UPDATED: Carlson claimed that after incident in a public bathroom, he assaulted the man who "bothered" him
On the August 28 edition of MSNBC Live, hosted by MSNBC general manager Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson, host of MSNBC's Tucker, asserted, "Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I've been bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school." When Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually."
From the August 28 edition of MSNBC Live at 9 p.m. ET:
ABRAMS: But Tucker, your position has long been on these kinds of stories that their personal lives are not our business. Does this case qualify for that, in your mind, as well?
CARLSON: Let me be clear, Dan. I am not gay. I have never been gay. I overreacted and made a poor decision.
SCARBOROUGH: And you love your -- you love your wife, Tucker. Let me just say for the record, I am not gay, either.
CARLSON: Let me -- let me put it this way. Whether he's gay or not actually is not our business, and I do think it's indefensible that the newspaper in Idaho spent a year interviewing 300 people to answer the question, Is he gay? That's none of your business. Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms. I think people who do -
SCARBOROUGH: Really?
CARLSON: Yeah, I have. You know what, Let me just say.
SCARBOROUGH: Wait, hold on a second. Dan, hold on a second. I don't mean to take over, but have you been bothered in public restrooms, Dan? Because I know I haven't.
CARLSON: I have. I've been bothered in Georgetown Park. When I was in high school.
ABRAMS: Really?
CARLSON: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Wow.
CARLSON: And let me just say, I think --
SCARBOROUGH: That's something.
CARLSON: -- people should knock that off. I'm not anti-gay in the slightest, but that's really common, and the gay rights groups ought to disavow that kind of crap because, you know, that actually does bother people who didn't ask for being bothered. So yeah, I think it's outrageous that he did that. And also, this specter of him getting up there and blaming other people is so Clintonian. You know, if he just said, "I'm not going to talk about it," that'd be one thing.
ABRAMS: And -- and this notion --
[crosstalk]
CARLSON: But he's clearly crazy.
ABRAMS: Well, and this notion that he pled guilty, and yet he's saying, "Oh, you know what? I never should have done that."
SCARBOROUGH: Well, it's the newspaper's fault.
CARLSON: Well it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous.
ABRAMS: Well it's the newspaper -- it's everyone's fault except his own. I mean, I've never heard of -- I mean, you're a U.S. senator, and you're thinking you're going to make it go away --
SCARBOROUGH: But hold on a second, though, Dan --
ABRAMS: -- by pleading guilty after you're busted in a public bathroom?
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. You have Bill Clinton, who actually went out and did the same exact thing. He showed defiance. He said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." And he continued that line not only for months in the press, but then he went before a grand jury and said the same thing. And it -- you know what? Here's the thing. It worked for Bill Clinton. His wife went on TV and she blamed, remember, the vast right-wing conspiracy that's been trying to take down her husband.
I don't dredge this up to knock the Clintons. That is history, and it's a -- ugh -- it is a nasty part of our history, and I'm glad it's behind us. I just bring it up to say, you know what? Deny, deny, deny seems to work.
[crosstalk]
CARLSON: But it's also -- but it's evidence, in Larry Craig's case -- I mean, you know, you just watch the press conference, and you see a man who's not in possession of himself. I mean, there's something -- you know, I'm not a shrink, but there's clearly something wrong with Larry Craig. He appeared to believe it. This is a guy who's been accused repeatedly over the years of soliciting sex from men in bathrooms. So the chances that he's arrested for the same thing accidentally --
ABRAMS: Right, right, right.
CARLSON: What, he's the unluckiest man and he's Job?
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Tucker?
CARLSON: You know what I mean? It's insane!
SCARBOROUGH: Was he the guy in Georgetown, Tucker?
CARLSON: No, actually. I got that -- my point is -- let me just say --
ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.
CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --
ABRAMS: And did what?
CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
[laughter]
CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --
[laughter]
CARLSON: -- but I do think doing this in men's rooms appears to be common. It's totally wrong, and they should knock it off. I mean that. I think it's -- I can't bring my son to the men's room at the park where he plays soccer because of all these creepy guys hanging around in there. I actually think it's a problem. I'm sorry.
UPDATE: Media Matters received the following statement from Tucker Carlson by email from an MSNBC spokeswoman:
Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.
Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.
This is why this should not be, and IS NOT, a gay issue at all. This is a trolling for sex in a public restroom story by a sitting Senator. To continue to conflate this to "gay related issues" is only linking this type of unseemly behavior with gay people unfairly.
But, Tommy, it's not "trolling for sex" it's specifically trolling for homosexual sex, which does in a sense make it a gay issue. You can't exactly believe that men who troll for sex in the men's room are looking for women.
I understand that, obviously. But to link this behavior, with those that don't engage in this behavior, is an unfair assumption and an unfair link to make.
But again, I don't think any man is waiting around in the men's room stall just hoping that a woman shows up and then when no woman does show up, figures, hey, i guess this guy'll do. I mean, in the same way that truck stops and highway rest areas are a bit infamous for casual homosexual encounters, so are public restrooms. I think that a lot of that is because our puritanical society has forced homosexuals into the closet for so long that these rendezvous become a part of the gay culture.
I will give you the fact that Craig's sexual preference, in light of the fact that he is politically opposed to many "gay issues", in and of itself is hypocritical, if he is in fact gay. Although just because you're opposed to specific "gay rights" issues does not make one a hypocrite if you're gay, being openly homophobic would however.
That being said, this isn't as much about Craig's sexuality as it is his public trolling for sex. If it were just about his sexual preference, or if he was outed in some way with no unseemly activity in play, then it would be a gay related issue, I agree with you.
Damn are you working that angle or what Tommy? However you can't seem to get a traction going.
Well, perhaps when someone convinces me I am on the wrong track, but so far nobody, including yourself, has been able to do that.
Well, perhaps when someone convinces me I am on the wrong track, but so far nobody, including yourself, has been able to do that.
Surprise!
Tommy,
Nobody can convince you of anything ever.
Indeed. Anybody who has engaged in discussion on these boards in the past year knows that Tommy is always right, and will go to great lengths including taking discussions wildly off topic, to insist it is so. He must also always have the last word.
Always.
We would all do well to learn this forthwith.
I really get to you, don't I?
Makes it all worth it........think I'll stick around.
Actually, I rarely even read your comments anymore now that I've figured out your shtick.
I propose that Media Matters look into installing an IGNORE button in the comments section.
Guys like TOMMY are here either because they are operatives paid to disrupt discussions using a host of methods including, and most importantly, strategically posting his responses so as to always appear on the first page of the comments OR he simply revels in the attention of hijacking threads and posting wildly off topic nonsense.
IN either case, Media Matters could enhance the comments section dramatically by allowing users to, with a single click, make Tommy's comments and observations disappear.
What do you say Media Matters? Can we get an "ignore" button?
Wow Vinny, That is one of the most flattering things anyone on this board has ever posted about me. Your truly have my heartfelt thanks.
Knowing the impact my posts have on you is really touching, and only makes me want to continue.
Thank you again, Tommy.
I enjoy reading Tommy's posts.
At least they get a conversation started. It might be a one sided conversation (Tommy I love you, but I feel like your not a very good at taking other peoples points into consideration)
I know, especially considering how all other posters, who share the "liberal" views, are always so willing and open to taking other people's points into consideration.
We may never know tommy. Try this experiment. Make a COGENT ARGUMENT, rather than stubborn restatements of your original premise and see if it works.
Newsflash, If you don't accept my arguments or even take them into consideration, then don't respond to my posts. It's very easy and simple. Try it.
My own counsel will I keep about which posts I respond to and exactly how I do so. My advice is to get over yourself. Its silly to make such weak attempts at arguments then complain they dont convince anyone. I think I will continue to point that out.
I think that post would make a splendid epitaph, tommy.
; )
"That being said, this isn't as much about Craig's sexuality as it is his public trolling for sex." Topic-Boy
Actually, topic-boy, this about what a regressive doofus Carlson is. But hey, it's not like we're talking about Jose' Padilla, so we can discuss the big picture issue here. Right?
Also Lynn, Many of you here want to make this about nothing but another hypocritical Republican, to score political points against the enemy. Go for it, if that's your issue.
Mine is about a sitting elected official engaging in sleazy activity in a public restroom, then lying about it and wasting the time of his constituents while he is actively trying to weasel his way out it. He should be ashamed.
His party, political affiliation, voting record on gay issues or his personal life is of no interest to me. This is about abusing the public trust with behavior typical of a scumbag.
Also Lynn, Many of you here want to make this about nothing but another hypocritical Republican, to score political points against the enemy. Go for it, if that's your issue. His party, political affiliation, voting record on gay issues or his personal life is of no interest to me. This is about abusing the public trust with behavior typical of a scumbag. Tommy
Tommy both are valid issues. His party affiliation, voting record may not be of interest to YOU but the deny that it is a vital part of the discussion is disingenuous. This is not about scoring political points. Senator Craig is a conservative senator from Idaho who's platform is family values. He has voted consistently against any legislation that does not meet his and the party/people he represents (republican) definition of “family values”. Yet he has no problem engaging in the behavior that he vehemently opposes. That falls under the definition of a hypocrite. Yes he should be ashamed of his behavior but the Republican party as a hold should also be ashamed. During the Foley incident we found that there were large numbers of gays working for Republican senators. Staying in the closet for many reason but the party somehow think that’s OK. My gays are OK but the rest of the gay population is immoral and their behavior is “not Christian”. If Craig was a Dem we would hear the comments starting with Clinton scandal all the way the “Hollywood”. Republican have been blaming immorality from Hollywood for years. So why would you now say that the party that Craig represents is not valid. Maybe not for your part in this discussion but to deny it’s relevance is extremely unfair on your part.
Any "family values" type public servant who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk should be publicly ridiculed and resign in shame. You cannot have it both ways.
It seems you’re the one trying to do the convincing here. You have written this same post about twenty different ways, maybe you’re trying to convince yourself. You have said many times you aren't a Republican so I'm not accusing you nor have I ever accused you of being a partisan Republican. I don't know Tommy but I'm observing a littlie antsyness (I just made up another word) on your part. Maybe subconsciously you fear the Democrats regaining control of DC. You seem to be going through all kinds of contortions of late to defend the bad behavior of folks on the right even in this instance when a guy pleads guilty to a crime. to renege. You can swallow this malarkey if you want that’s your choice.
Yes, Lynn it's all about a subconscious fear on my part of Democrats taking control, bingo - you hit on it. How ridiculous. Your attempts to marginalize this into some defense of Republicans is just silly, I am sorry - normally the points you make are stronger than this. I am not the only one on this thread that feels the way I do......look around.
But your blatant attempt at keeping this political is of no interest to me, as I said. You have made your partisan motivations very clear.
We disagree.
Oh yeah it's my points that are weak? This says the guy who is defending a SENATOR a professional lawmaker who plead guilty to illicit behavior and intent in a public rest room and now claims it was a mistake because he didn’t understand what he was doing. Tommy if this had been some Joe Blow off the street you would be going on and on about the law and how the law MUST be obeyed because we MUST have order, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. I don’t think you wouldn’t defend him and definitely not with such passion; and stop calling me silly before I go Tucker Carlson on you.
Lynn,
Never mind. Your gross mischaracterizations of my points, i.e. defending Craig by saying he didn't know what he was doing - are you serious?
If you had stronger points, you wouldn't so blatantly falsely summarize mine. I am sorry if you're offended, but at least I didn't misstate your positions as you are doing - calling them weak is an opinion, what you're doing is far beyond that, sorry.
You should stop pulling that partisan crap everytime you get irritated, you did this to Lostlogic the most non-partsan person on the board last weak showing that you will do this to anyone.
Partisan crap? Oh please, who is the one hung up on the guy's political affiliation Lynn, you or me? Your scolding is off base.
Tommy this is gettting way to I not I am but what are you for me. So you just continue on your mission to right the wrong against the man who plead guilty to soliciting sex in a public bathroom where most sex solicitors ramain to have sex in the stalls according to law officials. Bu some how this was just a big misundersatnding and the Senator proably just wanted to invite the starnger in the next stall out on date by playing footsie. It's ridiculous
Lynn,
What is pointless is trying to have a discussion with you on this when you cannot help yourself from mischaraterizing and totally misrepresenting my entire position on this. If you feel the need to do that, then there is no point continuing.
Have a nice evening.
Tommy,
Evidently I obviously do not undersatnd what you're arguing.
Lynn,
I have called the guy a scumbag, sleazy, character-less, a pig, etc. - yet you say I am defending him?
I have said I could care less whether he is a Republican, a Democrat or a Whig - yet you say I am scared of the Democrats taking over so I am making excuses for Republicans.
I have said he is totally responsible for his behavior - yet you say that I said it is all a big misunderstading and he must not have known what he is doing and should get some sort of pass.
I have said his disguisting actions, in my opinion, did not violate any laws since he did not have sex - yet you call me lawless and insinuate that I excuse his behavior.
Apparently you don't understand what I have been saying.
You've called him everything but the Republican hypocrite he is.
You also make this a partisan issue by accusing the left of trying to score political points against the enemy. All the while having the nerve to berate Lynn for not being impartial.
What an absurd juggling act are your biases.
Minnesota says he did violate the law and Craig agreed with them that he violated the law, but you're opinion overrules the state of Minnesota? Now is that what you're saying? Or are you saying you think that the Minnesota law is a bad law?
Hi Lynn:
You slam dunked, you body slammed, hit a grand slam, did the hat trick, performed a brain transplant, a root canal, mental health therapy, scored a touchdown and I'm dancing in the end zone with you.
He will be back later, I'm sure of that.
Senator Craig is toast. His Republican comrades have sent down the word for his resignation. It's forthcoming soon.
The Republican party of family values, principles, religion and that promise of compashionate conservatism (Oxi-Moron Terms) is slowly but surely in a self destructive decline.
I could almost feel sorry for the Conservatives who come here to this "Far Left Swamp Pit WebSite" to defend Republicans who have damaged the country we all love.
Naaaa! They deserved to lose the House and Senate. In 2008 they deserve to lose the White House. They have the gall bladder to come here and defend the blunders that have damaged our country.
That's what shocks me.
Sam you forgot:
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAALLLLL!!!!!
Hi!
We used to sing that song all the time.
Jimmy Crack Corn (and I don't care!) I don't remember the words anymore.
Sam I Am
That's because you're making about as much sense as Evil Lib. But I'm done with it now. Craig was charged with a crime and he plead guilty to it and the case is closed.
T
I think I understand what your trying to say. If I'm reading your correctly, political affiliation doesn't matter in this issue, it's all about the act itself. The problem I see with the way your arguing this point with Lynn is that your basically saying that her view point on political affiliation is less valid as it's being driven by her need to attack Republicans. Do you really think that Lynn is the type of person that is driven purely by partisan politics?
In your defense, I do not see where your trying to make excuses for Craig or for his actions. I do see you trying to distance him from the Republican party, but that's about it.
Can you two kiss and make-up now?
Question for you Tommy.... I don't understand why you think his party affiliation matters? I've seen you go after John Edwards for his views on poverty because he has money and make comments about limousine liberals in the same breath. I've seen you make comments about Al Gore on environmental issues because you feel that he needs to have a spotless record in order to discuss this with others and equate this to the democratic party as a whole. How is this different with Craig? Craig panders to the voters in his district on family values, yet he obviously isn't following them.
This is something we see over and over again from the family values party is it not?
Lynn,
Kudos, you clearly got to Tommy who is doing his damnedest to change the subject from Tucker Carlson to Larry Craig!
That Tommy often posts FIRST leads me to believe he is a paid shill. The rest of us have to earn an honest living.
Cheers!
Why thank you Martha, for simply stating that you feel my posts are worthy of financial compensation. Very flattering indeed, thanks again, Tommy.
Lynn,
I've read some of your posts and without expressing agreement or disagreement with them, I will say one thing. I believe that you approach debates here in a spirit of intellectual honesty and full and fair discussion - so, why on earth would you bother getting side-tracked by a run-in with Tommy? I don't want to overstep the bounds of what is appropriate to say, but geeez - You Are Better than That!
You know those annoying toddlers that never stop asking why of their parents? That's what Tommy is like; a toddler that keeps asking why, despite lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp an issue fully. Only the parents are obliged to respond to this never-ending wave of inane questions. So, my advice (if i can be so bold) would be to leave Tommy to his mamma and worry about the debates that matter. Cheers.
Good Day to you DarkDay !
Knowing that Tom's mom & dad are not here to spank his behind, Lynn answered the call to duty. Shame on you for suggesting Lynn somehow overstepped what we are all here to do.
If you feel the need to avoid a lively debate with someone, that's fine but please don't place you're rules on others who are free to comment to their hearts content.
Thanks - Sam I Am
Sam,
you've got me a little confused. I wasn't trying to tell Lynn that she was overstepping any bounds. I was telling her that i hoped I wasn't overstepping bounds by telling her that she is clearly above debate with the likes of Tommy. If we all stop wasting our time with Tommy, he'll leave us all alone and go back to changing wikipedia entries for Fox. I'm right behind Lynn for the sentiments of her remarks and applaud her patience - i just think she would be using her time better by having a discussion with someone who understands the issues and isn't here to deliberately confuse the issues and reframe them in a a context more favourable to conservatives - Tommy is a classically ham-fisted goalpost shifter - no regard for intellectual honesty or integrity - I mean c'mon, would you bother debating the likes of Sean Hannity?
Hi DarkDay:
Thanks for the interesting comments! I'm with you 98%. Great Post!
One Percent: TomBoy is a permanent fixture here. Ignoring him will only leave his remarks seem more credible.
Two Percent: When RepubliCan't Conservatives come here it's our duty to defend Truth, Justice and the American Way. That completes the 2% where we don't agree with each other.
Sam I Am
If we all stop wasting our time with Tommy, he'll leave us all alone and go back to changing wikipedia entries for Fox.
I laughed out loud. =)
Hey Damien, I was honestly trying to understand Tommy’s point, Tommy’s stance is same one many partisans on the cable talking head shows are taking, and I think they are being disingenuous about this and certainly engaging in a double standard here. Now Tommy doesn’t usually fall in line with these right wing talking points but he obviously agrees with them this time, and maybe that’s how he honestly sees it, These guys on the right generally body slam people for lets say less offensive and non-criminal behavior than Craig’s, but somehow poor Craig was either railroaded or entrapped into admitting to something he didn’t do, and he really didn’t commit a crime anyway because he really didn’t have sex and there is no proof that if he were going to have sex that he would have done it in the bathroom stall like other men had been doing in this particular restroom. . That old bigot and homophobe Pat Buchannan who called Mark Foley a “flamer” on a national news show was defending Craig last night saying that he didn’t see where Craig was being hypocritical because Craig probably truly believes that homosexuality is immoral but he just has this mental disease that drove him to risk everything on that lovely day in that restroom. Mr. Non-Compassionate Conservative Buchannan says that this is a tragedy and Craig deserves our sympathy. I kept thinking to myself what a load of crock, where was the compassion for Bill Clinton. Oh no Bill was just a sinning He-Ho that disgraced his country because of a discretion that occurred with someone he knew in a private office with a locked door. Now I’m not defending what Bill Clinton did and if I were his wife he probably would have been spotted at a couple of press conferences sporting a shiner for embarrassing me and more importantly our child. I heard none of them say anything like well maybe the president has a sexual addiction and he needs help. Talk about hypocritical Hey Damien, I was honestly trying to understand Tommy’s point, Tommy’s stance is same one many partisans on the cable talking head shows are taking, and I think they are being disingenuous about this and certainly engaging in a double standard here. Now Tommy doesn’t usually fall in line with these right wing talking points but he obviously agrees with them this time, and maybe that’s how he honestly sees it, These guys on the right generally body slam people for lets say less offensive and non-criminal behavior than Craig’s, but somehow poor Craig was either railroaded or entrapped into admitting to something he didn’t do, and he really didn’t commit a crime anyway because he really didn’t have sex and there is no proof that if he were going to have sex that he would have done it in the bathroom stall like other men had been doing in this particular restroom. . That old bigot and homophobe Pat Buchannan who called Mark Foley a “flamer” on a national news show was defending Craig last night saying that he didn’t see where Craig was being hypocritical because Craig probably truly believes that homosexuality is immoral but he just has this mental disease that drove him to risk everything on that lovely day in that restroom. Mr. Non-Compassionate Conservative Buchannan says that this is a tragedy and Craig deserves our sympathy. I kept thinking to myself what a load of crock, where was the compassion for Bill Clinton. Oh no Bill was just a sinning He-Ho that disgraced his country because of a discretion that occurred with someone he knew in a private office with a locked door.
Sorry was running this through spell check in Word and some how I pasted it twice it here.
where do your interest lie Tommy??
Tommy, what you seem to keep expressing(but fail to admit) is that the whole lot of Repubs, in some but not all cases, are lying, cheating, hypocritical, dirty tricks, scheming, falsifying, weirded out sub-humans who will do just about anything to move, push, force their(your) agenda down the throats of whoever you can. I don't need to continue cuz you won't agree.
On to Tucker......I don't sense that this man has the backbone to bash anyone's head against a stall.... I believe that Tucker was actually accepting of the restroom advances....
,.
I will add to the traction. The truth about the matter with men trolling restrooms really has nothing to do with sexual preference. It has to do with the fact that men are horny pigs. They think about sex all the time. Straight men (who ARE interested in women) and gay men (who ARE interested in men) troll restrooms for quick sex. Sadly, it is just a fact of life. Gay or straight it is a lack of good moral values.
He is not gay. He is a fricking pervert if indeed those allegations are true.
He is not gay.
Huh? If you want homosexual sex, you're at the very least bisexual, if not gay. So if he was looking for something perverted in a men's room, that pretty much outs him.
Many people who engage in homosexual acts do not identify themselves as homosexuals. If this was the case then a lot of prisoners would identify as such.
I agree with Tommy this is not a "gay issue." It's a public sex issue. Unfortunatley this thread has nothing to do with Tucker Carlson being a gay basher.
Many people who engage in homosexual acts do not identify themselves as homosexuals. If this was the case then a lot of prisoners would identify as such.
So you're comparing someone seeking consensual sex to prison rape?
Not comparing the two, besides even in prison, sometimes it's consentual.
Not if you're not gay or bisexual it's not.
Frankly, calling any sex in prison "consensual" is a pretty big leap, but that's way off topic.
Don't worry. Tucker didn't physically bash anybody; he is lying about it to sound tough.
Psst....in the future, Tucker, when you make up stories about beating ppl up, leave out that part where you went back and got a friend to "jump" the other guy.
The reason this thread isn't about Tucker "bashing" is because all who heard the claim immediately thought he was lying.
"Tucker didn't physically bash anybody; he is lying about it to sound tough."
I actually heard this story a few years ago, in more detail, and I have to take issue with your claims. Tucker doesn't need to "lie" to sound tough; I've held the pads for him on more than one occasion, and the guy punches way above his weight for sure. Seriously, I'm not kidding.
Whoever it was that tried to have gay sex with him got off pretty lucky. Tucker could have sent him to ICU (or the morgue) if he had wanted to...and pretty easily, IMO. Then again, I'm just the guy who's seen him go one-on-three with a group of punks blazed on Nuke afterhours in the pavement arena, I'm sure you have better firsthand knowledge of his "toughness" than I do.
Don't comment about someone's ability to throw hands if you don't know what you're talking about, son. Just some friendly advice.
Whatever, dude.
Hahahahahaha! ROFL! That was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. Ooooh that was really good.
Either that is primo satire or you will need to explain to me why Golden Gloves Tucker needed to go recruit a friend to 'jump' the guy.
Ah, yes, I remember prep school boys like Tucker, hard on the mean streets, ready to take on evil doers with his bare hands (so long as it's a least two on one), young men who raise their hands to do their duty in uniform for their country in the great traditions of Teddy Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, and John Kerry and put their lives on the line in a time of war...Oh sorry, my mind slipped, I meant in the great traditions of the Romney Boys and Dick "I shot a guy in the face, Tucker, beat that you little twerp" Cheney. Manly men, each and every one!
Ah, the embarrassing boasts and drama of the privileged prep school boy and how he got away with it, does it ever end?
Totes gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Gay perversion?
What's perverted about it? Granted, I'm ignorant on the specifics here, but have gathered the following:
Senator's trying to hook up with guys in a bathroom.
Perhaps our definitions of perversion are different, but I save that word for the REALLY weird stuff.
Or maybe he is a homosexual pervert. They do exist, right?
Apparently if you're gay and a pervert, then you're not gay, you're just a pervert? I mean, I'm no rocket surgeon, but I think that homosexuals can still be perverts. They're not mutually exclusive.
If you're straight and a pervert, are you a straight pervert, or are you just considered a pervert?
One person's perversion is another person's really great Friday night.
Gotta agree. One person's leather outfit is another person's sofa.
If your talking about me Tommy, I've told you before, I prefer the term degenerate.
I prefer commie-pinko, hippie-liberal fig(rhymes with flag).
Equal rights, baby.
Hitchhiking one time a guy in a business siut and a BMW type of car picked me up. Next thing you know he had his tool out and was spanking it. In Hayward Ca. I was buying a Antique Desk for my wife. A young kid accross the street from me pulled down his pants and started to flock his dolphin. He did it three times to me. One time at teh Buda Room (sp?) in the city the damn bartender ran from behind the bar and grabbed my shgoulders then proceeded lower and grabbed my crotch.
I have many other examples. Are you saying these are all homosexual acts?
How does this kind of thing gravitate to you?
Hmmm,
Maybe he's wearing a pink shirt with guys in various Karma Sutra positions with other guys. But seriously I wonder how all of these things are happening too?
I am 39 year old. It is not like it happened in a damn years time. All you deniers out there, that is exactly what you are. Ignorant to even the possibility that such stories could happen to one person? You all must get out off moms basement. The reason I brought my past up is because so many on here where saying, "Itr has never happened to me"... like it just could not. Sheltered, sheltered.
Personally I think your probably doing something to attrack all of this attention.
Try zipping up your fly and keeping your hand off your junk.
I must be one ugly guy, I'm in my late fifties and no man has ever hit on me.
And that includes my six years as an alter boy.Worrier, I have no reason to BS. If I sound ignorant to a topic, it is because I probably am. But to think I am lieing? That is the last thing in the world I am.
Honestly, I do believe you. You've always been very honest and open in the past.
I don't always agree with you, but I always believe you.
Thanks Worrier.
My whole point is I felt these where acts of perversion. Not ones sexual preference.
When a straight politician visits a DC madam and pays for sex, it's not a heterosexual issue. It's not lambasted as "trolling for straight sex". So why, when a guy is engaged in some freakish behavior that involved another guy, it's a gay issue and gays should somehow find a representative to step up and denounce this, but when it's a guy trying to get nasty with a woman, no one rants about how this is a straight issue and where are all the straight people who should be out front denouncing and addressing this behavior?
Not the best, most grammatically correct way of asking the question, but you get my point. This is not a gay issue. It's an issue of hypocrisy and indecency. Period.
Very well said, my point exactly.
Great post, elvigy9478, I agree completely, especially about the part regarding how gay rights activists should somehow speak out against this type of behavior. I thought I was the only one who was offended when Carlson suggested that. To equate this behavior with some type of gay subculture -- which is what Carlson is doing when he suggested that gay groups should disown this behavior -- is pretty fallacious on Carlson's part.
Agree. That's why putting this in the gay issue column when it is just one person's lack of character is a mistake, and an unfair swipe at all the gay people who have no part in what Craig did.
But Tommy,
What goes on between to consentual adults regardless if it is in a public bathroom out of sight of others or your bedroom, does it make a difference?
What? Of course it makes a difference. One is in the privacy of your home, the other is in a public place. However, Craig did not have sex. What he may have thought about it is not a crime, in my opinion.
So Tommy,
The back seat of your 55 Chevy is off limits?
Tommy, although in some ways I agree with you.
A. It is not a gay issue, its a criminal/lewdness issue.
B. But it is a gay issue as well because
1. His history of anti-gay votes
2. The culture within the republican party that condones thi, as long as they can still bash my husband and I
C. It is illegal, look at it this way, a heterosexual man only needs to walk up to a prostitute and say "how much?" for it to be a crime. He basically did the same thing, but for free.
D. It is about parties a little. If you know the history of this case (thats the problem when you only read the latest info). Gay rights activists tried to send him a message before, "we know your gay, we have sources, please stop hurting your own people." He ignored this and threated lawsuits (that never appeared) and received support from his party, the same party that worked (at first) to cover up Mark Foley's actions. The interview with the first person to report on Craig.
E. And in general, it shows the weaknesses of the current Republican party. This is the real story, behind all the rest. They have hitched their wagons to the anti-gay folks and created a culture of intolerance and hate within their own party. If the party was more open and wise they could open their party to all and make these attacks vanish.
(F. Personal note Tommy: I replied to you on the Lane Hudson thread. Please don't attack Lane, he's a good guy. BTW he was not a blogger until just recently. In an attempt to bring Foley to justice for his actions (and not political, although the media turned it into such). He knowingly lost his job to do the right thing. We need more like him.)
I think Carlson is just closeted, that is why he is so interested in this. He definitely has a boner over all this, that is why he has taken to the airwaves on multiple talk shows. Talk about creepy!!
it's not even an issue when most people use prostitutes for straight sex. It's when you're a "family values" politician who chastised others for lessor offenses that your behavior becomes an issue.
So, similarly, when this Right Wing, "family values", gay hating politician was caught in the act of trying to get a little gay sumpin sumpin, he was not only outed for his family values hypocrisy, but also for his hypocrisy toward gays.
It's not a "gay issue" as much as it is a "hypocritical toward gays" issue.
What if he was a pro-gay politician and very supportive of gay issues and causes? Yet he was still caught soliciting for sex in public? Does he deserve to be cut some slack then? After all, in your book he is not being a hypocrite then, is he?
Depends on what you mean by "slack."
Do something illegal, you face the consequences of that action, whatever they are. Get a speeding ticket, it probably doesn't even make page C27. Personally, I think soliciting the use of an escort service to be a pretty minor thing, and frankly, I figure everyone but Dan Quayle has done that when in Washington, so whatever. Get caught, pay your fine.
But if you're the guy who says "don't do such and such" and then you're busted for "such and such" then yeah, you should not only pay your fine, you should get raked over the coals.
Judicial slack? No more than anyone else. Media slack? Depends on your politics.
By your "don't do such and such" comment, you are assuming the family values guy is the only one saying "don't do such and such"? I would imagine even a liberal pro-gay politician would say "don't do such and such" to public restroom trolling, wouldn't you?
It would definitely be creepy. But what's the story beyond that? He likes anonymous sex? There's not much to talk about other than what the person's sexual proclivities are. And while it might make for some late night monologue jokes (such as the long running "Bill is dating again" riffs on Letterman) it wouldn't amount to much in political terms. At most it would be a "character" issue. And as far as sexually related character issues in Washington, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone whose getting something on the side.
The big story here isn't that this guy was trolling for sex in a bathroom. It's that he's been demonizing gay people to further his political career, when he himself is gay or bisexual. The former is weak. The latter is wicked.
I cannot believe you cannot see the inherent danger, unfairness and thinly veiled homophobic references in what you are saying here.
You are taking his trolling behavior and instead of condemning it as a character issue by an elected official, you are directly linking it to gay people and their plight against his policies. What Craig did was not a "gay thing" nearly as much as it was a sleazy "character thing".....that is where the emphasis should be, not his sexual orientation at all.
If you can't see how this will be trumpeted by the anti-gay forces by linking gay sex with public restroom sex, then you are naive. By making the clear distinction that I am making of this being a character issue, and not a gay issue diffuses that link, which is an unfair one to make.
But you and many here refuse to acknowledge that because Craig's political affiliation, i.e. being a right wing Republican is the juicy scandal that you all eat up.....it may be injurious to his party, but the link you make is far more injurious to decent gay people who have no connection to this type of behavior at all. But it's all politics, all the time....no matter the fallout.
I see it as two separate things. That he got caught doing something like this isn't a big deal to me.
The act he got caught DOING, however, happened to out him as a homosexual. Had the rumors before his election been proven and he was outed simply by people coming forward with proof of his homosexuality, I'd want to see the same stories about his hypocrisy.
It just so happens that the overt act that outed this hypocrite was a misdemeanor criminal act. I don't care about the latter. I'm more interested in getting these self-hating jerks out of office so that gay people can finally exercise their civil rights like the rest of us.
Even at the expense of furthering the myth that gay people engage indiscriminately in public trolling for sex, and Craig is just another example of that? By focusing on his "gay hypocrisy", you are doing exactly that. By focusing on his character and behavior exclusively, there is no point to expand the conversation to gay people in general, whatsoever.
Look Marv, I believe we both have the right intentions here, I don't deny your proper motivation in any of this......I just don't care about a sleazy politician's hypocrisy, his lack of character is the bigger issue for me.
I respectfully disagree with you on this.
Even at the expense of furthering the myth that gay people engage indiscriminately in public trolling for sex, and Craig is just another example of that?
I don't see that happening. I think it's a straw man argument that a conservative might use to quiet this discussion. I'm not a spokesperson for gay rights, so I'll let those at the front of that battle decide what they want to do with this story. But I don't see it as you do.
"By focusing on his character and behavior exclusively, there is no point to expand the conversation to gay people in general, whatsoever."
Yes, and focusing on his character and behavior exclusively, we see a man who demonizes sexual activity that he himself has been found to participate in. This makes him a hypocrite. We also see a man who has denigrated an otherwise normal and law-abiding segment of the population in order to gain political capital among mouthbreathers, and how it's discovered that he shares the very same-sex attraction that he's been using as an excuse to denigrate others.
Tack onto this the fact that gay men are virtually crawling out of the Republican woodwork not long after the RNC and the Republican admininstration have tried to make homosexuals and bisexuals second class citizens through constitutional amendments (federal and state), and this just stinks to high heaven.
It truly has ceased being shocking and just become trite that yet another blowhard "conservative" Republican that spends legislative effort to punish gays is outed as someone that finds it difficult to live a life that is relatively normal. It seems these guys just can't come out and say, "I'm gay," or "I'm bi." No, they need to do that and troll for anonymous pleasure in public, or they do a bunch of E while on their encounters, or they only flirt with and obsess over teens.
I'd be refreshed if a gay Republican who just happened to be an anti-gay hypocrite in public was outed by seeing him having wine and cheese with his lover next to a roaring December fire.
I see Tommy's point about not making this a gay issue, but I also see the reason why it is a gay issue. There is a history and reason behind why gay people used public areas to hook up. We cannot change the reality of this issue. Does it make them immoral or is this a product of the way that society has treated gay people? It's becoming less relevant now because society is more accepting. Personally I think Craig is a throw back to the "good old days" were having sex in a public bathroom was one of the only ways repressed gay men could get some action.
This Craig incident reminds me of "Far from Heaven"
Craig is a phony. That's THE story.
Not that he has sex in public restrooms, and Tommy, he didn't go that far....this time. But bittermarv and I (and everyone else here except you) know he HAS gone that far in the past. This wasn't an isolated one time affair.
He holds office based on anti gay campaigning. That's the story, and it folds in all too nicely to a whole bunch of other holier than thou GOPers who violate the same tenet of hypocrisy.
What if he was a pro-gay politician and very supportive of gay issues and causes? Yet he was still caught soliciting for sex in public? Does he deserve to be cut some slack then? After all, in your book he is not being a hypocrite then, is he?
IMO he would simply be a man caught soliciting sex in a public restroom, arrested by an undercover cop. However in Craig’s case he could not be a pro-gay Republican, very supportive of gay issues cause according to most Republicans being out of the closet “gay” is a no no.
To deny that being Republican plays a large part of this issue is wrong.
You have said it best!
Elvigy,
Did you sleep through the nineties?
Again, a sitting senator who has bashed gays and lesbians publicly for how long? And you insist this is not a gay issue?
This man has "unfairly" related gay behavior to unseemly behavior throughout his public career. This man has given no quarter to those gays and lesbians who are fighting for a simple life with equal rights. This man is now perpetuating the very myths he has so publicly decried.
If that doesn't make this a gay related matter that I'm confused on what would be.
What myths is he perpetrating?
Excuse me, perpetuating.
That gay sex is seedy sodomous behavior. That's your reply? What about the other issues? You want to know what a myth is or what I think a myth is? Answer the other points already.
The reason I feel that it is important not to comingle this into a gay issue is exactly what you just said. By linking this sleazy behavior as being a gay issue, it only gives ammunition to those who perpetuate the myth that all gay people are sleazy and this is just standard behavior for them........always trolling for sex in places where children frequent, blah blah blah.
By exclusively maintaining this is a character issue from a Senator who is looking for sex in a public place, it does not allow it to be expanded into an unfair conversation about gays and public sex. Don't you see the inherent unfairness in that link? I do.
Actually, I think this is valuable.
The good Senator doesn't do service to his previous argument of the immorality of homosexuals, he's simply proven that the only reason he thought that in the first place was because he was apparently disgusted with his own actions.
It doesn't lend value to the idea that gays are immoral - rather, that Creig is one of many repressed gay men who are so thoroughly in the closet that they resort to this kind of behavior for release, and likely hate gays (and themselves) all the more for it afterwards.
Larry Craig is no victim of a repressed society that has forced him to go underground with his behavior, sorry, can't buy that argument. He is completely responsible for his own actions, nobody forced him.
I didn't use the word "society" once in my post. What is your point?
It seems to me that you are saying that one possible defense of this, by gay people, is because of how repressed and mistreated they are in society, they are somehow forced to satisfy their needs with this type of behavior, like it's really not their fault?
If that wasn't your point, then please tell me what it is?
What are you talking about? BLR was referring to the destructive ways repression expresses itself.
"it only gives ammunition to those who perpetuate the myth that all gay people are sleazy and this is just standard behavior for them"
The point is that it is Creig that has perpetuated this myth.
"He is completely responsible for his own actions, nobody forced him."
He's also responsible for his holier than thou campaign against gays and lesbians. This man wasn't just looking for sex in a public place, he was looking for gay sex. He is what he rails against, what got him elected.
You are correct, it's all about character. This man is the sleaze, not gays and lesbians, not because he's gay, but because of his public lies. Had he propositioned a prostitute he would be just as guilty. He wasn't and his stance on gays and lesbians and his actions says it all. You cannot separate this.
As for perpetuating the myths, you think that if we just drop the gay part of the conversation that that will soften the outlook of some people? I don't see how not talking about this will change anybody's mind on that issue, so why try to sweep it under the rug?
Tucker was wearing his bowtie when he went back to kick some but.
And how is this misinformation?
That Tuckie doth protest too much?
Tucker babe,
Just a quick note to remind you about a) Dancing with the Stars and b) your bowtie collection.
Sincerely,
Your Repressed Homosexuality
Honestly, it beats the hell out of me.
I'm wondering, since Tucker said an arrest was made, why MMFA didn't do some research too see if a police report of Tucker's gay restroom incident exists and find out if the report reflects Carlson's version.
I don't think it would have been that hard, given that Tucker gave the location (Georgetown Park) and the time period (when he was in high school).
Even if there was a juicy gotcha to pounce on Carlson with, I'm wondering what it has to do with his or anyone's agenda.
The agenda is that MMFA doesn't like Tucker Carlson and this makes him look boorish and intolerant, I would guess.
I'm inclined to agree. This ranks with the Matthews/Burnett spat as far as relevance to the conservative agenda.
Wait wait wait... are you guys seriously on the record here as saying that it's "boorish" to assault someone because they "bothered" you?
Specifically, if a gay person hits on you, you think it's merely "boorish" to assault them by slamming their head into a bathroom stall?
And you guys don't think that that's maybe a bit of an insight into the ignorance toward gays being propagated by the right wingers in this country?
I think the ignorance is your misunderstanding of Tucker's use of the word "bothered". Obviously he was being sexually harrassed by another man but felt (for whatever reason) to use the word "bothered". Though, he may have actually been talking about how botherings between Sunni and Shia have been quelled in Al Anbar province due to new "tactics" being used there.
I apologize if I'm not getting your humor. You're not suggesting that being "sexually harrassed" (as in verbal harassment) is grounds for a) getting reinforcements and b) returning to inflict bodily harm on the person who, perhaps, hit on you or even offered you sex?
Feel free to get a cop to sort things out if you think things are out of line. But even if the guy suggested something illegal, physically assaulting the guy should have gotten Tucker tossed into a jail cell.
I disagree. I'd have no problem with my girlfriend doing the same thing that Tucker did if she was being harrassed. Sometimes people need to be taught a lesson, regardless of their sexual orientation. Sexual harrassment should not be tolerated. If someone is making unwanted, threatening sexual advances, they deserve a good punch in the face if they do not stop their advances when it is clear you are not interested. Don't forget, Tucker was in high school. Maybe he was a 15 year old boy being propositioned by a 45 year old man? We don't know the specifics here.
Maybe he was a 15 year old boy being propositioned by a 45 year old man? We don't know the specifics here.
That's clearly illegal and worthy of police intervention.
None of the other things you mention is worthy of assaulting someone. I can't imagine a man saying "You know, that woman kept repeatedly coming on to me, so finally I had to slug her." So why would it be fine to beat on some guy for doing the same thing?
You're right, we don't know what Tucker meant by "bothered" but there's a long way between "hitting on" and doing something illegal, and until that illegal behavior involves a real threat to my person, assault isn't an option.
"I can't imagine a man saying "You know, that woman kept repeatedly coming on to me, so finally I had to slug her." So why would it be fine to beat on some guy for doing the same thing?
You're talking to someone who thinks it's never okay to hit a woman unless the man's life is in immediate danger by that woman. I think we can acknowledge that creepy men making unwanted sexual advances in an enclosed space (such as a restroom) on a high school aged boy or girl is a far more dangerous and threatening situation than "that woman repeatedly coming on to me".
You're conflating the two different scenarios, not me. In response to your original post saying something about creepy guys hitting on underage boys, I responded, "That's clearly illegal and worthy of police intervention." Or are you suggesting it's okay to physically assault that person, too?
The you say, in response to the rest of my post, that you think it's never okay to hit a woman. What about a man who hits on you? That was my question. Not a man hitting on a boy (which isn't about homosexuality but about predatory behavior and another thing entirely.) Do you advocate physical violence against men who come on to you sexually?
No. But you forget or ignore that harrassment is also illegal. And please don't tell me that context doesn't matter here. The situation in which harrassment occurs and the parties involved are all relevant to the course of action the harrasee should take. If I am harrassed and feel threatened physically, I may knock the guy out. Assault is a crime, but so is harrassment. And if it can be proved that my physical actions were the result of harrassment and that I acted in self defense, then I have committed no crime. You keep saying that this is just a case of someone "hitting on you". Is that what the senator was doing? Hitting on the undercover officer? If that's all he was doing, why was he charged with a crime? Tucker's situation was obvs similar to the one that the undercover cop encountered, though I would venture that it was much worse. Did he react poorly? Yes. Could he have sought the police and left well enough alone? Yes. But, was it really all that bad that an aggressive bathroom hanging pervert got a bump on his head and was taught a lesson about proper bathroom decorum? In my opinion, no.
No. But you forget or ignore that harrassment is also illegal.
You're gonna need to give me a legal definition of "harassment" before I agree. Yeah, if you go the point of stalking, yes. My example was someone hitting on you once, maybe twice. That isn't harassment.
If I am harrassed and feel threatened physically, I may knock the guy out.
And I'd be backing you up. But you added "and feel threatened physically." You seemed to feel the need to add that to "harassed." Get verbally harassed? Walk away. Physically threatened? Do whatever you need to protect yourself.
Assault is a crime, but so is harrassment.
Depends on the degree of harassment. Again, you seem to be equating my example of someone repeatedly hitting on you to harassment. You say you would not hit a woman for that behavior, but now you seem to be saying you would assault a man for the exact same behavior. I call that a hate crime.
You keep saying that this is just a case of someone "hitting on you". Is that what the senator was doing? Hitting on the undercover officer?
Can you demonstrate he did anything else? It appears that yeah, he may have peeked into the other stall, but that is apparently part of seeking this sort of casual sex. And while I would be annoyed by such behavior, unless it continued relentlessly, I would brush it off to someone looking for an empty stall.
If that's all he was doing, why was he charged with a crime?
It's illegal apparently to solicit sex in a public bathroom. He pleaded down to a lesser crime. He wasn't charged with harassment or threatening someone with physical harm.
Tucker's situation was obvs similar to the one that the undercover cop encountered, though I would venture that it was much worse.
We don't really know. He used the term "bothered." I'm posing other questions to you because you seem to be advocating violence against gay people for the mere act of coming on to you. If you're not doing that, simply saying so would end this conversation.
But, was it really all that bad that an aggressive bathroom hanging pervert got a bump on his head and was taught a lesson about proper bathroom decorum? In my opinion, no.
So you're on the record as an advocate for vigilantism. I disagree with you vehemently in that regard, but whatever. I also have the law on my side in that regard, mind you. Sadly, this society seems to turn a blind eye toward homosexual hate crimes, so you have that in your favor.
"I'm posing other questions to you because you seem to be advocating violence against gay people for the mere act of coming on to you. If you're not doing that, simply saying so would end this conversation."
I have never advocated violence or "seem[ed] to be advocating violence against gay people" in any of my posts. that's quite a charge to make and you have zero evidence to back it up. I have said, that if harrassment reaches the degree where one feels physically threatened, then I am not against the use of force in self defense. You know that I said that because you quoted it yourself. In fact, I specifically used the example of a girl being harrassed by a man to demonstrate that this was not an issue decided by the sexual preference of the people involved. In an earlier post I wrote, "Sometimes people need to be taught a lesson, regardless of their sexual orientation. Sexual harrassment should not be tolerated." I have not ever in my life advocated violence against anyone because of there sexual orientation. For you to accuse me of such a thing, with no evidence to back it up whatsoever is utterly reprehensible and you ought to apologize.
You're conflating "sexual harassment" with "hitting on you" not me. You mix together the concept of harassment with threats of bodily harm, and then use that to justify violence. Every time I pose a hypothetical, you one-up the charge. I say something about a gay male "hitting on you" and you respond with talk of harassment and feeling threatened. I don't understand why you're doing that.
This topic's discussion has this air of being far too comfortable with the idea of banging someone's head against a bathroom stall for the act of being "bothered". (And I purposely put that in quotes because we don't know what "bothered" meant.) Nobody seems to mind that Tucker and his buddy beat some guy up for possibly doing nothing more than winking at Tucker. The only thing that people seem concerned with is that Tucker had to go get a buddy.
No concern that he chose to retaliate with violence. No concern that he walked away, GOT A BUDDY, AND THEN PLANNED RETALIATION, AND THEN CARRIED IT OUT. Instead, we have endless comments about Tucker's manhood because of the method he chose to go back and beat up on a gay person for who knows what act?
Hatred and even violence against gay people is far too prevalent and permissible in our society. That's my complaint. And I guess I'm not finding enough discomfort with violence against gays in your comments. So I persist.
By "This topic's discussion" I mean the 180+ comments so far and not just the comments made by you.
You are conflating "gays" with bathroom-hanging perverts. I'm not advocating violence against anyone unless the harrassment rises to the level where one is physically threatened. I've said this countless times. You've got blinders on for some reason and cannot see it. You are the one that keeps asking about someone "hitting on you" and you asked me specifically if I "advocate physical violence against men who come on to you sexually". My answer was as clear and concise as possible. It was and still is "no". You cannot be so obtuse as to think that "hitting on" someone can't escalate very quickly to a point where the one being "hit on" is put in a dangerous situation. This happens all the time and it happens without concern for the sexual orientation of those involved. You seem to ignore the fact that people don't particularly enjoy being "hit on" as you call it, while they are pinching a loaf in a disgusting public restroom. You seem to ignore that this very fact alone makes the situation entirely different from being hit on at a bar or walking down the street. I don't know why/how you can do this. I'm not comfortable with violence, but I understand that sometimes, although it is not necessary, it's not totally out of line. Someone who trolls public restrooms and flogs the dolphin while peering through the crack into the stall of the unsuspecting and unsolicitous person next to them kinda deserves getting a good punch. Yeah, it's vigilantism. But it's the kind we can all understand. Unless of course we refuse to hold gay men to the same standard that we hold hetero men. I'd be damn proud of any woman who knocked a guy's head into the wall for doing what i just described. The sexual orientation of the man doesn't matter, it is the act he commits that provokes the outrage in the unsuspecting and undeserving victim.
You are conflating "gays" with bathroom-hanging perverts.
Uh, no, I'm not. I never called anyone a pervert. You seem to be introducing that now. That this gay or bisexual politician was in a public bathroom seeking sex does not in my opinion make anyone a pervert. It's not the way I'd go about finding a sex partner, but I'm more liberally minded than you apparently.
I'm not advocating violence against anyone unless the harrassment rises to the level where one is physically threatened. I've said this countless times.
Not really. In fact, you seem to be advocating violence against people who "harass" you. You say that "sexual harassment" (which is another term you introduced, saying it was illegal, when it's not) is worthy of a violent response. Then you mix it up with physically threatened. Harassment and physical threats aren't the same thing. Sexual harassment in particular is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
You are the one that keeps asking about someone "hitting on you"
BECAUSE IT'S THE QUESTION I INITIALLY POSED WAY BACK UP THERE. You responded by trying to "up the charge", insinuating (in my opinion) that a gay person hitting on you is somehow harassment.
and you asked me specifically if I "advocate physical violence against men who come on to you sexually". My answer was as clear and concise as possible. It was and still is "no".
It wasn't, but thanks for stating it clearly finally.
You cannot be so obtuse as to think that "hitting on" someone can't escalate very quickly to a point where the one being "hit on" is put in a dangerous situation.
And now you've done it again. THIS IS MY PROBLEM WITH YOUR ARGUMENT. How often does that even happen? This is a total straw man argument, and I think it's even a bit bigoted given that we're talking about a man hitting on another man. You seem really threatened by this.
This happens all the time and it happens without concern for the sexual orientation of those involved.
I sincerely doubt that, and I doubt you can back that up in any way.
You seem to ignore the fact that people don't particularly enjoy being "hit on" as you call it, while they are pinching a loaf in a disgusting public restroom.
While yeah, I don't so much as like talking while in the restroom, how is that a "dangerous" situation? You're totally overreacting.
You seem to ignore that this very fact alone makes the situation entirely different from being hit on at a bar or walking down the street.
Ever heard of Mathew Sheppard? He's dead because he hit on someone in a bar. People in this city are continually harassed just for being gay. YOU seem to be ignoring that violence against gay people is de facto permissible in this country. And it's in part because of guys like Craig.
I don't know why/how you can do this. I'm not comfortable with violence, but I understand that sometimes, although it is not necessary, it's not totally out of line.
Only when physically threatened, and only to protect yourself or others. And your comments repeatedly blur the line between harassment (which you're vague about to begin with) and physical threats. So forgive me if I'm not comfortable with you deciding how justice should be applied.
Someone who trolls public restrooms and flogs the dolphin while peering through the crack into the stall of the unsuspecting and unsolicitous person next to them kinda deserves getting a good punch.
WRONG.
Yeah, it's vigilantism. But it's the kind we can all understand.
WRONG.
Unless of course we refuse to hold gay men to the same standard that we hold hetero men.
And there it is: Bigotry. So all gay men are perverts in your mind? Gay men aren't as decent and civil as heterosexual men? Care to back that up? Or retract? Your choice. But they're your words.
WERE THAT WE ACTUALLY DID hold gay men to the same standard as heterosexual men. Instead, we have different rules and even laws for gay men. And frankly your attitude demonstrates why it is, and why that inequity persists.
I'd be damn proud of any woman who knocked a guy's head into the wall for doing what i just described.
And I'd be proud to send her to jail for assault.
As you are obviously an idiot, this wil be my last post. You wrote:
Only when physically threatened, and only to protect yourself or others. And your comments repeatedly blur the line between harassment (which you're vague about to begin with) and physical threats. So forgive me if I'm not comfortable with you deciding how justice should be applied.
Someone who trolls public restrooms and flogs the dolphin while peering through the crack into the stall of the unsuspecting and unsolicitous person next to them kinda deserves getting a good punch.
The above example is not vague. It is a specific example that I gave on what I consider to be a form of harassment. Groping is a form of harassment as well, but you seem to thing it is not a crime. How can you say someone is being vague and in the next breath quote the SPECIFICS that they were discussing? Are you incapable of understanding how ridiculous that is?
Next, you accuse me of bigotry. Apparently you did this because you have poor reading comprehension skills.
Unless of course we refuse to hold gay men to the same standard that we hold hetero men.
And there it is: Bigotry. So all gay men are perverts in your mind? Gay men aren't as decent and civil as heterosexual men? Care to back that up? Or retract? Your choice. But they're your words.
I never said that all gay men are perverts. What I said is that there are both gay and heterosexual men who are perverts and that they both ought to be held to the same standard REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION. How you can see this as bigotry is totally beyond me! I said that it was the ACT involved, not the ORIENTATION of the man that committed it. I want to look at what the INDIVIDUAL PERSON did wholly apart from what their orientation is. This is called EQUALITY not BIGOTRY. Buy a friggin dictionary man.
Lastly, just because it proves your stupidity:
and you asked me specifically if I "advocate physical violence against men who come on to you sexually". My answer was as clear and concise as possible. It was and still is "no".
It wasn't, but thanks for stating it clearly finally.
You wrote in the very last line of an earlier post:
Do you advocate physical violence against men who come on to you sexually?
The first word of my reply to this post was
"NO."
As you are obviously an idiot, this wil be my last post.
Right. Resort to that. Nicely done.
Someone who trolls public restrooms and flogs the dolphin while peering through the crack into the stall of the unsuspecting and unsolicitous person next to them kinda deserves getting a good punch.
The above example is not vague. It is a specific example that I gave on what I consider to be a form of harassment.
In the example you provide, you are not touched. You are not harmed. It is at most indecent exposure and maybe voyeurism. Neither is in and of itself a threat. However, you advocate responding with violence. I say that attacking this person would be a huge overreaction. And I suggest that you wouldn't consider a woman doing the same thing as a threat. So why consider it a threat from a man?
Groping is a form of harassment as well, but you seem to thing it is not a crime.
I never said any such thing. Nobody has a right to touch you. But that has nothing to do with the very specific question I initially posed: "Do you advocate violence against someone hitting on you?" That question was followed by dozens of qualifiers and bizarre justifications for violence.
And frankly, someone touching me in a suggestive or sexual matter is a far cry from touching me in a way that threatens my well-being. You're big on talking about context. If I'm in a bar and some guy gropes me, I'm not going to respond with violence. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason to respond violently for any kind of random, one-time suggestive groping. And I'd be more likely to get a bartender, bouncer, or cop involved before I got violent.
Next, you accuse me of bigotry. Apparently you did this because you have poor reading comprehension skills.
Unless of course we refuse to hold gay men to the same standard that we hold hetero men.
That statement to me is in itself bigoted. Who has ever stated that gay and hetero men aren't held to the same standard? Why do you assume they aren't? At best it's a straw man argument.
And it's clear to me that you're on the record as advocating vigilantism (in so many words) and violence against those who are no threat to you (again, in so many words.) I don't like the world you describe. Vigilantism and violence have no part in our justice system.
I'm totally comfortable with my assessment of your comments.
BitterMarv,
It's been a pleasure and an eye-opener to read these exchanges as it reveals the kind of blind rationalities to violent tendencies so widely manifest among conservatives.
I'm not a conservative. I just don't feel sorry for sexual predators that get beat up for their behavior. I think liberals can hate sexual predation enough to see the right one has to defend himself against it. You guys are just freakin' insane if you want to try to rationalize with a sexual predator.
You advocate lawlessness, vigilantism. You're almost a common street thug yourself.
You may not be a conservative but you sure have conservative tendencies.
Wagner:
If what you say is true then it must follow that a straight guy like me should get the same hate crime beating for flirting with attractive ladies. I only wish Tuckie would come after me. I'd give him the spanking he deserves.
You make my day WagFace. Gays should have the same rights we have. When gays come on to me, I just say, " Thanks for the Complement, but I'm not gay, sorry." And it's over. Are you positive you're not a RepubliCan't conservative?
Wagner, when I flirt a lady, none of them have ever told me I should be beaten up. They all take it as the compliment that it truly is.
Your behavior is very un-American and very Conservative.
I don't see Wagner as a conservative. Instead, he's an example of the sad majority of this country that thinks it's perfectly okay to discriminate against gay people. They think it's okay to deny gay people their civil rights. And this exchange demonstrates that even left leaning, smart people still think it's okay to beat up gay people just because they offend your manhood by showing interest in you sexually.
I'm not saying Wagner believes all of that, of course, but the majority of Americans seem to.
I appreciate that. This exchange lingered in my brain for the rest of the day. I tried really hard to ask specific questions, and somehow, I always received in a response an answer that involved violence. And that really bugs me. So I'm glad someone else saw what I was trying to say, even though the message boards make it hard to refer back to previous points.
And let's review that all important context you rely on. Way back when, I called a full stop on the conversation and asked
Specifically, if a gay person hits on you, you think it's merely "boorish" to assault them by slamming their head into a bathroom stall?
And you responded by somehow, magically, comparing the concept of hitting on someone (the SPECIFIC act I mention in my question) to the civil conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. And you wonder why it was hard to pin you down on an answers. And note that you did NOT clearly state any answer to my question. Instead, you injected (now I see from a what is probably a homophobic viewpoint) other "facts" not in evidence.
I think the ignorance is your misunderstanding of Tucker's use of the word "bothered". Obviously he was being sexually harrassed by another man but felt (for whatever reason) to use the word "bothered". Though, he may have actually been talking about how botherings between Sunni and Shia have been quelled in Al Anbar province due to new "tactics" being used there.
The mind boggles.
And furthermore, you are a liar. In the post above, you wrote:
"Uh, no, I'm not. I never called anyone a pervert. You seem to be introducing that now."
But in an earlier post, you wrote:
Huh? If you want homosexual sex, you're at the very least bisexual, if not gay. So if he was looking for something perverted in a men's room, that pretty much outs him. - bittermarv / Wednesday August 29, 2007 02:19:10 PM EST
I rest my case. You are both an idiot and a liar.
Actually, I think we can tentatively add "intellectually dishonest" to the charges against you (along with homophobic and prone to violence.)
First of all, I read twice over our exchange here (our exchange, not this entire topic) and do not see where I said to you that anyone was perverted.
Second, I posed a hypothetical. Yes, I will admit that I would call someone a pervert if that person is "looking for something perverted". Pretty weak argument on your part.
But does this mean we're on speaking terms again? Hmm? Cuz you know how I hate it when you ignore me.
You are conflating "gays" with bathroom-hanging perverts.
Uh, no, I'm not. I never called anyone a pervert.
Ahhhh, I see now what you're trying. I made a post way back there saying that if Craig was in a public MEN'S room looking for something perverted, that that pretty much by definition outs him as a gay (or at the very least bisexual) male.
Weak, dude. My point was that he was in the men's room looking for sex. If he got that via hypothetical perverted acts, then that makes him gay. It does in fact make him a hypothetical pervert, but I also state elsewhere that looking for sex in a public bathroom doesn't necessarily make one a pervert.
Nice bit of intellectual dishonesty.
(I also note that your very first response to me starts out by calling me ignorant. Nice bit of namecalling, too. Right out of the gate.)
You might think that a bump on the head isn't so bad, but the law doesn't agree with you.
Look again at the situation: An older guy makes a pass at a younger student, or harasses him, or whatever terminology you want to use. The student has every right to protect himself, but that's not what he does. He goes and gets a friend and they return to teach the older man a lesson. And that's what this was about: retribution.
You have the right to protect yourself, but you do not have the right to punish a person when you're no longer being threatened; that's the job of the courts.
Of course this is all hypothetical, since Carlson was obviously lying.
NOTHING in Tuckers description validates you turning this into either THREATENING, (he in no way SAID nor implied any threat) nor, that it was not a teenage boy, the most likely person to BE in a high school boys restroom. In fact if a full grown man was loitering in a highschool boys room that would likely get him arrested. I dont EVER remember seeing a full grown man NOT a teacher in my highschool restroom in all four years. So you are now making assumptions NOT based on facts in evidence. BY FAR the most likely scenario from Tuckers sketchy description is he was that another teenage boy made a suggestive remark or a flat out proposition for sex. No way in the world that justifies an assault and Tucker should have been expelled at least if not arrested.
That's not self defense, that's assault. Had Tucker defended himself as he was being "bothered" he would have credibility. But the fact that he left, got a friend, and decided to go do a little gay bashing is just as criminal as being "bothered".
What exactly is the statute of limitations on defending yourself? 20 minutes? 20 hours? 20 weeks? 20 years? Or is it a distance thing? Can you leave the zip code, area code? Do you have to stay within 3 miles of the incident in order for it to still count as self defense? Can I track down and beat up the kids who beat me up in junior high?
You can't hit "pause" in the middle of an assault, go get help, and then come back and continue where you left off. Leaving the scene ends the assault. The alleged assailant did not pursue, and Tucker left, so the incident is over. Returning to retaliate is not defensive, it's offensive, it's revenge.
You do realize the whole "leaving and coming back to teach someone a lesson" thing is pretty much word for word out of the Hate Crime Handbook? It's pretty much the basic scenario of half the gay bashings that happen, and in many of those cases all the gay person had to do was look at someone funny or try to innocently flirt with them.
I'm not defending the dude in the restroom. I wasn't there, I don't know what he did. Regardless of what he did, Tucker had many defensive options at his disposal, he chose to leave the situation --- a smart choice. He should've called the police and left it at that. He chose to turn it into another assault (two wrongs don't make a right) and then he stupidly chose to admit it on TV. Realizing his mistake he wrapped himself in unearned righteous indignation and then LIE about what happened.
There is obviously NO self defense involved whatsoever, he left, at that point he flat out was NOT threatened.
Beautiful post.
See, I honestly interpreted his comments differently. I thought he'd witnessed (or heard) the guy doing his thing, was "bothered" and came back for help.
How different this society would be if every guy who unwelcomely hit on a gal would have his face bashed in by a bunch of her friends.
This item doesn't belong here as misinformation at all. I watched the segment live (and laughed my ass off like Joe Scarborough did) when Tucker explained what happened to him, but not for a second did I think this "incident" would end up in a MMFA item the next day.
If MMFA insists on adding items like this and the Chris Matthews/Burnett incident, they need to create a new category for it, like the "Oddball MSM Incident of the Day" or something.
But please don't crowd my RSS feed with this trivial non-misinformation, unless, like someone earlier said, MMFA does research to disprove Tucker's version of events.
Perhaps you could use this "I'm the least anti-gay right-winger" quote and then compare it with "I left and got someone I know and came back. I grabbed his...you know...and hit [...his] head against the wall."
There that's conservative misinformation right?
The agenda is that MMFA doesn't like Tucker Carlson and this makes him look boorish and intolerant, I would guess.
Tommy, sorry but you sound like your having a PMS moment. ;-)
IMO this was simply further discussion on the Craig story. The “agenda” IMO was that Tucker assaulted someone who ‘bothered” him in the men’s room.
What I found funny is that little Tucker had to go back and get someone to help him “throw the guy against the wall”. It kind of reinforces to me exactly how wimpy little Tuck is.
Right On Pearl !
Then to add insult to injury Tuckie had to do an "UPDATE" - Edit out the Truthfullness of his original statements.
The truth is out:
He brought a fellow Gay Basher with him to assist with the hate crime beating he has admitted to in his first accounting of the event.
Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually."
Grabbed him by the "you know" did you, then what did you do Tucker? Hit him with your purse, or garrote him with your bow tie?
So what he is saying is that when a guy came on to him, Tucker grabbed the guys "you know"?
I have to confess that's the LAST place I'd grab him in that situation. Actually, in ANY situation. But anyway...
Tuckers story fits more with a "Gay Penthouse" letters entry (I never believed they were true, until it happened to me!) than a long-concealed highschool memory.
Don't forget ... Tough Tucker went back WITH RE-INFORCEMENTS ...
Kinda hard to fight back when a linebacker is holding you so the wimp can kick you in the you-know-where ...
I am not sure I get why this is here.
Because the retributive violence Tucker is describing is a hallmark of the violent tendencies of the authoritarian right.
It is this kind of blind rage the administration exploited to enable the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Ah Tucker, fake tough guy. I'm sure the little incident he describes, never happened.
As for someone bothering him and others in the men's restroom all the time I've got to say; umm, what? As far as I know, I've been a man/boy my entire life, and have traveled extensively throughout the world (luckily for me), and I have been in a ton of public restrooms, porta-johns, and so on and so forth, and not one time, not once, have I ever been "bothered" in a public restroom, and not once have I heard, or possibly seen someone having sex in a public restroom. I think what he's shoveling is, well a load of BS basically.
As for Carlson, I'm sure nobody ever made a grab at him in a restroom, and I'm pretty sure he's never beat anyone up, let alone smash someone's head into a stall. Maybe he should take some of that angst over to Iraq and kick some arse!
Maybe you're just not that attractive? I wouldn't say that it's "common" as Tucker put it, but it does happen, and obviously in some places it happens a lot. Case in point, the Senator in question. Why would the police do some undercover work in public restrooms trying to investigate lewd behavior if it did not exist? There were enough complaints to the police for them to take the time/money to investigate.
It has happened to me a dozen times throughout my life. Never in a bathroom though. I had a guy argue with my lady one time about who was going to take me home....
<p>
DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!
"Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous
Agreed. Seriously, Get A Room!
It's also really common.
Is it? Didn't know that. Must be happening in restrooms I haven't frequented.
So Tuck has gotten propositioned a few times eh?
Well he is kinda a pretty boy type.
Don't know that I believe his story about going back to the restroom & pounding the guy. Me thinks that's probably an outright fabrication or at least a tad embellished.
But may I respectfully inquire...
Why is This Here?
What Conservative MIS-information or Conservative agenda is being forwarded?
Well although we can't really prove it but Tucker is probably lying and he also seems to be promulgating the notion that it’s okay to pound a gay guy if he makes a pass at you, which is probably why these foot tapping signals have been devised.
Would you consider those acts homosexual or pervertion? I would have no problem beating up a pervert.
It is an illegal act nonetheless. I am not sure that homosexual or perversion are necessarily mutually exclusive terms. It could be both homosexual and perversion for that matter. What difference does it make? It is still illegal.
Because it is a ACT OF PERVERSION. Get off the gay thing.
Oh no! Not PERVERSION.
You can't just go around beating people up little man, it's against the law! Now if someone put stheir hands on your person you certainly have a right to remove them and protect yourself if you feel you are in danger. But if a guy walks up to you in the restroom and says hey dude how about I give youy or you give me a blow job you should tell him to F off and report him immediately to someone in authority.
And that is how i would handle it little lady. I have had people grab my crotch, ars, and just fondle me. And I beat none of them up. But the though was there.
I seriously doubt anything that you say about being "manhandled" is true. People don't just walk up to you and grab your junk for no reason. Stop cruising the local gay hangouts, and guys would stop grabbing your junk, it really is THAT simple. But then again, I think you're fibbing and exagerrating, a lot.
You are a pathetic untrustowrthy individual. You chose not to trust ANYONE who my differ from your opinion? Would you believe me if I told you I was molested at age 8 by my MALE babysitter?
I think you and worrierking were in Vietnam together. I totally believe you.
Naw, was born in 68.
These aren't your opinions, and you're more than welcome to them, and yes indeed, there are times when I don't agree with others' opinions, and there are other times when I do actually agree with others' opinions. What you're stating or trying to state or make plain for all of us here, is that for some reason gay guys seem to love to grab your junk and rub your shoulders. This is the internet, you can say anything you like, and not have to prove it, and at the same time, I can choose to NOT believe you, like I don't. So you're just walking down the street, and someone just walks up to you and grabs you? Someone walks out from behind a bar and grabs your crotch? Yeah, OK, again, I don't believe you, not for a second. And what does that have to do with possibly being molested when you were 8 years old? Nothing, nothing at all.
If you were molested (another story of yours that I doubt) at age 8, did someone stamp it on your forehead so that when a gay guy sees you walking down the street he tries to fondle you? I base my opinion that you're lying from the disingenousness of your assertions, and the number of times that these things have allegedly happened to you. I have been in many gay bars in my lifetime, and not once, not a single time, has some dude tried to grab my package or my crotch. Maybe I'm just not their type, and maybe you are, I don't know, but to me, sounds like you're making up a lot of stories. It rings HOLLOW to me, and I bet if we took a poll on here, most on here would probably agree with me that they think you're lying (whether or not you are is really no matter to me actually).
Your distrust is pathetic. I am glad you are not my parent. Let me make this clear. I NEVER said these where acts coming from a homosexual. I never said that I was in a gay bar. These are True accounts of me growing up. You seem to have SOOOO much hate and distrust for someone that does share, it shows your brainwashed.
For me to lie about being molested is a sick thought. Thank god you are not a social worker.
So what? All of these accounts you speak of took place out in a public setting on the side of a road? In a car when you were hitchiking? Was it when you were growing up, as you said, or was it when you were married when you were talking about hitchiking. Again, BS detector goes off for me when I hear your stories. Why should I think you getting "molested" when you were younger is any different? If it was such a traumatic thing you come out and talk about it on an internet forum? Yeah, that's always a good idea.
I find you untrustworthy on this subject, not because of your opinions, but because of your rhetoric.
Showing your true colors again. Please, explain to me what Ihave to gain from telling you my stories?
Like I said, if your kids are molested, I hope you believe them if they EVER tell you. It took me 22 years to tell my parents about what happened. Since then, I have been very public with it. You should be ashamed for your distrust.
Why should I be ashamed of my distrust of someone who I don't believe? What true colors do you speak of? The ones where I said that if you were molested, I feel for you, and hope that you have progressed in your life? Yeah, those are bad colors right there.
I basically don't trust anything anyone says on the internet, because I could be lying to you, you could be lying to me, unless someone can back up their facts, and again, yours ring hollow (your getting grabbed stories). It's just my opinion, based on your rhetoric that you've thrown around in this thread, and in others in the past that you are being less than honest.
Keep back-peddling buddy, its ok. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. You, just a tool.
Hey Mag. If any of you deniers here live in the Bay Area, I would be happy to meet for a beer and settle this. Then after meeting me, you can judge me for who I am. ot what yopu THINK I am based on your assumptions.
I live in Dublin.
Chris King
magnolialover I think you've just been asked out on a date.
(watch your package)
Could norotornomotor be Tucker?
Haha just kidding noro ;-)
I have never listened to that piece of......... I am not into the mainstream talkshow freaks.
Yes. It has become obvious you prefer your freaks to be non-mainstream.
; )
And then in here somewhere he quotes or asks about Savage saying something. Since when is Savage not mainstream? He being in the top 3 of talk show radio and all. 8 million per week, pretty darn mainstream if you ask me, and a kook to boot.
He is not owned by the left or right. That IMO make him non-mainstream.
Now THAT'S funny. Just becaue you're not owned by the left or the right (Savage, bought and paid for by the right in my opinion, take a gander at who listens to him, not a combination of liberals and conservatives, oh no, I would say his fan base is 100% hard core conservative) you're not mainstream? That's laughable.
Shows you know NOTHING ABOUT HIS AUDIENCE. Keep up the ignorance.
I certainly know a lot about his audience. I listen to his show almost every day, mostly so I can hear what kind of silly rant he gets off on. I also hear the people who call his show, and what would you call them? I would call them rabid conservatives. Don't know about you.
I have heard white, black, asian, jewish, muslim, liberal, conservative, men, and woman ect ect calling. You must not listen to him much.
Hey you worship the insane Weinerdog. You DEFINE ignorance
LOLOLOLOLOL.... Well, I did enjoy The Exotic Erotic Ball!
Jeter you know that's Evillilib, he's still trying to habg with the big dogs.
Yes lynn, Evil is Dead.
If someone offered me oral sex, I'd thank 'em and tell 'em I'm not wired that way. Why is the offer of oral sex something you need to bring a cop into? Or are you into uniforms?
what if he says "how do you know you're not wired that way if you've never tried it?" Then what do you do?
When I was 14 my friends brother best friend told me he was in love with me. He was 22 or so. I kindlyt told him," I am not like that, thanks". He continued to persuade me only to fail. He gave me a card for my 16 B-Day with Pac Man on it. He scratched out the Wooka Wooka Wooka and put Wacka Wacka Wacka.
I probably should have turned him into the cops.
You appear to have lots of good "stories" about how gay men have tried to turn you "gay". How hard is it to walk away if you're not interested? Shouldn't be very hard.
Mag,
He must really be quite a hunk apparently men just can't control themselves around him and he has to fight them off. You're right he's got the most fantastic stories!
Indeed. From the sounds of it, he's been hosing himself down with gay man attractio spray or something. It seems to happen to him almost on a daily basis, and then getting hit on by his brother's best friend's cousin (or whatever THAT story was), and then he brings up that he was molested as a kid. What's that they say about digging yourself a deeper hole? Now, if he had said that it had happened to him once or so, I could get on board with that. But these repeated stories about guys walking up and fondling him in the street, or guys taking out their pieces, or whatever you know, and wagging them at him, I think I smell a bunch o' BS.
Do you have ZERO compassion for a molested child? Because, you seem to be showing your true colors here. Well, if it was to happen to your kids, I hope you have the balls to accept the truth.
I am a average good looking guy.
Better get yourself one of these dude, give yourself a chance to make a getaway!
I never said a one of them was gay. I feel they where more predators/perverts/freaks then anything.
Why is it so hard to believe? Am I automaticaly called a liar because I am most of the time on the other side of the fence politically? That would be pathetic of you to feel that way. thanks for the distrust. What comes around goes around.
Us calling you a liar has nothing to do with your politics. I could disagree with you on many things, and I do, and so do others, but the stories you're spouting don't ring true. None of them.
I won't have to worry about my kids being molested, as I'm not going to have any. If you were molested, which I am still in doubt about, then that's sad, and I hope that you've recovered from that incident of trauma and plight in your life. I have had friends who were molested as children, and luckily enough for me it didn't happen to me. I care about kids being molested and about women and men being raped, but it's just that there is something fishy about your stories.
If these guys were NOT GAY as you keep yelling, why were they hitting on you, taking their weiners out, waving them at you, beating off at you, grabbing your arse as you assert, and doing others things to you? Was it because they were just "joking around" or is it because you're just making this stuff up?
Us calling you a liar has nothing to do with your politics. I could disagree with you on many things, and I do, and so do others, but the stories you're spouting don't ring true. None of them.
That shows how much you distrust people not like yourself.
I won't have to worry about my kids being molested, as I'm not going to have any. If you were molested, which I am still in doubt about, then that's sad, and I hope that you've recovered from that incident of trauma and plight in your life.
You blew the chance to sound compassionate. I do not believe you.
I have had friends who were molested as children, and luckily enough for me it didn't happen to me. I care about kids being molested and about women and men being raped, but it's just that there is something fishy about your stories.
Fine.
If these guys were NOT GAY as you keep yelling, why were they hitting on you, taking their weiners out, waving them at you, beating off at you, grabbing your arse as you assert, and doing others things to you? Was it because they were just "joking around" or is it because you're just making this stuff up?
I call them perverts. Sexual predators. What would you call these types of acts?
Again, I have no problem trusting people who are not like me. I have no problem with that at all. Again, I point to your ramblings in this thread about being grabbed here and there and everywhere and talking about beating people down if they did that to you, and then saying that you didn't beat them down. Which is it? Do you give them a beat down, or don't you? As far as being concerned about your well being, well, I couldn't care less about you. I don't know you, you're not my friend, you're just some anonymous poster on the internet, but as I said before, if you were molested, good luck in getting over (if one can truly get over something like) it, and I hope it hasn't damaged you forever. That's about the length of compassion I can go for someone I don't know, and who I think is making things up off the cuff. But hey, aside from porn, that's what the internet is for. Re-designing and re-inventing oneself. Why would you lie about the stories you've been telling? I don't know, to make yourself look like some sort of expert on this subject matter. Why would you lie about being molested? I don't know why you would either, but there are plenty of folks out there in the world who lie about worse things everyday, how am I to know you're not one of them? I don't.
I am not a liar, PERIOD.
I have never beat anyone for a lude act on myself. Although I admit, it did sound like the right thing to do a couple times.
This whole argument trying to draw a distinction between homosexuality and perversion is ridiculous.
If a person has a desire to have sex with someone of the same sex, then that person is, by definition, homosexual. This is not an opinion, it is a definition.
As to whether or not trolling for anonymous sex in men's rooms is a perversion, that is an opinion, not a definition.
I wouldn't worry too much about a bout how calling the Senator homosexual is a smear to all gays; the only people who would assume that this type of behavior is normal for most or all gays are bigoted pinheads anyway, and not likely to be swayed by any arguments to the contrary.
If you were molested by a teenage babysitter at age eight, if an older boy told you he loved you when you were 14, if someone grabbed you package in a public restroom and offered you sex, these people were homosexuals.
Sorry but these stories are hard to believe. Gay men I know don't walk up to straight men and ask if they would like to get busy. Some men hanging out in restrooms are like some women who hang out in upscale bars here in Vegas. I call them working boys and girls. Since gay men are well aware of the homophobia that exists walking up to a strange guy soliciting sex does not ring true. Real men say "no thank you" and walk away.
I NEVER SAID THEY WHERE GAY!
Nomo. You are right you never said they were gay. Your question seem to be whether they were perverts. You said: Because it is a ACT OF PERVERSION. Perversion means: any sexual act or practice considered abnormal. Maybe that's what gay sex is to you and you would rather use the word perversion instead of gay sex.
I have to say when you want sex with another man, IMO you are either bi or gay. I agree with Mag, you seem to have a really large amount of encounters with men wanting to get busy with you. I will say it again, I cannot imagine a bi or gay man taking the risk of approaching a strange man requesting sex. There is way too much homophobia today.
You got my whole point. Gay or Straight, there are perverts. And that is exactly what they are, Perverts. The act coming from the congressman IMO is one of perversion. Thats all.
And those stories are true.
As per Magnolias remark about hidding behind the internet, I added my personal website below. Nothing to hide peeps.
I should not accuse you of lying and I apologize if I did. However you seem to have a high number of encounters with men wanting to get busy with you.
My wife is dumbfounded by it as well. I went to the Renaissance Fair with my neighbores last year. There where a couple guys wearring Fairy Wings. Well, ofcourse one came up to me and wanted to take a picture. Parr for the coarse baby.
Noro, go you consider gay sex a perversion?
No, not at all. I have Gay friends, and they are far from perverts.
Since gay men are well aware of the homophobia that exists walking up to a strange guy soliciting sex does not ring true.
Seriously. One of the comments by a gay person I read yesterday said that he wouldn't dare brush his foot up against another guy's foot in a public bathroom for fear of getting beat up.
And this topic's discussion makes it pretty clear to me that he has every right to be concerned.
what if he says "how do you know you're not wired that way if you've never tried it?" Then what do you do?
Walk away. As I've done. (Well, when getting hit on by a persistent guy. Which I think has happened all of once.) Some person I just met has no business telling me how I feel any more than Republicans have telling an entire segment of the population how they should feel.
What are you suggesting I should have done? You seem to be suggesting with the question that persistence from a gay person ups the level of response that's required.
If a strange man just walked to me on the streeta nd out of the blue offered to perform oral sex on me I would get the cops.
Would you consider those acts homosexual or pervertion? I would have no problem beating up a pervert.
In that case, I'd have no problem serving on your jury at your assault trial, convicting you, and watching the judge sentence you to prison.
I think one grabbing your crotch would in turn be fair to punch the guy in the face. You disagree?
BTW. If a guy does punch you in the face for lude conduct, that may be me.
Sounds like from all of the "stories" that you've been posting on this thread that you should be fighting someone 24/7 what with all the gay guys coming up to you in public places and grabbing your package, and giving you shoulder rubs and all. So how many fights you been in tough guy? I'm thinking of a number, that equals, zero.
And anyone that thinks Savage is right about, well, anything (as you posted later on in this thread) pretty much tells me all I need to know about said person.
You are one to pass judgement.
I am indeed one to pass judgement. As someone once said, "I call it like I see it" and "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well then it must be a duck". I could go on for days with these cliches.
Well friend, I know what I say to be the truth. And you are making a grave mistake in judgement here. Thats all.
This is not "just a pass". Was what the senator did "just a pass"? If it was, there'd be no scandal.
"Is it? Didn't know that. Must be happening in restrooms I haven't frequented."
It honestly depends on the restroom. There's a website somewhere that catalogs the restrooms guys can go trolling in, searchable by zip code. Can't remember what it's called though. :(
Because by saying that he assaulted a man who had previous "bothered" him--coming back with a friend to beat the guy up is not self-defense; it's assault and battery--and by laughing about it, and having his co-workers laugh about it in a clip that was rerun at least twice--presents the MISINFORMATION that gay-bashing is acceptible behavior.
Flower:
Maybe you've been beaten with an "Ugly Stick". Jest Kidding with you.
I'm kidding, but it happens to me and friends of mine too. I don't feel the need to go find help to come back and do a hate crime.
Sometimes I just take it as a compliment and tell the person, "Sorry but you're barking up the wrong tree." One time I had to push a man away from me. He got the message and it was over. All's well that ends well.
Those gays can be crafty, sneaking up on you with the bj's when you least expect it.
Tucker is beyond despicable.
Why did Carlson need to go find a buddy to gang up on the guy in the bathroom? I think fighting the guy (to defend Tucker's honor?) is pretty odd in the first place, but having to get help to do it is pretty wussy of Tucker IMO. I can only conclude that Tucker knows he doesn't stand a chance in a fair fight.
I like how he left, got a friend, came back, and not only was the guy still there, but he still had his "you know" dangling out there for Tucker to grab.
In one instance Tucker is thumping his chest about being straight - the next he is relating a story about grabbing another man's penis - in yet another bizarre attempt to prove his own manhood.
A real man would have said "No thanks." and walked away - flattered that someone thinks he's hot - regardless of the gender. Getting another buddy and fighting the guy (while grabbing his penis to boot) bespeaks of a profoundly deep insecurity on Carlson's part, IMO.
Dressing like Pee Wee Herman doesn't exactly make a statement akin to "Don't F*** with me!"
To be fair, he was in high school at the time, so it was probably a Members Only jacket and a pair of nylon parachute pants.
So does that mean that women who dress in skimpy clothes are responsible for being harrassed or raped? Saying that the way someone dresses basically gives the ok to men who want to harrass them is a horrible thing to say.
I'm not talking about harassment. I'm talking about Tucker's story about how macho and tough he is.
I think you have missed the pretty obvious tongue-in-cheek nature of his comment.
Guilty
"story about grabbing another man's penis - in yet another bizarre attempt to prove his own manhood."
Now wait a second open_mind, Tucker never said the "P" word. He said he grabbed the guy by the "you know", not his "whatcha-ma-call-it", or his "who'sa -ma-what-its". So lets be fair to Tucker and not make assumptions least Tommy come in and smite us for out innacuracies.
You're right. I don't want to make any half-baked assumptions.
; )
I'm convinced Tucker is not the tough guy he plays on TV. Sort of like Fred Thompson.
Must have been the bowtie ... gotta ask Brock about whether or not that was another visual code.
I notice, *cker is not wearing the bowtie since "Dancing with the Stars" ...
Well this shows Tucker as a punk tough. Tough enough to kick some gay guys butt, but punk enough to need help. I wonder if he had a few drinks first?
It that the sort of behavior Tucker endorses? In any sort of conflict we should get our pals and kick some ass? Tucker your a sorry little pussy who is talking himself up to show us what a tough gay ...er guy you are.
P.S. Tucker there are some gay guys who would scare the stick out of your ass. They are not all little effeminate little twits who just got out of their bow tie like you know who.
First of all I don't beleive it because Tucker couldn't beat me. Moreover if Tucker was being solicited for sex in the rest room he should have reported to the authorities. If a woman approached me for sex in a public restroom that's what I would do because I'm the rational man they speak of in the law.
Lynn, I think ever since Jon Stewart gave Carlson that pimp slap on Crossfire, Carlson has been trying to recreate a far more masculine image of himself, giving the fact he has this weak, prep-school boy aura about him. I don't believe for a second that he beat up ANY guy in a bathroom. It's just more his way of channeling his Michael Savage-like machismo to suppress any inner demons and insecurities he has of himself.
Funny, MMFA wont touch Savage right now. Wonder why?
Why don't you email them?
Why?
I have just been waiting to see if they would touch on the San Fracisco Supervisors scandle. But nope. Why? Savage is right. Thata all.
It's a logical fallacy to conclude something is right because it hasn't been proven wrong and vice versa.
If your reasoning was true (and it isn't), every unanswered post on these boards would automatically be true. There are many more unanswered liberal posts than unanswered conservative posts, therefore liberal posters' arguments on this site are more true and conservate posters' arguments must be more false. Agreed?
Oh man, stop the twisters.
MMFA has never posted any of the topics I suggested. So clearly that means that Savage is right.
He is allowed to be right one in a while, like you.
Heck, I would say that the odds would have it to be true. Savage is bound to be right someday.
Fair enough. At least you realize Hell could freeze over.
Perhaps they figure since he is obviously insane there really isnt any point.
Preston,
Nothing sadder than a little wuss pretending to be a tough guy. Tucker kind of reminds me of Barnie Fife, not AA the character on the Andy Griffith show.
Tucker tough! Anyone who is Tucker tough is needed for "The Surge". We are all looking forward to Tucker's service.
Y'know, the army doesn't just take anyone who steps in the door. It's an exclusive place and lots of people are turned down for it. I don't think they'd let Tucker in the front door.
But the military will let Tucker in the back door as long as he doesn't tell.
; )
I'm not anti-gay in the slightest, but that's really common, and the gay rights groups ought to disavow that kind of crap because, you know, that actually does bother people who didn't ask for being bothered.
"I'm not anti-gay in the slightest, but if you're gay and look at me in, you know, that way, I'm gonna go get reinforcements and kick your ass."
What a jerk. He should have been charged with assault, the homophobe.
I can't bring my son to the men's room at the park where he plays soccer because of all these creepy guys hanging around in there. I actually think it's a problem. I'm sorry.
And there's the other big lie, that homosexuals are also child predators.
That's not the point.
The point is that people should not be having sex in a place where children are. I don't take my kid to Rated X movies. And my kid should not have to witness people having sex when he goes to the bathroom (that goes for heterosexuality, homosexuality, and onanism). It is not about a fear of predation, but rather not wanting a child to witness people having sex! It is inappropriate regardless of who is doing it and how. Most parents I know would not want sexual activity taking place in front of their child.
Two things about this story.
1) To ALL rightwingers for ALL eternity: You can NEVER call "indefensible" a newspaper spending a year interviewing people about someone's sexual proclivities. After having devout "christian" Republicans talking non-stop throught 1997-98 about c***-s**king, c*m-stained dresses, finger-f***ing, and bl**jobs, you lost ALL right to feign "outrage" when a rightwinger is caught engaging in CRIMINAL sexual behaviour!
2) True to Carlson's Republican orthodoxy: When confronted with an uncomfortable situation, get OTHERS to come to your defense and kick azz.
In case it's not incredibly obvious, a man secure in his heterosexuality would NEVER "beat the sh*l" out of a guy for propositioning him. I'm a guy. I've been propositioned. I dismissed it and moved on. I didn't feel "threatened" with a need to "kick azz", because .... well, let's just say I don't wear bow-ties, and leave it at that.
In case it's not incredibly obvious, a man secure in his heterosexuality would NEVER "beat the sh*l" out of a guy for propositioning him.
THANK YOU. Very well put.
Here's the real misinformation in this story...when Scarborough says,"You have Bill Clinton, who actually went out and did the same exact thing."
Did Bill Clinton approach Monica Lewinski in a public restroom and peek through the stall door at her? I must have missed that story.
When I watched this segment last night, I said to myself, watch either Carlson or Scarborough bring up Clinton and compare it to the Craig incident. And sure enough, both Carlson and Scarborough didn't let me down. I guess when all else fails with a Conflicted Conservative in Crisis, compare him to Clinton, that’ll save the day.
Did Bill Clinton approach Monica Lewinski in a public restroom and peek through the stall door at her? I must have missed that story.
Actually you did miss the story Nerzog, here's the link:
billpeeksatmonicathroughstalldoorinpublicrestroom@aol.com
;-)
In the Starr report Monica said that the president was giving her the eye one day and she snapped her thong at him, Clintondidn't snap his thong so he wasn't the aggressor like the old toe tapping pervert from ID.
I must lead a very sheltered life, I've never heard about all this toe tapping till now.
I do know that I will keep my feet very still from here on in when I visit a restroom ;-)
Lynn, you just knew they'd try to drag Bill Clinton into this. That's almost a given.
and if a foot comes tapping under your stall go get Evil LIb or Tucker they will beat the guy to a bloddy pulp for you.
Lynn, I have never acted on those emotions I expressed ealier.
When a guy flat out grabs my package in a bar, is that not fightin words?
Evil thats enough because I strongly suspect that all this package grabbing may only be happening when you're off your meds.
FAAAAANTASTIC.
Shoot, may have given myself away. :0)
Please do not ban me. Believe it or not, I do learn quite a bit on this site.
Like we didn't know that was you. Evil just stick to the topics and be civil and you won't get banned.
Yup, I was wondering if ANYONE was going to see the point......it's the Clinton defense again.
This is what is truly disgusting about this story. One more time they defend what they themselves do with the Clinton defense.
and....then to dismiss the senators actions with this statement.....
NO TUCKER....IT would not be one thing. The senator committed a crime, and he should pay for it.
The fact that he is at the very least "bi-sexual" is really not all that interesting.
It's the lewd and lascivious that he does that is wrong.
We're seeing people like Tucker Carlson for the pricks they are. Everytime Carlson opens his mouth, he becomes his own worse enemy.
WOW - what an example of conservative values.Gays propositioning you is "wrong - knock it off"Getting your friends to go beat up the gays (and then arresting them) - funny joke.Or conservative values in a nutshell, on one show.
Have these right wing fools no shame? I am so freaking tired of these Aholes spinning these issues out of control when they get caught. However, when this happens to a dem they are marked as evil maniacs ...
When they get caught taking part in sleazy behavior (which has become a trend for them) they laugh it off and say it's none of anyone's business. I am sooooo sick of this I could puke. How do these low-lifes sleep at night?
Craig has an anti-gay agenda yet gets busted looking for perhaps a little rough trade in an airport bathroom. How fitting is this for his demise? Karma at it's finest. I'd prefer he remain closeted as we don't want him in the gay community.
I just sent this to MSNBC:
Violence against anyone is reprehensible. Whether or not Mr. Carlson felt that being solicited in a restroom was something he could not tolerate, a reaction that includes violence of any kind cannot be excused. Neither his life nor his safety were in jeopardy when he chose to physically assault a man.This action by Mr. Carlson—committed when he was in high school, which he perhaps feels explains or even excuses this—should never have been discussed on MSNBC. He should feel a responsibility to viewers not to perpetuate, by tacitly approving, violent behavior against anyone.Compounding this is the fact that during the discussion about Sen. Larry Craig’s situation, Mr. Carlson’s experience was the cause for laughter among Dan Abrams, Joe Scarborough, and Tucker Carlson. Bemusement at Sen. Craig’s protestations of innocence—okay. It’s in context. But laughter at Mr. Carlson’s admission that he deliberately went back to the restroom where he was solicited—with a friend, supposedly for support or assistance—and “Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!” is inexcusable.These men would never have laughed at a recounted story about violence against a woman, an ethnic minority, or even another straight man. I believe that Mr. Carlson, first, would never have admitted such an attack and, second, would have expressed shame at it if he had admitted this kind of action.But this was violence against a gay man. In the world of Abrams, Scarborough, and Carlson, apparently gay people do not deserve the same assumption that they might go through their lives without being assaulted by Mr. Carlson—and laughed at on national television—that any other person might assume.Responsibility dictates that your network require Mr. Abrams and Mr. Carlson to make public and publicized apologies for their “locker room” behavior. If anyone wonders why many conservative pundits seem to be challenged on their credibility, they need only have seen and heard Mr. Carlson say, “I'm not anti-gay in the slightest” and “But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet” in the same discussion in which he admits he is guilty of the hate crime of gay bashing.Do not ignore this. Your network’s credibility is at stake, as well.
Admits he was guitly of a hate crime? He performed a citizens arrest on a man that was illegally soliciting himself in a public place. The proper officials came and took the pervert away, end of story. The only crime committed here was against Carlson.
Citizen's arrests do not involve bashing a man's head into a bathroom stall repeatedly. Try again.
No, you try again. Nowhere does he mention that he bashed anything repeatedly, you just want to make this out to be more than it was. Slamming a guy who just physically came on to you/threatened you up against a wall until security comes is not gay bashing, or a crime, or even offensive. I hope he stands his ground with this, and offers absolutely no apology, because there isnt anything to apologize for.
Exactly WHERE does Tucker say he was threatened? Since he LEFT THE BUILDING, there was NO THREAT PERIOD. Finding a friend and bashing the guys head against the wall even once IS assault. Anyone who can READ can see this was an assault.
"Exactly WHERE does Tucker say he was threatened?" --Right here, in the updated statement from him: "In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC."
By law, this offense against Carlson is battery, because it involved physical contact. At this point Carlson got away from the situation and found a friend. He went back to the crime (presumably after calling for security to come there) and performed a citizens arrest on the man that had committed battery against him. Assuming this man did not just kindly turn himself over to be held by Carlson, I'm sure there was a struggle to detain him, resulting in him being slammed against a wall (oh darn, a perverted criminal got his head slammed after having battered somebody). Security then arrived, and that was that. Clearly, Carlson had committed no offense because no criminal charges were filed against him after this incident.
And just to showcase your ignorance, when you comment on Carlson's actions by saying, "Anyone who can READ can see this was an assault," I think you meant to accuse him of battery. Assault deals with the victim's perception of a threat of physical harm, not the actual physical harm. Get your crime definitions straight before trying to make an argument with them.
Yes. Solon and I got our definitions mixed up. Regardless of the "citizen's arrest" argument, Carlson admits to slamming the guy against the wall - which is indeed battery.
How do we know that no charges were filed? Were you there? We don't even know if the alleged perpetrator was charged either. All we have is some odd unsupported story from Carlson that implicates himself in a a crime regardless. The fact that Carlson went back is probably the most damaging information. If he hadn't admitted to doing that, then I would probably agree with you. Just claiming returning for a "citizens arrest" is no excuse for battery that I have ever heard of.
How do I know that no charges were filed? Well, seeing this story broke a few days ago, and MMFA has only provided another article on how MSNBC is silent on the situation, it goes to follow that no crime was committed or pursued in this case. If charges were filed, one of the far left homosexuals working for MMFA would have gotten those reports ASAP and posted an article about it, to prove Carlson is guilty rather than just posting articles that question his spoken word.
Assault is assault. It doesn't matter how many times you hit someone.
Your delusions are showing AGAIN. I dont know how the law works on Planet Wingnut but here on Planet EARTH, assault IS a crime. Tucker finding a friend to help him bash a mans head against a wall because he SAID something to him is pretty much the very definition of assault.
I have contacted GLAAD - they are supposed to react to this sort of thing. The truth is that in the past they have proved pretty useless and I have stopped contributing to them ,but let's see if they can do ANYTHING about this.MSNBC owes us a BIG apology, at least.
To me, the most telling word in that entire transcript comes towrard the end after Carlson describes (allegedly) beating up a man who made advances toward him. It's not even a word that was actually said by the participants. The word, placed in brackets, is [laughter].
I wonder how Carlson & Co. would feel if they made a pass at a woman who felt (understadably) uninterested and perhaps even nauseated by their unwanted attentions, and the woman found a friend who beat them to a pulp. Would that be acceptable behavior? Would that be funny?
A crime is a crime, but it's clear from the wording and reactions of Carlson and his pals that the idea of being propositioned by a gay man is so threatening to them that beating the guy up is considered an acceptable an understandable response (and good for a laugh as well).
That, to my eyes, is about as textbook an example of homophobia as one could find.
I find myself almost hoping that the women of the greater D.C. area might take it upon themselves to teach Calson a lesson. It would be fitting justice if, next time he's at a mixer and he flirtatiously tugs at his bow tie while making eyes at some comely lobbiest, the woman in question goes to find one of her friends, comes back, and slams Carlson's head into a wall for making unwanted advances. [laughter]
actually, this was my thought on the matter also.
Next time a man comes on to me and I don't want his flirtatious attitude inflicted upon me, perhaps I can go get a friend and return later, to the guys surprise and rip him a new one......
I simply do not believe that Carlson ever roughed up anyone, with or without a friend to help him. That I believe is an example of misinformation.
Could this be the reason he's against the hate crimes legislation being passed in the Senate?
UPDATE: Media Matters received the following statement from Tucker Carlson by email from an MSNBC spokeswoman:
Hmm I haven't seen anyone relating Gay sex to the bathroom. I'm sure that the vast majority or Gay people want to have sex in a clean safe private place just like the vast majority of heterosexual people want to. You and Tommy pretty much seem to be the only two alleging that anyone is making such a connection.
Lynn, the connection is being made by the media, they are giving the impression that gay people are deviants and have sex in the bathroom. It also doesnt help when Craig stays in the closet and his policies promote anti gay behavior.
I honestly don't see that connection being made anywhere except here by you and Tommy.
Carlson completely contradicted what he said earlier, which is that he grabbed the man by the you not what and bashed his head against the stall. The two stories don't even seem close.
Well it just changes everything the way he revised his earlier statement. Of course, Carlson's actions seem more appropriate now - considering he was assaulted. I wonder why he didn't make that clear earlier?
Oh well, I will take Carlson at his word here. Maybe he should be a little more careful in relating such stories in the future.
CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --
ABRAMS: And did what?
CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
In a way, Carlson is looking as ludicrous as Craig. How can you reconcile this account with is later account that he just held the man until security came?
I suspect Carlson and the other guy beat the crap out of the guy in the bathroom. I am pretty sure the legal team at MSNBC don't want Tucker saying as much, because the first comments were stripped out of the replay of the conversation as MMFA notes on another thread.
Personally, if someone put their hands on me in an aggressive manner, all bets would be off, so I find it hard to fault Tucker either way.
Open I said the same in an earlier post now if someone puts their hands on you without permission that's battery and you can do what you have to. I don't know maybe Tucker has the same problem as Evil Lib according to Evil men are just feeling him up and grabbing his goodies wherever he goes and not all these men are Gay according to him, he’s so sexy he’s turning strait men Gay and evidently into sex offenders.
Evil, tucker and all you other guys who have gays drooling over you need one of these. Give yourself a chance to make a getaway.
Well I don't think that would work since Evil isn't Gay and all the men that are perpetrating 3rd degree sexual assaults against him aren't Gay. Evil is just going to have to stay off the streets that's all and indoors with his wife.
Some straight people have sex in public, and so do some gay people. Why must we deny this?
To deny that certain segments of the gay population still seek sex in public places is absurd. Not all gays do, just as not all straight people do it. But it does happen. I think it has an historical context. Historically, I wouldn't call it "trolling for sex" though; I would call it having to practice one's sexuality in secret because to do so in one's mainstream community often was dangerous. It is like the conversos in Spain who continued to practice Judaism in secret after they publicly converted to appease the Inquisition. They didn't troll for shabbat; they practiced secretly because they couldn't do so in public without risking harm.
I'm not defending Craig at all - I think he has promoted an anti-gay agenda that is reprehensible, with or without his hypocrisy. But saying that anonymous sex doesn't still exist in the gay community, and has not been an issue in the gay community, is ignorant. It does, for those who are closeted and those who are out.
I heard Carlson on the Bubba the Love Sponge show on Sirius talking about this mall incident earlier in the day before he was on MSNBC. He said after the guy grabbed him he ran out and grabbed a fork and went back in with his friend.
Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson and that other guy have completely and utterly lost my respect with their giggling over the image of a desperate man getting his head slammed against a wall and arrested.
Please, by all means, if Carlson was raped in a stall, forgive me. But I've been propositioned by a few men and women in my life, and I didn't have them arrested. I have, however, had enough of a regressing society that chuckles at the notion of gay-bashing. It's very obvious that the facts that homos and lesbos live in a country where teenagers get killed for being born homosexual, where the president telegraphs their way of love is unworthy, are lost on these "men." Maybe after thinking things through, they could see that its actions like theirs that have lead fearful folks to head to stalls — and live in denial like a certain senator – for years.
I'm am especially disappointed by Mr. Abrams, whom until now I thought to be a champion of the downtrodden, a model of reason and empathy compared to most of today's onslaught of anchor-bozos. I will say I'm glad to know Carlson (he of the Dancing with the Stars cha-cha moves and gnatty bow ties).and Scarborough aren't gay and are verifiable, chick-diggin' men's men. High five, news pundit dudes!
How sad and weird that MSNBC can afford to waste what could be useful airtime.
Sincerely
John Griffiths
John Griffiths Television Critic • Us Weekly Contributing Editor • Women's Health
Good on you Mr. Griffiths.
Tucker Carlson only did what eny real man would have to do when confronted by that "kind" of individual.
Actually a real man wouldn't have needed any help IMO, but I guess that is the best were gonna get from Tucker "You hold him down while I kick him!" Carlson.
; )
Yeah he ran and got help..... some real man
Only what a man very insecure in his sexuality would do. Otherwise there really isnt any threat from being propositioned by someone of your own sex. All it really calls for is a polite not interested. From your post I would say you are disqualified in perpetuity from having any credibility on what 'REAL' men would do or think about anything.
Don't flatter yourself Tucker, you're not that cute. In fact, you're not even that much of a man.
Wasn't Tucker just claiming he beat up a guy to make sure conservative viewers would not think he was gay?
It's just like "lil tucker" to say something like that. In order to make the public think that he's anything but gay, he has to bring up his "gay"encounter when it was totally unnecessary to do so. Contrarily, it brings attention and questions about his "sexuality" and conjures up the same lame excuses and clamorings of his fellow "repugs" who claim that they "aren't gay" when most people know better .
This is great, finally mainstream media coverage of the sick and perverted world homosexual "hookups." I don't care who it is getting busted for it, this is showing America what weak/twisted people these homosexuals really can be.
And is it any surprise that a republican scandal this big came out 2 days before the major scandal with hillary having to forfeit money raised by a fugitive? I noticed the other day that MMFA clocked how much time the major networks devoted to the Senator Craig story....why aren't they doing the same to show the extreme lack of coverage on this major scandal rocking the Hillary campaign? Does anyone need more proof that MMFA is simply an arm of the Democratic party?
>>I don't care who it is getting busted for it, this is showing America what weak/twisted people these homosexuals really can be.
Oh no! The gays are destroying America!
>>lack of coverage on this major scandal rocking the Hillary campaign?
It is not a major scandal (no one has been fund guilty), because Hillary sure as hell isn't guilty (if the contributions were made in the most illegal way, that reflects on the contributor, not the receiver), and because it is not rocking her campaign.
This is great, finally mainstream media coverage of the sick and perverted world homosexual "hookups." I don't care who it is getting busted for it, this is showing America what weak/twisted people these homosexuals really can be
Were you this thrilled when David Vitter showed the ‘world” how sick and perverted straight conservative Republican men who go the prostitutes, dress up in diapers and beg for a spanking? Were you equally thrilled when the media coverage showed us what happens when you give power to a conservative Republican congressman who then visits the dorm of male pages drunk on his a**. Better yet send e-mails to a page, some one's minor son, to find out if he’s aroused. I know, you must have been singing “Oh Happy Day”. Was this a part of the "family values" handbook?
Have you ever heard:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
You go around passing judgment on people you don’t know a damn thing about. You call yourself a “Christian” but you don’t know the first thing about Christianity.
And is it any surprise that a republican scandal this big came out 2 days before the major scandal with hillary having to forfeit money raised by a fugitive? I noticed the other day that MMFA clocked how much time the major networks devoted to the Senator Craig story....why aren't they doing the same to show the extreme lack of coverage on this major scandal rocking the Hillary campaign? Does anyone need more proof that MMFA is simply an arm of the Democratic party?
You are so worried that you will miss a “possible Clinton scandal” that you can’t seem to realize that Republicans in the last 6 years have written a whole new book on lying, cheating, dishonest politics.
Quite simply, I detest all the perverted acts that you mentioned. I'm glad when people, regardless of their political party, are exposed as sickos. Do I think this type of homosexual encounter is extra disturbing? Yes, because it involved a weird tapping of the feet...like a "courting" process that apparently is something the homosexuals do to communicate secretly in a public place (freaks).
"You are so worried that you will miss a “possible Clinton scandal” that you can’t seem to realize that Republicans in the last 6 years have written a whole new book on lying, cheating, dishonest politics." -Perhaps you didnt get the message that Democrat Jack Murtha is this years biggest pork recipient, and some of the money was appropriated to organizations that dont even exist. He also committed libel against US Marines, making false implications and condemnations about the made up "Haditha Massacre," hence the reason prosecutors are dropping all charges against these Marines. Or perhaps you forgot about Diane Feinstein's war profiteering through her husband.
Corruption runs rampant on both sides of the aisle. Is it fun and easy to make fun of the other side when something happens, of course. Is it childish to only point the finger at one side, and not take a look at your own? Very.
John, have you clean your own house? That would be your staring point.
Sure homosexuals can be sick and twisted why should heterosexuals have the exclusive franchise on perversion? They can be as ignorant as conservative hetero posters on the internet too. All of which is completely irrelevant to, well virtually anything, but nice to see you showcasing your inner neandrathal. Good luck with that.
We all know that these guys are so repressed they go on the 'Down Low'.
Tucker Carlson is like a lot of people who publicly ramble and inadvertantly stick their "foot" in their mouths. Their explanations often contain minute variations from the original. Note the slight tweaking of Carlson's story after the exposition.
He went from his original rant of, -- "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and -- Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!", to "My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived", conveniently ignoring his own, likely illegal, premeditated physical response.
And yet, after stating that he essentially bashed the guy's head against the stall wall, in a planned assault, Tucker says, "I was angry because he assaulted me.
So, you grabbed the guy by the what, exactly, Tucker? Was the security guard made aware that you slammed the guy's head against the stall, after a planned assault?
Tucker, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
If the guy assaulted you as you say, Tucker, then he should have been carted away. But, for you to assault him, in a premeditated action, as you said you did, you should have been carted away with him.
Here's my problem with Mr. Carlson's response. I understand how upsetting it is to be approached for sex in a public rest room, as it has happened to me as well. However, what Mr. Carlson described was that he left the rest room, went looking for a friend of his, then went back to the men's room where they both grabbed the guy and banged his head a few times against the wall of the stall or some similar location. Then a guard came in and arrested the guy.
If Mr. Carlson was so upset by this man's completely inappropriate advance, why did he not leave the men's room and locate a security guard or police officer so he could have the man arrested, and then press charges? It is obvious that Mr. Carlson's intention was to find, not a law officer, but a bully friend who would help him bash this person.
Granted, the man was entirely wrong to solicit sex from Mr. Carlson, and he had every right to be incensed about it. But he did not have to physically assault the man in self defense. He was able to leave the rest room on his own, without difficulty. But rather than handle this matter in a responsible manner, he decided to find a friend and teach the guy "a lesson." And to think that Abrams and guest found all of this so very amusing.
Shame on all of you!
Please understand that my "shame on all of you" statement was not directed at the participants in this conversation. I was directing it at Abrams, Carlson and the other guest on the show.
Yes, he could have handled it responsibly, however he was a teen and most teens rely on gut level response.
Given his level of responsibility now that he is an adult, I can see in retrospect that I really don't expect him to handle anything with any responsibility.
Of course he was a stupid kid at the time and reacted stupidly. We can expect better, but we don't always get it.
But he was an adult, supposedly, two days ago when he told the story, and bragged about the incident. Someone who had really grown up would either have held his tongue or related the story in a manner that expressed regret at his mistaken response.
Who cares what happend to Tucker Carlson. It is probably a lie. He just HAS to be in the spotlight and upstage everyone. What a twit!
Mr. Carlson is upset about being assaulted in a public bathroom by a homosexual but not upset over the fact that the homosexual is homosexual. This particular assault wouldn't have occurred if the homosexual wasn't homosexual.
There is a growing fear in our society today of stating one's opinion about homosexual behavior. One could be accused of "homophobia" (I certainly condemn homosexual behavior, but as a devout Christian I certainly don't hate my fellow man'") or a "hate crime" (why is it a crime to recoil at sodomy but not a crime to pillory those who express their deeply-held religious beliefs about it? It smacks of making lion fodder to me).
The First Amendment does not allow for a person to call a vice a virtue and expect everyone to accept it as such. It does, however, protect a person's right to practice his religion freely and that includes not having to accept a vice as a virtue. Nor does it expect a man's children to accept a vice as a virtue in the schools he supports with his taxes. Those who namecall and persecute those who condemn what they believe is evil are violating a sacred right protected by the Constitution and endowed by God.
I suspect Mr. Carlson is not being truthful when he claims that homosexual behavior doesn't bother him. I think it does as it does for most people. That's why he returned to that bathroom and slugged the man who assaulted him. And I hope Larry Craig gets booted out of the Senate despite the fact that he has voted the right way on most issues. He's the worst kind of person there is. He doesn't practice what he preaches - a "whited sepulchre and a hypocrite" to quote Someone we all should know and love.
To all of you out there who now hate me for expressing my religious beliefs: You may eat me.
MG Ragan
What you just expressed may be religious beliefs, but they are not very Christian.
At any rate, Tuck was not assaulted , he was bothered. Big difference, friend.
There is NO reason whatsoever that I am obliged to accept something as a vice just because YOU say it is or your beliefs are that it is. As for the rest of your post. YOU CAN BITE ME.
Mr McRagan, I've forwarded your request to Dr. Lecter.
THAT was classic
MGRagan, NO THANK YOU!
Do ya think if tucker was "bothered" by a woman in the mens bathroom that he then too, would have returned with re-inforcements?
Seeing as we are talking about Tucker? Yes I think he probably would have.
What you just expressed may be religious beliefs, but they are not very Christian.
What I expressed is what my religion teaches: That homosexual behavior is morally wrong.
The last time I inquired, the Roman Catholic Church was a Christian one.
And please don't regurgitate all the pederasty bilge. I am happy to tell you that I think every priest and bishop involved in the scandal to any degree should have been removed from his office, publicly disgraced, and prosecuted for his crimes.
So you see, I really am terribly Christian.
MGRagan
Homosexuality, morally wrong or no (I don't believe it's wrong) but whatever, the proclivity to excuse violence visited upon other humans is to twist a message of love and forgiveness.
Fine that is your opinion. Here is mine. YOU are wrong. I find you terribly intolerant, my advice is to get a life.
No I do not see you as terribly Christian. I don't even see you being a terrible Christian. I don't see you as being Christian at all.
Tucker,
Hey buddy...long time no see. I miss you. I'm sorry that we haven't talked since we ran into each other in D.C. I certainly liked the ruff stuff that you and your hot little friend pulled on me! Cannot wait to do that again. I've noticed that you stopped wearing the bow ties...those were so hot! Would you like a leather one?
Call me- but if the wife answers hang up and text me instead. :)
She thinks that I am not gay...ROTFLMAO!
Sen. Craig
XOXOXOX
Congratulations, Tucker. If your story is true, you spent 5 minutes of your life knowing what it's like to be a woman. If I had assaulted every man who's ever given me unwanted attention, I'd spend my whole frigging life in jail. Pinhead.
Best post in this long long thread.
Why do so many gays bother Trucker Carlson in bathrooms? Well, he shouldn't hit on them.
358 and counting, thats got to be a record for # of posts. Just heard Craig was moving on with his life and not as US Senator, and it must be true since I heard it on good ole "Fair and Balanced" ;-)