1. BobH says:

    Greg Allen

    “The inappropriate sexual behavior, IMHO, is sex in a public place.”

    You’ve led a sheltered life. Add some spice: try “under the boardwalk”… or did you think they were singing about another matter? That’s odd, the rest of us understood the lyric so well it made the top 10 in 1964.

  2. KevinL says:

    Speaking of lyrics…At least now I have an answer for George. Why do it in the road when there’s a nice public restroom right here?

  3. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Bullshit. I’m a traveler. I don’t know that is a “gay hot spot”.

    Well, I guess you’re not a GAY traveler, then. Those kind of places are well known. They even have “cruising” web sites that tell gay travelers, so inclined, where to go in various cities to engage in public anonymous sexual activities.

    >>If you want to suggest that some of these possible innocent
    >>actions are “gay solicitation” then fine.

    Any one of those actions COULD HAVE BEEN construed as innocent in isolation. But all three, done in a predetermined order, in a well-known gay cruising spot, but a guy who has been suspected of being a closet homo for 20 years?? Come on! Do you have any interest in making a down payment on the Brooklyn Bridge??

    >>This is a bullshit charge where the vast majority would
    >>plead guilty just to make it go away

    Your approach to the criminal justice system must differ from mine, then. If I had been cited in the “honorable” Senator’s “shoes”, I would have pled not guilty with all my might. I don’t cruise for sex, gay or otherwise, in public facilities. If anyone tried to arrest me for doing otherwise, I would use every legal means at my disposal to beat the charge. And I CERTAINLY would not resign my job. Of course, I would be innocent. It’s unlikely that the same thing can be said about the “honorable” Senator.

    As I say, I don’t think this sort of thing should be a crime in the first place. Gay, straight, three-way; whatever goes on in somebody else’s crapper stall is not my business. I’m not going to shed any tears over the outing of a lifelong hypocritical hatemonger though. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and if he wants to spend his career crucifying gays and calling Bill Clinton a “naughty boy” for his sexual indiscretions, he’ s got to expect that his own gay shenannigans and sexual indiscretions may come back and bite him.

    That “wide stance” nonsense is right up there with “heckuva job, Brownie” and “I don’t recall, I can’t recall, Senator at this time I can’t recall that” as fodder for late-night comedians. “Wide stance”?? HAW HAW HAW!

  4. Rabble Rouser says:

    Senator Craig….. Born in Idaho, reared in Minneapolis!

  5. Mr. Fusion says:

    #65, MM

    Please stop !!! You are being a total armpit.

    Change the name and situation. Now Bush decided that upon his suspicion Joe Blow is a terrorist. Sheet, Blow hangs out with other possible terrorists. He flies on airplanes, a known terrorist tool. Blow also has carried around a brown liquid in a container, ostentatiously sipping from it occasionally. Someone with a very similar name is on the terrorist watch list. Yup, Joe Blow meets the criterion to be a terrorist, arrest him.

    Now lets put some facts to this scenerio. Joe Blow is four. Half the kids in his daycare have ADD. His parents have taken him to Disney World and to visit Gramma and Grampa a few states over. His mother gives him apple juice and sometimes chocolate milk in a sippy cup.

    BUT JOE BLOW MEETS FOUR CRITERIA !!! Should he be arrested and be charged with being a terrorist?

  6. Mister Mustard says:

    >>BUT JOE BLOW MEETS FOUR CRITERIA !!!

    And you say that _I_ am being an armpit?? Geez, Mr. Fusion, then you’re a melted-down nuclear reactor.

    While I agree that it’s possible to entrap someone or to accuse them falsely for performing innocent behaviors, do you actually think this is what happened to Larry Craig? You really think the guy was NOT cruising for a hot meat snack??? Christ, I think you’re ready to make down payments on both the Brooklyn AND Manhattan Bridges, and maybe the Triboro and Throg’s Neck to boot!!! And if you’re feeling groovy, I’ll throw in the 59th Street Bridge for free.

    Face it, dude. The “honorable” Senator Craig is a rump-wrangler who was cruising for a quickie, doing all the things quickie-cruisers do when they’re cruising, and he got nabbed.

    And as I’ve said about 1000 times, I don’t think this sort of thing should be a crime to begin with. We’d be a lot better off if we just made it a crime to be a gay-bashing Republican hatemonger to suck dick in the first place. Of course, that would pretty much put the whole party in jail.

  7. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    Short form response. Long form to follow – after I go get a large coffee.

    To the sensible, rational people here – ON THIS ISSUE, OK? – Thank you, in chrono order;

    Hop, Mustard, Awake, Greg Allen, joshua, doug. And KevinL for #59.

    Thanx 4 the grinz + a year’s supply of smilies to Rob Nee, Anon Cow & NappyHeadedHo.

    Brickbats and raspberries to pathetically misguided extremist-liberal-party-line PC excusemakers Fusion and M. Scott. Since you’re standing behind BobH and his militant-homo PC rhetoric, as I proceed to address his line of horseshit, feel free to consider yourselves included… 😉

    But first, an infusion of various alkaloids and sucrose in aqueous suspension, then let’s put BobH’s lame-ass so-called “arguments” to a well-deserved death. 🙂

  8. Mr. Fusion says:

    #65, MM

    If I had been cited in the “honorable” Senator’s “shoes”, I would have pled not guilty with all my might. I don’t cruise for sex, gay or otherwise, in public facilities.

    But what if you were charged? WHAT IF ??? It didn’t have to be “gay” sex. It could have been pedophile, or S&M sex. You know as well as I that just being charged will kill any politician’s hope of continuing their career.

    Other, more plebeian citizens are not that far removed either. Even if found not guilty, the stigma that you were charged with any crime is enough to convict you in too many people’s eyes. The smallest amount of evidence is enough for small minded people to still be convinced you are guilty. Case in point would be OJ Simpson where even today most people still think he is guilty even though he was found not guilty.

    Fatty Arbuckle was a contemporary and just as popular as Charlie Chaplin. He was charged with rape and eventually found not guilty. Too late, his career was ruined. Errol Flynn was charged with statutory rape. Killed his career too. Do you remember Congressman Gary Condit?

    If anyone tried to arrest me for doing otherwise, I would use every legal means at my disposal to beat the charge. And I CERTAINLY would not resign my job.

    I’m sure you would. I’m also sure you have very deep pockets. The next time there was a promotion though, do you think your boss would consider a possible lewd and lascivious character? What if something happened and a scandal developed and your arrest record came out? What if you applied for a government job requiring a security clearance? What if you wanted to be a Boy Scout Leader?

    You see, you wouldn’t need to resign. The publicity might be enough to kill your career track for you. Even your social standing. It wouldn’t be your innocence that would do you in. It would be the small minds. The small minds that jump at any accusation and believe it full stock. Sort of like the tactics Bush & company use.

    Ok, so how do you defend against those small minds? You can’t. So most people will do what they can to make it go away as quietly as possible. Just like Craig did.

    That “wide stance” nonsense

    See what I mean? Craig never said that. Some reporter used those words and now people like you believe them as Craig’s. YOU are helping do your bit to ruin a man by believing the small minds.

  9. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    Bad news, Fusion. I hate to have to be the one to break this to you – maybe you should take a deep breath and sit down.

    Orenthal James Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. A jury rendered a verdict of ‘not guilty.’ That does not mean that reality retroactively changed to align with what a panel of gullible dupes and black racists declared.

    If you can actually entertain the thought that there is the faintest, slightest, most remote chance in Hell than anybody other than OJ murdered those people, you really need to go take a seat over there, with your fellow credulous fools – the 9/11 conspiratists, the IDers, the religious fundies, the AIDS deniers, the Flat Earthers…

  10. Mister Mustard says:

    >>You know as well as I that just being charged will kill any
    >>politician’s hope of continuing their career.

