It seems like a lot of people are rushing to judgment without applying any logic. If you think about it, you'll see clearly that these charges that Senator Craig is some sort of pole-smoking turd burglar must be completely fabricated. Consider this: Senator Craig is married. Since married men have sex with women, it follows logically that they don't have sex with men. This in and of itself is enough to show that Senator Larry Craig doesn't have a hankerin' for some anonymous slab of man-meat tickling his Senatorial tonsils.
Senator Craig explained most eloquently today why he had to mislead the socialist judge in Minnesota by signing a plea petition saying he knew he was guilty when in fact he was innocent of the charges. The reason, as all right-thinking people already knew, was that the media (clearly working under Pelosi's orders) forced him to do it! By investigating earlier claims of knob gobbling by Senator Craig and asking him about them, the socialist reporters of the Idaho Socialist Statesman left Sen. Craig with no choice but to investigate the world of depravity they claimed he was part of, if only to be better able to disprove their charges later. Even if it turns out that Sen. Craig did at some point engage in some cock-thirsty gloryholing as part of his research, it was clearly only because of the suggestions from the reporters that he learn to appreciate that lifestyle.
Many people have criticized Senator Craig for his explanation that he was only touching the foot of the undercover policeman because he takes a "wide stance" in the toilet. I find this highly believable, because I, too, find that a wide stance gives me more leverage in getting out the really stubborn turds. Since Senator Craig is an older guy, I bet it's even more of a problem for him. So, it really comes down to the word of the Senator vs. the arresting officer. What do we really know about his truthfulness, anyway? Is he really a police officer?
Here's a picture of the "officer" in question:
And here's a picture of actor/singer Kirby Heyborne:
I think you can tell that it's fairly apparent what really happened. Speaker Pelosi, wanting to get back at Congressman Bill Sali for standing up to her so effectively, hired an actor to falsely accuse Sali's ally Senator Craig of attempted rump rangering, and then had her minions spike Sen. Craig's food with drugs to make him plead guilty. It's the only logical explanation!I have complete faith that, with Bill Sali's help, Senator Larry Craig will come through this ordeal stronger than he ever was, and will continue to stand up - with a wide stance - for Idaho values in the Senate and its restrooms. And, even if he doesn't survive politically and ends up resigning, that would just mean that Bill Sali will be able to win election to his seat in 2008 and will have even more power than he does now. Pelosi's plans are thwarted again!
P.S. (September 6) Thanks to everyone who's come to see my blog because on my defense of the great American Senator Larry Craig, including readers from HuckleBerries Online. (I didn't know if the guy who writes that blog, "DFO", is a Pro-Sali Patriot or Anti-Sali Socialist, so I made a new category for him.) Also welcome to everyone who has come here from Google searches; I seem to get a lot of people looking for information on "cock-thirsty gloryholing" for some reason.
If you'd like to read the rest of my blog about how Congressman Bill Sali is defending American Christian Values by standing up to Speaker Pelosi, please read my main page.
13 comments:
I'm speechless
I'll assume this isn't some sort of Swiftian satire.
You said, "Speaker Pelosi's obvious plan to force this honorable man from office so she can appoint someone like Liberal Larry Grant to take his place in the Senate."
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says, "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."
In other words, Butch Otter (the aforementioned Executive Authority thereof) would appoint any vacancies to Congress, not Nancy Pelosi. You do remember this from government class, right?
You're either a brilliant satirist, or an absolute moron. I honestly can't tell which.
Funny you know who kirby is. That tells us much about where you spend three hours on most Sundays.
BSF:
Absolute brillance! That was the funniest damn comment I have read about Larry yet. You should write for the Onion. Pure talent.
Brilliant satire!!!!
Jeeze, faustus, get a clue!
I'm not gay, but I used to be. Back when I was gay, I used the wide stance quite a bit. When I gave up the gay lifestyle, I switched to the regular stance. I'm comfortable with the regular stance, but I believe Larry should be able to use any stance he wants. The founding fathers originally put a freedom of stance clause in the bill of rights, but Adams was a narrow stance extremist, and he made them take it out. Adams believed that a wide stance would lead to moral decay, "No one needs that much access to their own junk", he was always saying.
I think it's outrageous that Pelosi can do this to Larry simply because of his stance preference. Now is the time for Mr. Sally to dust the cobwebs off his brilliant legal mind and draft a freedom of stance amendment to right this wrong.
Anonymous,
That's a great idea! Congressman Bill Sali, although I've heard he's a "narrow stance" man himself, is clearly the man to lead the fight for Stance Acceptance for everyone (as long as they're Christian U.S. citizens, of course).
This is awesome satire, even if it isn't intended to be satire!! HA!
I shall read this at all my political events. You are a genius and should write for Sali. It would do great things for our political activities.
Heeee! You SHOULD write for Sali! And Craig! And the whole lot of 'em!
Larry Craig says he's gay. He's bisexual and he doesn't deny that, does he? He's a silly bastard and a liar.
could we kill the right winger who wrote this? just curious as I'd pull the trigger if it were allowed.
Post a Comment