That's a great picture. You know, I've had some people say, "How come you let them take a picture of you where you look mean?" Hey, this is how the libs see me. You know what that picture says? That picture says dark, sinister, confident, dangerous; and if you look at the eyes in that picture, it also says something else, two words. (No, not "Tony Soprano.")He doesn't say what the 2 words are, not because he never gets around to it, I think, but because one of the words is one of the words you can't say on the radio, and the famous 2-word phrase is what he was trying to express to those terrible leftist readers of the New York Times. I'd said I thought the picture expressed the Times' feeling of intimidation. They portray him as sinister because they feel threatened by him. But his version of it is that he — and not the photographer and the photo editor — was the one doing the expressing.
It's just a great picture.
July 2, 2008
What are the 2 words the eyes are saying in that photo?
Ha ha. It was pointed out that I have 2 posts in a row that begin with "Ha ha." So now I have 3. Ha ha. And I'm only saying that to take the edge off the the idiocy of having 3 posts in a row about that Rush Limbaugh article in the NYT. But I was just listening to the podcast of the show today and wanted to start a new conversation about the fact that Rush loves that cover photograph of himself. He said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
2 words: Ha. Ha.
. . .what he was trying to express to those terrible leftist readers of the New York Times.
Ann - you don't believe that the Times itself is leftist? You think it just has leftist "readers"? Of what - a "neutral" viewpoint newspaper?
Last week the publisher of Encounter Books announced that he would no longer send anything to the New York Time Book Review because it is impossible for a book by a conservative author to receive a fair review there. Even though Encounter's Books end up on the Times Best Seller Lists, neither Encounter's or any conservative viewpoint book can receive a possinble smidgen of a "passable" review.
But that's not because the Times is "leftist".
The photo, and the intention behind it, reminds me of my hero and namesake.
I think this Pulp Fiction clip is called for.
Though, the cigar may suggest that a Deadwood clip might be more appropriate (though, both could work for different reasons, this isn't an "or" situation, it could be an "and" situation)
Blog commentary through YouTube clips, try jumping into a time machine and explaining that one to your past self a decade or two ago. 1998 XWL might have understood some, but 1988 XWL would have been totally freaked out. . .
(both 1998 XWL, and 1988 XWL would have called 2008 XWL an idiot for speaking about himself in the third person, though, but time travel makes you do strange things, and tense trouble is one of the big, big problems with time travel)
That's not the way Bill Clinton would hold a cigar.
"Hey, sailor..."?
"You're fired!"?
"Hold me."?
"Where's Monica?"?
"Rose bud"?
"Ted Baxter"?
"Grazie, Godfather."?
Here's another type of ha-ha to ponder.
"Hundred Million"?
"Bill Clinton"?
Without whom Russ would not be so popular?
Hey Rush, F*&^ you too, fatass.
Post a Comment