    I think it helps that this didn’t just come out of the blue. Rumors (heatedly denied, as late as this past Tuesday) of gayitude have been swirling around Larry Craig for 20 years. Then a cop (who had no idea who he was) busts him for soliciting gay sex in a spot known for soliciting gay sex.

    Either this guy was born under a bad sign, and if it wasn’t for bad luck, he’d have no luck at all, or there’s fire undereath all the smoke.

    Other politicians have been involved in sex scandals and survived (hey, look at Ted Kennedy). The difference is that they hadn’t spent their entire career railing against the evils and immorality of something, then gotten busted for doing that very thing.

    It’s the HYPOCRISY that rankles. Barney Frank takes it up the ass all the time, and nobody’s calling for HIS resignation; he is re-elected every term by a handy majority. The difference is that he admit’s he is gay, and doesn’t take every opportunity to marginalize, criminalize, and extinguish gays in society.

    >>Case in point would be OJ Simpson where even today most
    >>people still think he is guilty

    And what do YOU think, O Nuclear One?

    >>Do you remember Gary Condit?

    Sure. Do you think he killed Chandra Levy? That case has never been solved.

    >>See what I mean? Craig never said that. Some reporter
    >>used those words and now people like you believe them
    >>as Craig’s.

    Ummm, not quite. The police report said Craig used that phrase after the bust. “When the police interviewed him later, the senator said that “__he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom__” and that was why his foot may have touched the officer’s, the report said.” Note the emphasized quote (http://tinyurl.com/3ccgr8).

    Face it, Fuser. This is a gay-bashing, intolerant, xenophobic hatemonger who got his comeuppance. Nothing more, nothing less.

  11. BobH says:

    Lauren the Ghoti

    “death” to opinion is your objective.
    I believe sex is a natural act.

    And you think I’m over the top?

    I welcome you to blather on with spittle and foam flowing from your face; however as your mental effluent reeks of the expired version of your namesake, this post will be my last word on the subject.

  12. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    AAAHhahahahaha!

    My reputation precedes me. As I gave fair warning of my intent to dismantle your screed like a $5 watch, you do the wise thing and tuck your tail between your legs and make for the hills. 🙂

    Of course, there’s a shortage of children here gullible enough to be unable to see that what you’re really doing is trying to save face by conceding that I will in fact blow you out of the water as I sit here quietly and calmly at my keyboard, listening to fine music and sipping some good coffee, a smile on my mug for the typical cowardice displayed for PC beauzeaux when it comes time to back up their empty ideological rhetoric with logic and facts.

    …oh, but not without yelling a last lame attempt at ad hominem over your shoulder as you run for your life.

    Don’t worry, your insupportable bullshit will fall just as surely in your (alleged) absence as not. 🙂

  13. josef says:

    Larry Craig: “I’m not gay but my d*ck is.”

  14. Mister Mustard says:

    >>As I posted above, some reporter wrote it.

    No, the POLICE WROTE IT. What part of “in the police report” don’t you understand?? Maybe if you took the time to read the police report (http://tinyurl.com/2ezr89), you would realize that this is what the undercover police officer reported that Craig said to him IN THE FUCKING BATHROOM, not during the post-arrest interrogation. But hey, why let the facts get in the way. If you repeat “a reporter made it up”, maybe some people will be foolish enough to believe you.

    >>Sheet !!! What about YOUR rumored gayness?

    Guess what, Pumpkin, there are no rumors of my gayness. In large part, perhaps, because I’m not gay. And if I WERE gay, there would be no need for rumors, because I would admit it. Unlike Larry Craig, I am proud of, and comfortable with, my sexual orientation.

    And do you know why that is, Fuserino? Because I’m not a hatemongering, lying, hypocritical sack of shit, who bashes gays in public (and in the legislature) and sucks hard dick in private.

  15. Mister Mustard says:

    Oh, and btw. How about you, Fusi? You never answered foti’s question: Do YOU think OJ is innocent of murdering his wife and her “friend”?

  16. Misanthropic Scott says:

    #62 – Mr. Fusion,

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    #65 – MM,

    Um … innocent until PROVEN guilty, no?

    #68 – MM,

    Unfortunately, and remember, I despise the views of this particular shithead, it’s not about what I believe. It’s about what gets proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Also, please ask yourself if you think this situation would be playing out the same way if it had been straight sex.

    #70 – Mr. Fusion,

    You know as well as I that just being charged will kill any politician’s hope of continuing their career.

    I mostly agree with your posts on this thread. However, let’s not forget about special cases like Marion “bitch set me up” Barry or David “I forgot about the New York taxes” Dinkins.

    #72 – MM,

    It’s the HYPOCRISY that rankles. Barney Frank takes it up the ass all the time, and nobody’s calling for HIS resignation; he is re-elected every term by a handy majority. The difference is that he admit’s he is gay, and doesn’t take every opportunity to marginalize, criminalize, and extinguish gays in society.

    Here Here!! But, we must remember about the little thing called proof. I’d love to see the scumbag go, but don’t like the idea of doing so over something unproven.

    Lauren and Mustard,

    I really think the OJ case is a little off track here. One is a case about sex. The other is a double homicide. One is illegal for no good reason. The other is illegal for very good reason. One is obviously and almost objectively immoral. The other is a normal biological act.

    The crime, if there is one in this whole thing, is the attempt to legislate away homosexuality. Perhaps that is what Craig should be charged with. Perhaps he should be charged with the crime of unreasonable intrusion into people’s personal lives or with failing to honor his oath to upload the constitution regarding a person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are things that can be verified and actually should be criminal.

  17. Mister Mustard says:

    >>we must remember about the little thing called proof.

    Well, he DID plead “guilty”, albeit to a plea-bargained “disorderly conduct” charge. And all that stuff about the repeated finger gestures into the cop’s stall, the peeking, the loafer-tapping/ footsies, etc. in the police report makes a pretty strong argument that he plead the right way.

    And you’re right, the OJ case is WAY off track. Although the Fish Monger did bring it up as a way to show how even when someone is “vindicated” in criminal court, people still think they are guilty. Hence my interest in knowing what HE thinks.

    In any case, gay sex should be legal, and anyone who tries to legislate it into criminality while engaging in it on the sly should be illegal.

    I was entertained to see on CNN that Craig had hired (after the guilty plea) the same lawyer DogFighter Vick used, in an effort to weasel out of his sticky wicket.

  18. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Also, please ask yourself if you think this situation would be playing
    >>out the same way if it had been straight sex.

    No, probably not. But very few politicians spend their entire career trying to implement a constitutional ban against heterosexual marriage, voting against a bill to make hate crimes against heterosexuals illegal, or denying their own sexual orientation. Although if Craig had his way, it would have “played out the same way” with Bill Clinton, even though he never did anything illegal with Monica (unless that cigar was illegally imported from Cuba).

    As I say, it’s the hypocrisy. If you want to suck dick, fine; just don’t spend your life and political career railing against the immorality of sucking dick.

  19. Misanthropic Scott says:

    MM,

    In any case, gay sex should be legal, and anyone who tries to legislate it into criminality while engaging in it on the sly should be illegal.

    Actually, I go one step further on this than you. I don’t care whether someone engages in gay sex on the sly. Denying one’s oath of office and legislating against the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be illegal. The hypocrisy makes it worse. However, it’s bad even without the hypocrisy. The man is in violation of his oath as an elected official.

  20. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I don’t care whether someone engages in gay sex on the sly.

    I don’t care if they do either. As I said, it’s the hypocrisy of the neocon “family values” assholes that I object to.

