There's no matching this genius:
Posted by binky at May 5, 2006 07:46 PM | TrackBack | Posted to BlogoramaIndeed. It would be highly taxpayer-subsidized gay orgy to imply otherwise.
… I’m sorry, did I say “taxpayer-subsidized gay orgy”? I don’t know what I could have been thinking. Naturally, what I meant to say was “hot middle-aged Congressman-on-lobbyist XXX action”.
… Sorry again. Where is my head today? I should have said “irresponsible”. It would be highly irresponsible to imply otherwise. That’s all I wanted to say. Just that, and nothing at all about a fifteen-year-long homosexual coke-n-hookers-n-dogs-n-box turtles Republican party scene which would make a lost weekend on Fire Island look like an early-afternoon meeting of your grandmother’s penny-ante bridge club. So, please, let’s try to be professional about this.
… Thank you, Oh Merciful and Just Shakira’s Ass.
So if we disagree with someone's politics it's okay to call them "gay" by way of an insult, but only if they're Republicans?
I'm glad you haven't quit, because absent hard evidence this sort of thing is beneath you.
Posted by: jacflash at May 6, 2006 07:30 AM | PERMALINKHmmm, I didnt see the gay part as an insult (and generally, as you note, that's not my blind spot). My reading was of the musing on the possibility that the hookers and the sex were gay would be the ultimate irony for the "family values one man one woman fundamentalist" crowd, and that this would be the ultimate "STFU already" scandal for the GOP and thus stop their ridiculousness about gay marriage etc.
Not pausing to consider, of course, that among the Freepi such a scandal would probably be evidence that the world needs more restrictions on teh gay sex rather than less, because Satan could even tempt upstanding Republicans with it. :eyeroll: