Kelly Tilghman and Bill O'Reilly "lynch" comments show difference between the golf world and the Fox News world
Wednesday February 20, 2008 | 03:07:16 pm 680 words, 6350 views
When The Golf Channel’s Kelly Tilghman fumbled an attempt at humor on the air by joking that younger players on the PGA Tour should lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley in order to better their chances to win, the backlash came quickly. Tilghman was suspended, TGC apologized, and Tilghman apologized before returning to the air. And while it will take some time for the stain to dissipate from Tilghman’s resume, her actions afterward were a sign that she understood that words have meaning, and that hers were hurtful.
The situation was exacerbated by a dunderheaded move by GolfWeek magazine when it featured a noose on its cover, leading to the firing of an editor. But it seemed a point had been made and a lesson had been learned. No matter how much people would like to thing that racist lingo doesn’t affect others, it does. Words matter. Even President George W. Bush conceded this point, not mincing his words:
“As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive,” Bush said at a White House celebration of African-American history month. “They are wrong. And they have no place in America today.
“For generations of African-Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder. It was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions,” Bush said.
Of course, living in a civil society is the complete antithesis of what political entertainers like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly are after. Civility doesn’t pay the bills. So despite an outcry from the public, despite a rebuke from the President, here’s how O’Reilly chose to frame his opinion on a comment by Michelle Obama, wife to Presidential candidate Barack Obama:
“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.”
Now if you think this was a slip of the tongue by O’Reilly, than you’ve obviously just landed on this planet. Talking about a dinner he had with Al Sharpton in Harlem, O’Reilly had this to say:
“[I] couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” O’Reilly said, adding: “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’”
As a sport and past time, golf took a deserved beating for the Tilghman and Golf Week situations, and rightly so. But for the most part, it was a lesson learned for many golfers and the golf establishment. Just because golf has a history as an elitist sport, doesn’t mean that it’s something the golf establishment embraces.
For Fox News and O’Reilly, however, this type of inflammatory, racist language is something they do embrace. And obviously, so do a majority of their viewers and listeners. Because in the end, O’Reilly and Fox News won’t get so much as a slap on the hand and won`t consider apologizing. Kelly Tilghman, making a stupid joke about a man she knows, gets a suspension and a huge speed bump for her career. Bill O’Reilly makes a non-joke about a lynching party forming to get the wife of a prominent politician, just adds to his legend as someone who “speaks for the people,” which apparently is the Fox News code for “unrepentant racist.”
In the end, it shows the difference between the golf world and the Fox News world. The golf world at least makes an attempt to be more inclusive these days. It still has a long, long way to go, but strides are being made. The modern golfer does not want to viewed as racist.
For Fox News and fans of the likes of O’Reilly, it is the exact opposite. They long for a time when it wasn’t just ok to talk about lynchings, but for when it was fine to go out and commit them.
–WKW
Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member]
Ummm, it's Fox News. They aren't exactly progressive. They really aren't.
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 17:08
Comment from: patricia [Visitor] · http://www.thegolfgirl.blogspot.com
The likes of Bill O'Reily, and his narrow-minded followers, are why it's so important that we elect Barack Obama...but then you know that :)]
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 17:10
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Wolfie,
Your leftist idiot stripes are showing again. While I've never been an apologist for O'Reilly (I disagree with him a good percentage of the time), you took the comments about the Harlem restaurant out of context, and that's bad journalism. He was addressing the impression many people have of Harlem and was trying to disabuse people of such notions (although its reputation is, in general, warranted).
As for the lynching comment, it wasn't a slip of the tongue because it wasn't wrong. Bush is a PC idiot, like you; O'Reilly was just saying that he was going to be fair to her. Would it have made you feel better if he would have used the word "crucified"? Well, if so, did you ever think that it could be offensive to Christians?
No, that never would occur to your little leftist brain.
By the way, anyone who supports Obama is a blasted idiot.
Your leftist idiot stripes are showing again. While I've never been an apologist for O'Reilly (I disagree with him a good percentage of the time), you took the comments about the Harlem restaurant out of context, and that's bad journalism. He was addressing the impression many people have of Harlem and was trying to disabuse people of such notions (although its reputation is, in general, warranted).
As for the lynching comment, it wasn't a slip of the tongue because it wasn't wrong. Bush is a PC idiot, like you; O'Reilly was just saying that he was going to be fair to her. Would it have made you feel better if he would have used the word "crucified"? Well, if so, did you ever think that it could be offensive to Christians?
No, that never would occur to your little leftist brain.
By the way, anyone who supports Obama is a blasted idiot.
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 17:38
Comment from: William K. Wolfrum [Member] · http://www.worldgolf.com/blogs/william.wolfrum
Judge,
Your comment here is a good example why I never really bother replying to you. Because for someone who seems smart, and who obviously prides himself on some amount of intelligence, you add absolutely nothing to any discussion other than an endless array of logical fallacies and insults.
Just in your latest comment alone, you've used several ad-homs, built a strawman that you boldly knocked down, used a false dichotomy, etc. There's very likely more, but I'm no expert. All I know is that all of your responses follow these lines. And while you may think "logical fallacies" is fancy liberal talk, it actually does matter when trying to debate a subject. But you don't debate, you just make an endless array of unsubstantiated claims while hurling insults. While Michael Savage fans may find this to be brilliant, general society and history finds it to be stupid and I would imagine that golf fans generally agree.
Basically, Judge, you are part of a long line of folks who scream "The world is ending. And it's all your fault, you jerks." So while it's nice to have you as a commentator, don't start thinking you're some original spokesman. You're a mimic. And you choose to mimic ignorants.
That all said, here's a question: Why would someone like O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, or Savage care about being called a racist? Why wouldn't they embrace it? It's just a word. If you legitimately believe that different races are inferior than others, than you (I use "you" in the collective sense) are a racist. Why are so many obvious racists so cowed by political correctness. I mean, being a racist is heinous, of course, but being a cowardly one seems much worse.
Bill
Your comment here is a good example why I never really bother replying to you. Because for someone who seems smart, and who obviously prides himself on some amount of intelligence, you add absolutely nothing to any discussion other than an endless array of logical fallacies and insults.
Just in your latest comment alone, you've used several ad-homs, built a strawman that you boldly knocked down, used a false dichotomy, etc. There's very likely more, but I'm no expert. All I know is that all of your responses follow these lines. And while you may think "logical fallacies" is fancy liberal talk, it actually does matter when trying to debate a subject. But you don't debate, you just make an endless array of unsubstantiated claims while hurling insults. While Michael Savage fans may find this to be brilliant, general society and history finds it to be stupid and I would imagine that golf fans generally agree.
Basically, Judge, you are part of a long line of folks who scream "The world is ending. And it's all your fault, you jerks." So while it's nice to have you as a commentator, don't start thinking you're some original spokesman. You're a mimic. And you choose to mimic ignorants.
That all said, here's a question: Why would someone like O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, or Savage care about being called a racist? Why wouldn't they embrace it? It's just a word. If you legitimately believe that different races are inferior than others, than you (I use "you" in the collective sense) are a racist. Why are so many obvious racists so cowed by political correctness. I mean, being a racist is heinous, of course, but being a cowardly one seems much worse.
Bill
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 18:07
Comment from: Mary from Manhattan [Visitor]
About a week or two ago, Julie Bandares on Fox's "Red Eye" show referred to Senator Obama a "Halfrican", so I am not suprised that others on Fox News and Fox Radio would continue their racist comments. Absolutely nothing will become of it. Roger Ailes lets them do whatever they want, as long as its against Democrats.
What do you think Bill O'Reilly would say about MSNBC if Keith Olberman used the term "lynching"?
What do you think Bill O'Reilly would say about MSNBC if Keith Olberman used the term "lynching"?
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 19:51
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] · http://zandrabelle@cox.net
Once again the lefties on these blogs have proven that ANYTHING can be made into a political controversy.
To paraphrase the immortal Vince Lombardi, to liberals "politics isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing."
Mary,
I don't think O'Reilly cares one whit what Olbermann says or thinks. Not many people do .
Olbermann's ratings are lower than a snakes belly
Alex USMC 1969-73
To paraphrase the immortal Vince Lombardi, to liberals "politics isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing."
Mary,
I don't think O'Reilly cares one whit what Olbermann says or thinks. Not many people do .
Olbermann's ratings are lower than a snakes belly
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 20:26
Comment from: Duras [Visitor] · http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/watch.html
cross=noose
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/watch.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/watch.html
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 21:30
Comment from: obmud [Visitor]
I'm sure Barack and Michelle knew O'Reilly's type of venom would come around eventually. It shows how primitive the minds of these scum still are. I notice there are a few of them lurking around this site; "kill them all and let God sort them out types". Yuk....they should all be in hell!
Permalink
02/20/08 @ 23:10
Comment from: Fox Fallacy Finder [Visitor]
Alex and "Judge" -> typical ignorant zealots who use name calling rather than facts/reason. You should listen to President Bush's own condemnation just 10 days ago of the shame involved in using even the term lynching.
Bill O'Reilly is such an ignorant racist he can't even remember that lesson for 10 days.
Calling for a lynching if there are words in a non-scripted statement that he finds offensive is absolutely NO proof "that ANYTHING can be made into a political controversy."
Your comments are simply proof that your low-grade mentality is an embarrassment to the American culture and people.
Ignorance shouldn't be paraded around via your childish name-calling backed by stupidity.
Bill O'Reilly is such an ignorant racist he can't even remember that lesson for 10 days.
Calling for a lynching if there are words in a non-scripted statement that he finds offensive is absolutely NO proof "that ANYTHING can be made into a political controversy."
Your comments are simply proof that your low-grade mentality is an embarrassment to the American culture and people.
Ignorance shouldn't be paraded around via your childish name-calling backed by stupidity.
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 01:55
Comment from: Bob Marshall [Visitor]
Uhhh... I think you mean "the issue was exacerbated" not "exasperated."
For that matter, issues aren't really exacerbated, situations and errors are.
For that matter, issues aren't really exacerbated, situations and errors are.
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 03:35
Comment from: JW [Visitor]
The word you were looking for was "exacerbate", meaning 'make worse', not "exasperate", which means 'irritate', in paragraph 2.
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 08:43
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] · http://zandrabelle@cox.net
WkW, Foxy, Mary, et al,
O'Reilly specifically said that he DID NOT want to be part of a lynching party for MS. Obama
Yet you lefties view him as a virulent racist because he merely uttered the word "lynch."
Would you people have the word "lynch" banned from any future prose and expunged from any past prose? Should the word "lynch" be proscibed from any future discourse? Should its use become some sort of a hate crime?
You lefties have a real double standard here. When Clarence Thomas is repeatedly refered to as an "uncle Tom", or Condaleeza Rice is tagged as "Aunt Jemima", there is nary a peep heard from the left side of the aisle. When Spike Lee says that conservatives, especially black conservatives, should be taken out and beaten with a Louisville slugger, the liberals say there is nothing threatening about such speech. Apparently you birds don't know that a person beaten with a baseball bat usually gets a one-way trip to a morgue.
But the attitude to such vitriol is "nothing to see here, folks, keep moving no racism here."
Your double standard reaches its zenith when you idolize that icon of the liberal left, Robert "Sheets" Byrd. When he casually referred to some of his scruffier constituents as "white n--g--rs," he was defended vigoursly by his numerous admirers. Ol' Sheets was just following the speech patterns he had picked up while living in the hardscrabble hills of West Virginia. Again, nothing racist there.
As for Sheets being the Grand Dragon (or was it the Imperial Wizard?) of the Ku Klux Klan, why , a lot of his best friends were also Klansmen. Just a lot of good ole boys having a little fun.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Alex USMC 1969-73
O'Reilly specifically said that he DID NOT want to be part of a lynching party for MS. Obama
Yet you lefties view him as a virulent racist because he merely uttered the word "lynch."
Would you people have the word "lynch" banned from any future prose and expunged from any past prose? Should the word "lynch" be proscibed from any future discourse? Should its use become some sort of a hate crime?
You lefties have a real double standard here. When Clarence Thomas is repeatedly refered to as an "uncle Tom", or Condaleeza Rice is tagged as "Aunt Jemima", there is nary a peep heard from the left side of the aisle. When Spike Lee says that conservatives, especially black conservatives, should be taken out and beaten with a Louisville slugger, the liberals say there is nothing threatening about such speech. Apparently you birds don't know that a person beaten with a baseball bat usually gets a one-way trip to a morgue.
But the attitude to such vitriol is "nothing to see here, folks, keep moving no racism here."
Your double standard reaches its zenith when you idolize that icon of the liberal left, Robert "Sheets" Byrd. When he casually referred to some of his scruffier constituents as "white n--g--rs," he was defended vigoursly by his numerous admirers. Ol' Sheets was just following the speech patterns he had picked up while living in the hardscrabble hills of West Virginia. Again, nothing racist there.
As for Sheets being the Grand Dragon (or was it the Imperial Wizard?) of the Ku Klux Klan, why , a lot of his best friends were also Klansmen. Just a lot of good ole boys having a little fun.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 08:53
Comment from: conservative [Visitor]
Alex wrote: "O'Reilly specifically said that he DID NOT want to be part of a lynching party for MS. Obama"
It's very convenient Alex, that you overlooked the fact that what he ACTUALLY SAID was:
“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.”
Did you catch the word UNLESS there? Or did you just gloss right over that because it's inconvenient to the argument you made in your last comment?
I'm as conservative as they come and I'm embarassed that O'Reilly dares to lump himself into that same category. Same with you, Alex. Please don't come to the defense of conservatives when it's clear you don't even know how the hell to read.
It's very convenient Alex, that you overlooked the fact that what he ACTUALLY SAID was:
“I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.”
Did you catch the word UNLESS there? Or did you just gloss right over that because it's inconvenient to the argument you made in your last comment?
I'm as conservative as they come and I'm embarassed that O'Reilly dares to lump himself into that same category. Same with you, Alex. Please don't come to the defense of conservatives when it's clear you don't even know how the hell to read.
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 09:37
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] · http://Zandrabelle@cox.net
consevative,
I don't like referring to you by that name, since you are about as much of a conservative as I am a Nepalese astronaut.
If YOU knew how to read AND digest what you've read, you'd realize that the words of O'Reilly were but a fraction of my thread.
Please don't try to pass yourself off as conservative. You can't even try to disguise you liberalism.
Come on, show me your defense for "Sheets" Byrd" and Spike Lee.
As far as my ability to read is a subject for this blog goes, I have more comprehension than a left-wing kook like you will ever have.
Alex USMC 1969-73
I don't like referring to you by that name, since you are about as much of a conservative as I am a Nepalese astronaut.
If YOU knew how to read AND digest what you've read, you'd realize that the words of O'Reilly were but a fraction of my thread.
Please don't try to pass yourself off as conservative. You can't even try to disguise you liberalism.
Come on, show me your defense for "Sheets" Byrd" and Spike Lee.
As far as my ability to read is a subject for this blog goes, I have more comprehension than a left-wing kook like you will ever have.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 10:01
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] · http://zandrabelle@cox.net
WKW,
It seems like you've attracted some seminar bloggers and networkers.
That's what happens when you inject left-wing politics into a golf board.
But I think you knew that already.
If that was your intention, you've succeeded.
Alex USMC 1969-73
It seems like you've attracted some seminar bloggers and networkers.
That's what happens when you inject left-wing politics into a golf board.
But I think you knew that already.
If that was your intention, you've succeeded.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 10:49
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
Yes, "conservative" does seem like a seminar blogger -- I know exactly what you mean.
You made some great points about liberal hypocrisy, but don't expect the lefties to address them substantively. The won't do it because they can't. Liberalism is an emotion-based ideology; logic has nothing to do with it.
Yes, "conservative" does seem like a seminar blogger -- I know exactly what you mean.
You made some great points about liberal hypocrisy, but don't expect the lefties to address them substantively. The won't do it because they can't. Liberalism is an emotion-based ideology; logic has nothing to do with it.
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 13:12
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Wolfie,
I'm glad you didn't really bother replying to me. However, it's quite obvious that when you don't respond to me, it's because you can't. And, in reality, your response here was sort of a non-response. You spoke of a "logical fallacy" but could provide no example.
You seem like the kind of fellow who kicks his ball out of a bad lie when his opponents aren't looking.
I'm glad you didn't really bother replying to me. However, it's quite obvious that when you don't respond to me, it's because you can't. And, in reality, your response here was sort of a non-response. You spoke of a "logical fallacy" but could provide no example.
You seem like the kind of fellow who kicks his ball out of a bad lie when his opponents aren't looking.
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 13:18
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor]
Wolf Rum...how long have you been a member of the American Communist Party?
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 19:22
Comment from: putt4par [Visitor] · http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/02/why_do_only_whi.php
A comment to sum up the whole argument about Tilghman.
There are laws in place to protect against racism. Too bad those laws weren't applied with equal zealousness on the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and a whole raft of "African-American" rappers whose statements and lyrics are rife with racist bigotry. Maybe also fine the Music and entertainment industry for allowing those same racial slurs to be published.
Until those laws are applied equally, there will be racist angst in america.
Oh yeah, maybe rein in Oprah and her sly racist innuendos which are just as hurtful as any lynching remarks made by Ms. Tilghman.
There are laws in place to protect against racism. Too bad those laws weren't applied with equal zealousness on the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and a whole raft of "African-American" rappers whose statements and lyrics are rife with racist bigotry. Maybe also fine the Music and entertainment industry for allowing those same racial slurs to be published.
Until those laws are applied equally, there will be racist angst in america.
Oh yeah, maybe rein in Oprah and her sly racist innuendos which are just as hurtful as any lynching remarks made by Ms. Tilghman.
Permalink
02/21/08 @ 21:36
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
putt4par,
I certainly agree with you on the double standard; however, you've made a grave mistake. There are no "laws" against "racism" in America (i.e., hate-speech laws); what the black racial hustlers and rappers you mentioned say is vile but not illegal, nor should it be.
What lynched people such as Tilghman and Imus were not laws but misbegotten social codes, which, to echo your sentiments, are certainly not applied equally.
Nevertheless, to accept the notion of hate-speech laws is to accept tyranny, for then those with clout will be able to determine what constitutes "hate," thereby stifling commentary they dislike.
I certainly agree with you on the double standard; however, you've made a grave mistake. There are no "laws" against "racism" in America (i.e., hate-speech laws); what the black racial hustlers and rappers you mentioned say is vile but not illegal, nor should it be.
What lynched people such as Tilghman and Imus were not laws but misbegotten social codes, which, to echo your sentiments, are certainly not applied equally.
Nevertheless, to accept the notion of hate-speech laws is to accept tyranny, for then those with clout will be able to determine what constitutes "hate," thereby stifling commentary they dislike.
Permalink
02/22/08 @ 10:24
Comment from: Gemma [Visitor]
The society is going down the wrong path because people feel the need to take extreme stand in order to get heard or to make their point. You are either WITH ME or AGAINST ME. If you are not conservative, you are automatically a leftist commie of the nth degree; if you are not liberal, you must be a racist bigot who marry your own sister....
There's place for moderates, they are not being tolerated by either the left- or right-leaning.
Meanwhile, sadly, the rest of the world is laughing at you, not with you.
There's place for moderates, they are not being tolerated by either the left- or right-leaning.
Meanwhile, sadly, the rest of the world is laughing at you, not with you.
Permalink
02/22/08 @ 16:49
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Gemma,
I don't know who you're addressing, but I'm not a conservative. I'm a radical.
I don't know who you're addressing, but I'm not a conservative. I'm a radical.
Permalink
02/22/08 @ 17:09
Comment from: putt4par [Visitor] · http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/02/why_do_only_whi.php
I'd say that makes two of us, Judge.
More of a radical free thinker than a sheep following the bleeting rabble.
Never did care for mutton anyway.
More of a radical free thinker than a sheep following the bleeting rabble.
Never did care for mutton anyway.
Permalink
02/22/08 @ 19:25
Comment from: A passing reader [Visitor]
Bill O’Reilly – Michelle Obama lynch comment 2.20.08
Scott Hamilton – Lynch on cover of Golf Mag 1.18.08
Rush Limbaugh – Condi Rice lynch comment 1.12.08
Kelly Tilghman – Tiger Woods lynch comment 1.11.08
Jena 6 – Civil Rights Protest in Louisiana 9.20.07
Bill O’Reilly – Harlem Restaurant comment 9.19.07
Don Imus – Rutgers Basketball comment 4.5.07
Facts
1. Bill O'Reilly's Sept comment was made a day before the Jena 6 Civil Rights Protest in Louisiana.
2. Both Bill O'Reilley's comments were made on his radio talk show rather than over broadcast media on tv.
3. All Bill O'Reilly's defenses were made via broadcast tv
I'm a strong supporter of Barack Obama and I believe that the mood within the US is one for a Democratic President. If Obama does win the nomination and Precidency, with regards to racism in this country, I believe that people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly will fan the flames of racist rhetoric not seen since the 60s.
Free speech isn't free, it comes with a price. Defamation of character is one such price, Fox News makes no distinguishment between peaceful free speech and contentious free speech, they don't care, it's free speech just like single gun owner ship and arsenal stock piles are no different. I think that kind of blatant disregard for the concern of others is what makes republicans so right wing, they're too ideological and not realistic.
I hope, that within 40-50 years the Republican Party will be dead. Their representation excludes women and minorities but includes the old guard. If Islam is still the in middle ages, Conservative Republicans are still Antebellum America...
Scott Hamilton – Lynch on cover of Golf Mag 1.18.08
Rush Limbaugh – Condi Rice lynch comment 1.12.08
Kelly Tilghman – Tiger Woods lynch comment 1.11.08
Jena 6 – Civil Rights Protest in Louisiana 9.20.07
Bill O’Reilly – Harlem Restaurant comment 9.19.07
Don Imus – Rutgers Basketball comment 4.5.07
Facts
1. Bill O'Reilly's Sept comment was made a day before the Jena 6 Civil Rights Protest in Louisiana.
2. Both Bill O'Reilley's comments were made on his radio talk show rather than over broadcast media on tv.
3. All Bill O'Reilly's defenses were made via broadcast tv
I'm a strong supporter of Barack Obama and I believe that the mood within the US is one for a Democratic President. If Obama does win the nomination and Precidency, with regards to racism in this country, I believe that people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly will fan the flames of racist rhetoric not seen since the 60s.
Free speech isn't free, it comes with a price. Defamation of character is one such price, Fox News makes no distinguishment between peaceful free speech and contentious free speech, they don't care, it's free speech just like single gun owner ship and arsenal stock piles are no different. I think that kind of blatant disregard for the concern of others is what makes republicans so right wing, they're too ideological and not realistic.
I hope, that within 40-50 years the Republican Party will be dead. Their representation excludes women and minorities but includes the old guard. If Islam is still the in middle ages, Conservative Republicans are still Antebellum America...
Permalink
02/23/08 @ 07:39
Comment from: A passing reader-- [Visitor]
Post Script - On a second note, the type of free speech that Fox News hails really keeps the wounds from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement open, they just don't want to let it heal. The type of speech that Fox News puts out is the type of media that people in Louisiana feed off of. That's why you have Jena 6 and the continuation of a black white divide.
I don't believe that you can defend Fox News or Conservative Republicans for this type of wedge issue without wholly declaring that you hold some type of discrimination yourself because again, this is the modern age. If defamation of character can be launched against a company, that's the price Fox News should pay because their speech is aimed at an entire peoples.
I don't believe that you can defend Fox News or Conservative Republicans for this type of wedge issue without wholly declaring that you hold some type of discrimination yourself because again, this is the modern age. If defamation of character can be launched against a company, that's the price Fox News should pay because their speech is aimed at an entire peoples.
Permalink
02/23/08 @ 08:15
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
A passing reader,
You are obviously such a Kool-Aid drinker and so brain dead that addressing your folderol would be an exercise in futility and masochism.
Oh, I'm not so sure about the Republican Party, but quite likely is that within 40-50 years you'll be dead.
You are obviously such a Kool-Aid drinker and so brain dead that addressing your folderol would be an exercise in futility and masochism.
Oh, I'm not so sure about the Republican Party, but quite likely is that within 40-50 years you'll be dead.
Permalink
02/23/08 @ 10:27
Comment from: Kristen [Visitor] · http://www.thegolfchick.com
O'Reilly is a ratings whore. He saw the kind of attention the Tilghman/Golfweek situation received and decided to display his racism using a recent watch-word and escalate it to the political realm.
Permalink
02/23/08 @ 11:46
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
Wow. I surely don't want to call Old Fake Name and Jarhead
hot-headed, race-baiting, name-calling, know-nothings.
I would never think of doing such a thing.
hot-headed, race-baiting, name-calling, know-nothings.
I would never think of doing such a thing.
Permalink
02/23/08 @ 13:45
Comment from: putt4par [Visitor] · http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/02/why_do_only_whi.php
Of course you wouldn't.
I'm just surprised that the leatherneck Bonehead hasn't pitched his piece here yet.
I'm just surprised that the leatherneck Bonehead hasn't pitched his piece here yet.
Permalink
02/23/08 @ 15:11
Comment from: William K. Wolfrum [Member] · http://www.worldgolf.com/blogs/william.wolfrum
"I'm not a conservative. I'm a radical."
That's interesting. I wonder if the Islamic radicals who you so fear spend as much of their time dissecting Michelle Wie's game on a golf Web site?
Bill
That's interesting. I wonder if the Islamic radicals who you so fear spend as much of their time dissecting Michelle Wie's game on a golf Web site?
Bill
Permalink
02/24/08 @ 01:08
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Wolfie,
It's so nice of you to not respond to me again. Not surprisingly, you have no idea what the word "radical" really denotes and don't realize that not all radicals are the same. But I'll give you a hint: It's much like proclaiming yourself to be an iconoclast.
Oh, Wolfie, I don't fear the Islamic nuts; I combat them. You will fear them . . . in good time.
It's so nice of you to not respond to me again. Not surprisingly, you have no idea what the word "radical" really denotes and don't realize that not all radicals are the same. But I'll give you a hint: It's much like proclaiming yourself to be an iconoclast.
Oh, Wolfie, I don't fear the Islamic nuts; I combat them. You will fear them . . . in good time.
Permalink
02/24/08 @ 11:02
Comment from: putt4par [Visitor] · http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/02/why_do_only_whi.php
Judge Smails said: "...You will fear them . . . in good time."
I believe it's very close, Judge.
Anyone seriously considering Obama as president of the United States should be very sure of what they want.
Here is a man one step removed from an Islamic background.
Here is a man who won't pledge allegiance to his flag because he doesn't want to appear to chose sides.
What will happen if he is elected president? Leader of the armed forces! and he can't appear to chose sides?
Will he pledge allegiance to the flag and place his hand on the bible, swearing to be fatihful to the Tenets and beliefs of the United States of America?
And he is in serious position to be your next president..
Wolfie, you have a lot more to fear from your liberal views than anything we may say on your silly little blog.
You wonder why a Canadian is worried?
Because anything you liberal idiots do in the US of A bleeds over into Canada, affecting us directly, and usually to our detriment
I believe it's very close, Judge.
Anyone seriously considering Obama as president of the United States should be very sure of what they want.
Here is a man one step removed from an Islamic background.
Here is a man who won't pledge allegiance to his flag because he doesn't want to appear to chose sides.
What will happen if he is elected president? Leader of the armed forces! and he can't appear to chose sides?
Will he pledge allegiance to the flag and place his hand on the bible, swearing to be fatihful to the Tenets and beliefs of the United States of America?
And he is in serious position to be your next president..
Wolfie, you have a lot more to fear from your liberal views than anything we may say on your silly little blog.
You wonder why a Canadian is worried?
Because anything you liberal idiots do in the US of A bleeds over into Canada, affecting us directly, and usually to our detriment
Permalink
02/24/08 @ 12:59
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
putt4par,
I agree with you -- it's closer than many think. Yet there are many threats to Western civilization, first and foremost among them the fact that we're allowing ourselves to be invaded by unassimilable foreigners.
What you say about the US is true, in that we are -- and I mean this neither as a compliment or a pejorative -- the world's current hegemon. Thus, if we sneeze, everyone else often gets a cold.
Having said this, the rest of the West does a good job descending into PC tyranny itself. For instance, in Canada, you have the euphemistically-named "Human Rights Commissions," which serve to stifle politically-incorrect dissent. They have, for instance, criminally punished Christians who criticized Islam and homosexual behavior.
Don't take this as as put-down of Canada, as this is something that bedevils all of the West, and we have the same leftist scum here. Moreover, I truly wish that Canada, Australia, England or New Zealand didn't fit into this category, because then I'd have a place to go. As it stands right now, it's just a matter of picking your leftist poison.
I agree with you -- it's closer than many think. Yet there are many threats to Western civilization, first and foremost among them the fact that we're allowing ourselves to be invaded by unassimilable foreigners.
What you say about the US is true, in that we are -- and I mean this neither as a compliment or a pejorative -- the world's current hegemon. Thus, if we sneeze, everyone else often gets a cold.
Having said this, the rest of the West does a good job descending into PC tyranny itself. For instance, in Canada, you have the euphemistically-named "Human Rights Commissions," which serve to stifle politically-incorrect dissent. They have, for instance, criminally punished Christians who criticized Islam and homosexual behavior.
Don't take this as as put-down of Canada, as this is something that bedevils all of the West, and we have the same leftist scum here. Moreover, I truly wish that Canada, Australia, England or New Zealand didn't fit into this category, because then I'd have a place to go. As it stands right now, it's just a matter of picking your leftist poison.
Permalink
02/25/08 @ 11:31
Comment from: putt4par [Visitor] · http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/02/why_do_only_whi.php
Unfortunately for those countries that you mentioned, including Canada, that is the sad truth.
What I am sick of is the White-Apologists who seem to think that bending over for all the special interest and religious, groups will change the world into a better place.
I only wish that it were so. Alas we have the examples of Kosovo,Bosnia, Kenya, Iraq,and all the other places where the "religion of peace" holds sway.
If that is the way that our "fifth estate" wishes to live, then let them move there.
In the mean time, let them report the news instead of becoming the news with assinine opinion pieces that tear down the society that so many of our forefathers shed blood to build.
What I am sick of is the White-Apologists who seem to think that bending over for all the special interest and religious, groups will change the world into a better place.
I only wish that it were so. Alas we have the examples of Kosovo,Bosnia, Kenya, Iraq,and all the other places where the "religion of peace" holds sway.
If that is the way that our "fifth estate" wishes to live, then let them move there.
In the mean time, let them report the news instead of becoming the news with assinine opinion pieces that tear down the society that so many of our forefathers shed blood to build.
Permalink
02/25/08 @ 13:59
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Well put, putt4par, well put. And, yes, white apologists are the problem, as they have orchestrated our demise. I speak of people such as Ted Kennedy, a loathsome, vile, disgusting creature if ever there was one.
Anyway, even if we did disagree on Bubbles, I like the way you think. If you want to come here, I'll trade Canada 10 wetbacks for one of you any day.
Oh, Wolfie must be getting frosted reading this, but I know he won't respond. You know, he said that he doesn't respond to me when he responded to me. And we know that liberals always keep their word.
Anyway, even if we did disagree on Bubbles, I like the way you think. If you want to come here, I'll trade Canada 10 wetbacks for one of you any day.
Oh, Wolfie must be getting frosted reading this, but I know he won't respond. You know, he said that he doesn't respond to me when he responded to me. And we know that liberals always keep their word.
Permalink
02/26/08 @ 12:22
Comment from: Trevor Stevens [Visitor]
Just wondering what the extreme rights going to do if Obama becomes the POTUS?
Permalink
02/27/08 @ 11:43
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Trevor,
That's an easy one to answer. I will be doing just what I do now, because Obama isn't the problem. We are the problem.
That's an easy one to answer. I will be doing just what I do now, because Obama isn't the problem. We are the problem.
Permalink
02/27/08 @ 12:01
Comment from: Dot Wong [Member]
I love that the Marine was able to decipher from ONE POST that they previous poster was not a conservative but indeed a liberal. As if personal politics can somehow be "sniffed out" by one's choice of verbs and nouns. Good job!
Why would anyone waste time defending O'Reilly and his ilk? We're such a celebrity culture. Is he the keeper of conservative thinking? Is the former host of A Current Affair the guy you're electing?!
If you hold your personal beliefs dear, then you would remove yourself from the screaming and yelling and pointless blathering banter that is on all of these political shows, from Reilly to Olberman to Beck to Rush. It's like someone saying they love fine dining and their favorite restaurant is McDonalds.
They LOWER your beliefs to the most basic, soundbyte-worthy 22 second clip, as if all the colors of you can somehow be summed up in a snarky comment and an eye roll.
I don't understand the conservative deep thinkers on this board who obviously have such a jones for fat head O'Reilly. Why? If you are who you think you are, he doesn't represent you, why do you care?
I find Jon Stewart funny, but I don't LOVE the guy. You hate him? Um, OK. Wow, that doesn't affect me AT ALL.
This isn't about politics, it's celebrity worship. O'Reilly is on the shiny box, so we must love him. It's out of hand.
Why would anyone waste time defending O'Reilly and his ilk? We're such a celebrity culture. Is he the keeper of conservative thinking? Is the former host of A Current Affair the guy you're electing?!
If you hold your personal beliefs dear, then you would remove yourself from the screaming and yelling and pointless blathering banter that is on all of these political shows, from Reilly to Olberman to Beck to Rush. It's like someone saying they love fine dining and their favorite restaurant is McDonalds.
They LOWER your beliefs to the most basic, soundbyte-worthy 22 second clip, as if all the colors of you can somehow be summed up in a snarky comment and an eye roll.
I don't understand the conservative deep thinkers on this board who obviously have such a jones for fat head O'Reilly. Why? If you are who you think you are, he doesn't represent you, why do you care?
I find Jon Stewart funny, but I don't LOVE the guy. You hate him? Um, OK. Wow, that doesn't affect me AT ALL.
This isn't about politics, it's celebrity worship. O'Reilly is on the shiny box, so we must love him. It's out of hand.
Permalink
02/28/08 @ 10:35
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Wow, Dot Wong rendered an opinion! Let's mark this day on our calendar. I thought her specialty was reporting news after everybody else.
It's funny, Miss Wong, but I didn't see anyone here mounting any kind of gratuitous defense of O'Reilly. As for me, I just defended the truth, which is what I always do. I'm not all that find of O'Reilly, to be frank, but when someone is right, he's right.
Now, onto a different matter. You don't want people to listen to Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and, I assume, anyone else in their category (although O'Reilly really is in a different category from the other two). Pray tell, Miss Wong, from whom should people get their news and commentary? Should it be the New York Times? The Washington Post? Where do you get your information? Or do you have your own news bureaus scattered throughout the world?
It's funny, Miss Wong, but I didn't see anyone here mounting any kind of gratuitous defense of O'Reilly. As for me, I just defended the truth, which is what I always do. I'm not all that find of O'Reilly, to be frank, but when someone is right, he's right.
Now, onto a different matter. You don't want people to listen to Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and, I assume, anyone else in their category (although O'Reilly really is in a different category from the other two). Pray tell, Miss Wong, from whom should people get their news and commentary? Should it be the New York Times? The Washington Post? Where do you get your information? Or do you have your own news bureaus scattered throughout the world?
Permalink
02/28/08 @ 12:16
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] · http://zandrabelle@cox.net
Dot Wong,
It is really not that difficult to figure out the political propensities of any persons. All one need do is read waht the writ and listen to what the say.
As an example, I can tell that you are a liberal,although you prefer the term "progressive" or even "moderate".
How do I know as much." Easy. Anyone who thinks Jon Stewart is funny can be nothing but a liberal.
Alex USMC 1969-73
It is really not that difficult to figure out the political propensities of any persons. All one need do is read waht the writ and listen to what the say.
As an example, I can tell that you are a liberal,although you prefer the term "progressive" or even "moderate".
How do I know as much." Easy. Anyone who thinks Jon Stewart is funny can be nothing but a liberal.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
02/28/08 @ 15:19
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
People like Wong are incredulous when others can discern such things because they are completely lacking in wisdom. They cannot imagine that anyone could accurately render these judgments because they are incapable of doing so.
There are parallels in other areas, too. When I was in college and playing on one of the athletic teams, I was able to tell a player from a different school that he was a lefty just by looking at him. There was a look of great shock on his face, and, who knows, if I had told him that one could discern such things before actually demonstrating the ability, he might have scoffed the way Wong did. However, it was simply a function of having some rudimentary knowledge of physiology.
Getting back to political inclinations, I used to work with children and could discern how their parents voted based on their behavior. I was seldom wrong. However, people such as Dot Wong find this unfathomable because they aren't invested with the requisite wisdom.
People like Wong are incredulous when others can discern such things because they are completely lacking in wisdom. They cannot imagine that anyone could accurately render these judgments because they are incapable of doing so.
There are parallels in other areas, too. When I was in college and playing on one of the athletic teams, I was able to tell a player from a different school that he was a lefty just by looking at him. There was a look of great shock on his face, and, who knows, if I had told him that one could discern such things before actually demonstrating the ability, he might have scoffed the way Wong did. However, it was simply a function of having some rudimentary knowledge of physiology.
Getting back to political inclinations, I used to work with children and could discern how their parents voted based on their behavior. I was seldom wrong. However, people such as Dot Wong find this unfathomable because they aren't invested with the requisite wisdom.
Permalink
02/28/08 @ 18:37
Comment from: Sultan of Swing [Visitor]
Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are idiots. So are Bill O'Reilley and Limbaugh.
These people serve to divide the country, not unite them. They are mouth pieces of the extremists of both ends.
Putting too much weight on what they say is going a disservice to this diverse and great country.
These people serve to divide the country, not unite them. They are mouth pieces of the extremists of both ends.
Putting too much weight on what they say is going a disservice to this diverse and great country.
Permalink
02/29/08 @ 08:36
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] · http://zandrabelle@cox.net
Sorry guys for those letters I omitted. Cold hands.
Sultan,
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I think you'll find that nearly all the divisive language being broadcast comes from the left. The Left constantly criticizes our Armed Forces and praises our enemies as "Freedom Fighters."
They desperately want President Bush impeached although there is no reason for such action. They used the most scurrilous language when referring to the President, his wife , and his children. Conservatives rarely if ever resort to such vile words and actions.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Sultan,
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I think you'll find that nearly all the divisive language being broadcast comes from the left. The Left constantly criticizes our Armed Forces and praises our enemies as "Freedom Fighters."
They desperately want President Bush impeached although there is no reason for such action. They used the most scurrilous language when referring to the President, his wife , and his children. Conservatives rarely if ever resort to such vile words and actions.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
02/29/08 @ 09:00
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Sultan,
Guess what? Anytime you render an opinion, you're being divisive; this is because a certain percentage of the population will disagree with you. If you love unity so much, I suggest you emigrate to North Korea. Everyone there has the same opinion . . . or at least seems to.
Guess what? Anytime you render an opinion, you're being divisive; this is because a certain percentage of the population will disagree with you. If you love unity so much, I suggest you emigrate to North Korea. Everyone there has the same opinion . . . or at least seems to.
Permalink
02/29/08 @ 11:52
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
I should also mention, Sultan, that by rendering your opinion, you were being divisive. For instance, Alex and I both don't like it and are now alienated from you.
Maybe you should practice what you preach and bite your tongue in the future.
Maybe you should practice what you preach and bite your tongue in the future.
Permalink
02/29/08 @ 12:00
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
For his next post Alex will claim "warm heart".
Totally agree with your post, Sultan. Believe you can live with alienation of Judge & Alex?
Totally agree with your post, Sultan. Believe you can live with alienation of Judge & Alex?
Permalink
02/29/08 @ 15:56
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Wendy,
As a matter of fact,dearie, I do have a warm heart. And I'd advise you to stay on the good sides of Judge and me. Be prudent; do not arouse the wrath fo the Judge or the Leatherneck, sweetie!
Alex USMC 1969-73
As a matter of fact,dearie, I do have a warm heart. And I'd advise you to stay on the good sides of Judge and me. Be prudent; do not arouse the wrath fo the Judge or the Leatherneck, sweetie!
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
03/01/08 @ 09:31
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Alex,
I feel so sorry for poor Wendy. She wants for a good, strong, bold man in her life who could keep her in her place and help her understand the true beauty, dignity and magnificence of complete devotion to the God-given feminine role. Pity.
Anyway, since the usually demure Miss Wong decided to bless us with one of her rare opinions, I decided to relate a little story of which I'm reminded.
Mr. Wong and Mrs. Wong are expecting a baby. Well, the blessed day comes, and Mrs. Wong gives birth to a perfectly healthy child. But, lo and behold, there is one small problem: The baby is Caucasian.
Now, Mr. Wong is quite perturbed and bemused. How, he reasoned, could this have happened, unless his love had betrayed him with the unkindest cut? He held his tongue, however, being confused and reluctant to spoil the special occasion.
But it was eating him up. So, finally he went to the doctor and asked, "Doc, is this possible? Could it be some quirk of genetics." The doctor shook his head and said, "No, no, two Wongs don't make a white."
I feel so sorry for poor Wendy. She wants for a good, strong, bold man in her life who could keep her in her place and help her understand the true beauty, dignity and magnificence of complete devotion to the God-given feminine role. Pity.
Anyway, since the usually demure Miss Wong decided to bless us with one of her rare opinions, I decided to relate a little story of which I'm reminded.
Mr. Wong and Mrs. Wong are expecting a baby. Well, the blessed day comes, and Mrs. Wong gives birth to a perfectly healthy child. But, lo and behold, there is one small problem: The baby is Caucasian.
Now, Mr. Wong is quite perturbed and bemused. How, he reasoned, could this have happened, unless his love had betrayed him with the unkindest cut? He held his tongue, however, being confused and reluctant to spoil the special occasion.
But it was eating him up. So, finally he went to the doctor and asked, "Doc, is this possible? Could it be some quirk of genetics." The doctor shook his head and said, "No, no, two Wongs don't make a white."
Permalink
03/01/08 @ 12:09
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Goodness gracious me - what on earth have I said to upset you both? (Just in case I need it for the future).
"When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He SHOUTS to scare the monster who will often turn aside,
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male".
Well, there goes the last of my Rudyard Kipling, Alex, have to think of something else to counter your dearies and sweeties.
Judge - as a child I sang the hymn "All things bright and beautiful" until I came to the verse
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them high or lowly,
And ordered their estate"
and realised what the last line really meant. From that day on I have never accepted a God-given role, let alone one you would assign me.
((((Gosh, it really is v. comfortable behind this big sofa. Think I'll have just one more delicious home-made oatmeal cookie before peeking out to see if they have gone. Do they REALLY have GOOD sides?; perhaps on another website then - or another planet)))
"When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He SHOUTS to scare the monster who will often turn aside,
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male".
Well, there goes the last of my Rudyard Kipling, Alex, have to think of something else to counter your dearies and sweeties.
Judge - as a child I sang the hymn "All things bright and beautiful" until I came to the verse
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them high or lowly,
And ordered their estate"
and realised what the last line really meant. From that day on I have never accepted a God-given role, let alone one you would assign me.
((((Gosh, it really is v. comfortable behind this big sofa. Think I'll have just one more delicious home-made oatmeal cookie before peeking out to see if they have gone. Do they REALLY have GOOD sides?; perhaps on another website then - or another planet)))
Permalink
03/02/08 @ 10:05
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Wendy,
You really need some new material, my lady.
You really don't need to be less self-conscious about your femininity. But I'm glad ol' Rudyard's tongue-in-cheek musings make you feel better.
You really need some new material, my lady.
You really don't need to be less self-conscious about your femininity. But I'm glad ol' Rudyard's tongue-in-cheek musings make you feel better.
Permalink
03/02/08 @ 11:11
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Judge - agreed & already acknowledged I thought, although I shall miss ol' Rudyard in the context of dicing with the Dreaded Duo.
"You really don't need to be less self-concious about your femininity". Is that a double negative or is it the equivalent of "I could care less" which is totally confusing to Brits who say "I couldn't care less"?
"You really don't need to be less self-concious about your femininity". Is that a double negative or is it the equivalent of "I could care less" which is totally confusing to Brits who say "I couldn't care less"?
Permalink
03/02/08 @ 13:58
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Wendy,
You are a shining example of the damage that is being done by militant feminism to otherwise worthwhile females.
Ther is so much for women to do and so little time to do them.
Besides the aforementioned oatmeal cookies, there are always going to be the millions of ubiquitous diapers to change, a task particularly suited for women's capabilities.
Other noble tasks for women in clude scrubbing floors, cleaning latrines, and taking care of the mundane trivia that are beneath the dignity of males.
See Wendy, you ladies have plenty of work to do. And also, you owe it to your husband, if you have one, to remain attractive to him, while maintaining a subservient demeanor.
If you do all these things I have delineated, your will live a lot longer and be a lot more happy.
Alex USMC 1969-73
You are a shining example of the damage that is being done by militant feminism to otherwise worthwhile females.
Ther is so much for women to do and so little time to do them.
Besides the aforementioned oatmeal cookies, there are always going to be the millions of ubiquitous diapers to change, a task particularly suited for women's capabilities.
Other noble tasks for women in clude scrubbing floors, cleaning latrines, and taking care of the mundane trivia that are beneath the dignity of males.
See Wendy, you ladies have plenty of work to do. And also, you owe it to your husband, if you have one, to remain attractive to him, while maintaining a subservient demeanor.
If you do all these things I have delineated, your will live a lot longer and be a lot more happy.
Alex USMC 1969-73
Permalink
03/02/08 @ 19:08
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
No surprise to me, Alex, that you still believe in the "toilet fairy".
I hate to break it to you but my highly-paid staff carry out your specific tasks, as I am far too busy powdering my pretty little nose. I would have thought it perfectly obvious that my husband must have married me for my money rather than any trait you might find attractive, including a subservient demeanour, although admittedly I do "look up" to him.
I hate to break it to you but my highly-paid staff carry out your specific tasks, as I am far too busy powdering my pretty little nose. I would have thought it perfectly obvious that my husband must have married me for my money rather than any trait you might find attractive, including a subservient demeanour, although admittedly I do "look up" to him.
Permalink
03/03/08 @ 12:37
Comment from: Trevor Stevens [Visitor]
Don't neglect the fact that you also have people like Alex to fight for you too...
Permalink
03/05/08 @ 10:02 Leave a comment:
William K. Wolfrum
a WorldGolf.com Blog
WorldGolf.com's William K. Wolfrum blogs about everything in the world of golf and travel, including Michelle Wie, Lorena Ochoa, Tiger Woods and other PGA and LPGA headlines. Plus, he offers the humorous and obscure in news, politics and pop culture.
Feeds and archives
Add to:
 
|
Archives
|