    Other than that, I agree with you.

    Good riddance, Larry. I hope you can get “the cure”, like Ted Haggard.

  21. Mr. Fusion says:

    #77, MM

    Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick without any undies !!! Ya effen moran.

    Maybe if you took the time to read the police report (http://tinyurl.com/2ezr89), you would realize that this is what the undercover police officer reported that Craig said to him IN THE FUCKING BATHROOM, not during the post-arrest interrogation.

    From the CNN report.

    When the police interviewed him later, the senator said that “he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom” and that was why his foot may have touched the officer’s, the report said.

    That statement does not appear in the police report. What does appear is

    In a post Miranda interview, Craig stated the following:

    – He is a commuter

    He went into the bathroom

    He was standing outside the stall for 1-2 minutes waiting for the stall

    – He has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine

    He reached down … snip …

    …During the interview, Craig either disagreed with me or “didn’t recall” the events as they happened.

    Now read that carefully. Craig didn’t say it. THE COP SAID IT. The cop wrote down HIS INTERPRETATION of what Craig said during the interview. In fact the cop even admits Craig disagreed what the cop said. So what was said in the interview? Well pumpkin, either read the transcript (provided above) or listen to it, it is also provided on several sites so look it up yourself.

  22. Mr. Fusion says:

    #77, MM

    Guess what, Pumpkin, there are no rumors of my gayness.

    That post was directed at Lauren the Ghoti, not you. The statement about his “gayness” was exactly as it reads. A point. I neither know nor care about Lauren’s sexual orientation, that is his and his alone business. Although as I say that, I have no reason to question or claim to know one way or the other but I do reserve the right to think I do whenever he pisses me off.

    However, now that your rabid homophobia is out in the open, your vehement denial, your love of god and fellow man, your pseudomasculine moniker, …

    Anyone up on how Pastor Ted is getting along?

  23. Mr. Fusion says:

    #78, M&M

    OJ’s guilt? I don’t know. I don’t have all the facts any more than do all those yahoos screaming he got away with it. I do know there was sufficient evidence presented at trial that had been tampered with to seriously question the rest of the evidence.

    If you have no problem with convicting people on phony, fabricated, tainted, perjured, and or misleading evidence then sure, you must think he is guilty. Personally, however, I have a difficult time with that. And the jury in his trial agrees with my position.

  24. Mister Mustard says:

    >>As I posted above, some reporter wrote it.

    >>Now read that carefully. Craig didn’t say it. THE COP SAID IT.

    Gee, Fuster, you’re even more confused than Craig. I hope you at least know to call a lawyer if you’re arrested!

    >However, now that your rabid homophobia is out in the open

    Heh heh heh. Good one. I guess you have as much trouble reading and understanding posts on this blog as you do police reports.

    >>And the jury in his trial agrees with my position.

    Only one of the trials, Pumpkin. In the other one, the jury unanimously declared that Simpson was guilty of killing his wife and her “friend”, and ordered him to pay $8,500,000.00 in compensatory damages, and later to pay $25,000,000.00 in punitive damages to the families of his wife and “friend”. I guess they didn’t buy the “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” defense theory.

    In any case, WIde Stance admitted his guilt, thinking the conviction could be swept under the rug. Bad choice, Lar. Just like trying to go for a quick gay blow job between flights, after spending a life bashing gays and their lifestyle.

  25. Mr. Fusion says:

    #87, M&M,

    Still playing stupid. Please, read this slowly. I wrote it very slowly just for you.

    The cop wrote the report. He wrote it from memory.

    The cop didn’t quote Craig, he summarized the interview in his own words, including the “wide stance”.

    The reporter wrote that Craig actually said “he has a wide stance”.

    Nowhere in the interview transcript does the term “wide stance” come up.

    You still want to claim that “wide stance” bit was actually said by Craig.

    If you have any evidence that Craig is gay then please, present it. Otherwise, just shut the fuck up. Evidence does not include rumor, innuendo, or wishful thinking. Since this story broke a week ago, not one person has come forward to say he has had a gay encounter with Craig.

    You are still an effen moran. I apologize to all the other effen morani out there that I have inadvertently grouped in with M&M.

    *

    OJ Simpson was found not guilty by ONE jury. The one jury that counted. That other trial? His guilt wasn’t at issue there. It was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Was that trial a travesty? Probably. That, however, is a whole other topic.

    *

    M&M, where do you get these wild fanciful ideas? You know they are bullshit but keep harping on them. Do yourself a favor and give it up. So far you have picked niggling little arguments with most of the regulars at DU. For the life of me, I just don’t understand how you can insist you are right when cited facts are put right in front of you repeatedly.

  26. Greg Allen says:

    BobH wrote >> You’ve led a sheltered life. Add some spice: try “under the boardwalk”… or did you think they were singing about another matter? That’s odd, the rest of us understood the lyric so well it made the top 10 in 1964.

    I guess I did think that song was more about making-out than actual sex but I haven’t really given it much thought. I did a quick check of the lyrics and it does say “on a blanket… falling in love” rather than “under a blanket making love.”

    Sheltered or not … I strongly believe that a 7 year old boy should not have to see Republicans giving each other blow jobs when he has to use the bathroom.

    I take if from your posts that you’ve probably had a blow job or two in a men’s room. So, I have to ask.. .why in a public place? Why not “get a room” as someone else here suggested? Or at least a very out-of-the way place?

    I, personally, find anonymous sex unappealing but I don’t think it should be illegal or anything like that.

    But why do you support doing it where children (or me, for that matter) can run into it and distress them?

  27. Mister Mustard says:

    >>You still want to claim that “wide stance” bit was actually
    >>said by Craig.

    Sure I do, because the cop SAID he did, in his bulleted list of claims provided in his report.

    >>Since this story broke a week ago, not one person has come
    >>forward to say he has had a gay encounter with Craig.

    A number of people came forward even BEFORE the gay-sex airport bust and said they had had “gay encounters” with Craig. I guess he got smarter in his old age; anonymous sex is, by definition, anonymous. The participants don’t typically exchange business cards. And it’s not like the average out-of-state gay cruiser would know who Craig was just by looking at him (or looking at his dick).

    >>OJ Simpson was found not guilty by ONE jury. The one
    >>jury that counted.

    Oooh, you free-thinking, bohemian, nonconformist maverick, you! You’re probably the only person in the Western world who believes that OJ didn’t kill his wife and her “friend”. (Not whether there were technical fuckups during the trial, or if Mark Fuhrman was an asshole or not, but if he actually killed her). Congrats!

    >>Do yourself a favor and give it up. So far you have picked
    >>niggling little arguments with most of the regulars at DU.

    For the most part, the ones I have “niggling little arguments” with are the assholes.

    Take that for what it’s worth.

  28. Misanthropic Scott says:

    #89 – Greg Allen,

    Sheltered or not … I strongly believe that a 7 year old boy should not have to see Republicans giving each other blow jobs when he has to use the bathroom.

    That could be corrected with real walls and doors for our stalls, like the civilized world has.

    Personally, I would have shortened your sentence though. I’d have left it as:

    I strongly believe that a 7 year old boy should not have to see Republicans.

    They’re just sooooo repulsive!! I couldn’t resist. Actually, I think that among the constituency, many are just horribly misguided. Among the actual politicians though, they have long since thrown away any semblance of the old Republican ideals. I’m not really for those ideals either. But, they were never as repugnant as the current Republican platform. Back then, they just wanted small government and unbridled capitalism so that the rich could get richer at the expense of the poor. They still like that, but have added much that is even worse.


3

Bad Behavior has blocked 5641 access attempts in the last 7 days.