of innocence? Nope.

Shades of Dionisio lying about what I said: The statement "he
says he's innocent" was in a reply to a person who claimed that
he had admitted his guilt. He clearly has not admitted his gulit.
In fact, he's professed his lack of guilt over and over. It isn't
a question of whether he is guilty or innocent but a question of
what he actually said.

Now, why don't *you* have the intellectual integrity to stop your
infantile games and talk about what people actually say rather than
making things up. That persistent behavior on your part is why
I consider you to be a liar.

Now this is fun! What didn't you like? Oh, dear. His family life!

What are you talking about? I snipped it because you were ranting
and stopped reading your tripe.

Name his biological progeny. Go ahead. What's that? Are you suddenly
suspecting that he's as celibate as a Catholic priest?

<snicker>

Dionisio is now reduced to forging posts - pretending that his text was
written by me. In spite of the leading '>', the only part of this that
I wrote started with '> >>' in his quote. The rest was his, so this
idiot is arguing with himself and losing.

Furthermore, Dioniso's quote of my text had nothing to do with Craig's
wife, kids, adopted kids, or anything else about his family. I had
replied to another poster and discussed the male sex partners an Idaho
rag trotted out. After beating the bushes for who knows how long, the
cases they manage to find were so laughably absurd that the only
conclusion, if Craig were gay, is that he must be nearly celibate (and
in context, this means celibate regarding gay sex.)

 

[No One]

"Craig says he's innocent."
"Craig says he's innocent."
"Craig says he's innocent."
"Craig says he's innocent."
"Craig says he's innocent."
"Craig says he's innocent."

That's nice, and the fact that he says he's innocent means just what
I said: he has not admitted to being guilty but simply signed a plea
bargain as a deal with the prosecutor. He's a senator. Senators make
deals. That's part of their job. It comes to them naturally.

 

[No One]

Accidentally hit a key and posted before I meant to. Apologies.

Now on to the funny observation: It is curious that juries don't tend
to get to listen to defendants who voluntarily, of their own free will
and sans coercion, sign confessions. Don't you think?

He didn't sign a confession. He plea bargained.

No duress alleged. No torture. No extortion allegations. No
Coercion. No death threats. Not even a taser.

Just the Idaho Statesman, the rag that spent months investigating his
alleged sex life and turned up allegations involving Ted Haggard's
rent boy (probably just when the rent boy needed another stint on the
talk show circuit), a guy who remembered someone from 20 years ago
who looked or sounded a bit like Craig, one guy who thought Craig
looked at him funny, and another guy whose gaydar went off, whether
accurately or not. Then we had four people who were completely
anonymous with no details provided.

Pen. Paper. Signature.

Jury? Out the window.

Nope - if it were withdrawn (what he wants to do) it would be
challenged as not being admissible as evidence, so most likely the
jury would not see it. Furthermore, he'd have a convincing argument
as to why he wanted to avoid publicity: the _Idaho Statesman_ and the
hit piece that it was working on (now published). Furthermore, his
attorney would ask the jury, "if you were falsely accused of being gay
and having sex in a restroom, what would *you* do to stop it from
being spread all across the front page of nearly every paper in the
country?" It may sound silly to you, but much of the U.S. is still
in the dark ages and this argument would sound very compelling in
most of the country.

Nope, not "out the window" at all.

Your red herring smells -- oddly enough -- fishy. (Which, curiously,
isn't a scent he's known to have detected outside of a market that
sells aquatic denizens.)

Shocking.

Your red herring smells completely rotten. You've been trotting it
out for months.

Simple. He's a politician, and it suited him. (Like a fifty dollar
rental, but thems the facts.)



Expedience? You want me to explain "a quickie" to you?!?

Lame.

 

[No One]

I wasn't wrong because I never denied those two things.

So... What the **** are you talking about?

You were wrong. What do you think "untrue" referred to - it was to
factually accurate statements. Now you are just covering up.

