Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Obviously a malapropism -- the guy meant "theoretical."  Unless
    the polititian  making the statement is really some sort of
    atheist or agnostic...which is unlikely in the good ol' 
    U. S. of A. (:-).

    I love mild political malapropisims.  One I remember years ago was
    when Governor Georce C. Wallace was against some policy and claimed
    that it was "laying the predicate" for social unrest.
    
    Now I suppose if you take "precicate" to bean "base," it could make
    some sense.  But is sure sounded kinky.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Claude Pepper, the Representative from Florida, was in a particularly
    nasty reelection campaign in the late '40s.�  Among other things, his
    opponent accused Pepper of "matriculating in college", that his brother
    was a "practicing heterosexual", and his wife was a "known thespian".
    The voters were horrified, and Pepper lost the election.

    ========
    �If I remember correctly, he's in the Guiness Book as the oldest
    Congressman, and the one who has served the longest.

A recent letter to the "Answer" column in Parade magazine
went something like...

"...[Person's name] had the audacity to accuse President Reagan
of being a 'practicing heterosexual'.  Why hasn't s/he been sued
for libel?"

The author of the column answered that Reagan is known to be heterosexual,
and that it was speculated that he is still practicing (and then continued
with a definition of heterosexual).

Bruce

Well, "purely theological" might indeed mean "not practical", in the
tradition of debates about how many angels can dance on the head of 
a pin.  But for a politician to make such a disparaging reference to
religion would be suicidal, so I agree that it's most likely a 
malapropism for "theoretical". 

    
    re .4 & .5:
    
    On the USENET, in the jokes group, there appear recently an article
    reprinting a MAD Magazine spoof of a political speach containing
    these and other harmless but (to the undereducated) nasty sounding
    allegations.
    
    If there is interest, I can post the message here (although perhaps
    under another note).
    
    	Peter
    

Please!  Do so!

-- Sam

Path: jfcl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!styx!lll-lcc!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!awr
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.humor
Subject: Re: Political Speech
    
    
MAD's Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech

      writer: Bill Garvin                      from MAD #139, December 1970


  My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today.  My
opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I
happen to like this area.  It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me
it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

  When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be 
conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick
to the issues.  Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead - to
indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his
speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

  At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities.  Now
I will do so no longer.  If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

  It might be instructive to start with his background.  My friends, have you
ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath?
Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar.  All the slime and 
filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams,
are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life.  And even in his childhood!

  Let us take a very quick look at that childhood:  It is a known fact that,
on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground.
It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their
presence, but even urged him to do so.  Most explicable of all, this man who
poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both
teenagers!

  I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in
public office to set an example for our youth?

  Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically
pristine background - no, not when you consider the other members of his
family:

  His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and
claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory
activities.

  The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.

  My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.

  His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a
proselyte outside a church.

  His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a
pecuniary nature.

  His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo
sapiens.

  His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.

  His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.

  His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act
in front of paying customers.

  And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later
years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

  Now what shall we say about the man himself?

  I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political
radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity.  His own record
proves that he has prequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American
philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.

  He perambulated his infant on the street.

  He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.

  He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.

  He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd
goings-on, there was incense.

  He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.

  He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company - and has taken part
in such gatherings himself.

  He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.

  He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic
tastes.

  Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the
U.S. flag.

  Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms,
he has cooly announced his belief in altruism - and his fervent hope that
some day this entire nation will be altruistic!

  I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are
so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life.  A vote for
him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.

  The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself.  Do your duty.

    Didn't Parade's personality column recently publish a letter from
    an irate reader, who took exception to their calling President 
    Reagan a sexagenarian? (Or maybe it was Ann Landers.)
    
    					Val

    I believe it was Ann Landers in which a woman was upseet because her
    father was being called "immoral names" like "sexagenarian." 
    
    	Jon

    	Somebody buy the general public a dictionary, please!
    
    	Larry
    

Before we click our tounges too loudly at the general public's
ignorance, let us remember that Ann Landers is a favorite target of
college pranksters who like to write outrageous letters...

    The Parade question was.....
    
    How can reporters say that the president has known heterosexual
    tendencies?
    
    					Chris

    re .14:
    
    Are you sure about that? I recall the question as being a complaint
    about a comedian (George Carlin, I think) who, on the Tonight Show,
    called Reagan "a known heterosexual", and asked if there wasn't
    some way to stop "these people" from spreading such vile nasty lies.
                     
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    	As Paul Harvey would say - it's chrue!
    
    	Larry                                          
    
        (who saw that particular PARADE letter himself)