Republican Senator pleads guilty to lewd conduct in a men's room

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I shouldn't be able to use the public restroom without some creep peering at me and propositioning me for sex?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is your responsibility to deal with sex propositions (presumably a simple "don't [censored] touch me" would probably work against most sex-crazed senators). It is not my responsibility to pay for squads of officers whose job it is to keep people from propositioning you. How old are you, anyway?

The case of pedophilia is of course different -- we're not talking about consenting adults anymore. The act is by definition predatory.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you use that reasoning anyone anywhere can be approached, rubbed on, peered at defecating and asked for sex in a confrontational manner simply trying to use a public facility. I think the phrase "hostile environment" is very applicable here. You, an individual, do not have a right to go around creating hostile environmnets for people. YOU are infringing on my rights then. If you grant me the right to beat your ass back, then, yeah, you can use me for titillation and proposition me while Im taking a [censored], until then, you should be subject to fines and/or jail. Criminal trespass charges should apply if you return to the area as well. And, fuckjob should register as a sex offender. Then if schoolkids come to his office building in DC, he would have to stay 100 yards away. Would be hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a big boy now. The government isn't your mommy, though it sounds like you want it to be. If someone is physically rubbing your body and demanding sex, SMASH HIM IN THE THROAT WITH YOU FIST. Communicating the desire for sex is a seperate issue from assault, which it is assumed that any reasonable adult will resist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know where there's a place you can live where justice is meted out exactly like this. You only need to travel to, say, Kansas. Oh, and you need to go back in time about 150 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are still allowed to defend yourself against physical/sexual assault in this country. There is no need to defend yourself against nonverbal/noninvasive requests for unwanted sex -- a simple "no" will suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I want a peaceful public arena to piss and [censored] in. I don't want to have to smash him in the throat with my fist. What if Im a skinny little punk who cant defend himself and its OJ demanding a BJ? You sound like you want the world to be like the prison yard. You give up certain freedoms to live peacefully. Like meteing out justice yourself and doing whatever you damn well please to anyone. What if it was a unisex bathroom and it was a woman being propositioned? Should she pull out a gun and whack him? Pepper spray or mace wont work if he really wants it. His conduct is menacing and could/will lead to a potentially dangerous situation. The police take care of it so you don't start leaving a trail of bodies because you had a gay panic attack. I think the cop did a good job handling the situation.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I shouldn't be able to use the public restroom without some creep peering at me and propositioning me for sex?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is your responsibility to deal with sex propositions (presumably a simple "don't [censored] touch me" would probably work against most sex-crazed senators). It is not my responsibility to pay for squads of officers whose job it is to keep people from propositioning you. How old are you, anyway?

The case of pedophilia is of course different -- we're not talking about consenting adults anymore. The act is by definition predatory.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you use that reasoning anyone anywhere can be approached, rubbed on, peered at defecating and asked for sex in a confrontational manner simply trying to use a public facility. I think the phrase "hostile environment" is very applicable here. You, an individual, do not have a right to go around creating hostile environmnets for people. YOU are infringing on my rights then. If you grant me the right to beat your ass back, then, yeah, you can use me for titillation and proposition me while Im taking a [censored], until then, you should be subject to fines and/or jail. Criminal trespass charges should apply if you return to the area as well. And, fuckjob should register as a sex offender. Then if schoolkids come to his office building in DC, he would have to stay 100 yards away. Would be hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a big boy now. The government isn't your mommy, though it sounds like you want it to be. If someone is physically rubbing your body and demanding sex, SMASH HIM IN THE THROAT WITH YOU FIST. Communicating the desire for sex is a seperate issue from assault, which it is assumed that any reasonable adult will resist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know where there's a place you can live where justice is meted out exactly like this. You only need to travel to, say, Kansas. Oh, and you need to go back in time about 150 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are still allowed to defend yourself against physical/sexual assault in this country. There is no need to defend yourself against nonverbal/noninvasive requests for unwanted sex -- a simple "no" will suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I want a peaceful public arena to piss and [censored] in. I don't want to have to smash him in the throat with my fist. What if Im a skinny little punk who cant defend himself and its OJ demanding a BJ? You sound like you want the world to be like the prison yard. You give up certain freedoms to live peacefully. Like meteing out justice yourself and doing whatever you damn well please to anyone. What if it was a unisex bathroom and it was a woman being propositioned? Should she pull out a gun and whack him? Pepper spray or mace wont work if he really wants it. His conduct is menacing and could/will lead to a potentially dangerous situation. The police take care of it so you don't start leaving a trail of bodies because you had a gay panic attack. I think the cop did a good job handling the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
How many times must I distinguish between assault and nonverbal, noninvasive communication before you get this? OF COURSE assault is illegal and something the police will and should make arrests for (and likewise it is something you are justified in defending yourself against). Making some kind of secret gay community, non-verbal signal that indicates sexual interest is NOT something we should be paying cops to arrest and imprison people for. If you're an adult, saying no shouldn't really be so difficult that the police force needs to be mobilized on your behalf.

