Are all Repubs pervs?

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Tuesday, August 28. 2007

Thus asks Firedoglake. Definitely - twisted as a pretzel, every last one of 'em. You can just tell by how often they talk about values and Jesus and families and guns and war and all that: it's a cover-up, of course, so their lace undergarments don't show.

To prove my point, use the "Sen. Larry Craig Test": When next in the presence of a suspected Republican, stamp your foot twice on the ground. If the suspect turns and looks, it's proof that you have a twisted perv in your vicinity. (Apparently that is the highway and airport men's room signal that you are looking for fun. Barney Frank can fill you in.)

To be serious for a moment, though, I feel sorry for folks like Larry Craig. Leading a divided, furtive life as he appears to have been doing must be a terrible way to live, and it should not be necessary in 2007. The moral of the story remains this: if you want to be in public life, decide how you want to deal with your personal stuff first... unless you happen to be a Dem, in which case you are immunized.

Posted by Bird Dog in Our Essays, Politics at 08:28 | Comments (128) | Trackback (1)

Bookmark Are all Repubs pervs? at del.icio.us

post to del.icio.us

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

Two things
1. Man, did we attract a lot of comments on the Are All Repubs Pervs? piece. Some entertaining and emotional comments in there. I hope our debaters will return - it's good sport.2. Fine piece by Tigerhawk guesting at Jule's place, on New Orleans. I was ev

Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Aug 29, 13:01

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

It's not the perverse sexual inclination since, of course, there is no such thing among the 'left'. It's the hypocrisy!!! Come out of the closet, divorce your wife, leave your family, come down with AIDS and all will be well! Larry Craig's a putz.

#1 tom c on 2007-08-28 09:05 (Reply)

I agree. The public hypocrisy is always a problem for Repubs.

Alas, the Dems seem to hold themselves to low standards, so it is rarely an issue.

A strange world in which one can be immunized by not discussing morals...and are held to a God-like expectation if you do. I feel sorry for Larry Craig, even though he may be a jerk.

#1.1 BD on 2007-08-28 10:05 (Reply)

Alas, the Dems seem to hold themselves to low standards, so it is rarely an issue.

They don't have low standards, they just have different standards. To the average Democrat, homosexuality between consenting adults isn't immoral, but bigotry towards gay people is.

So they aren't condemning Senator Frank for being gay. They've condemned him for spewing anti-gay bigotry...and today we know that his sin is even worse than it first appeared: As a gay man himself, he would have known that he was spewing nonsense, so he can't use ignorance as a defense for his bigotry.

That said, he really shouldn't have been cruising for sex in a public restroom that other people were trying to use. He should waited until he got to his destination, and then visited one of the local taverns or dance clubs set aside for that purpose.

If you have any other questions about morality, don't hesitate to ask. After all, it's the only way you'll learn anything!

#1.1.1 chaos_engineeer on 2007-08-28 10:51 (Reply)

"Alas, the Dems seem to hold themselves to low standards, so it is rarely an issue."

Dems just have to answer for being wealthy or the actions of every company that they may be or have been invested in or members of their family have been invested in or trips they have taken in jets that polluted the atmosphere or their energy expenditures. Apparently you can't support the underclass and energy conservation without wearing sandals and a hemp robe.

Repubs have been bludgeoning us with their holiness, don't whine when the bludgeon swings back.

#1.1.1.1 gsmoove on 2007-08-28 17:03 (Reply)

The arrogance may drive the hypocrisy. Like sports stars and entertainers who have people fawn over them, politicians seem to develop the same "I'm invulnerable. I can do as I please. Screw 'em all" attitude.

So now my list of Republican Senators to get rid of fast is up to 3: Lott, Stevens, Craig.

Many people can handle failure. The test of character is to handle success.

Editing note. You may want to reword that part about Barney Frank "filling you in." Heh.

#2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2007-08-28 10:13 (Reply)

Larry Craig .. straight as an arrow.

YES..in the great tradition of the Greek Spartans and the Ottoman Janissaries Senator Larry "Third Leg" Craig is a brave , courageous MAN, and perhaps in that special way of those ancient and brave warriors.

