Reply With Quote
I did not do anything that would be construed as lewd conduct in that airport bathroom!!
At Craigs news conference he said,
"I want to thank all of you for coming out" nice play on words, possible Freudian slip?
Another hypocrite is going bye-bye. People shouldn't throw stones who live is glass houses.
I did not do anything that would be construed as lewd conduct in that airport bathroom!!
You're unable to differentiate between casting stones and correcting a mistatement by another poster, and I'm the idiot?
Classic OG
Here's something we actually agree on. I mean about the senator, not me.
I think we can just let this go, and let the voters decide in the primaries when he's up. Doesn't hurt my feelings if he resigns though. I just figure, let his cons uents decide.
P.S.
I'm trying to not do personal attacks. However Chump, you are a baiter. Are you a master-baiter?
I agree this is likely true. Does it really matter? Isn't this whole incident a matter of if he is suited to serve rather than if he was a closeted bisexual? I don't mean to defend him, but consider:
A) Would he be getting this attention is he was a liberal democrat?
B) What is the possibility these accusations are made up?
Now I figure the accusations are true. I am just one that believes in the American way. Unlike many of you here. Innocent until proven guilty. None of the accusation have been certified as true.
In all honesty, there is that part of me that wonders if this was all a setup. What if he was told to do such signals for some information from someone, and the other person just happened to be a police officer who was told a pervert would be there?
Yes, it's a stretch. I don't put anything past either parties dirty tricks department.
Either way. I stand by my statement earlier that guilty or not, he is not fit to serve because of his stupidity.
Is that the only way to take his words? I see no condemnation here.Wow. I can't believe you're casting stones at someone for not coming out more quickly.
The truth, or trying to seek the truth can be brutal. That does not mean the truth seeker is being brutal.
Frank has ben a sexual as ling as I have heard of him in politics. It's understandable to be closeted during the past years. It's far more accepted today than the past.\
I think one should consider historical relevance before criticizing the one seeking the truth.
How original.
There is an ignore function. I believe the last neocon who attempted that joke put it to good use.
I know he has since recanted, but "The American Way" as you described it has been followed, and the threshold to determine guilt has been satisfied.
He, as a matter of fact and record, plead guilty.
so in your tiny mind calling someone dishonest for not making a personal revelation about their sexuality (which is a completely private thing in the context of Barney Frank) is not casting stones?You're unable to differentiate between casting stones and correcting a mistatement by another poster, and I'm the idiot?
Classic OG
except jokethesham wasn't seeking the "truth," he (or she or whatever it is) was impugning Barney Frank's character for honesty b/c at one time in his life Barney Frank wasn't openly gay.
This is only a big deal for two reasons (in order of importance)
1) He is gay
2) He was caught in an illegal act trying to solicit a gay engagement
Some have asked if this were a Democrat, would it have been as big a deal.
My answer to that would be no, it wouldnt be as big a deal. He would still have to resign because of the illegal misdemeanor, but him being gay would have no impact.
Truth of the matter is, it was a Republican controlled Congress standing on their soapbox distracting the American public from real issues with this gay marriage amendment, not Dems.
And I would fancy a guess and say someones sexual orientation rates very low on the character scale for most Dems than Repubs. Just a guess though.
Republicans talk out of both sides of their asses. They all pound their chests in support of the war, Mitt Romney, yet will not support it by joining the military, like Romney's boys.
when you politically attack the gay lifestyle you open yourself up to being attacked for actually being gay yourself (or in this case trying hook up with a man in a restroom). the dems don't politically attack gays. if this were a dem senator he would be under the same preassure to resign however the outrage wouldn't include the hypocrisy of the party hanging over his head...
Well, an audio recording of Craig's arrest shows that the cop is obviously a card carrying liberal...
Spokesman denies three-term Idaho lawmaker preparing to quit
WASHINGTON -MSNBCSen. Larry Craig denied soliciting an undercover police officer shortly after being arrested for alleged lewd conduct in a bathroom at a Minneapolis airport, an audio recording of the arrest revealed.
Craig said on the recording, released Thursday by the Minneapolis Police Department, that he may have touched the officer's foot with his foot while they were in stalls. "You said our feet bumped; I believe they did," Craig said, adding that he was scooting over. "Next thing I knew, underneath the bathroom divider comes a card that says 'Police.'"
The Republican senator from Idaho also said he placed his hand underneath the stall to pick up a paper, not to solicit the officer.
'I'm not gay," Craig said. "I don't seek activity in bathrooms."
The officer said he was disappointed in the senator.
"You are sitting here lying to a police officer," the officer responded. "People vote for you. Unbelievable."
So what law did Craig break?
Case LawA person who surrep iously gazes, stares, or peeps over a par ion in a public restroom with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of another person is guilty of interference with privacy, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.746 (2002).
...
D E C I S I O N
Because a reasonable person when using a public restroom has an expectation of privacy in that place shielded from public view by par ions and his body, and because the space above each par ioned urinal in a public restroom cons utes an aperture under section 609.746, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ulmer’s motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause.
According to the police charge sheet, Craig was charged with both disorderly conduct and interference with privacy
Is it normal for a police officer to record an arrest like this?"You are sitting here lying to a police officer," the officer responded. "People vote for you. Unbelievable."
Agreed. This is again, a reason it doesn't matter if he really is guilty or not. He is too stupid to be a US senator. I am only acknowledging the possibility his claim he pleaded in an attempt to bury it is true.
What an idiotic notion, huh? Thinking such a thing in politics will just go away? Anyone think the republican voters of Idaho will pick him in the 2008 primary? I don’t.
Wow!
I pointed out that Barney Franks himself admitted that he wasn't honest about his sexuality, so no, that is not casting stones.
I’ll throw you a sop OG, You’re very good at name calling (pat yourself on the back even though it’s a sure sign of intelligence deprivation).
On the other hand it's painfully obvious that your analytical skills tend to hover near the bottom (hint: don’t pat yourself on the back on this one).
I’ll put the two statements together in the same post in what is probably a futile attempt to help you to understand a simple concept that clearly went right over your head. (I'll color it for you in the hope that it'll keep your attention long enough to assist you in understanding the concept)
1. There was a post that stated that Barney Franks had never intimated that he's anything other than what he holds himself out to be. (That means that he was always open about his sexuality).
2. I posted 2 articles that pointed out that Franks had not always been open about his sexuality.
I corrected an incorrect statement, noting more, nothing less.
You're on your own now OG. Good Luck!
Personally, I see no point of bringing up Barney Frank unless it is in the context of his history with pros ution. There was even actions taken against him about it in 1990. He only received a reprimand with a 408-18 vote. Stronger actions could not be agreed upon, even though a pros ution ring was operating from out of his residence.
Democrats protect their own. A republican I think I can safely say would have been out, and then some!
Imagine if a pros ution ring was being run inside of Craig's home?
he prefers to spend his spare time in public bathrooms, as opposed to staying at home.
Operated by Frank himself? Frank wasn't reprimanded for the pros ution ring. Why can't you get even one fact straight?Personally, I see no point of bringing up Barney Frank unless it is in the context of his history with pros ution. There was even actions taken against him about it in 1990. He only received a reprimand with a 408-18 vote. Stronger actions could not be agreed upon, even though a pros ution ring was operating from out of his residence.
now this asshat is trying to yell entrapment. how much more desperate can he get?
Repug Congressman wonn't defend this gay guy anymore than they defended Long Gone Gonzo.
But WC's knee jerks and drags in the Dems. He's getting sillier by each post.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
