Which well known male Fox Anchor do you think is gay?

[MikeG]

This article mentions it.

http://www.nyblade.com/2004/5-14/viewpoint/editorials/overcome.cfm

No one. Repeat No one has yet been outed.

Its the hypocrisy I'm after.

[jjmalonejr]

1. Sheperd Smith, no doubt.

He's got such sparkly eyes. And a purty mouth.

[MikeG]

18. I never noticed that before.

Probably because I thought he was a fuckhead.

[mouse7]

26. The Smith/Kidman rumors aren't helping this story

It looks like Kidman may have found another "similarly-minded" person to keep public cover stories straight.

I just don't have a lot of sympathy for people who live a public lie to make more money.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

2. Brit Hume

[TNDemo]

3. What about the guy with the big head?

Can't think of his name.

[jjmalonejr]

4. Neil Cavuto

On edit: I don't think he's gay, though. I still insist it's Shep.

[kentuck]

5. Who broadcasts from New York?

Is the O'Reilly show broadcast from NY?

[name not needed]

6. Bill O'Reilly

You can tell he is in the closet. He goes on and on about gay people being too open with their sexuality.

[The Shadow]

13. Bill O'reilly is Just a Twisted Pervert nt

[MikeG]

7. The author says the anchor hit on him.

[The Shadow]

8. Where is the "All of The Above"?

Plus Cavuto :)

[Doosh]

9. how about John Gibson

he seems to be a bit of a gelding.

[tishaLA]

14. I'm not understanding the correlation

between "gay" and "gelding." Perhaps you can explain it to me.

[SalParadise]

51. I thought gibson at first too...

he's got that old-woman face & that Coppola's Dracula-style hair. I can easily picture him in makeup.

[tishaLA]

67. Again, I miss the connection

between gayness, an "old-woman face," and makeup. Care to elaborate?

[RafterMan]

79. RTFA

The article sayeth, "where I met a familiar-looking man wearing an expensive suit and excessive makeup."

[Servo300]

10. None of the above

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

11. Gotta be Sean Hannity.

[Must_B_Free]

17. Bingo

and he hates that part of himself.

[Doosh]

12. somebody send this article to drudge

could be juicy stuff

[MikeG]

21. Drudge probably already knows. If you know what I mean.

[blm]

15. I think it's Chris Wallace.

.

[MikeG]

16. For those of you that think naming anyone is bad taste...

I report, you decide.

[TNDemo]

19. How about Steve Doocy/Deucy (however you spell it)?

It's probably Sheperd but just checking out the possibilities.

[MikeG]

28. They'll all be looking at each other funny tomorrow.

[Bombtrack]

20. Please ADD Carl Cameron to the list

I know he's a reporter not an anchor but the article might have thought they meant the same thing.

Cause Carl Cameron don't strike me as too macho

[tishaLA]

22. What?!

First someone equated "gay" and "gelding"; now you think someone might be gay because he doesn't strike you as "too macho"? How many gay stereotypes are we going to dabble in today?

[Bombtrack]

27. stereotype? Sorry I don't think it's a stereotype to point out that on

average gay men are more effeminate than straight men, who probably put to much emphasis on being macho.

I know many or most gay people are justifyably sensitive to fun being made at their communities expense and I apologize if you took the comment in a malicious sense

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeG]

25. ROTFLMAO - There goes my coffee.

[MikeG]

24. Lori Dhue would know.

It would be the one who hasn't hit on her yet.

[arwalden]

29. This Poll And This Type Of Idle Speculation Displeases Me

It's not like a newscaster's sexual identity is truly relevant. There are after all conservative homosexuals. Odd, but true... and SO WHAT?!

If we were talking about outing someone like venomously anti-gay Rick Santorum or the obsessed Fred (god-hates-fags) Phelps... then I may feel differently.

Witch-hunting like this for the sake of embarrassing conservative closeted homosexuals serves no purpose other than to demonize homosexuality itself. It also serves to drive OTHER Queer Americans further back into the closet.

I hope I'm not the ONLY person around here who feels this way.

-- Allen

edit: clarity

[MikeG]

30. If this is true, I apologize.

However, they are working for their own enemy.

Why would a liberal homosexual fear outing?

