Thu 10 Dec 2009
Mayor Phil Gordon dubbed by Walrus Guys as “most famous Walrus in Arizona”
Posted by Chewie Shofir under City Government , Personalities , Pol-parazzi[24] Comments
Click image to enlarge. From the top of the Walrus Guys website.
Click here to go to the Walrus Guys website
December 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
If Phil Gordon’s family can’t trust him, neither can you.
Hey Phil, ever wonder why semi-attractive younger women weren’t this interested in you before you were mayor?
Loser.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
According to thedirty.com, the term is “trout”, not walrus. …and no, I’m not the one who gave the Dirty Brett Mecum’s Halloween pics.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Wouldn’t it be easier to identify older men who *don’t* like younger women?
That said, let me just add “ick”. Was he cheating on his wife with this twinkie?
AZ Conservative, remember what Henry Kissenger said about power?
December 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Boy, that’s kinda like…
Fred Thompson (24 years older than his wife)
Or Newt Gingrich (23 years older than his THIRD wife).
Or Rush Limbaugh (26 years older than his soon to be FOURTH wife).
December 10th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
And Chewie continues to have the most classless pointless posts on this website.
DSW, why you let this guy post is a mystery. All he does is bring the site down…
December 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
It does help if one MARRIES them instead of just USES them.
And as Sherlock Holmes noticed, the LACK of something is a clue. Where’s the party affiliation? Let’s see …. Wikipedia says “American Democratic Party.”
Thought that was Democrat Party. New spelling? Like the “People’s Democratic Republic of China?” or the “Democratic Republic of Congo?”
Oh, and from Chicago, the place to be from this year.
No wonder only Republicans were named as counter arguments, whose circumstances weren’t the same anyway.
It’d look more fair to have sprinkled in a few Democratics on their third marriages or employee affairs like Jesse Jackson’s “love child” mishap or John Edwards “love child” employee opportunity. Or Letterman’s serial staffing Human Resource Development.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Wanumba,
Both sides have scum bags who do it… Who cares at this point. I feel like we have come to expect from our politicians these days. Its sad but true.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:31 am
wanumba,
“It does help if one MARRIES them instead of just USES them.”
I see… One can’t have a stable, loving relationship if one doesn’t have a ring of precious metal and a government document behind it.
“Thought that was Democrat Party.”
You apparently think a lot of things that are based solely on what you hear from the talk radio and not in actual fact.
“No wonder only Republicans were named as counter arguments, whose circumstances weren’t the same anyway.”
Really? Explain to me how it is different when Phil Gordon leaves his wife and takes up with another woman versus how, say Fred Thompson leaves his wife and takes up with another woman (keeping in mind Fred did not marry Jeri Thompson until after he was playing the field).
I mean, other than the fact that you’re trying to find a way to justifiy it, of course.
“It’d look more fair to have sprinkled in a few Democratics on their third marriages or employee affairs like Jesse Jackson’s “love child” mishap or John Edwards “love child” employee opportunity.”
Ah, but I was providing balance. Chewie named a Democratic politician, I named a few Republicans. You countered with two more. So – when it comes to the Republicans and Democrats leaving their wives for younger women, they’re even.
The difference, I suppose, is that whereas I didn’t try to justify it, whereas you did:
“whose circumstances weren’t the same anyway.”
December 11th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I’m calling “kangaroo court” on my use of too many “whereas”…
December 11th, 2009 at 9:04 am
wanumba,
HA! I just read the Wikipedia entry you were so confused about. “American” there is used as an adjective to describe the subject/noun which in this case is “Democratic Party” (a proper noun). Or someone forgot to add a comma between “American” & “Democratic” (both adjectives) describing the noun/subject (in this case, “party”).
It’s never been the “Democrat” party, except in conservative, juvenile minds.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
The difference, I suppose, is that whereas I didn’t try to justify it, whereas you did:
“whose circumstances weren’t the same anyway.”
…….
Pish posh. Circumstances aren’t the same at all. Democrat Baucus and Gordon are not using their own private funds from their lawnmowing jobs to pay for these women’s professional advancements; they are using taxpayer and campaign funds. The expression is “It’s not your money.”
That shifts it from the standard tacky, amoral, stupid, boorish, idiotic, self-centered, sleezoid, to criminal investigation time.
And WHO would care to ruin their reputations by attempting to justify THAT? And credibly, of course.
Me, I’d like a tax refund. Seems that we are being overtaxed to pay for mistresses.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
The Klute Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 9:04 am
wanumba,
HA! I just read the Wikipedia entry you were so confused about. “American” there is used as an adjective to describe the subject/noun which in this case is “Democratic Party” (a proper noun). Or someone forgot to add a comma between “American” & “Democratic” (both adjectives) describing the noun/subject (in this case, “party”).
It’s never been the “Democrat” party, except in conservative, juvenile minds.
………
That’s so hilarious it deserved repeating.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
The Klute Says:
December 11th, 2009 at 8:31 am
wanumba,
“You apparently think a lot of things that are based solely on what you hear from the talk radio and not in actual fact.
………..
Awesome. You do tarot?
December 12th, 2009 at 9:43 am
“That shifts it from the standard tacky, amoral, stupid, boorish, idiotic, self-centered, sleezoid, to criminal investigation time.”
Ah, and see, before we were just talking about the morality of leaving your wife for a younger women, but you, being slippier than an eel, now say you are truly, truly outraged by the use of taxpayer funds on mistresses, and have used two examples (both Democrats) to further your “Democrats are evil” meme.
So now, I’ve gotta bring up Mark Sanford (who not only used taxpayer funds to visit his mistress while at the same time being against government largess) or Duke Cunningham (who fleeced the Pentagon while being paid in hookers) and that’s without having to go the Google to find more examples.
Again, the difference here is I’ll happily kick either Dems to the curb if they’re found doing something wrong… You’ll twist yourself into positions that would make a yogi proud in order to justify (not just dismiss) bad behavior so you can take your nepenthe of “Fred!” or “Megadittos!” or whatever you drones are glomming onto these days.
“That’s so hilarious it deserved repeating.”
Really? I thought your lack of English comprehension sort of sad. Just one more step to “Idiocracy”.
“Awesome. You do tarot?”
Voodoo.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
The Klute Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 9:43 am
“That shifts it from the standard tacky, amoral, stupid, boorish, idiotic, self-centered, sleezoid, to criminal investigation time.”
Ah, and see, before we were just talking about the morality of leaving your wife for a younger women, but you, being slippier than an eel, now say you are truly, truly outraged by the use of taxpayer funds on mistresses, and have used two examples (both Democrats) to further your “Democrats are evil” meme.
………………..
Oh, you are okay with politicians using taxpayer money for their mistresses? Or worse you partisanly cover for Democrats while going after Republicans – a double standard, because politics trumps morals… and criminal misuse of taxpayer money?
No, you don’t do voodoo. They sacrifice people and use their body parts in nasty dark rituals to try to gain power over their politica …
Hmmm … at least, being a fair-minded person, I ASSUME you don’t practice that, but perhaps I would be wrong?
December 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
“Oh, you are okay with politicians using taxpayer money for their mistresses?”
Based on the Wikipedia read, I know reading comphrension isn’t your strong suit, so here’s what I said:
“Again, the difference here is I’ll happily kick either Dems to the curb if they’re found doing something wrong…”
So, no, not OK with it.
“No, you don’t do voodoo. They sacrifice people and use their body parts in nasty dark rituals to try to gain power over their politica…”
Hollywood garbage. There is no human sacrifice in Voodoo rituals. I’d debate whether or not it’s “dark”… It’s definately intense.
“I ASSUME you don’t practice that, but perhaps I would be wrong?”
Practicing Catholic, for the record.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
The Klute Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
December 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
“Oh, you are okay with politicians using taxpayer money for their mistresses?”
“Again, the difference here is I’ll happily kick either Dems to the curb if they’re found doing something wrong…”
So, no, not OK with it.
…………………..
Good, then start kicking them. You can start with the Mayor and then go Senate. “Republicans do it too” isn’t valid as an argument, it’s just enabling.
…………………
“Practicing Catholic, for the record.”
………………
So, you lied about practicing voodoo? A practicing Catholic lied? ABout voodoo, no less.
………………….
“Hollywood garbage. There is no human sacrifice in Voodoo rituals. I’d debate whether or not it’s “dark”… It’s definately intense.”
………….
You don’t know squat about voodoo, so drop the pompous know-it-all attitude. Voodoo is called “jou-jou” in West Africa and it is close to the eviliest religious practices on the planet. Human sacrifices are indeed very very much part of it and it is terrifying. Any Catholic who had any clue would never associate themselves even in jest with voodoo, it’s that bad. Your flippancy with it displays you have no concept of how horrifying it is or how dangerous it is, today, not some long forgotten time.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“So, you lied about practicing voodoo? A practicing Catholic lied? ABout voodoo, no less.”
I am a practicing Catholic. I didn’t lie.
“Any Catholic who had any clue would never associate themselves even in jest with voodoo, it’s that bad.”
I don’t know. Any religion where clairin and cigars are a sacrament isn’t all bad.
“You don’t know squat about voodoo, so drop the pompous know-it-all attitude.”
Heh. Go to my page… I’m putting up a special photo, just for you.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:32 am
OH! How nice! Before I run over, what was the quality of the spirit behind it?
If it wasn’t done with goodwill, should I check it out?
December 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I’m just making a point. There’s no negativity behind it. But this statement:
“You don’t know squat about voodoo, so drop the pompous know-it-all attitude.”
really can’t go unchallenged.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
December 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I’m just making a point. There’s no negativity behind it. But this statement:
“You don’t know squat about voodoo, so drop the pompous know-it-all attitude.”
really can’t go unchallenged.
……………..
Sure can. You don’t know squat about voodoo, but you’re too pompous a know-it-all to really let that go.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
“Sure can. You don’t know squat about voodoo, but you’re too pompous a know-it-all to really let that go.”
Awww, someone’s got his feelings hurt now. Want to hug it out, wanumba?
December 13th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
The Klute Says:
December 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Awww, someone’s got his feelings hurt now. Want to hug it out, wanumba?
…………….
Maybe Arizona’s best known Walrus of the Democratic Party, Mayor Phil Gordon who is rumored to be for that sort of snuggly staff encouragements, but we strive to be more professional.
Thanks to you, I got that grammatically correct now … DemocraTIC Party, Mayor PHIL GORDON, Arizona’s best known “WALRUS,” that is to say, an old dude who is rumored to be using campaign money to keep a rumored younger mistress close by.
Honestly, I was so ignorant before this post, I had never heard of the slangy “Walruses,” “Phil Gordon,” or that “Democrat” was actually a Republican political comment that the “Democratic” Party was not pushing “democratic” principles, and would have not known how these apparently disparate things could be fitted in one sentence together.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
And we have established a bipartisan Sonoran Alliance thread agreement about Mayor Phil’s reputed behavior:
The Klute Says:
December 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
So, no, not OK with it.