No, but the people who describe in graphic detail what ~they~ think the jokes meant... They're suspect.
No, but the people who describe in graphic detail what ~they~ think the jokes meant... They're suspect.
Uh, when someone is viciously attacked because of what they thought the joke meant, it tends to set up a situation where the possible meanings of the joke are covered in graphic detail.
I'm sorry, but because of the manner in which the joke was timed and written, the writer, IMO, clearly meant for there to be a double inferrence. Your opinion may vary - but quit blaming those who say there is a double inferrence - they are not the ones who wrote or presented the joke.
In all honesty, I think that the joke did imply that W would mistakenly do to the horse what's being suggested. For a second, before he got a frosk in the pisk from the horse. But that's what makes it so funny!
Joking about something isn't the same as saying that it's something we should all be doing, either - then it wouldn't be humerous.
I have a feeling that the joke is a lot older than the 50-60 years it's getting credit for.
Laura went up in my estimation, she's a real person.
Oh, that would make me blush!
susie