A brief conversation overheard at a Washington DC bar exemplifies the honor of this man. Upon seeing a young gentleman seated precariously too far from the bar to reach his drink and also blocking foot traffic the Senator approached the young man and asked, "May I push your stool in?"

Yes, Larry "Third Leg' Craig was caught practicing dancing steps known as "clogging" while dumping but honestly , don't clogging and dumping often go together..just ask your Roto Rooter man.

In a recent presss release from the Senator's office his press aide said that the Senator has no plans to resign and return to his gerbil ranch in Idahole.

Vote Larry"Third Leg" Craig ..a man who can drive home a point!!

Senator Criag will be attending the RiverDance Dinner tonight at the Kennedy Center.

#3 Mr. Renee on 2007-08-28 10:24 (Reply)

craig is gay. who cares. craig is gay and votes to deny equal rights to gay people. now that's a story. it's not about standards. if the republicans would just stay the f*** out of my bedroom then there wouldn't be a problem. but they can't because they think they are so damn righteous. foley passing child abuse laws while abusing children. congressmen voting to impeach clinton for lying about an extramarital affair while they are lying about having extramarital affairs. haggard preaching against the sins of gay sex and drug abuse while abusing drugs during gay sex. again - keep your f'ing nose out of other peoples business and you won't have any more of these problems. simple.

#4 jay k. on 2007-08-28 10:27 (Reply)

jay k. i think you've put your finger right up the problem..uh on the problem, uh exposed the problem..wait identified the problem..yeah that's it.

Gerbil Horribilus

#4.1 Mr. Renee on 2007-08-28 10:37 (Reply)

You have half of a good point there. What I do not understand is who it is who wants to invade your bedroom.

#4.2 BD on 2007-08-28 10:40 (Reply)

BD...my goodness man where have you been.

Haven't you read of the "Beyond Delta Force" "BadAss Bedroom Invaders Force"?

Highly skilled in penetrating the most secure areas of you home and videotaping parents instructing thier children in the proper placing of rubbers over bananas..

The also carry salt peter grinders to use in garnishing your veggies.

#4.2.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 10:57 (Reply)

Tonight on a Fox News Special

A penetrating examination of the innocent clogger.

#5 Mr. Renee on 2007-08-28 10:33 (Reply)

Faux Indignation

Folks, man's nature and proclivities haven't changed in like forever. Homo's, liars, tricknologists, hucksters etc. Some simply choose to get involved in politics.

Hypocracy wasn't just recently exposed as one of those human shortcomings. And lying, every person writing on this blog has lied at one time or another..every one of us. Humans lie,cheat ,steal,kill for a host of reasons, homo-around, whore around, round round get around we get around ... cut the faux indignation.

#6 Habu on 2007-08-28 10:50 (Reply)

I may whore and kill, but you'll never catch me in a deliberate lie. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "deliberate."

#6.1 BD on 2007-08-28 11:02 (Reply)

“keep your f'ing nose out of other peoples business and you won't have any more of these problems. Simple”

So no child, drug abuse or perjury laws needed? No laws on anything, then, by the logic that hypocrisy obviates the good of legal standards.

You’ve conflated all the issues here. Most of us don’t want 30 year-old men having sex with ten year-olds, mind-destroying drugs legal for our teens, or anybody, much less a sitting President, lying to obstruct justice in a lawsuit (and yes what he did in the Oval Office was fair game discovery in a sexual harassment suit.)

After certain lines are drawn, however, close the door to the bedroom and private toilet stalls, please, to keep out pruriently clucking peeping tom neighbors and officials. Public accommodations are not so legal for a reason, and are more interesting for the risk and anonymity of it all- to some people. Craig played and lost this time. No risk, no frisk by an officer.

#7 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 11:11 (Reply)

habu...
you are absolutely right, we are all fallible and all make mistakes and all lie from time to time. however someone who will act to deny the inalienable rights of others justifies all the indignation that can be mustered. again...if the republicans weren't so intent on legislating their faux righteousness then there wouldn't be a problem. the problem here is not craig's sexual preferences...although i wouldn't want him in the stall next to me. it's the right's insistence in telling the rest of us how to live our lives. keep your f'ing noses out of my business and there is no problem.

#8 jay k. on 2007-08-28 11:15 (Reply)

Well I do know that we must have standards if people are going to insist on clogging while using public facilities.

We just can't have cops sitting in stalls preying on innocent cloggers ... in fact I just heard that it was actually a Muslin clogging ritual he was practicing for the Annual White House Muslim Clogging Festival.

Who is this cop anyway and why wasn't he at the donut stand?

#8.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 11:41 (Reply)

Tell that to the IRS. Remind them of your right to privacy and the sanctity of your private business. There's no inalianable right to buggery. Keep it private and no one cares. In fact no one ever has cared until it became an imaginary 'right' and the doyens of PC began the process of equivocation. No one cares although some parents would prefer to spare their children from a premature loss of innocence and moral confusion.

#8.2 tom c on 2007-08-28 11:44 (Reply)

wow! what is up with republicans?

murder / suicide in orlando!
senators cruising bathrooms for sex!
congressman trolling after pages!
campaign workers arrested on coke charges!
pastors using meth and having sex with gay hookers!
senator's name in the DC madame phone book!
campaign workers cruising for sex in public parks!
presidential candidate married his cousin, announced his separation to his wife on tv and married his mistress!

and just look at the democratic frontrunners for president... all still in their first marriages!

i wonder which party stands for family values?

#9 sean sheer on 2007-08-28 11:18 (Reply)

Shucks, we Repubs just know how to have fun.

#9.1 The Barrister on 2007-08-28 11:46 (Reply)

you confuse ordinary politicians, of which the kind you tabulate exist in innumerable quantities, with those who are powerful enough to bury their pasts.

Your problem is that you think there are politicians who are not whores, liars, and mobsters, apparently with D next to their names. I hate to break it to you, but you are blinded by the idea that one side is better than the other.

#9.2 Phil on 2007-08-29 15:23 (Reply)

anonymous...
child abuse is a whole 'nother thing. i have a right to privacy. i don't have a right to abuse children. i have right to privacy. i don't have a right to do others injury while under the influence, or while talking on cell phone for that matter. i have a right to privacy. i don't have a right to lie in court. (and i know where you are going with the perjury comment but we all know what that was about don't we?)

#10 jay k. on 2007-08-28 11:21 (Reply)

jay k.
sorry dude but you mantra just doesn't make it so

"i have a right to privacy, oooommmm"

nope

#10.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 12:53 (Reply)

"if the republicans would just stay the f**k out of my bedroom then there wouldn't be a problem. but they can't because they think they are so damn righteous. foley passing child abuse laws while abusing children..."

You have a right to privacy as circumscribed by law. We need to make laws so that people can't abuse children, etc. with impunity. The fact that a legislator may be a hypocrite on an issue from time to time 1) isn't surprising and, 2) doesn't lead to your conclusion that a political party and government needs to keep the f*** out of your private affairs. Illicit, atrocious behavior is often "private." Your mantra of "right to privacy" is meaningless until you define it.

#11 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 11:31 (Reply)

I believe it was the bard of Oklahoma , Will Rogers who said that there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I believe that between Barnet Frank, Gerry Studds, and Larry Craig that thin dimes difference gap has closed to zero gap.

Suddenly Bill C. is look'in damn good, I mean he at least went after a young semi pretty thong showing FEMALE. I mean let's face it he did have belt high Robert Reich around...Yep Bill Clinton..heterosexual and his lovely wife Hillary .. bi?

#12 Habu on 2007-08-28 11:35 (Reply)

anonymous...
you are correct that children need laws to protect them. in an ideal world these laws would be written by people who actually have their best interests at heart. however, that does not negate my point that the republicans should stop trying to deny rights to others in order to molify their faux morality.

#13 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 11:43 (Reply)

There is no "right of privacy" guaranteed" in our constitution.

That is a myth but one the courts have prostitutued similar to other "rights" they have discovered over the years in our constitution. Heck at one point in out history the SCOTUS was upholding slave laws, and if we adhered strictly to the beloved stare dicisis dictum of law we'd still be a slave owning country.

#14 Habu on 2007-08-28 11:49 (Reply)

"There is no 'right of privacy' guaranteed in our constitution."

You know better than that, Haba, it's right there next to the umbra, in our constitution, right there in the penumbra.

#15 bob on 2007-08-28 12:00 (Reply)

Sorry to disagree. I believe Amendment X gives all freedom to the people.

#15.1 BD on 2007-08-28 12:21 (Reply)

sean and jay, I think those points have been frequently made and given some weight. I don't understand why they keep being played as trump cards. To reject Republican policy prescriptions because some Republicans are hypocrites is just vacant thinking. Political thought is not about how you "feel" about the people involved.

It gives Democrats a feeling of great self-righteousness to point out the flaws of Republicans. I could make a similar list of criminal Democrats and well-behaved Republicans, but what would that prove?

So here's the challenge: I contend that what Democrats are calling self-righteousness in Republicans is actually something else. They can't see or understand what the "something else" is because they are projecting their own self-righteousness - leaking out all over this thread, BTW - onto others. Try and figure out what the "something else" is. You will think more clearly forever.

#16 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2007-08-28 12:03 (Reply)

Notice to all you righteously indignant Democrats worming out of the woodwork

Stop, you guys invented more of this perverse society we have to now endure than all the Republican sins ever committed.

You've got a coalition for a party composed of every egg sucking dog group on the planet.

So give it a rest or the jackbooted Republicans will have to stomp you faggot masters into a whimpering mass of something resembling strawberry jam

#17 Habu on 2007-08-28 12:26 (Reply)

Well, we banned 'judgementalism' --culturally, anyway--in the 60s and since then the social pathologies have gone sky high.

Why did we ban 'judgementalism'?

Well, probably a reaction to the nosiness that jay and sean decry.

But still, we have to ask ourselves, what are we looking for here? Utter license? Is that our preferred endpoint?

#18 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 12:28 (Reply)

That is the Big Question for us quasi-Libertarians, isn't it?

#18.1 BD on 2007-08-28 12:31 (Reply)

We don't do much egg sucking, but Barney has this little trick he showed Jerry Studds ..wow.

BTW... my heritage is multi-ethnic, father was a Mexican and mother was a Somoan. So when I get jackbooted I'll probably end up looking like a chutney-mango jam..is that OK?

#19 Al Bolene on 2007-08-28 12:36 (Reply)

#19.1 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 13:29 (Reply)

LOL!

#19.1.1 Anonymous on 2007-08-28 13:35 (Reply)

Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution ?

Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document.

The Bill of Rights

The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights, because the authors believed it wasn't necessary — since the Constitution clearly enumerated the few powers the federal government was given.

However, some of the Founding Fathers thought there could be misunderstandings. So a Bill of Rights was composed — and some states ratified the Constitution only on condition that those amendments would be added to the Constitution.

Whereas the main part of the Constitution spells out the few things that government may do or must do, the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights spell out what government may not do. For example:

The government can't search or seize your property without due process of law,

It can't keep you in jail indefinitely without a trial,

It can't enact laws abridging the freedom of speech or religion, or infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

And various other prohibitions on government activity are spelled out.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

Can someone get a towel? We have a huge Constitutional penumbra leakage over here. And once it breaks open we'll have a total Katrina Constitution.

Now not only do you not have the "Right" to privacy thanks to the Kelo decision you can't even keep your property if I can prove I can produce more revenue for the FEDS.

Now that ain't right

#20 Habu on 2007-08-28 12:47 (Reply)

Mo no privacy

Having read through the amendments on the Findlaw.com web site though, I can’t find any amendment that explicitly protects a United States citizen’s right of privacy. The 14th amendment is often cited as the amendment which protects what Justice Louis Brandeis called the “right to be left alone”, but upon reading it, it appears that a fair amount of interpretation has to be allowed for in order to come to the conclusion that it inherently protects our privacy. The 1st, 4th and 5th amendments are also occasionally referred to in discussions of a right of privacy.

Of course, the 10th amendment explicitly grants authority to the individual states for any power not delegated to the United States Congress or prohibited explicitly in the Constitution of the United States. So, there may very well be provisions protecting privacy in state constitutions or state laws. There are also a number of statutes and regulations at both the federal and state levels which are based at least in part on the inferred right of privacy .

#21 Habu on 2007-08-28 13:00 (Reply)

My right to privacy is protected by the 10th and by my home arsenal. I humbly request that the govt leave me alone, in general.

Any power the govt cannot strongly claim in the Constitution is my own.

#21.1 The Barrister on 2007-08-28 13:49 (Reply)

After a tour of several liberal sites, I can report that most of them are very reluctant to make too much out of this issue, except to the extent that it shows the usual hypocrisy of Value Republicans. Quite a few Democrats, myself included, think that Craig's arrest was a stretch, not because he wasn't cruising, but because I don't think cops should be going out of their way to bust something like that.

It does sometimes seem that the leadership of the Republican party is composed entirely of ass bandits, but I expect the reality is that almost any group will have roughly the same percentage of homosexually-inclined individuals in it. To misuse a statistical term, homosexuality is very much a standard deviation. The question is, why should anybody want to get upset about it? What's next, a new campaign against self-abuse? A protest against the law of gravity?

#22 Jim Harrison on 2007-08-28 14:24 (Reply)

You can't swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting a hypocrite. On both sides of the aisle. So there's a certain kind of person vying for public office? What is it?

Firedoglake can go spit with that crap assessment of a whole category of people. It was based on what? Politicians. Me and my friends with a conservative bent aren't represented. We're more than the idiotic straw man FDG stuffed with illogic for burning in effigy in front of the choir.

Here's a hint for the lower-the-bar liberals like FDL, who want to celebrate six standard deviations from decency, six ways to Sunday: You don't help your cause when you piss off good people who welcome change that works.

Damn.

#23 Jephnol (Link) on 2007-08-28 14:26 (Reply)

Hypocrisy, shmipocracy.

The question is this: Do we really want perverts listening in on our private conversations?

#24 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 14:49 (Reply)

Hey CC dude, you got that tin foil hat on a bit tight. I guess you keep it on so when the black helicopters fly over it won't blow off.

#24.1 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:08 (Reply)

Actually, I wear tin foil panties. wink

#24.1.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 17:57 (Reply)

Just one question: Some of us voted for Republicans because we were persuaded that they represented our values in a number of areas.

We were wrong.

How does the Craig incident change that?

#25 Larry Sheldon on 2007-08-28 14:58 (Reply)

Whether or not Republicans are more hypocritical than Democrats seems questionable, and not particularly interesting. On the other hand, the Republican party has a history of appealing to anti-gay sentiment in many parts of the country, making it much more awkward for a Republican to be "out." One can't help wondering the extent to which legislative decisions are being biased by closeted Republicans trying to be "more homophobic than thou" to head off any possible suspicion.

#26 trrll on 2007-08-28 15:23 (Reply)

I think you'd find, if you looked, that what conservatives are against is "identity-politics", whatever particular identity it might be.

The thinking is, the principle involved is good for everybody, "everybody" being the members of the citizenry.

That thought leads to acceptance of all the personal freedom that doesn't harm the body politic. Of course, that's where the culture wars start --what constitutes "harm"?

A lot of people who couldn't care less what a person does in private do in fact object to alternate lifestyles being promoted to the young, on the principle that children first need to know the national traditions, before they can sensibly choose whether or not to deviate from them.

As with so many issues, the real divide is over whether we should live for the moment, or in preparation for the future. Identity-politics are about gaining share of what is, as opposed to growing more of everything for everybody.

#27 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 16:21 (Reply)

i have always thought the right to privacy, although not specifically enumerated, was expressed throughout the constitution...see the first, tenth, and fourteenth, for starters. admitedly i am not a constitutional lawyer, but i did stay at a holiday inn last night...
anyway...the issue at hand is not even hypocrisy. the issue is someone legislating morality for others when they do not live by those morals themselves. i don't know the word for it...but it's beyond hypocrisy. imagine ted kennedy legislating prohibition. we are all hypocrites to some degree. forcing that hypocrisy on the lives of others is despicable.

#28 jay k. on 2007-08-28 16:29 (Reply)

Kinda like when China is on the Human Rights Board down at the UN,
Or what is it now? Iran on the racism panel? Yup just happened.

#28.1 Phil on 2007-08-29 15:33 (Reply)

The cries of "hypocrisy" and lack of morality are all valid on some level or another and I do not disparage them except maybe as irrelevant.

What scares and saddens me is this: Int eh republic (not little "r") these were supposed to be the brightest and best that we elected to represent us.

I feel irretrievably stupid when I fall for a revenue operation out on the highway.

I have traveled a lot, driven a truck, been to a lot of public restrooms and street corners(including some in "that would never happen here" places, and I've seen a number of invitations for things you would not believe by people that would surprise you.

In each case my first thought was "Yeah, right. Fall for a police sting? You bet!"

But because I wasn't interested, maybe I missed the genuine offers.

But my main point is, are these people really the brightest and best we have?

#29 Larry Sheldon on 2007-08-28 16:42 (Reply)

the breast and the bite-est

#30 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 16:50 (Reply)

"Hypocrisy, shmipocracy. The question is this: Do we really want perverts listening in on our private conversations?"

Since when is a public toilet a private conversation?!

#31 Jephnol (Link) on 2007-08-28 16:59 (Reply)

I meant that those in power are often even more human than those not in power. That is, human but without all the self-imposed checks and balances the less ambitious usually possess. And that ever since Clinton, their ability to wield power has been steadily increasing, my fellow hot tub frog.

#31.1 commander clopfelter on 2007-08-28 18:06 (Reply)

Larry S.

Sorry dude but there ain't no "suppose" about electing the best and brightest. Sometimes the best, sometimes the brightest but way too often it's the best connected, slimy, con man backed by a big industry or the latest greatest, a foreign government. In defense of our great country I will say however that ifyou read enough of the Founding Fathers you find they too possessed the pettiness, underhanded trickery, and every other artifice to win.

What we have are a couple of catagories.
1. Rich lawyers who are also power hungry
2.Rich Wll Streeters who want more power
3. Rich businessmen that want more power
4. The occasional party hack who worked his/her way up through the Party ..the idealist , turned pit bull who wants payback power.
5. Former Student Council Presidents
6. People who are gerrymandered into the seat .
7. The bought and paid for politician/mouthpiece.

The one or two things they all share is their desire for power and to use that power to"help" us poor dumb citizens make it through life....and to bail out our economy by becoming the underwriter of all risk.

See the deal is now everything is too big to fail without taking down the entire economy. So when a private hedge fund gets into trouble it's the FED that coordinates the bail out. Do you think the US Government would let the Bank of America go belly up, even though it is a stock company? Hell no. Now PEP BOYS gets inot trouble...adios too bad stockholders your company wasn't big enough to save.

They use to say no risk ,no reward...well 99% of the fat cats are going to remain fat cats long after your 401K is zeroed out. The government won't save your 401k but they'll save an entire bank or industry...if you're invested in that area you win, if not you lose....just make sure on April 15th you are fully ready because BOHICA has arrived.

#32 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:34 (Reply)

Who ever said "best and brightest"? I thought we were supposed to have regular, ordinary citizen-politicians, who served a term or two before returning to real life.

See Wm F. Buckley's famous quote about the Boston phone book.

#33 BD on 2007-08-28 17:37 (Reply)

Now I don't want to come across as rich envy so I need to add this..as we saw from the nifty moving chart presentation yesterday...the rich and super rich pay about 90-95% of all tax revenue..somewhere in that ball park so they are doing a good deal of the heavy lifting.... on second thought it is rich envy.

I want the big boat, the jet, the six homes all over, the Playmate honey blonde trophy with an energizer bunny sex drive, a Ferrari and a Bentley .. yeah it's rich envy...

#34 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:42 (Reply)

BD..actually the recently departed David Halberstam wrote a book, "The Best and the Brightest"

and if I'm gonna be governed by the first 2000 names in any phonebook please make some place reasonable ..Radar O'Reilly's hometown, Ottumwa, Iowa.

#35 Habu on 2007-08-28 17:48 (Reply)

I know. I read it. They were neither the best nor the brightest. Just a bunch of academics.

#35.1 BD on 2007-08-28 20:02 (Reply)

no, Mayberry, RFD.

#36 buddy larsen on 2007-08-28 17:53 (Reply)

Moscow, Idhao.

#37 bob on 2007-08-28 18:07 (Reply)

That above there is an alternative spelling of Idaho.

#38 bob on 2007-08-28 18:10 (Reply)

also, "Hidao", alternative spelling proposed by especially friendly Idahoans.

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories