Thread Title: "I am not Gay" or Just Desserts or Tappy McHappy Pants

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

I have a question. As a non American I absolutely cringe each and everytime I hear a US politician or anyone in fact uttering the words "God Bless America" It sounds so utterly meaningless, rote driven, brain-wash induced must be said. Does it bother any of you?
God doesn't have any business in government just as in the words of our former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, whereupon he decriminalized homosexuality in Canada back in the early 70's.. Actually he wasn't prime minister then, he was the attorney general or something..
 
Oh, Pete--

It bothers me greatly.

I deplore the common American practise of politicians mentioning God in every other sentence.

Yes, I do try to be a Christian, but I also am a BIG fan of the separation of Church and State.

I do not want my government telling me where and with whom and how I can worship.

My particular congregation is firm about no endorsements from the pulpit, even when a member is a candidate.

Alan Dershowitz has a new book out on the matter called "Blaphsemy." I think it's great. He proves that the Founding Fathers instead of endorsing a State religion were appalled at the thought.

Lawrence/Maytagbear
 
Teddy paid the price for the accident that happened about 40years ago. He has done a lot of good for the people in his years in office.
I don't recall Barney Frank, so I cannot comment on that.

I am sure that it will be the democrats that stand with the gay community for civil rights. I can tell you for sure it will not be the republicans or the librataians.
 
Oh boy,

"OK, so Barney Frank and his boy prostitute ring get to stay in office and Edward Kennedy who let a girl drown gets to stay in office and whats-his-name with the bribe money in his freezer gets to stay in office because they don't proclaim to be "bible thumpers"? Does that say that Democrats are the party of lower moral values? The Democrats are the party of "letting it slide"?

No, the outrage is genuine. The difference is that Republicans have the fortitude to either step down or kick a member out, while the Democrats get a pass. Nice."

It's like listening to the republican "talking points" that they pass around to try and make their reality, their fake reality, on fox(faux) news and that druggy white-trash lard-ass limbaugh. Verbatim

PeteeeeH, you need to find other media outlets and perhaps open your mind.
Thinking really isn't BAD for a person, contrary to what those media outlets imply.

Put a little oil in there, hear the gears start to turn.

(perhaps this baby is permanently seized, lol)

Your an embarassment to yourself.
 
And you aren't going off on liberal talking points? Please...

I'm with Robert -- this bathroom activity is not appropriate, and an elected official only makes it worse. Party affiliation has no part in how it should be dealt with. But the difference is the glee the liberal media takes on it and how much coverage it gets.

Granted, it is a 2-way street. There would be just as much glee in talk radio if a liberal official is found doing the same.

As for Limbaugh, I don't listen to him. Nor do I watch Fox.

But the fact remains, the 2 parties deal with corruption differently, and that is a sad comment about the people running our country.

Show me how these so called talking points are wrong instead of attacking me with empty allegation.
 
Oh Peteee...

I'm sure i can correct your assertions for every 'idea' that you voice.

And as you all have seen, I don't have a problem with spilling blood when necessary(view the mouse killing thread), however, this is a family friendly dinner hour program and I don't want or need to upset the general populous.

I will agree with you in one of your statements.

"But the fact remains, the 2 parties deal with corruption differently, and that is a sad comment about the people running our country. "

Yes Peteee,
Democrats work to correct problems while republicans reward wrong doers giving them medals of honor and job promotions.
for example, why isn't rudy Giuliani going to be president? lol,
why did gonzo, tony snow, and tubby McTreason (rove) recently exit the white house? Amongst others.
And who has been the ones to clean up the messes made by past corrupt administrations. It's almost always
the Democrats.

I guess when we need to know the days talking points on fox/faux news,
when we need to know if the world still revolves around pastey white older southern american men,
when we need to know that it is foreigners that are the root of all the problems,
and assurances that global warming is just made up,
we can ask you for the BEST advice.
right

Really, I'm sure you mean well, but the people see the error in the type thinking your repeating.
Take a step back, and look at things again.
 
I know for myself gawd knows I wouldnt want to even think about working in government and have your life under a microscope. Every time you do something or someone its front page news. I just couldnt imagine. I too am glad that there is separation of chuch and state...look at the countries like Saudi Arabia and the like that enforce Islamic rule on everyone. Yet we turn a blind eye to the crap that goes on there to a degree.
The GOP has a full plate and the prize winners that they are offering up for a possible presidential run really has alot to be desired. Whats sad is that I think that Romney might get the nod. Now thats a moron. As governor of Mass he was running around the country more than he was in his office on Beacon HIll. I am sure something will rear its ugly head on that one.
Washertalk...it didnt even dawn on me that maybe Mrs Craig was usin the ol vibrator... who knew...Besides when you look the guy it kinda reminds me of Chester the Molester.....the respectable kind.
I will have to hand it to the Minnesota State Police for picking a hottie he is adorable and nice voice to boot. My mind is running what I could say...even though I wouldnt even think about doing it there...my thats on awfully big stick you have there ...oh my where are my manners. Thats just not Southern of me...Southern Maine that is.
 
The Wrong Points

"OK, so Barney Frank and his boy prostitute ring get to stay in office "

Wrong, Frank never ran a prostitution ring. He did take in a young man with a questionable past who wound up running such a ring - and Frank has always maintained that was without his knowledge. Furthermore, when Frank was clued in by the landlord about what was going on when he wasn't home, he threw the ringleader out of his home.

"and Edward Kennedy who let a girl drown gets to stay in office"

I'm not sure being drunk and fighting for your own life and physically unable to dive back down and rescue the girl and too drunk to remember what happened counts as "letting the girl drown". It does count as being a worthless alcoholic, though.

" and whats-his-name with the bribe money in his freezer gets to stay in office because they don't proclaim to be "bible thumpers"?

If you're referring to Congressman Jefferson, if he was so obviously guilty why didn't the Republican controlled Congress kick him out when they had the chance? For now it's enough to let him face charges in court - and last time I checked, one is still innocent until proven otherwise.

"Does that say that Democrats are the party of lower moral values? The Democrats are the party of "letting it slide"? "

"No, the outrage is genuine. The difference is that Republicans have the fortitude to either step down or kick a member out, while the Democrats get a pass. Nice. "

Like many conservatives, you miss the point. If Ted Kennedy had been pontificating about the dangers of alcohol abuse before his tragic accident, you can be sure the Dems would have pilloried him more than they already have. If Barney Frank had been championing capital punishment for prostitutes and pimps, then sure it would have been even more of an outrage. And if Rep. Jefferson had basing his political career on a stand against corruption, then yes, he'd be even more despicable than he already may be.

"But the fact remains, the 2 parties deal with corruption differently, and that is a sad comment about the people running our country."

While Jefferson might be corrupt, and that remains to be proven in court, I don't see how Kennedy's accident or Frank's poor choice of live-in lovers has much to do with corruption of any sort. What seems to me to be true is that the Republicans tend to posture themselves as holier-than-thou, and use so-called "family values" as a weapon to harass, discriminate, and punish those who don't meet a very narrow definition of the wholesome American nuclear family. So yes, I join those who chortle when one of those arch-hypocrits is revealed to have secret behaviors as deplorable, if not moreso, than those they preach against in public.

End of my rant.

Glad I vote Libertarian every chance I get... :)
 
Okay, you wanna go one for one?

Jeff Gannon?

Foley?

Let's see some more of that Republican "fortitude"....

You don't think these bastards get PAID for participating in every one of these scandals? You don't think there's a big payday at the end of all of that "shame", with just enough to pay little wifey off to disappear now that her job is done?

The neocons are masters at this. Why?

FOR, IN CHAOS, THEY CAN STEAL.

Just look at some of the stories they got to smooth over this week, with all of this nonsense.

The failed war in Iraq, now being repainted as a success.

The casino areas being the only thing in New Orleans apparently worth reconstructing.

Fred Thompson joining the GOP race (when he in actuality has less funding or popular support than Ron Paul)....

Tony Snowjob's greedy little exit and Karl Rove's sneaky little one.

Get real, folks. The only notable news this week should have been that there are sizable numbers of Americans who would kill you for your choices of life partners, and perhaps even more surprisingly, a shocking number of Americans who would stand by and do nothing to help you.

This is the most depressing part of being gay and being an American citizen, but the fact is you are NOT relatively safer here than elsewhere in the world. This IS an angry, repressed, frustrated people, and the only thing different about the Republicans is that they believe these emotions should be state-sanctioned.

Take heed, folks. None of this was designed to be subtle, although the comedic aspects are custom-designed to titillate and woo you back in slumber.

IMHO the most important thing is the courts. We HAVE to wrest our courts back from these flat-earthers and knuckle-draggers.

A half-dozen more "executive orders" and our lives are toast.
 
Yikes.

I'd be willing to cut Snow some slack. He's had a relapse of his cancer. He probably wants to earn some big bucks to leave his family (I'm assuming he's married with children). He seems like a decent enough sort, even if he made the mistake of working for Bush.

Rove and Gonzales? Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
O

oxydolfan1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
1,764
No offense, suds, but Snow's departure has little to do with his illness and less to do with money.

Cheney's rolling out the buildup to war with Iran right after Labor Day. I'm no fan of Snow's, but who in their right mind would want to spend the rest of their days on earth defending this to the press corps?