We aren't discussing (or believing) what Craig SAID! He can tell us
there are Martians in his underwear. Nobody cares!

It was precisely what we were discussing: I had replied to Dionisio's
statement that Craig had "admitted his sins."

We are discussing what he DID.
His words mean nothing.

Do you understand what the word "admit" means?

He's a proven and likely pathological liar. That comes with the
territory when you live your life in a closet.

There is no evidence so far that he is any more of a liar than his
peers in the Senate, and certainly no proof that he is a pathological
liar. You might want to look up the term before using it.

Doesn't matter.

In the plea agreement, he said he was guilty.

Period.

So what? He was cutting a deal and you yourself just called him a
pathological liar, so why would you believe anything he signed?
You simply can't have it both ways. Trying to makes you look like
an idiot.

It's not unheard of for people to flush the toilet after using it,
either, but Larry Craig didn't seem to be bothered with that!

Really? You mean he didn't remember to flush the toilet when the
officer arrested him and you think that is somehow remarkable?

Again: It does NOT matter what is "unheard of" or "common" ... unless
you can prove that they apply to the case at hand.

Which you can't.

You have that backwards. Since we know of some cases of people
who are innocent signing plea bargains, it is *your* job to prove
that Craig is not one of them because it is *you* who are making
the claim that he is guilty.

LOL!
You think this is about MONEY?
LOL!
What a fucking retard.

Are you that stupid? It *is* about money - not the $500 but the really
major costs of damage control, particularly if (at the time) he was
still thinking of running for another term.

His gambling behaviors indicate that he is guilty, as he affirmed by
signing a document stating same and presenting it to the very judge
who was hearing his case.

No, it indicates that he cut a deal.

I made no mistakes here.

You've made so many mistakes that you are a complete joke.

Really?

Because I've seen you call OTHER people liars right here in this very
thread!

Lame - I was talking about the two of us and Dionisio only jumped
in again recently.

So if I'm the only one, and you're calling other people the same
thing... you're LYING!

LOL!!!!

You failed to understand both causality and context. Is it because
you are a compulsive liar or is it because you are an idiot?

 

[No One]

Don't you watch the news?
He's not celibate at all.
He gets his sex in airport bathrooms.

All I've seen are unproven allegations, which seems to be all that you
in particular are capable of. Come back when you find something really
convincing.

Why don't you give him a call and hit on him? Better you than me. Make
a video of it, since I won't trust what you say.

 

[No One]

Just the possibility of negative publicity on the front page of nearly
every paper in the U.S., being the butt of jokes on late night TV,
and so on and so on. It's typical of you - you ignore all the facts
that don't fit your conclusions, even after those facts are pointed
out to you.

Not even handcuffs (which, by the way, Craig lied about).

Craig was claimed to have said he was handcuffed. Whether that was true
or not is anyone's guess. At least some of what he was quoted as saying
was simply not said by him. The "wide stance" statement widely attributed
to him was actually made by the officer who arrested him as a paraphrase.
Craig had said he was a wide guy.

And LOTS of time before he had to sign and get it to the judge.

Lots of time to think about how the PR would affect him.

A jury would have fried his wide ass on both counts.

Unlikely - some of the defense attorneys for others caught in the sting
were interviewed and claimed that the case against Craig was pretty weak
and that they could have gotten him off. You can imagine what the sort
of lawyer Craig would hire would do.

 

[No One]

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!!!

You said that *I* am the only liar here! ME!!!

Idiot. Dionisio just jumped into the discussion.

Now ... oh, well. I guess you lied. Again.


Let me 'splain something to you, Loony.

The WRITTEN word in a SIGNED LEGAL DOCUMENT that is presented to a
JUDGE hearing one's CASE, is MUCH more powerful and believable than an
oral statement being uttered (by a politician!!!) without being under
oath.


He admitted it in a signed document that he presented to the judge who
presided over his case.

He's trying to back-pedal to save his wide ass.

