Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't frighten the horses: What Larry Craig tells conservatives about ourselves.
vanity | September 1, 2007 | Nathanbedford

Posted on 08/31/2007 3:32:33 PM PDT by nathanbedford

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last
To: jedward

TANKS...;0)


101 posted on 08/31/2007 6:43:49 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Badly imitating George Michael.


102 posted on 08/31/2007 6:53:26 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Guns don't kill people, gun free zones kill people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Again:Are we to conclude that it is proper to make criminal a solicitation of homosexual sex but not the solicitation of homosexual sex?

This makes no sense to me.

103 posted on 08/31/2007 7:00:07 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
This is an example of the trouble the law gets into what it attempts to criminalize a tool or means of a crime instead of, or, at least as well as, the criminal behavior itself.
So we attempt to make guns illegal to prevent gun violence instead of concentrating on prosecuting the violence itself.


Well put. -- By saying that States have a 'right' to criminalize private non-harmful sexual behaviors, -- we in effect are saying that States have a 'right' to criminalize private non harmful behaviors regarding the carrying of arms, for instance.

If I may inflict this on you here is a rather long post which has some relevance to this idea of prohibiting one behavior to get at another:

Are you saying then, -- that States have a 'right' to criminalize private non harmful behaviors regarding the carrying of arms, - for instance?

104 posted on 08/31/2007 7:03:15 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
No, in view of the explicit protection afforded by the Second Amendment, I do not think that the state has the right to try to get at gun violence by restricting gun ownership.

However it is probably constitutional to try to get at drug use by prohibiting drug possession in the absence of a specific constitutional right. That is not to say that I think it is wise.


105 posted on 08/31/2007 7:16:43 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Since the Supreme Court has declared that private consensual adult homosexual sex is constitutionally protected, why should its solicitation be any more illegal than the solicitation of legal heterosexual sex?


106 posted on 08/31/2007 7:19:21 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The risk to third parties from letting it all hang out is vastly overstated, especially now that the Mexicans and Haitians who clean up after these guys use bleach and wear gloves.

LOL - that would once be me. First company I worked for out of the Navy went belly-up in six weeks. Ended up cleaning rooms in a SF bay area hotel for about two months so I could eat while looking for a real job. In the early 80's. The stories I could tell...

And you're right, it isn't going to happen. Stupidity, as Heinlein once pointed out, is the last capital crime.

107 posted on 08/31/2007 7:24:34 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Ewww.... That was long and stupid.

Anonymous sex in public restrooms is a completely homosexual vice.

The law has a duty to stay out of my bedroom and in a public state-owned restroom.

Can I come over and f my wife in the bathroom in your house?

108 posted on 08/31/2007 7:25:11 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

So, Nathan Bedford, what if he were a black guy trying to seduce a white woman? Hmmmmm?


109 posted on 08/31/2007 7:27:45 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Nathan, you are not reading carefully, to wit:

Again:Are we to conclude that it is proper to make criminal a solicitation of homosexual sex but not the solicitation of homosexual sex?

Man, after 3-4 tries, I'd think you take time to read carefully and slowly.

110 posted on 08/31/2007 7:31:13 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
You need only review the exchange of posts between Jim noble and Bill the drill to see that it is quite easy for the government to make a case that sodomy represents a public health concern especially concerning AIDS and other STDs. It is normally not for the courts to determine the propriety of the Legislature's judgment when it seeks to legislate under the police power or the general welfare powers but only to review to the extent necessary to determine if they are reasonably calculated to achieve a legitimate legislative goal.

What the court did in the Texas sodomy case was to depart from this standard and usurp the legislative prerogative.in other words the courts substitutes its subjective judgment on the wisdom of the legislation-or as you would say the intrusion into the privacy-for that of the state legislature. So we are in a situation in which a privacy right is conjured up and applied to a situation in the bedroom and the very governmental entity that declares it has the power to discover this privacy right also has the power to decide when it is important and when it is not. This is the very depths of subjectivism.

When the court starts to decide which public interest is important enough to set aside privacy it demonstrates that it is working backwards from its preconceived social goal because if they can decide the social goal is important enough it can decide that another social goal is not important enough.so the prevention of AIDS is not important but perhaps the need to prevent the conception of freakish children through incest is important enough. The whole point is that these questions are matters for the legislature and not the courts.

Surely you cannot hold the dwelling has a right to more privacy than a body. I think your argument is the only one that you can make, that the harm to the baby in the case of granting the privacy to the owner of the body is so grave that it must be swept aside. I say there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the court the power to make these incremental judgments unless you have resort to determining what is reasonable and unreasonable in a search and then say this must apply to this confected right of privacy concerning abortion. I will have no truck with this and simply deny the right of privacy extends to abortion. That leaves the state free to legislate on behalf of the baby.


111 posted on 08/31/2007 7:40:45 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Hypocrisy should be properly understood as the absence of standards rather than the failure to live up to standards.

I am tired of how the absence of standards is presented as the greatest, possibly the only virtue. Having standards and living up to them is seen as intolerant, priggish, vaguely inhuman. When someone fails to live up to a standard, it is an occasion to bash the standard. When Bill Clinton broke his marriage vows, the liberals chuckled and said that marriage vows are not that important. When a conservative is caught in a similar situation, there is universal outrage, not because the person broke any vows but because the person professed a belief in anything to begin with.

If Craig were a Democrat, we would hear him announce how proud he is to be gay and commentators would try to persuade us that sex (gay or not) with strangers in public places is a natural and healthy expression of "love" that we must all celebrate, blah, blah, blah.

112 posted on 08/31/2007 7:42:52 PM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I’ve been to the Minneapolis airport, and there are no horses in the restrooms. Trust me.


113 posted on 08/31/2007 7:44:27 PM PDT by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Rudder I have had to deal with nearly 100 posts and it is now 4:45 a.m. my time here in Germany.

Do I understand that you are making another oblique reference to a typo?


114 posted on 08/31/2007 7:44:52 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm
But I bet there have been hos and horses asses.


115 posted on 08/31/2007 7:48:14 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Ohhhhh you’re quick. Good point, believe I may have seen a few of them at the airport.


116 posted on 08/31/2007 7:50:50 PM PDT by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; IronJack
nathanbedford wrote:

-- in view of the explicit protection afforded by the Second Amendment, I do not think that the state has the right to try to get at gun violence by restricting gun ownership.
However it is probably constitutional to try to get at drug use by prohibiting drug possession in the absence of a specific constitutional right.
That is not to say that I think it is wise.

As ironjack commented at his post #100:

There are several subtleties you're missing in oversimplifying the argument that way.
Where the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating behavior, it can justify its intrusion into the private precincts of its citizens.
Butting into a person's bedroom is the ultimate intrusion, yet the state has little or no justifiable interest in doing so other than the imposition of an arbitrary morality on the subjects.
100

If it is [big IF] "probably constitutional" to try to get at drug use by prohibiting drug possession in the absence of a specific constitutional right; --
-- it can be, and is being used to try to get at gun use by prohibiting carrying/possession in the absence of a specific States constitutional 'rights'. -- Namely in New York, Illinois, and California.

Attempting to say it isn't 'wise', is in effect a form of acceptance. It tells us a lot about conservatism.

117 posted on 08/31/2007 7:51:17 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith
Ewww.... That was long and stupid.

It was not long

Anonymous sex in public restrooms is a completely homosexual vice.

I'm too old to go nightclubbing but I have heard different besides the gays don't think it is a "vice."

The law has a duty to stay out of my bedroom and in a public state-owned restroom.

Nonsense, the state won't let you molest a minor in your bedroom.even in a public state-owned restroom there is a certain expectation of privacy.

Can I come over and f my wife in the bathroom in your house?

No


118 posted on 08/31/2007 7:54:46 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Can I come over and f my wife in the bathroom in your house? No

I think you just invalidated whatever point you had.

Now come on, Nathan Bedford Forrest, what if it were a Black Guy soliciting a White Woman in the bathroom?

119 posted on 08/31/2007 7:58:50 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Love Heinlein.


120 posted on 08/31/2007 7:59:47 PM PDT by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
As a constitutional conservative I distinguish between natural rights which Tom Paine vouchsafed to us two and a half centuries ago and explicit constitutional rights. We have an explicit constitutional right to bear arms. We do not have an explicit constitutional right to use drugs. Therefore I see the power of the state to legislate or prohibit the latter to be far greater than its power to regulate the former. I do not see this as a slippery slope and I do not see it as a compromise of freedom. When I deplore the unwisdom of a prohibition against drug use, I think that is an extension of freedom. Tom I think you're putting the wrong end of the telescope to your eye.


121 posted on 08/31/2007 8:04:54 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith
Drink some strong black coffee and ping me in the morning.


122 posted on 08/31/2007 8:08:21 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Just what did he do that was so disorderly?”

You would not be the least confused about this matter, the way you are, if you had a 15 year-old son in the stall next to that b******. You would fully understand the disorderliness of it.


123 posted on 08/31/2007 8:09:20 PM PDT by the Original Dan Vik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: the Original Dan Vik
Since it is so blatantly obvious perhaps you will kindly make it explicit for me exactly what he did that is "disorderly?"


124 posted on 08/31/2007 8:11:51 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Drink some strong black coffee and ping me in the morning.

No, really: What does a conservative taking a name like Nathan Bedford and using his likeness in every stinking post say about conservatism?

What? We don't like black folk?

You are the last person in the world who should be lecturing conservatives on appearances!

125 posted on 08/31/2007 8:13:15 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith
Read my "about" page and ping me in the morning.


126 posted on 08/31/2007 8:15:15 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

It wasn’t read as typo the first time I read it because you have taken a simple issue and made vastly too complicated. Thus, I read it as if every word counted which, in fact, turned out not to be true. get some sleep, I’ll try and digest your essay tomorrow.


127 posted on 08/31/2007 8:17:21 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Read my "about" page and ping me in the morning.

So your handle means whatever you want it to mean, and what conservatives say about Craig means whatever they want it to mean.

Which moots your point.

Maybe I'll change my handle to Heinrich Himmler and use my "about" page to argue out of it: "No really. I'm just a WWII buff!"

128 posted on 08/31/2007 8:23:16 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith
Bugger off


129 posted on 08/31/2007 8:25:50 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

How about this. The fact that a grown man would cruise for sex in a public restroom is just plain low life behavior. We don’t need this from our elected officials. You can do it all you want on your own time, if that’s the case you need to go home and let someone else do the job of runnning our country.


130 posted on 08/31/2007 8:26:21 PM PDT by semaj (Just shoot the bastards! * Your results may vary. Void where prohibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
From your 'about page': The good must start somewhere. How then should we judge the historical Nathan Bedford Forrest? I think the same principles should apply in judging him that we applied to Thomas Jefferson.

Cuz our forefathers are Klansmen?

Really, you are the last person who should be lecturing freepers on apperances.

131 posted on 08/31/2007 8:27:25 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
just what did he plead guilty to?

He plead guilty to the behaviors he committed being so out of order that they were disturbing, or alarming to anyone in the bathroom.

His actual plea:

3. I am pleading guilty to the charge of Disorderly Conduct as alleged because June 11, 2007, within the property or jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Hennep_n County, specifically in the restroom of the North Star Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal, I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others which was physical (versus verbal) in nature.

This is the second of the two charges against him. The first charge was specifically a peeping charge which is a gross misdemeanor. This involves peeping at people when they are in situations where they could be undressed. There is an intent component of that charge which may have been harder for the police to prove. For whatever reason, the authorities did not pursue it.

Larry Craig just plead guilty to his sum total of actions being disorderly and disturbing or alarming to people.

132 posted on 08/31/2007 8:28:27 PM PDT by Waryone (Constantly amazed by society's downhill slide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: semaj
Works for me and I suspect it will also work for his constituents in Idaho which is how the political side of this affair should be handled.

But on the legal side I don't think we want to make being a low life criminal behavior. Likewise cruising for sex Absent overt acts.


133 posted on 08/31/2007 8:30:32 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others which was physical (versus verbal) in nature.

Tended to arouse... resentment.

Does that include picking your nose? Popping zits onto the mirror? Washing your underwear in the sink?

Or does it mean tapping one's shoe or touching the bottom of the wall which divides two stalls?

I think we all better be much more careful in the men's room from now on one never knows if some super sensitive lurker might get a resentment-oh I forgot I'm protected because I'm only guilty if I should have known that a lurker would get a resentment.

Is this the kind of criminal law that you as a conservative want to have enforced?


134 posted on 08/31/2007 8:40:08 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
But on the legal side I don't think we want to make being a low life criminal behavior. Likewise cruising for sex Absent overt acts.

So the cop would actually have to get buggered in order to police lewd behavior in the state-owned restrooms!?

That's gonna cut down on recruiting....

135 posted on 08/31/2007 8:42:51 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Those public health issues (which are real) are IDENTICAL in the privacy of one's own home.

I don't know about that. How does one go about seeking anonymous sex in one's home?

136 posted on 08/31/2007 8:49:15 PM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Legal issues aside, Senator Craig knew what we’re missing, and that is even if he fought the charge and won, the media would destroy him. His only hope of survival was a cover up. Not because he did anything wrong, but because he is on the wrong side of politics to weather the drubbing that the left wing media would subject him to. If these issues were purley legal, the Clintons would have been jailed in Bill’s first term. The MSM is masterful at turning happenstance into a crisis and a scandal into a trivial distraction. Senator Craig was destroyed by a partisan press, the same press that is smoothing over the funneling of dirty money into Democrat coffers by an indicted criminal. Ask yourself: could a Republican President have survived Vince Foster’s death, the cattle futures scheme, White Water, Lewinsky, FBI file-gate, Anita Broderick, Jennifer Flowers, etcetra, etcetra??


137 posted on 08/31/2007 8:50:34 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Minn
How does one go about seeking anonymous sex in one's home?

Well, sometimes it's like I don't even know my wife.

138 posted on 08/31/2007 8:51:09 PM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (Gen X: I'll be the 'Junior Guy' until I'm 70.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

I know I don’t have to worry about it. I’ve used public restrooms as most people have and have never had to worry about my actions being considered disorderly.

Not everyone can say that. Those who can’t seem to figure that the only right they have is to their own stall need to be very afraid.

It’s time for people to go about using the bathroom without worrying about peeping toms, roaming feet, or rush-in hands.


139 posted on 08/31/2007 8:53:07 PM PDT by Waryone (Constantly amazed by society's downhill slide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Thank God for the police.
Thank God that sex of any kind is not permitted in public restrooms. It should be stamped out everywhere.
Thank God Craig is resigning. He does not deserve his office, he is not needed, he is not wanted.
It’s true that no-fault divorce is more harmfull to marriage and this country than gays. So what? We should oust leaders who support no-fault divorce or gays. Both are disgusting, opposition to one is not diminished by opposition to the other.


140 posted on 08/31/2007 8:54:58 PM PDT by Theophilus (Nothing can make Americans safer than to stop aborting them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
But that is not a crime unless you act lewdly, solicit, or act disorderly.

If I had been in the officer's position, I would have been placed in jeopardy of committing assault against a U.S. Senator.
141 posted on 08/31/2007 9:02:16 PM PDT by Theophilus (Nothing can make Americans safer than to stop aborting them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Civil unions, on the other hand, should be easy for a conservative to tolerate because he believes in the freedom of contract. I don't think so. Marriage itself is no longer a true contract in large part because of no-fault divorce. But a civil union? In this case, exactly what constitutes breech of contract? My imagination may be limited, but given the openness of all homosexual relationships, I cannot find any line between compliance and noncompliance. Why should it be tolerated where nonsexual relationships are not, say a "permanent" household relationship between two brothers or sisters?
142 posted on 08/31/2007 9:02:36 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

A trojan horse is very frightening to a wife, children, relatives and their children, friends and their children, constituents and their children.

Anti-life lies are contradictory to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


143 posted on 08/31/2007 9:11:44 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
" Yep, -- when you get caught disturbing the peace, 'scaring the horses', - you should pay the price. 30 days; - next case.."

===========================

The apologists are driving me nuts. I don't have to let my dog crap on the carpet before I do something about it. When I recognize the signs of what he is about to do I stop him and put him out.

144 posted on 09/01/2007 3:40:44 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith
Well, sometimes it's like I don't even know my wife.

But you don't get anything during those times, do you?

145 posted on 09/01/2007 5:35:45 AM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Plain and Simple — Unlike the democraps, we neither want nor need sexual deviants in our party.


146 posted on 09/01/2007 8:25:48 AM PDT by jhroberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Kudos on this post. The logic is stellar. The honesty is refreshing.

If a person believes in a limited role for government, it’s hard to argue for a limited role everywhere except in the bedroom. And if a person argues that government should stay out of a heterosexual’s bedroom but NOT a homosexual’s bedroom, that person deserves to be called a hypocrite.

Let’s get out of the business of trying to legislate private behavior between consenting adults. It doesn’t really work and it’s at odds with nearly everything conservatives believe.


147 posted on 09/01/2007 11:18:37 AM PDT by semoto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Leave the horses out of this.


148 posted on 09/01/2007 11:23:44 AM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semoto
Thanks


149 posted on 09/01/2007 11:29:37 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: semoto
Kudos on this post. The logic is stellar. The honesty is refreshing.

Except for the fact that we are talking about public restrooms not private bedrooms.

The real hypocrisy is in those who say they are for personal privacy -- unless they are in a restroom. They believe that no one should expect privacy in a bathroom because there should be a protected right to allow deviants to ogle and leer at you. What's next crapping, peeing, and puking on you.

Where my personal privacy begins your freedom to do whatever ends for the government and the deviants.

150 posted on 09/01/2007 11:57:34 AM PDT by Waryone (Constantly amazed by society's downhill slide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson