Top story today - 8 men had sex with Sen. Craig.
The report clearly and openly admits they have absolutely NO PROOF, but because there is also no proof that it didn't happen they report as if it were true. Even worse, this NO PROOF story is listed as a top story.
Bet you if Craig tries to investigate to clear his name they will cry foul - a serious catch-22, the damage cannot be undone.
2007-12-03 01:06:22 · 6 answers · asked by Bleh! 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I still find it amazing the liberal take on the meaning of "NO PROOF" as the store clearly admits.
Being a senator it is extremely easy to find out where he has been and make up a story for those who want their 15 minutes of fame.
2007-12-03 02:03:17 · update #1
Good catch. That's the media for you.
Interesting to apply this concept to the whole God debate, wouldn't you think?
2007-12-03 01:13:22 · answer #1 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, what more proof do you need that Larry Craig picks up and has sex with strange men from gay public meeting spots then pleading guilty to such an act at a Minneapolis airport bathroom? That other men admit to having sex with Larry Craig is just icing on the cake.
Taken alone of course, it wouldn't be conclusive of anything. However, I think the case was already proven he has sex with random men. If Larry Craig wanted to clear his name, he should have never pleaded guilty in the first place. He's a lawyer, you can't say he didn't know any better.
2007-12-03 09:14:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will be their words against his, I think this is no longer relevant, he did pleaded guilty right? How many time should he be crucified? Also, I greatly believed that if this is true, then it is a consented act, perhaps with money changing hands. However, if anyone of those 8 men is a minor, then it is a different story, he should be hanged for molesting a child.
2007-12-03 09:23:03 · answer #3 · answered by alecs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof is on the claimant not the other way around. Trying to prove a negative is impossible. Example: There is no proof god(s) exist. The burden of proof is on those claim they had sex with him. It's not up to LC to prove he didn't.
2007-12-03 09:12:42 · answer #4 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is circumstantial evidence...
It was verified that he was in those cities, at the times the alleged gay sex took place.
Either way.... Craig pleaded guilty... so he's guilty. If you are innocent you don't plead guilty...you plead guilty when you are guilty... btw- he's guilty.
2007-12-03 09:12:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To right-wingers, no proof means it didn't happen.
Hopefully, for them, God has the same sense of humor.
2007-12-03 09:10:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