But if he presented such a FALSE document to a judge, he's guilty of
perjury as well as all the rest of it. And that also strengthens the
case with respect to his non-stop fibbing.

Plea bargaining while innocent is not perjury.

parrot. Or a whining baby. Waah! Waah! Waah! Waah!

Is that your way of admitting that you were wrong about what he
claimed?

W H A T ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? !

You wouldn't have to shout "W H A T" if you'd bother to read a full
sentence before making a fool of yourself.

We all know what he said. We have an official signed document
presented to his judge, and we have his oral blathering and whining in
environments where he isn't under oath.

ROTFLMOA. You are *still* ignoring the fact that a plea bargain
is simply a deal.

Why do YOU consider only his oral statement that he is not guilty, and
completely ignore the signed legal document he presented to a judge in
which he affirms that he is, indeed, guilty?

The "legally signed document" is essentially an agreement between him
and the DA. He cut a deal and hoped it would stay quiet. When it didn't,
he proclaimed his innocence. He couldn't have proclaimed his innocence
while he was trying to keep it quiet without drawing attention to himself.

This may be difficult for you to follow, but he sequence of events is
critical to understanding what is going on.

His actual guilt or innocence is not relevant - he was not in any
way admitting his guilt, and that was the issue being discussed.

Oops! You didn't answer the question.
You do that a lot.

I'll note how you are quite willing to let post forging slide by.
That says a lot about you. I ignored your "question" because it was
(a) stupid and (b) based on Dionisio misrepresenting what I had
said. That liar does that quite often, and not just with me.

Anyway, Craig has no biological children. And he has no biological
grandchildren. And he never has had. And he never will. Because
he's a gay man who trolls public latrines for **** buddies.

So what if he has no biological children? And your claims about his
restroom behavior are unsubstantiated. Try acting like an adult and
come back when you have some really solid proof.

 

[No One]

Naw. Everyone can look back in the thread and they'll know you're
lying.

You really are a bald-faced lying slimeball, aren't you! I'll note
that you had to cut the quoted text where the use of the word "untrue"
was clearly shown. It must have been embarassing to you for your lies
to be so obvious.

It's sad that you keep doing this.

It's sad that you are a pathological liar - you just lie, lie, and lie
for the sake of lying.

We're talking about his guilt with respect to trolling a public
restroom for sex, and his guilt to the resulting charges of peeping
and disorderly conduct.

No we weren't talking about that. We were talking about whether he
had "admitted his sins" as that Dionisio idiot claimed. He hadn't,
but rather proclaimed his innocence as loudly as he could once it
hit the press.

So what he *says* isn't really all that important.

It is important when the discussion is about what he said.

Let's take a page from "No One's Guide of 'What Happens to Some
Automatically Happens to All'".

Many many many people charged with crimes claim not to have commited
those crimes.

Some of the guilty and nearly all of the innocent, with some innocent
indivuals falsely confessing or plea bargaining becuase they can't
defend themselves against a more serious charge, lacking the financial
resources to pay for a good lawyer and not trusting an overworked
public defender.

So we can just put Craig in with THAT bunch, because that makes more
sense that what you're trying (unsuccessfully) to present.

Nope - weak argument on your part. You are trying to prove his guilt
so it is your responsibility to look at every possiblity that could
prove that your hypothesis is wrong.

Of course I do!

No you don't.

He admitted to guilt in the document he presented to his judge!

He cut a deal with a DA and signed a document they gave to a judge.

*You* seem to be the one who has a trouble understanding the word
"admit".

You sure as hell didn't understand it at the very start of the
exchange, where Dionisio put out some nonsense about Craig
admitting his sins.

Oh jesus. We aren't comparing him with others in the Senate.
That's ridiculous.

The guy is in fact a senator, and his behavior regarding making deals
and fibbing is about average for members of that body.

Yet below you call me a "compulsive liar".

LOL!!!

I think you need a nap.

You are a compulsive liar. You sure do it enough. I've yet to see
a post from you on this thread were you didn't lie.

 

[No One]

I don't date lying closet-case Republicans who have a "wide stance"

Him being a closet case is mere speculation. But you should try to
date him. If you think he is gay, think of it as a community service.

 

[No One]

He should have spent that time talking to a lawyer, like anyone ELSE
who had nothing to hide would do.

ROTFLMAO. In his position, he could have been completely innocent
and had something to hide - being arrested in a bathroom sting,
whether the arrest was deserved or not.

 

[No One]

"Plea bargaining" is a process that occurs before a deal is made and a
plea is entered. It's *bargaining*. So you might be correct in that
Craig probably wouldn't technically have committed perjury during the
bargaining process.

But the plea BARGAINING ends when the document is signed.

Larry Craig did not sign a "plea deal". He signed Petition to Enter
Plea of Guilty.

And once that signed statement is handed to the judge, if there are
untruths in it................... yeah, that's perjury.

Not really - the document was in fact written by the D.A. and Craig
could argue that all he admitted to was being clumsy - inadvertantly
stepping on the officer's foot or what not. But, if it was false
and the D.A. determined what the document would contain (the normal
case), then do you think we should try the DA for suborning perjury
if any statements in the document are false? If the choice was
"take it or risk being tried on a far more serious charge where the
trial alone would be a major embarassment", then what?

He has publicly claimed to be innocent. In oral statements. Not
under oath and he has NEVER told a judge that he is innocent.

And in the original post that set you off, Dionisio stated that
Craig had admitted his sins. Of course, Craig did nothing of the
kind - he signed a document that he figured would be so deeply
burried that nobody would notice.

He also filed a statment with the court indicating that he was
in fact innocent - he tried, if you remember, to have his plea
withdrawn.

He has also publicly, in a court of law, claimed to be guilty. In a
written petition. With the understanding that the information he was
presenting to the judge was FACTUAL.

So, I'm gonna take what he said to the JUDGE to be the real deal, and
what he's saying out of court to be lies.

If you believe that, you are a fool. There is no rational basis for
believing that. Basically, nobody except Craig knows for sure.

<rest of this moron's idiocy snipped out of boredom>

 

[No One]

You want a video?

I wanted a video showing Craig en flagrante, not some infotainment or
whatever the hell they call that junk on TV.

Here's a video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/...id-senator-craig-commit-perjury-in-minnesota/

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin laid out a fantastic breakdown of
Senator Larry Craig's bizarre claims surrounding his bathroom sex
scandal. If, as Craig claims, he wasn't guilty of the charges against
him and only pleaded guilty to make the scandal go away, then as
Toobin puts it, he committed perjury by pleading guilty to the judge
in Minnesota. Did Senator Craig feel that being a convicted criminal
would make him look better than denying the charges altogether? Great
analysis from Toobin...

All of which is pure BS. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea>.

United States

A defendant who pleads guilty must do so, in the phraseology
of a 1938 Supreme Court case, "knowingly, voluntarily and
intelligently". The burden is on the prosecution to prove that
all waivers of the defendant's rights complied with due
process standards. Accordingly, in cases of all but the most
minor offenses, the court or the prosecution (depending upon
local custom and the presiding judge's preference) will engage
in a plea colloquy wherein they ask the defendant a series of
rote questions about the defendant's knowledge of his rights
and the voluntariness of the plea.

Furthermore, in his plea, Craig only admitted to "engag[ing] in
conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or
resentment of others, which conduct was physical (versus veral) in
nature." See
<http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html>

Craig can claim that his conduct was merely that of inadvertently
bumping the officer's foot, and that it is not perjury to sign a
document that states that he should have known others would find it
offensive, which is a different statement than one as to whether the
conduct occurred knowingly.

So, your guy Toobin is out to lunch on it, and so are you. Now,
come back again when you have something substantial, not the mere
opinion of some random person associated with a web site or TV
program.