[DannyOcean_]

Just to let every one know, Larry Craig is

THE BIGGEST FREAKING HOM0PHOBE FAR RIGHT GAY-HATER IN THE WORLD.

Or at least close.

I wrote an article on this, lemme pull it out for you guys and tell me what you think.

[DannyOcean_]

Larry Craig: Because Mark Foley is so last year

It appears the GOP (God’s Own Police) has yet another conundrum on their hands. As if the party didn’t have enough actual problems to deal with, Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho has been arrested by a plainclothes police officer for soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom.

According to the police report, the good senator peered through the stall to get a glimpse, and then sat in the next stall and “moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area.” The Senator wanted to play footsie, and honestly, who hasn’t wanted to play footsie before?

Next the police report alleges that he stuck his hand underneath the stall three times before the police officer responded by sticking his hand under to Senator Craig’s stall. Holding his badge. Busted! Senator Craig actually pled guilty to the charge, which he now says was a mistake.

One of Craig’s excuses was that he has a ‘wide stance’ when he goes to the bathroom. From henceforth we shall refer to the Senator as Larry ‘Wide Stance’ Craig.

What makes this arrest deliciously good political gossip is simple. ‘Wide Stance’ Craig votes against gay rights and gay marriage and gay-anything else as often as he can. He voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and supported a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2006. He voted against a bill in 1996 that would have prohibited workplace discrimination against gay individuals (The measure failed by one vote in the Senate). He opposed adding ‘gay’ to the categories which qualify for hate crimes. He's gotten A+ 100% ratings from anti-gay groups. Look, I don’t care if my lawmakers like men or women. To steal from Seinfeld, he’s a gay senator, not that there’s anything wrong with that. But the level of hypocrisy in this case is almost beyond words.

This case reminds any thoughtful observer of another republican senator, Mark Foley. Foley wasn’t just a predator of children; he was a predator of children who authored tough legislation against child-molesters and sex-crime offenders, and used the issue to get elected. Craig, like so many other conservatives, uses the anti-gay/pro-family social conservative propaganda get elected, but apparently the only gay agenda he tolerates is his own.

The GOP, predictably, is pushing him out the door. Good riddance. Congressional scandals involving sex, drugs, hypocrisy, etc. are nothing new, but they never fail to disgust me. Trying to legislate a version of morality on someone when you won’t even hold yourself to that standard is the worst form of hypocrisy. I’d like to throw a little Jesus-talk at Senator “Wide Stance” Craig.

‘Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye (Matthew 7:3-5).

[monkeyfightclub]

This guy has been dodging these sorts of alligations for years. I don't have the story but there were rumors of him being involved with congressional pages in 1982. There also have been a few men that have claimed to have had sexual relations with him in the past.

He's not gay. Riiiiight.

[Metric]

Wow -- imagine just how bad it would all be if he'd introduced any kind of moralist legislation, or he had attempted to marry the guy in the bathroom. Then you'd REALLY have something to talk about!

[adios]

“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

This results in charges of disorderly conduct???

Ok sure. I'm not defending Craig or anything but just wondering what would have been the reaction to those that blasted Craig if this happened to a Democrat. Would you be ok with charges of disorderly conduct for this?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it really illegal for me to go up to some dude in the bathroom and ask him if he wants to [censored] me in the ass? What the hell is this country coming to?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, if this would have happened to a Democrat then I just wonder what they, the Democrats, would be saying. Let's say that Craig is gay and doesn't want to come out of the closet. Should he be ridiculed and derided for this? I've been listening Air America and they've been basically doing just that. They're not deriding him for just hypocrisy, they're deriding him for not coming out of the closet. To me it looks alot like hate speech but could be convinced otherwise.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it really illegal for me to go up to some dude in the bathroom and ask him if he wants to [censored] me in the ass? What the hell is this country coming to?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, if this would have happened to a Democrat then I just wonder what they, the Democrats, would be saying. Let's say that Craig is gay and doesn't want to come out of the closet. Should he be ridiculed and derided for this? I've been listening Air America and they've been basically doing just that. They're not deriding him for just hypocrisy, they're deriding him for not coming out of the closet. To me it looks alot like hate speech but could be convinced otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'd be saying "Hooray for gays, we love our gays" because they haven't built their party around hating homosexuals?

Just a thought.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

This results in charges of disorderly conduct???

Ok sure. I'm not defending Craig or anything but just wondering what would have been the reaction to those that blasted Craig if this happened to a Democrat. Would you be ok with charges of disorderly conduct for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. This sounds like one of those "have to know the industry" to know the subtext. I will go on record saying that I don't know the industry. It would be similar to how some people are picked up for prostitution charges without being totally explicit in their demands, so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not defending Craig or anything but just wondering what would have been the reaction to those that blasted Craig if this happened to a Democrat.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reaction would be the same "why the hell did this idiot plead guilty to this..."