Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

How many Conservatives does that make now?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: TheDude

GOP Senator Larry Craig Arrested For "Lewd Conduct" In Men's Room

“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.”

Full Story:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/0..._conduct. php

Posted by: MonsterMark

2

That leaves us 119,345,670 behind the dems on this one.

Posted by: MAC1

Would you please clarify your question. What do you mean "How many Conservatives does that make now?"

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

GOP Senator Larry Craig Arrested For "Lewd Conduct" In Men's Room

“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.”

Full Story:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/0..._conduct. php

Seems odd that a guy on the LEFT side stall would be able to swipe his LEFT hand under the RIGHT stall divider...

Jeez. A guy has trouble pinching off his loaf so he taps his foot in the effort and he gets arrested??? Something seems fishy about this one. Can you say "setup?"

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

"A wide stance"??

Sure, whatever you have to tell yourself. He pled guilty, end of story. Another GOP gay basher comes out of the closet.

Posted by: fossten

By the way, Deville, Larry Craig is NO conservative. He voted for cloture against the shamnesty bill.

At least he wasn't running a gay escort service out of his townhouse. But I guess that's okay if you're a Democrat, right?

Posted by: Calabrio

Why is he a gay basher?
Because he doesn't embrace the homosexual political agenda?

Why does that make him a "basher." The victimhood of the left is tiresome. If you disagree with them, or a person puts the well-being of society before their selfish special interest group, they aren't simply making a thoughtful decision, they are "bashing."

Additional, regardless what's happening here, why do liberals have when people fail to meet their own standards? If a guy knows something is wrong, that doesn't meet he should legislate to accommodate his own personal failings. A guy can preach that adultery is wrong, yet still be too weak to live up to his standard. Just because he can't meet the standards we all should live up to doesn't mean he's wrong for advocating them.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Seems odd that a guy on the LEFT side stall would be able to swipe his LEFT hand under the RIGHT stall divider...

I'll hire you as my lawyer any day.

Good catch, or do queers wear their rings on their right hand? And I forget, do queers wear the ear ring on the right or left lobe? I don't want to mistakenly entice some guy to hit on me.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Good Catch - but why did he plead guilty?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Why is he a gay basher?
Because he doesn't embrace the homosexual political agenda?

Why does that make him a "basher." The victimhood of the left is tiresome. If you disagree with them, or a person puts the well-being of society before their selfish special interest group, they aren't simply making a thoughtful decision, they are "bashing."

Additional, regardless what's happening here, why do liberals have when people fail to meet their own standards? If a guy knows something is wrong, that doesn't meet he should legislate to accommodate his own personal failings. A guy can preach that adultery is wrong, yet still be too weak to live up to his standard. Just because he can't meet the standards we all should live up to doesn't mean he's wrong for advocating them.

Definition of a bigot: Anyone who disagrees with a liberal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

And I forget, do queers wear the ear ring on the right or left lobe? I don't want to mistakenly entice some guy to hit on me.

Ask JohnnyBZ, he should know.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

By the way, Deville, Larry Craig is NO conservative. He voted for cloture against the shamnesty bill.

At least he wasn't running a gay escort service out of his townhouse. But I guess that's okay if you're a Democrat, right?

He's conservative, maybe not as much as others; still a conservative though.

I couldn't care less about his sexuality, if he's gay, that's his business; that wasn't the point.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Depends, are we talking about the handicapped stalls which are big enough these days to play a game of handball, or a regular 4 foot stall?

Some gay activist claimed Craig was gay back in 2006 and had participated in similar restroom hijinxs, Craig denied it and said it "was rediculous"... what are the odds?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

He's conservative, maybe not as much as others; still a conservative though.

I couldn't care less about his sexuality, if he's gay, that's his business; that wasn't the point.

Then what was the point?

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Then what was the point?

To poke fun at hypocrites.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

To poke fun at hypocrites.

And again I ask, even if he's a hypocrite, what does that prove? First of all, how is he a hypocrite? But secondly, does it make him wrong to oppose policy that isn't in the interest of society, simply because it would make it easier to indulge his impulses?

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

First of all, your 'best interest of society' stance is clearly subjective, you [may?] feel gays having equal rights would ruin society and America will crumble, there is no proof of this though.

Secondly, this man has supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on two separate occasions, voted against extending the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Federal Hate Crimes Bill to include "gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation". Yet he's participating in illegal homosexual acts; that doesn't make you think twice about this guy’s credibility, especially since he has sway on over our laws?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Secondly, this man has supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on two separate occasions, voted against extending the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Federal Hate Crimes Bill to include "gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation". Yet he's participating in illegal homosexual acts; that doesn't make you think twice about this guy’s credibility, especially since he has sway on over our laws?

Those are two entirely distinctly separate issues.

The behavior Craig apparently is involved in does call into question his judgment and whether it is appropriate to have him in a position of high power. And, as you will see in the coming days, Craig will not be vigorously defended by Republicans and he will be convinced to either step down or at least not run for re-election. He has already lost a leadership position and been recalled from his position in the Romney Presidential campaign.

Mitt Romney has even said that his behavior was disgusting.

His opposition to the radical Gay political agenda is not hypocritical in anyway. You can support something because you know it's good, but still fail to live up those standards. That doesn't mean what you advocate is wrong, it just means that you're a failure.

However, I'd love to see the opposition party hold their members up to such a standard.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

However, I'd love to see the opposition party hold their members up to such a standard.

I doubt the Republicans will give him a standing ovation and committee chairmanships like the Dems did Gerry Studds.

Posted by: MAC1

All I can say is that there is no way I would have pled guilty if I were innocent. I would have defended my reputation, particularly when it comes to accusations of lewd behavior. Either Craig is guilty or a total moron for thinking pleading guilty would make the whole thing go away (no pun intended).

Posted by: ford nut

He IS guilty thats why he pled guilty.
Just listen to the tape after he got busted.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=63...&fg=&GT1=10252

Posted by: MERIJONS97LSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

He IS guilty thats why he pled guilty.
Just listen to the tape after he got busted.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=63...&fg=&GT1=10252

I think he was guilty, But I can't see how he was arrested for lewd behavior without some kind of dialogue between the police officer and himself. There was no agreement for sex between the two. Tapping a foot and touching the bottom of the stall is a stretch on lewd behavior! I believe he's guilty because
he pled guilty! If he didn't, I don't think It would of stood up in court. IMO I'm not a lawyer! But when they're trying to catch a guy trying to buy sex from an undercover officer, He first has to talk about price and then hand her the cash, before they can arrest him!! FISHY IS RIGHT FOSSTEN!

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Good Catch - but why did he plead guilty?

He was coerced to plead guilty to a misdemeanor by the officer all the while being promised if he did plead guilty, the story would be buried.

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

He was coerced to plead guilty to a misdemeanor by the officer all the while being promised if he did plead guilty, the story would be buried.

LOL did you listen to the link ?

He pled guilty because he used his left hand to to tell the undercover officer "who BTW looks like he is 15" to come on over !

He clamied it was is right had pickin up T.P.

It was a sting and he was caught plain and simple.

Do you think the MPLS airport set a sting just to catch him ?

Belive me it was not the first time he had some fun in a boys room.

Posted by: fossten

One more thought about Sen. Craig:

Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

One more thought about Sen. Craig:

Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Idiot should have done his homework on the US Constitution and not said a word to the police until he had spoken with lawyer. Nice "get out of jail" card there.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Idiot should have done his homework on the US Constitution and not said a word to the police until he had spoken with lawyer. Nice "get out of jail" card there.

Exactly. Larry Craig's crime? Stupidity.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Exactly. Larry Craig's crime? Stupidity.

He's also a lying @sshole, but that isn't a crime in this situation I'd guess.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

He's also a lying @sshole, but that isn't a crime in this situation I'd guess.

If it were, Bill and Hill would be on death row.

Posted by: Calabrio

That constitutional article isn't a get out of jail free card. In fact, had he utilized he would have been guaranteed intense attention from the media and he'd be further attacked for invoking the constitution in an attempt to get out of trouble while cruising for bathroom secks.

He technically might have been able to apply it, but then he'd certainly be looking at an additional ethics violation. It's been used before to get out of petty stuff, like tickets before.

I've always interpreted that to mean some a corrupt law officer couldn't detain a congressman as to prevent him from a making a vote or engaging in a debate.

Posted by: ford nut

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/...o/craig_arrest

Bye Bye dik head

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/c...agreement.html

Guilty and gay.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/...o/craig_arrest

Bye Bye dik head

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/c...agreement.html

Guilty and gay.

My guess based on your comments up till now is that you lean left of center with your political ideology. If I'm wrong, correct me.

If I'm right, since when does the left have a problem with somebody being gay?

Posted by: fossten

Remember the cries of delight from you fiberals over the Jack Abramoff scandal? Well, try this one on for size, and tell me where the culture of corruption lies...

A Really Big Hsu...

Democratic fundraiser, New York apparel baron, and recently outed fugitive Norman Hsu elected to turn himself in today to authorities in San Mateo, California. Some of Hsu's political beneficiaries have been scrambling to divest themselves of Hsu's contributions, following the revelation that he was wanted in California for skipping out on an agreed-to 3-year prison sentence, following his conviction on investor swindling charges.

Specifically, those vowing to return Hsu's money or turn it over to charity include: Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), John Kerry (D-MA), Al Franken (D-MN), Bill Richardson (D-NM), and Patrick Murphy (D-RI). [Update: Shep Smith tells us Ted Kennedy has also pledged to disgorge himself of Hsu's contributions. As detailed in the second chart below, Teddy's one of the many whose receipts from Hsu's shady network far outweigh Hsu's direct contributions, so we'll see whether Kennedy's planning to offload the whole questionable sum or just the official Hsu monies. Clinton and Obama have elected to keep the shady bulk.]

Phew! Washed our hands of that scandal.

"There's no way to keep the money," said Doris Chandler Duke, a former ambassador and a major Clinton supporter who belongs to the community of long-time, established donors. "The man may be cleared of all charges and it could blow out to sea, but in the meantime, you don't want to be associated with any donations that might be dishonorable."

Right. Except it's not just Hsu's own contributions which tend to give off that odor of dishonorableness. What originally brought Mr. Hsu to the forefront this week was not his fugitive status, but rather the curious patterns of political contributions attributable to various associates of Hsu's, some of whom appear to be of far meagerer means than their political lavishings would suggest. Most notable was the case of the Paw family in California, who became Hillary Clinton's 3rd highest contributing household in the country, a "distinction" somewhat incongruent to their apparent economic posture.

Clinton and (as far as I can tell) thus far all of Hsu's other recipients have balked at the opportunity to disassociate with the larger Hsu debacle by ridding themselves of contributions from his associates which may - one is forgiven for supposing, and as the FEC is probing - have actually come from Hsu himself. The pattern and timing of these contributions, in light of the financial wherewithal of some of the individuals involved, not to mention the swindling credentials of the ringleader and his soon-to-be incarcerated status, seem to be sufficient to cast a very harsh, ugly light on these other contributions.

To give you an idea of the scope, Clinton has vowed to turn over $23,000 in Hsu contributions to charity. But including gifts from Hsu's associates, Clinton has raked in nearly $175,000 from this crew since 2004. You can appreciate why she might be reluctant to part with that much warm, filthy lucre.

On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal published a list of contributions made (and raised) by Hsu since 2004. Using the associates identified in that table as a starting point (the Paw family of California, the Lee family of Queens and Pennsylvania, the Su family of Long Island, and Peter Tan and Stanley Lim of California), I began to go through state and local campaign finance disclosures to see if Hsu's group had taken a shine to any other races.

Indeed, they have.

I'm still working to incorporate the municipal data, but below are the summary results of a nationwide scour of all state and federal campaign finance disclosure documents published since the 2004 cycle. Already, you'll find 65 Democratic candidates (even one Republican(!), though he lost...) running for everything from State Assembly to President. You'll find them running in 32 states. You'll find 9 Democratic campaign committees and 10 Democratic state parties in the mix.

I wonder how it'll take until they've all pledged to give up the ill-gotten geetch.

Immediately below are presented the top 11 recipients of Hsu's direct contributions and fundraising among the associates in question. Below that, please to enjoy a table of the aggregate receipts of every state and federal candidate, ballot measure, state party, campaign committee, and advocacy group that has taken money from Hsu and his suspect network.

I'll be putting up more exhibits as I carve through the underlying data a little more, and there will be loads more to gaze upon once I've integrated the municipal data. Loads. Lodes, even.

With the state-level data added, we've now shot past $1.3 million. The municipal data looks to drive the total significantly higher. So stay tuned.

Once I've knocked it fully into shape and prettied it up for public display, I'll make available the Google spreadsheet with the raw data so you can do your own futzing with it.

Posted by: TheDude

"Bill Clinton is probably a bad nasty naughty boy." - Sen. Larry Craig circa 1999

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjmynoiQIM 34 seconds

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Article 1, Section 6 does not apply with respect to Craig's arrest. It states that senators and representatives "...during their Attendance at the Session of the Respective Houses [of congress]" not be subject to arrest except for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace. Craig was not in "Attendance" at a "Session" of the Senate when he was arrested, nor was he "going to or returning from same..."

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

"Bill Clinton is probably a bad nasty naughty boy." - Sen. Larry Craig circa 1999

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjmynoiQIM 34 seconds

ROFL they way he says it you can tell he likes naughty boys.

Quote:

As always fossten you are way off base.
And I could gave a $hit if anyone is gay .....Craig should admit it and live it.

Oh and BTW the Norman Hsu issue has nothing to do with Craig getting busted for gay sex in the mens room.

You should try to stick to what the subject is when you post.
Hijacking threads with spam makes you look ignorant.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

ROFL they way he says it you can tell he likes naughty boys.

As always fossten you are way off base.
And I could gave a $hit if anyone is gay .....Craig should admit it and live it.

Oh and BTW the Norman Hsu issue has nothing to do with Craig getting busted for gay sex in the mens room.

You should try to stick to what the subject is when you post.
Hijacking threads with spam makes you look ignorant.

The flavor of this thread is an ongoing list of "conservatives" getting in trouble. I know you haven't been here very long, so you don't have perspective on this, but we have been going back and forth for a long time over which party has the largest number of miscreants. I'll admit that my post was slightly off topic, but it's all the same in this forum, so who gives a rip? Besides, it's one less new thread wasted. So sorry to have offended you, Mr. Anklebiter. I can see that you don't choose your battles very carefully.

Posted by: ford nut

ROLF Anklebiter lool.

Quote:

I'll admit that my post was slightly off topic

as always..... I would have no trouble finding posts of yours that are off topic and or spam.

How about this one.
It starts about mike vick and some how YOU turn it into a abortion issue.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=34808

I may have not been here long but it dosent take long to see you dont stay on topic too well and you spam a thread like I have never seen.

Now can you expose more of your ankle so I can have another bite ?

Sorry guys for getting of topic

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

Sorry guys for getting of topic

Ok. Let me summarize.

Democrats get a promotion and acccolades if they act or are gay.

Republicans get the boot.

Yet......, the lefties will argue the righties are hypocrites.

The guy likes other guys licking his willy clinton. Whatever turns your crank.

Just don't run on my parties' platform.

Plenty of room on the gay Dem platform for guys like Craig.

Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ Larry, or should I call you Fairy?

Man, 60-70 year old gay guys. Is there anything more repulsive?

Posted by: ford nut

Quote:

Man, 60-70 year old gay guys. Is there anything more repulsive?

Nope its as bad as it can get.

Posted by: clark

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

How do you know what the cop looks like?

Posted by: ford nut

His pic is in this vid.

http://wcco.com/national/local_story_242153708.html

Posted by: MERIJONS97LSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by ford nut

"who BTW looks like he is 15" to come on over!

15'' ARE YOU SURE IT WASN'T THE COP'S HORSE!!!

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MERIJONS97LSC

15'' ARE YOU SURE IT WASN'T THE COP'S HORSE!!!

That's not 15 inches, that's an endquote.

Posted by: MERIJONS97LSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

That's not 15 inches, that's an endquote.

OH!

.......Never mind!

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Ok. Let me summarize.

Democrats get a promotion and acccolades if they act or are gay.

Republicans get the boot.

Yet......, the lefties will argue the righties are hypocrites.

The guy likes other guys licking his willy clinton. Whatever turns your crank.

Just don't run on my parties' platform.

Plenty of room on the gay Dem platform for guys like Craig.

Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ Larry, or should I call you Fairy?

Man, 60-70 year old gay guys. Is there anything more repulsive?

LoL you big homophobe, what are you afraid of, some guy raping you?

Posted by: fossten

NEIL CAVUTO: Well former Nixon adviser Ben Stein thinks that Craig was simply railroaded. Ben is the author of yet another great book, probably another best seller, 'The Real Stars.' He joins me now from California. Ben what do you make of this?

BEN STEIN ('The Real Stars' Author): I make of it that it was pure police entrapment and thuggery. I make of it that the fact that the police have real work to do at the airport. It's an airport, hello? There are security problems at airports. Al Qaeda are you listening? Our security people are entrapping perfectly honest U.S. senators in lavatory stalls instead of looking for you terrorists.

This guy went in there, as far as we know, all he did was tap his foot or listen to somebody else tap his foot. He didn't do an illegal act, he didn't do an indecent act. A policeman drags him off, or verbally drags him off, starts browbeating him, essentially threatens he's going to ruin his career if the guy doesn't plead guilty right away.

This is Gestapo tactics in Minneapolis-St. Paul. It's not nice.

CAVUTO: So why did the senator go along and plead--

STEIN: --I think he was just, look I've spent a lot of time in Idaho, these are very nice, innocent people. They're not legal eagles, they're not tough guys, they're not schtarkers, as we say in Yiddish. He's a guy who was afraid his reputation would be ruined if this policeman made whatever he knew public, all right, the policeman obviously already did that. And so he went along, thinking that it'd all stay quiet.