Post Labor Day Product Rollout: War with Iran (Cross-posted at DailyKos)!

On September 7, 2002, The New York Times White House correspondent Elizabeth Bushmiller treated readers to an explanation of how the Bush ad...
icga.blogspot.com icga.blogspot.com
 
BTW, Craig is supposedly resigning tomorrow.

Of course he is...he's outlived his usefulness.

He carried the nation into Labor Day....soon they will have war on their minds, instead.

More carnage, more unhinged, baseless hate.
 


Another facet of residual fallout that no one here has addressed is what this incident is leading some people to believe about gays and their sexuality.

"Gee ... is THAT what they do, and is THAT where they do it?" This I heard a conservative talk show host say today.

Naive or elderly people, or those in small towns, rural areas or tightly controlled religious or political communities don't know any differently. Now, suddenly, a man has a global spotlight on him because he was entrapped attempting to indulge in homosexual sex. And the conservatives and religious fanatics are spinning it to death to paint the awful immoral portrait of all those "homa-saix-yals wallerin' in a snake-pit of ihhh-NICK-wah-tay."

It is going to be very hard to persuade certain groups of people that all us gay people aren't lurking about in public toilets, tapping our feet on the floor in some sort of coarse and vulgar mating ritual.

I can honestly say that in 51 years of living on this planet and being sexually active for 35 of those years, I have never once had any sexual encounter in a public toilet. But try telling that to "Rev. Lou Sheldon or Sean Hannity.
 
Can We Stop And Think Here?

I am probably going to get bashed to heck and gone for what I'm about to say, but unpopular stances are nothing new to me, so here goes...

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I fully, fully share the general opinion that Craig is a hypocrite. It's my opinion he was doing a little cruising in that restroom. And I don't think restrooms are the place to have what the old song called Afternoon Delight. But- and there's always a but...

If you'll read the transcript of Craig's interview by the cop (it's all over the net, abc.com has it), you'll see that Craig was busted because he tapped his foot, his foot tapped the cop's, and the cop saw Craig's left hand beneath the stall partition. That's it. No groping, no spit-swapping, no explicit talk- in fact, no talk period. Nothing- repeat nothing- covered by any statute I've ever heard of transpired.

For this, an American citizen was arrested, booked, photographed, interviewed, and charged. That should be of at least as much concern to everyone as Craig's homophobic voting record. The man has been arrested, subjected to job loss, and pilloried in the press over what was essentially a flirtation. It was in a somewhat inappropriate place, yes. It was heavily at odds with his voting record, yes. It was a tacky thing to do, yesyesohyes. But it wasn't public sex, nor was it anything approaching that.

It's easy to forget, in this era of more relaxed mores and slightly more liberal laws, that there are those who hate gays so much, that they will get them any way they can. If there isn't a broad-brush sodomy law to throw at people any more, then other laws can be used- or misused- to harass gay Americans. Loitering, public indecency (define that one for me, willya? I think body-painted Bubbas at football games are indecent, myself), and vaguely worded "lewd conduct" statutes will do just fine, when it comes time to play that time-honoured game, Get The Gays.

What I'm getting at here is that what happened to Craig should not have happened, at least not the way it did. This case makes it clear that nearly any eye contact, conversation, or gesture could be construed as "lewd conduct" if an arresting officer wants to pitch it that way. And if it can happen to a United States Senator- no matter how hypocritical- it can happen to anyone.

Even more distasteful is how the media has lost all sense of proportion and decency. Yes, I share the general opinion that the guy is a major slime, making his living by voting against at least one of the ways he likes to make Mr. Happy happy. But Thursday night's Jimmy Kimmel Live had Kimmel saying that he'd show viewers the reason Craig was gay, then cutting to footage of Mrs. Craig and disparaging her appearance. That's not only way over the line; it may be libelous. It wasn't comedy, it was bullying.

So, while we're all criticising and laughing and circulating Senator Craig cartoons and jokes, I think there's a bigger issue here. Fair treatment for every citizen of this country is too precious a thing to be ignored just because someone's gay, or because this time, the person who was mistreated has been caught out as a hypocrite.

I don't like Larry Craig- never have, never will. But what he was doing could- and should- have been handled by the cop checking the restroom, and upon seeing loitering, calling out, "Minneapolis Police. No loitering in this facility!" I promise you, the place would have cleared in a twinkling. Only upon witnessing overt sexual behaviour or being explicitly propositioned to make whoopee on the spot should a cop have the right to make an arrest. Otherwise, we're on a slippery slope, where it's not okay to flirt and it's not okay to make a date if you belong to a group the cops don't like.

