As I see it, here's why the conservatives see a comparison between Craig and Clinton.

[TahitiNut]

Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship (in the ordinary, not the legal meaning of the term) with a consenting (eager) adult ... and there was no law broken.
Larry Craig invited a sexual relationship (in every sense) with a non-consenting adult ... and the behavior was a misdemeanor.

Bill Clinton said he didn't ... but he did. The right-wing regards a lie about private behavior as wrong.
Larry Craig said he did ... and he did ... and now says he shouldn't have said he did. The right-wing regards a lie about public behavior (and guilty plea) as right.

Bill Clinton did it with a female he worked with.
Larry Craig didn't do it, but tried to, with a male he never met.

Both of their last names begin with "C".

See the equivalence?? See? It couldn't be clearer.


:sarcasm:

[CatWoman]

1. wow

I could have had a






wait for it


















:hi:

[TahitiNut]

2. One of my favorite beverages!

:thumbsup:

[CatWoman]

4. or would you rather have one of these?

:)

[TahitiNut]

7. Now you're talking!! Yum!!

:loveya: :yourock: (I'm a big fan of melon lickers.)

:rofl:

[KoKo]

3. Some "very dry wit" from Palm Beach Blogger...you might appreciate...

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/local_news/epaper/2007/08/29/w1b_binocol_0829.html#

I got this from Josh Marshall's site...Josh has a comment...but read it...it's very dry but humorous.

I couldn't post it because of "Stone Issues," but some who still have some latent sense of humor might find this "not offensive" but sort of "dry" AND hysterically funny.

Link from TPM:


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/local_news/epaper/2007/08/29/w1b_binocol_0829.html#

[TahitiNut]

6. (lol!) Fun stuff.

I think there's a good argument (somewhere in this) for unisex lavitories. I haven't quite found it yet, but it's there. I think I'd need latex gloves to find it, though.

:evilgrin:

As a "closeted heterosexual" (celibate), I've assumed my closet offers a "reasonable expectation of privacy." From what I've been told on DU, I might have to re-examine my assumptions.

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.

http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.72&year=2006

(I wonder if Larry Craig has epilepsy?)

609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY.
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device.

(a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house orplace of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.

(b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.

(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.
<snip>

http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.746&year=2006

[KoKo]

9. yes...well...

After all that...I think some "privacy" in the John..is sort of the last "Right" we Americans have.

But, I do understand that DHS might have a few quibbles with that.

I might be carrying a "WMD" in my undies and you might have it in your...well. Maybe Larry Craig was doing a SERVICE FOR US! He exposed the laxity of "24/7 Security" that should be manditory in EVERY PUBLIC RESTROOM IN AMERICA!

After all..WHO KNOWS what GOES ON IN THERE...Tapping toes and Panty Raids and "other stuff." :scared:

HOLD IT on the ROAD or go in the BUSHES! (no pun intended) ...thinking about that stretch through GA on I-95 where the stops are few for "public" and you are advised by the Road Signs to do "convenience stops." (which means...stop the car, jump out and find a good spot in the woods on the side of the road if you can't make the over 45 mile Rest Stops to relieve yourself.) :D

[OHdem10]

5. They ard using Bill Clinton

The people forgave Bill Clinton, why cannot we get away with
things?????

Because you GOPers run as holier than thou==calling Liberals
Godless. You cannot commit sins. Your base will get you.

[JoePhilly]

8. The Clinton reference doesn't help the righties ...

It reminds everyone just how sex obsessed they are.

[TahitiNut]

10. Maybe. Maybe not. Dunno.

Sadly, there are many on the right who apparently still think were not obsessed enough (paying enough attention).

All I know is that if I were in a unisex public lavatory (and I've been in some!) and someone (male or female) did what Craig did (peeped through the crack, played footsie, and reached under the partition) while I was taking a crap ... I'd be offended (grossed out) and feel the modicum of privacy I had reason to expect was violated. I see nothing "sexy" or "sexual" in it at all.

[KoKo]

11. There have been reports that the Repug Gays were so HORRIFIED at Clinton's Prowess

that the just couldn't contain themselves in their outrage. It seemed he could do in the Oval Office...what they had to do under closure....and it made them very angry.