But he didn't do anything. He tapped his foot. And I don't like the idea that people are sitting in the next stall from you at a public bathroom listening to whether or not you tap your foot. This is, as I said, Gestapo tactics, Gestapo, Gestapo, Gestapo. It's not America.

CAVUTO: What do you think of some of the Republicans who've said 'resign,' talk about shooting first and asking questions later?

STEIN: I cannot believe. This is just what they did to Trent Lott. Trent Lott did a totally innocent, a slightly amusing, slightly silly thing. They kicked him out of there even though he was a great leader.

Now they're doing it to Larry Craig. He hasn't done anything wrong and they're ganging up on him. This is some way to treat the people who have been loyal members of your party for many years. What did he do wrong? Suppose, he was soliciting for gay sex. Gay sex is not illegal in the United States, the Supreme Court has said that. If it were illegal, it would be a different story. It's not illegal, he didn't do anything illegal they're just bludgeoning him into a confession.

CAVUTO: So what do you think happens now? If the message is, at least from authorities, that you can go ahead and browbeat someone into the point of making this admission--Maybe like you say, Ben, they realized, hey we have this big senator here, this could make our careers if we bring him down. What then?

STEIN: I think the message is that the executive branch can belittle and destroy the legislative branch, that they can sting anyone they want and ruin his career. I've seen that happen with legislators over and over again. On trumped up charges, they bring down the legislator and change the balance of power within the United States generally. This is a really serious case of police overreaching and the victim here is Larry Craig and the constitution of the United States.

CAVUTO: All right, you're arguing a position that not many have, thank goodness for that. Ben Stein, thank you very much.

Edit: My comments -

Exactly what part of "Anything you say can and will be used against you" do people not understand?

Look, guys, if you're ever arrested for any reason, there are four steps you should always take:

1. "Officer, am I being detained, or am I free to go?" If the latter, leave, if the former, see #2.

2. "Officer, what am I being arrested for?" Upon hearing the answer to this, see step #3.

3. "Officer, I prefer not to speak further without the representation of legal counsel." After saying this, see step #4.

4. Shut up and wait for the attorney.

Likelihood is that if you follow this template you will be released before #4. Most people get themselves in trouble by opening their mouths. Case in point, Larry Craig.

Posted by: Calabrio

CRUISING WHILE REPUBLICAN
by Ann Coulter
September 5, 2007

If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."

Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."

Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."

Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.

As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.

The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles on Craig. MSNBC covered it like it was the first moon landing -- Three small taps for a man, one giant leap for public gay sex!

In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base.

But back to the real news of the week: CNN's Dana Bash reported that the Larry Craig story was "everywhere and it is not going to let up."

If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay.

Just as liberals were reaching a fever-pitch of pretend shock and dismay at Larry Craig, it was announced that Craig was resigning. And there went MSNBC's fall program schedule.

Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting, liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay.

Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was because of Republican "homophobia." After howling with rage all week about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes on Friday was nothing if not audacious.

But last Friday -- or, for short, "the day the two bomb-carrying Egyptian students were indicted and the mainstream media was too busy jeering at Larry Craig to notice" -- The New York Times editorialized:

"Underlying the (Republicans') hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Sen. Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness."

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk!

Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.

Liberals have no idea what they think about homosexuality, which is why their arguments are completely contradictory. They gay-bait Republicans with abandon -- and then turn around and complain about homophobia.

They call Larry Craig a "deviant" based on accusations that he attempted to solicit sex in a public bathroom -– and then ferociously attack efforts to prevent people from having sex in public bathrooms.

They say people are born gay -- and then they say it's the celibacy requirement that turns Catholic priests gay.

They tell us gays want nothing more than to get married -- and then say it's homophobic to oppose homosexual sex in public bathrooms.

Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.

The Idaho Statesman spent eight months investigating a rumor that Craig was gay. They interviewed 300 people, going back to his college days. They walked around Union Station in Washington, D.C., with a picture of Craig, asking people if they had seen him loitering around the men's bathrooms.

And they produced nothing.

All they had was the original anonymous charge of sodomy in a bathroom at Union Station that started the eight-month investigation in the first place -- and his plea to "disorderly conduct" after an ambiguous encounter in a bathroom in Minneapolis. Even his enemies said they had never seen any inappropriate conduct by Craig.

If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER

Posted by: fossten

And once Ann has commented on the subject, there really is nothing more to say. Talk about capturing the essence.

Cue the fiberals on this forum attacking Ann personally, but unable to do anything with her actual commentary.