I could care less what it does to a conservative homosexual.

[dsc]

31. because some of those liberal homosexuals

have conservative families. Some of them are in occupations (eg military, teaching, factory work) where being gay could get them in trouble. There are a host of other possible reasons too.

[MikeG]

32. This hiding has to stop.

[arwalden]

35. That's Not Your Decision To Make... It's Someone's Own Personal Decision

to make about their OWN life and their OWN situation.

In a perfect world, the hiding and being closeted would be totally unnecessary. But we don't live in a perfect world, and forcibly outing people does not bring the world closer to perfection.

-- Allen

[MikeG]

I don't care if a conservative gets hurt. Gay or Straight.

[arwalden]

39. That Comment Speaks For Itself, Doesn't It? --- How Sad.

Your admission that you "don't care" explains more about you and your viewpoint that ANY amount of editorializing I could ever do.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

-- Allen

[wellstone dem]

41. Thank you

there is way too much invasion of folk's privacy these days without us joining in.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

58. IMHO, what anyone does privately is nobody else's business....

...but if a person is hammering a certain group of people for their lifestyle, and it's discovered that SAME person has the SAME lifestyle, it's open season on hypocrits.

[arwalden]

34. Some Responses To Your Questions...

>> However, they are working for their own enemy. <<

That's their personal choice. Perhaps they don't perceive them as being the "enemy". As irrational and odd as their behavior my appear to liberal Queers, it's still their choice to remain closeted and to make their own career and political choices.

>> Why would a liberal homosexual fear outing? <<

Are you serious? If this is a serious question, then I (and others) may be happy to expound on it in great detail. --- I'm thinking that maybe you're asking this question rhetorically and I'm hopeful that you really do understand why people fear being outed.

>> I could care less what it does to a conservative homosexual. <<

Well, there's where you and I part ways. Again, it's one thing to be a conservative Queer... it's quite another thing to be a lawmaker or policy maker who actively works against the rights of Queer Americans. For those people, then hypocrisy IS INDEED an issue.

Other people feel that change can be made from within the Republican party. Again... I question their logic and whether or not they are being honest with themselves about how realistic that view is... but still, it's THEIR VIEW and THEIR decision to make.

-- Allen

[MikeG]

36. Fearing outing just gives the wrong people more power.

I won't indulge conservative homosexuals.
They are helping evil people.
Its the conservative part I have a problem with.
Its just like Randi Rhodes' answer to why she's against gay marriage. She's against ALL marriage.
I'm against all conservatives.

[arwalden]

38. You're Making Me Very Angry

but I'll try to control my temper and address those comments of yours as politely as possible. I'll also try to avoid being verbose and 'preachy'.

>> I won't indulge conservative homosexuals. <<

That's a rather arrogant viewpoint. I believe you're allowing your hatred of conservatives to cloud your judgment. The fact that someone is conservative should have no effect on their right to privacy and their right to make personal decisions that are right for them.


>> They are helping evil people. <<

And they are entitled to be stupid if they want. Why should their political persuasion permit you to strip them of their right to privacy and announce their sexual persuasion? This makes no sense at all.

>> Its the conservative part I have a problem with.<<

Obviously.

>> Its just like Randi Rhodes' answer to why she's against gay marriage. She's against ALL marriage. I'm against all conservatives.<<

Okay. I understand that you're against all conservatives. That's fine.

But it's a bit myopic for anyone to use another person's sexuality AGAINST THEM. It's wrong for you to try an "punish" a person by revealing their sexuality.

By doing this you further DEMONIZE homosexuality. You're reinforcing the irrational mindset that homosexuality is something that's wrong and something that we should all be ashamed of.

You're converting homosexuality into some sort of "scarlet letter" that's used to label people that you dislike because they are conservative and closeted.

That's not your decision to make!

People who feel that way disgust me.

-- Allen

edit: grammar

[MikeG]

82. Good - Take it out on the prick in the White House.

Not on your friends. Who stood up for you.
And don't defend his defenders.

[Eloriel]

74. No, you're not the only one at all

A thread like this is BOUND to bring out offensive remarks right and left (no pun intended). And it has. It's disgusting and probably shouldn't even be posted at DU ("if" DU is a progressive site where sexism and homophobia are discouraged) but if it's tolerated at all, it's definitely Lounge material. IMNSHO. My preference would be to see it locked, or better yet removed.

[MikeG]

33. I have no sympathy for the people at Fox News.

Their cheerleading for the war has caused countless deaths.
If there's a way I can make one of them suffer, I'll do it.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 5:31:21PM EDT, Sunday, May 16, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
0 days,
6 hours,
28 minutes, and
39 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Doosh]

40. maybe it's Oliver North

.

[PaDUer]

72. It wouldn't surprise me

afterall, wasn't he involved w/ the pops gang when they liked the little boys?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

42. If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, then it's BRIT HUME

Seems to me that I remember reading somewhere that Hume's son, who committed suicide, was openly gay and eschewed by pop Hume. Talk about guilt...no wonder he's such a miserable human being.

JB

[arwalden]

43. Why This Disgusting Thread Has Not Been Shut Down Is Beyond Me

>> No one. Repeat No one has yet been outed.<<

Bullshit!

With over 60% picking Mr. Smith, I think your goal has been achieved. The damage has been done. The "shameful" label has been applied. Mission accomplished.

In everyone's attempt to besmirch the reputation of someone who works at Fox News (who may or may not actually be conservative, and who may or may not actually be gay)... the SCARLET LETTER of being homosexual has been hung around that reporter's neck.

From now on... whenever anyone whispers and giggles (Sheppard Smith is supposed to be gay, tee-hee-hee) not only do they reinforce their own negative perceptions of homosexuality, but they help to MOLD and SHAPE and TWIST the minds of others.

"Snicker-snicker... maybe it's Brit Hume (gasp!) that's one of those... you know... PRE-verted homer-sexurals. You know all homos are perverts and child molesters."

Thanks for making the effort to use one's sexual identity as a weapon of SHAME against them when it suits your purpose and when that person has done nothing other than have a viewpoint that differs from yours.

Titillating speculation-threads and other idle-gossip like this do more harm than good. It reinforces the perception among many folks that being gay is a BAD THING and a SHAMEFUL thing. --- It reinforces that idea among gay youth that their sexual identity is bad. It drives already paranoid gay adults further back into the closet.

It's just a stupid thing to do. I fail to understand why anyone encourages this type of behavior.

-- Allen

[tishaLA]

44. I couldn't agree with you more Allen

and it's not just the outting, but the rampant anti-gay steroetypes being bandied about. Apparently people don't understand that the very idea of the closet is that one is NOT detected and therefore presumed "masculinity" is rendered moot. And comparisons of gay men and geldings? Lets get real.

[MikeG]

47. I didn't like that part.

But then everyone should be fair game for humor.
Wanna feel left out?

[MikeG]

45. I know you hate the conservatives just as much as me.

Don't let them off the hook just because they're gay.
Would you have as much sympathy for them if they were straight?
And its not a choice. I was told gay is not a choice.
I believe that. Neither should be outing.

[MikeG]

53. When I did the thread about hottest anchor - not one complaint.

Now complaints. Grrrrrr.

[arwalden]

56. Sex Appeal Contests And Using Sexual Identity As a WEAPON...

against them are completely different.

Mature individuals can easily spot the difference.

-- Allen

[MikeG]

59. You don't know anything about me.

I wish I was immature again. My 45 year old bones would feel better in the morning.

But I'm worn out keeping poor people from losing their homes thanks to the pricks now in office.

And their cheerleaders in the media.

[arwalden]

63. You're Right I Know Little Of You, But The Evidence Speaks For Itself...

Physical age and maturity is all relative. I've seen 8 year olds who have more compassion than many of the stealth bigots who are haunting this thread and this forum.

The good deeds you may do in real life hardly excuses the poor behavior and the negative effect that this thread (and your cavalier carefree attitude) have against gays and lesbians and privacy issues.

-- Allen

[MikeG]

64. Compassion is helping the poor and sick.

Not protecting an overpaid anchor's alleged right to hide his hypocrisy.

[arwalden]

77. How Sad That You Can't See Beyond The Tip Of Your Nose

and that your hatred for one individual prevents you from seeing the damage that you're causing ALL gays and lesbians by using sexuality as a weapon and a label of shame.

It's repulsive. Even conservative homosexuals have a right to privacy too.

-- Allen

[MikeG]

65. I didn't seem to offend one female with that hottest anchor thread.

They joined in.

[Eloriel]

75. It would have offended me had I seen it.

And I'm sure as hell glad I didn't becaue if you think arwalden is giving you a hard time, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Objectification is wrong, whether it's about men or women or both. What we're seeing in Iraq -- the whole war, basically, but especially and topically the prison abuse scandal -- is only possible because Iraqis have been dehumanized: rendered slightly (or greatly) less worthy than MOST other humans -- i.e., the Good Humans (us). We could hardly go to war with anyone without doing that because it typically goes against human nature to kill others except in self-defense. Objectification is one way to dehumanize individuals, classes (women, minorities, gays), whole populations (Iraqis).

Don't do it. As much as you might "enjoy" oogling women or even men, don't do it. Sexism is built on objectification and dehumanization, as are racism and homophobia. Don't contribute to the problem.

[MikeG]

76. awalden also joined in - read the thread.

Should I be offended he thinks of men like that.
The thread was harmless fun.
But keep on dividing us all.
The Repugs will love it.
Now I'm offended you didn't read it.
It was a good thread, ask awalden.

[arwalden]

54. That's Nonsense

>>I know you hate the conservatives just as much as me.<<

You probably don't know me as well as you think. Perhaps I do, perhaps I don't, it's all subjective and "hate" is such a strong word.

One thing is for certain: I do not allow myself to become consumed by my feelings towards conservative lawmakers and policy makers. I don't allow myself the luxury of letting irrational hatred cloud my judgment when it comes to respecting the privacy of others.

Maybe our differences can be attributed to age, experience and maturity. I believe I have a more thoughtful and reasonable approach when it comes to privacy issues surrounding ordinary citizens (even if they *are* celebrities.)

>>Don't let them off the hook just because they're gay.<<

Obviously you're confusing their sexual identity with their conservative beliefs. The two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Trust me.


Ya know... I campaigned for Ford. I voted Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush... should I have been outed against my will? Would that have made me vote any differently? NO. Would it have made my life difficult? Yes.

So the one who outed me would have accomplished nothing but some sort of sadistic revenge on me by invading my privacy. The moral equivalent of beating the shit out of someone because you don't like their political views. Nice.

>> Would you have as much sympathy for them if they were straight? <<

What does this have to do with anything? I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you going to "out" them as being straight? --- This makes no sense to me.

I don't see what this has to do violating someone's right to privacy based on the fact that they might be homosexual and conservative at the same time.

Whether or not a conservative person happens to be Queer does not change how I feel about that person or about their viewpoints and their opinions. It doesn't change how I feel about their employers. I will have the same regard (or lack of regard) for them no matter what their private sexual identification was.

The fact that I oppose using someone's PRIVATE sexuality as a weapon against them does not mean I'm showing any sort of favoritism to them BECAUSE of their sexuality.

I'm DOUBLY opposed to it because the weapon you choose... outing them with the "shame" and "stigma" of being one of those HOMOS, has a negative effect on ALL Queers everywhere.

Pity you can't understand that.

Clearly, your goal is to cause as much harm and pain to anyone you perceive as being conservative (or who happens to be employed by a conservative company) no matter what the cost.

>> And its not a choice. I was told gay is not a choice. I believe that. <<

I'm not sure what this has to do with our little discussion. But okay... That's my belief too.

>> Neither should be outing.<<

That's an immature and naive approach, and it's absolutely wrong!!

Such cavalier attitudes about outing someone based on how someone feels about their political opinions... or based on how someone feels about their employer are VILE AND DISGUSTING.

I've made my point, and you've done a fine job at giving us a peek inside your head and letting us see the inner workings of your mind. Thanks.

It seems to me that logic of your arguments are becoming repetitive, and I've addressed all the issues to my satisfaction. Unless you can come up with something substantively new (that warrants a response or rebuttal from me) then our exchange is done.


-- Allen

[tishaLA]

55. Can't you hate them for their conservatism

instead of making it about their sexual orientation? I'll have to look for the last "which Fox anchor is secretly straight" thread.

[Blue-Jay]

49. Well.... I alerted after the first few replies.

Quote: "Nothing good will come of this thread".

I guess they disagreed with my assessment.

I hate horseshit like this.

[nonconformist]

52. I honestly don't see it that way

Because it's about hypocrisy, not slamming someone over their sexual orientation.

It's like slamming chickenhawks for loving war.

It's like slamming evangelists for their extra-martial affairs.

It's like calling out people who prance around on a moral high ground when they do something that's decidedly immoral by any standards.

I'll never understand conservative gays. Just like I'll never understand why some poor people, who often times take advantage of social programs to make ends meet, vote Republican. It's like voting against your own best interests. And I completely understand and respect why some gays choose to be "in the closet" so to speak. But it's the HYPOCRISY of closeted conservative gays that gets under my skin.

[arwalden]

62. This Stealth Bigotry At DU Must Stop... I've Had ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT

>>Because it's about hypocrisy, not slamming someone over their sexual orientation.<<

BULLSHIT! Who the fuck are YOU to make that decision for someone?

>>It's like slamming chickenhawks for loving war.<<

No. That's different. Their military service (or lack of) is not the same thing as someone's private sexual identity.

>>It's like slamming evangelists for their extra-martial affairs.<<

No. That's different. Nope... that would be like saying that homosexuals are immoral perverts simply because of their sexual identity.

>> It's like calling out people who prance around on a moral high ground when they do something that's decidedly immoral by any standards.<<

No. That's different... but you're helping to make my point as to why using someone's sexuality as a WEAPON against them is wrong.

Being homosexual is NOT immoral, yet when people like you decide that it's your place to out someone, you're equating homosexuality with something "immoral" or shameful.

How dare you? How fucking dare you? Who the fuck are you to make such decisions?

>> I'll never understand conservative gays.<<

Your inability to understand them is YOUR problem, not theirs.

Your inability to understand them does NOT give you CarteBlance on being able to use their sexuality as a weapon against them (whether it's true, rumored, or perceived... it's wrong!)

>> Just like I'll never understand why some poor people, who often times take advantage of social programs to make ends meet, vote Republican. <<

Again, your limitation... your problem. Not theirs.

>>It's like voting against your own best interests.<<

And it's their choice to make, not yours.

>> And I completely understand and respect why some gays choose to be "in the closet" so to speak. But it's the HYPOCRISY of closeted conservative gays that gets under my skin.<<

Okay, so it bugs you. That still doesn't address the issue of using someone's private sexual identity as a WEAPON against them.

You've said nothing that justifies or validates doing this.

It's an invasion of that person's privacy. It DEHUMANIZES the rest of the gay and lesbian community when you (or others) attempt to use being gay as a source of shame or blackmail.

It makes me want to vomit! It's disgusting that such hate and myopia and stealth BIGOTRY exists here at DU.

-- Allen

[nonconformist]

66. Whatever dude.

I had a nice long reply typed out, but I'm not going to bother with it. Because it's clear to me that you can't see past sexual orientation when pointing out hypocrisies. Stealth bigotry? Pot, kettle?

I'm a pacifist. If I'm screaming from rooftops in support of the war, then I'm a HYPOCRITE.

I condone recreational soft drug use. If I'm supportive of the War on Drugs, then I'm a HYPOCRITE.

I'm bisexual (not that it would matter to you... or, would that make me LESS of a demon in your eyes?). If I'm screaming about how gays don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, I'm a HYPOCRITE.

[dsc]

70. The problem is where does this lead

Ok we out Sheppard or whomever. One of the following happens:

A) He gets fired for being gay. Gee that will make me feel better.

B) He will keep being gay and on FOX. Humm that works well.

C) He decides to leave FOX voluntarily and join a liberal outlet.

Even if C happens, and it isn't that likely, I fail to see us gaining a ton. Actions have consequences and the consequences here are all bad.

Also what is to stop the local religious conservatives from deciding that it is inherently hypocritical for a gay person to teach since teachers have to be moral and gays aren't (in their world view). Action we take won't only be taken by us.

[nonconformist]

73. You've got a point there

Although I don't think a poll on DU will actually "out" anyone.

But you're right, if the mystery closeted FOX anchor was outed nobody wins. All that would happen is some Fundie heads explode and they have someone else to add to their cryptic Enemies list for all the wrong reasons.

My first response was in reference to this all being some thinly veiled witch hunt on gays, which I don't think was the intent. I have a very low tolerance for hypocrisy of any form, and we see far too much of it on the right.

[arwalden]

83. You're Correct, The Poll Itself Doesn't Out Anyone

But the fact that it exists is the catalyst for doubt and whispering and giggling and murmuring and rumor starting.

Those who participate get a juvenile little thrill at speculating about someone's sexual identity and they perpetuate the overall mentality of how SCANDALOUS and EMBARRASSING it would be for anyone to ever be outed or LABELED as being a homosexual.

It reinforces the misconception that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of... or made fun of... or that it's embarrassing... or that it makes one less able to do their job (even if it is working for a conservative company).

True, the poll does not do the outing. The poll is merely the device that's used to disparage homosexuals. It's a disservice and an insult to Queers everywhere.

-- Allen

[arwalden]

80. That's Got To Be The Biggest Load Of Nothing I've Read In Quite A While

>> I had a nice long reply typed out, but I'm not going to bother with it. Because it's clear to me that you can't see past sexual orientation when pointing out hypocrisies. Stealth bigotry? Pot, kettle? <<

Yes, Nonconformist... you were ALL READY to blow me out of the water with some brilliant arguments, but at the last minute you changed your mind. How convenient for you. How magnanimous.

>> I'm a pacifist. If I'm screaming from rooftops in support of the war, then I'm a HYPOCRITE.<<

One's pacifism or pacifist views are hardly as private a matter as one's sexuality. I fail to see the connection between the two. I understand the parallel you're trying to make, but it fails when you apply any sort of reasonable logic.

>>I condone recreational soft drug use. If I'm supportive of the War on Drugs, then I'm a HYPOCRITE.<<

Same thing. One's sexual identity and sexual preference is not the same thing as recreational or illegal drug use. Such a comparison is just TOO IDIOTIC for further commentary by me. It speaks for itself.

>>I'm bisexual (not that it would matter to you... or, would that make me LESS of a demon in your eyes?). If I'm screaming about how gays don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, I'm a HYPOCRITE.<<

Yes, you would certainly be a hypocrite. But you're still entitled to your privacy when it comes to your sexual identity.

-- Allen

[AgadorSparticus]

46. Sean Hannity. He even looks like Nathan Lane. nt

[OneTwentyoNine]

48. Cal Thomas---Bawhahahahah......

Lets out Cal....Yes!!

David

[cheezus]

50. Fox anchor gay?

Who cares which one's gay
Every last one of them is
Sucking Karl Rove's dick

[librechik]

57. all of em and they should come out;there's nothing wrong

with being gay. It's the fascist part I have a problem with.

[KeepItReal]

60. I don't watch Faux News, so I really don't give a .....

;-)

[ronnykmarshall]

61. I'll say Miss Smith.

Skank ass looking bastard that he is.

[indigobusiness]

68. Geraldo Rivera---spicy poofta

I'm surprised at you people.

Geraldo is the man...errrr the flower.

not that there's anything wrong with it.



typo and clarity edit

[bhunt70]

69. does it really matter?

[indigobusiness]

71. O'Wrongly

Alrighty

[Lou_C]

Ann Coulter

:shrug:

[MikeG]

78. OK - funs over, now two groups have been offended tonight.

I tell you what. If either if the two of you ever vote for another conservative, you'll have to answer to me and my clients, who are paying for it now in ways you can't eben imagine.

Because issue number 1 in this partyis seeing to the poor and the sick among us. Protecting the little guy.

Not worrying if we offended someone.

Where do blacks go to hide their identity? They don't have a closet to hide in. Where do the poor go?

You both need some perspective.

[guajira]

81. I've wondered about Mike Jared - although he

makes sexual inuendoes like a womanizer! I've no reason to think that except for his mannerisms.

But it would be wonderfully delicious if it were Hannity!!

[Moderator]

84. Locking

this thread has unfortunate overtones no matter what spirit it was posted in.