Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Answer, none. Reason, cops are out to persecute homosexuals.>> Wrong. There are just amazingly few heterosexuals attempting to have sex in airport restrooms. In places where they might try, the cops are there. Weren't you ever a high school kid in your car making out with your girlfriend at a well known lover's lane? Didn't you ever have the cop come by and tap on your window with his flashlight? Didn't he ask you to roll down the window? Didn't he then shine his flashlight around the car to check things out? Fortunately the two times I was caught it was just simple making out. Everyone was fully clothed. I may have gotten a little feely above the waist, but that would have been about it. The cop just told me to leave. Now if I had gotten lucky and the young lady was in the back seat as naked as the day she was born and I had my pants down around my ankles don't you think he would have arrested me? I sure do.
Originally Posted By mele I thought it was a crime to proposition a cop for sex or drugs w/o any money.
Originally Posted By Mr X Probably is now, for all I know. Wouldn't surprise me. Didn't used to be though, anyway.
Originally Posted By Mr X **There are just amazingly few heterosexuals attempting to have sex in airport restrooms.** As was already mentioned, who's to say he wasn't just looking to meet someone, and had plans to go somewhere private? Is THAT a crime? **Didn't you ever have the cop come by and tap on your window with his flashlight? Didn't he ask you to roll down the window? Didn't he then shine his flashlight around the car to check things out?** Yes. And that's another example of cops having nothing better to do than harrass people who are bothering noone. **The cop just told me to leave.** Why should you have to leave? What crime did you commit?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <**Well, Mr. X, so do I, but frankly you have exhibited your own on this thread towards policemen.** <That's an occupation. It has nothing to do with prejudice.> You should look up the definition of "prejudice." It means to pre-judge. And you have pre-judges all cops here. You say they become cops because they love power and harrassing, etc., not allowing for any other, better motives. You imply that all (or certainly, most) cops are like this. That is pre-judging. Voila. And, again, I'm totally with you on the pretty trivial nature of sending police to bust people for bathroom sex. But that being said, I've read and listened to the interview, and there's no way it qualifies as entrapment, which requires the cop to initiate something. Had that happened, Craig would certainly have mentioned it, and he'd also have had a CASE for entrapment, which means there's no way he'd have pled guilty.
Originally Posted By Mr X **which means there's no way he'd have pled guilty** You're forgetting the part where the cop said "plead guilty and pay a fine, or you're going to jail" Fear is a great motivator, and of COURSE part of his wanting to pay the fine quietly was so that this wouldn't come out AND RUIN HIS CAREER, guilty or not. Wow, that didn't work out too great now did it (remember the cop ALSO promised that if he pled guilty and paid the fine that would be the END of it, and that he wouldn't go to the media or anything else)? **Had that happened, Craig would certainly have mentioned it** He DID mention it, specifically. The first thing he said in the interrogation was "you came on to me!". Didn't you read it? And he has since protested over and over that he was entrapped. What more do you want? You are simply chosing to believe one over the other. And again, we're all assuming the cop is telling the complete truth, and the senator MUST be lying. Why is that?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And again, we're all assuming the cop is telling the complete truth, and the senator MUST be lying. Why is that?" Because the facts bear out a guilty plea, plain and simple.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Mr X **The Seneter is a trashpile and needs to be removed for blatent hippocrassy violations but not because he wants men.** He's already been removed, so it's a non-issue. Great points, SDK. Welcome to the pit, er I mean WorldEvents.
Originally Posted By Mr X SDK, now prepare for your very interesting and valid points to be ignored and for your questions to go unanswered. If you keep asking, you'll get some nasty replies that are irrelevant to your points. That's the way it works around here.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<**which means there's no way he'd have pled guilty**>> <You're forgetting the part where the cop said "plead guilty and pay a fine, or you're going to jail"> For the future... you put that in quotes, and that's not a direct quote, that's a paraphrase. You shouldn't put a paraphrase in direct quotes. He never put it in those words. In fact, he makes it clear that jail is unlikely. Perhaps you should read this again: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3543062&page=1" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Politics /Story?id=3543062&page=1</a> <Fear is a great motivator, and of COURSE part of his wanting to pay the fine quietly was so that this wouldn't come out AND RUIN HIS CAREER, guilty or not. > I was falsely arrested once. In my case, the cop didn't see the incident, and I was arrested because I fit the description of the guy in question, and was wearing a similar color parka. The cops assumed I did it, no quesion. They tried to get me to confess, asked me all sorts of demeaning questions, and if there's anyone who ought to have a bad view of cops, it's me. Believe me, that interview was 10 times as intimidating than Craig's. But there was no way I was going to plead guilty to something I didn't do. And I didn't. <Wow, that didn't work out too great now did it (remember the cop ALSO promised that if he pled guilty and paid the fine that would be the END of it, and that he wouldn't go to the media or anything else)?> The cop didn't, AFAIK. It came out in Roll Call, the congressional newspaper. <<**Had that happened, Craig would certainly have mentioned it**>> <He DID mention it, specifically. The first thing he said in the interrogation was "you came on to me!". Didn't you read it?> Yes, but apparently it's been a while since you did. And there's those quotation marks around a non-quote again. He actually said "you solicited me." He said it once, and quickly dropped it. One minute later he was claiming their shoes only maybe brushed, but he couldn't even recall that for sure. So on what basis, if their shoes hardly even touched, would Craig be claiming that the cop solicited HIM? Try to be honest here; Craig's testimony makes no sense and contradicts itself all over the place. <And he has since protested over and over that he was entrapped. What more do you want? You are simply chosing to believe one over the other. And again, we're all assuming the cop is telling the complete truth, and the senator MUST be lying.> We know the senator has been lying about who he is for 40 years, for a starter. Mr. X, I'm a gay man. I was in the closet once, in my teens and 20's. I never went for men's room sex, but I RECOGNIZE Craig in a way I don't think you can. I recognize the denial, the internal contradiction, the desperate wish to be thought of as straight. And I know he's full of it in this interview.
Originally Posted By Mr X Um, not that I think it matters, but no. I've never been caught doing anything illegal that I wasn't able to talk my way out of on the spot.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Mr. X, I'm a gay man. I was in the closet once, in my teens and 20's. I never went for men's room sex, but I RECOGNIZE Craig in a way I don't think you can. I recognize the denial, the internal contradiction, the desperate wish to be thought of as straight.** Let me repeat for the 10th time that I DO believe he went into that bathroom looking for sex. I've no doubt of it, actually. It has nothing to do with the point of my arguments. And sorry for the paraphrases, but you get the point anyway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It has nothing to do with the point of my arguments.> But it has everything to do with my argument that I recognize a closeted man's thinking process and yes, lying process. That's why I'm so certain Craig was lying his butt off.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Um, not that I think it matters, but no. I've never been caught doing anything illegal that I wasn't able to talk my way out of on the spot.' Then shut the hell up. You hsve NO idea what you're trying to talk about.
Originally Posted By Mr X So then, that means YOU have been interrogated? What crimes have you committed? Scary, since your a cop and all.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Then shut the hell up. You hsve NO idea what you're trying to talk about.** Typical cop response though (misspellings and all!).
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Typical cop response though (misspellings and all!).<< My God, you're an idiot.