Think about it.
 
Sandy,

You do make a good point there. There are just two big problems with the Craig case, regardless of the evidence: he pled guilty to a lesser charge, signing a statement that he was not innocent. He also has a record of being rather stridently and actively (publicly at least) anti-gay.

Craig didn't have to plead guilty. He didn't even have to talk to the arresting officer other than to provide ID. I agree with others that he's probably had similar detainings in the past, and been able to talk his way out of them. Not this one.

It's quite possible, you're right, that if he had refused to cop a plea, that he might have won his case in court based on insufficient evidence. And he's certainly old enough and been around enough to know that. But once he made that plea, he was trapped. It was just a matter of time before the arrest and conviction would be made public.

And Craig has said and done other things that seem to indicate he was guilty. For one thing, he's claiming that his only mistake was not to consult with a lawyer before taking the plea. But other evidence is that 11 days after the arrest, he contacted the court and said he was going to consult his lawyer. Then, two months later, he took the plea (August 1). He'd had plenty of time to get legal counsel, and if indeed he didn't do that I'd have to say I'd have serious concerns about his mental capacity and fitness to be a senator on that basis.

So yeah, the bathroom patrol was a bit over the top. But on the other hand just announcing at the door that the cops are watching would just make the "johns" scatter like so many cockroaches, only to be back as soon as they felt the coast was clear again. From a law enforcement point of view, the Craig case is probably a big win: with all the publicity, I figure it's extremely unlikely that anyone will be tapping their shoes in the Minneapolic airport restrooms for quite some time.
 
Suds:

I agree 100% that Craig was major dumb when it came to legal counsel; after all, he probably enjoyed better access to counsel than 99% of the people in this nation. And I totally agree that his mishandling of his legal crisis brings up a serious question about his competence to hold high public office.

And, as I've already said, I don't think he was up to any good in that john. I don't like goings-on in public restrooms; they're disrespectful of the rights of others who want to use the place for its intended purpose.

But Mr. Cop buffaloed a citizen, seems to me, and if he can buffalo a Senator, he's free to buffalo anyone he likes. That should be of much greater concern than anything Craig did. If we don't recognise that Craig was railroaded and speak out about that, then in my opinion, just as much harm is done to gay rights as is done by the laws passed by Craig and his ilk, if not more. Joining in the general round of Craig-bashing is playing into the hands of the right; if it's okay to bust Craig over nothing just because he's a sleaze, then it's okay to bust anyone over anything.
 
"I am probably going to get bashed to heck and gone for what I'm about to say..."

Not at all....your point is a valid one, that needs to be made.

Maggie...I listen to the conservative radio shows as well.

With the possible exception of Andrew Wilkow, ALL of them attempt to use the right's hate of gays as a catalyst for change, in all sorts of different manners. Hannity is particularly obnoxious because he covertly tries to make the case that being gay is synonomous with being unpatriotic.

Savage hits you straight between the eyes with it, but, from what I've read of his history, he's hypocritical at the very least....I sometimes wonder if his homophobia is part of his shtick. A lot of the rest of that boys' club (Limbaugh, Levin, etc.) is just your typical locker-room stupidity, but that's become the norm....yet someone like Steve Malzberg always slips in under the gay community's radar, and it's shocking.

For some strange reason, some of the most vile, gay-hating pundits are women (Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, Laura Schlessinger)....

I had become sort of ashamed at the excesses of the gay community and probably do have more internalized self-revulsion than I should, but that all changed two years ago when I started to read the posts and comments at moonbattery.com.

The idea that such sentiments could be expressed, and so many Americans could agree with, and actually add to them, was a serious wake-up call for me.
 
Well stated:

From the Idaho Statesman: Thank Jiminy, Craig is not gay.

I am a gay resident of Idaho, I am thrilled to learn that Sen. Larry Craig is "not gay." I believe him. This entire scandal is not about sexual orientation. Lewd sexual acts are lewd sexual acts regardless of one's sexual orientation. Craig may be a heterosexual man. I hope he is. It is bad enough that he represents Idaho ... we certainly do not want him representing gay and lesbian people.
 
I think it's important to point out that the cops generally only do these sting operations when the place in question has become so notorious, and there have been so many complaints, that they are pressured to do something.

Even then, a ticket for "lewd behavior" seems to do the trick. It's not like they're hauling these guys off someplace. It's Craig's dumb luck that he's a US Senator. They are - and should be - held to a higher standard.

I'm no gushing fan of law enforcement - if you get me started on the "free speech zones" or the ban on protests at Bush events, we'll be here all day - but I don't really see anything wrong with these sorts of operations. Law enforcement has to be responsible to complaints from the community.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top