| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
( OT ) REPUBLICANS, BLOGGERS AND GAYS, OH MY!
More info from another republican shill
By Ann Coulter (best hold your crucifix as you read this) In response to the public disgrace and ruin of New York Times editor Howell Raines, CBS anchor Dan Rather and CNN news director Eason Jordan, liberals are directing their fury at the blogs. Once derided as people sitting around their living rooms in pajamas, now obscure writers for unknown Web sites are coming under more intensive background checks than CIA (news - web sites) agents. Ann Coulter Ann Coulter The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown "Talon News" service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a Web site where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis? Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon's only offense is that he may be gay. First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions -- a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while "real" journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a Web site that no one has ever heard of -- but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?) On the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: "I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' is credentialed?" Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter. But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass -- even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.) Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name is "James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing Web site get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?" Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist" -- as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com" and laughing. Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner -- aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is "TRB" of The New Republic. Air America radio host and "Nanny" impersonator "Randi Rhodes" goes by a fake name, and she won't even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for "privacy reasons." That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses "to withhold anything from her listeners" and says conservatives "are less likely to share such things." How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh. Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and John Kerry (news - web sites)) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious "Talon News" service; they were merely Democrats running for president. Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like The New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on TV and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.) Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed. Liberals' hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay. |
What is your purpose in posting this crap here? This is a boating NG with
maybe an audience of 200 folks. Do you really think you are going to change anyone's opinion or make any sort of impact by posting this crap here? If you are deadset on changing things your time would be better spent than posting your crap here. |
Why stir thing up? Oh well.
At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. |
wrote in message oups.com... Why stir thing up? Oh well. At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. And basskisser was one who should have been respected here Chuck? He earned every bit of that piece of satire I posted, and you know it. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Why stir thing up? Oh well. At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. And basskisser was one who should have been respected here Chuck? He earned every bit of that piece of satire I posted, and you know it. BTW Chuck....next time you throw an insult at me be man enough to mention my name. I also need to remind you of a rule you set for the forum which you seem to constantly break: Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Yep I broke it....but the guy was well deserving of everything I threw at him. But why are *you* breaking your own rule? |
"JimH" wrote in message ... BTW Chuck....next time you throw an insult at me be man enough to mention my name. I also need to remind you of a rule you set for the forum which you seem to constantly break: Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Yep I broke it....but the guy was well deserving of everything I threw at him. But why are *you* breaking your own rule? This is rich! You have the gall to call another poster on the carpet for breaking an agreement. I can't decide if you are suffering some kind of dementia,,or are a natural born liar. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... BTW Chuck....next time you throw an insult at me be man enough to mention my name. I also need to remind you of a rule you set for the forum which you seem to constantly break: Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Yep I broke it....but the guy was well deserving of everything I threw at him. But why are *you* breaking your own rule? This is rich! You have the gall to call another poster on the carpet for breaking an agreement. I can't decide if you are suffering some kind of dementia,,or are a natural born liar. You obviously missed the point Don....the rule was set by Chucky, not me. Yes, I broke the rule. But he made the rule, not me, and he broke it. Understand now? Good. Now go back to enjoying your freedoms.....freedoms earned for you by our men and women in uniform...the same ones you despise. |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:31:04 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: I can't decide if you are suffering some kind of dementia,,or are a natural born liar. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it can't be both. bb |
"JimH" wrote in message ... You obviously missed the point Don....the rule was set by Chucky, not me. Yes, I broke the rule. But he made the rule, not me, and he broke it. Understand now? Good. Now go back to enjoying your freedoms.....freedoms earned for you by our men and women in uniform...the same ones you despise. Jim...you know very well I was refering to 'our' agreement. |
|
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Why stir thing up? Oh well. At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. And basskisser was one who should have been respected here Chuck? He earned every bit of that piece of satire I posted, and you know it. Why am I not surprised he is defending asslicker? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "JimH" wrote in message ... You obviously missed the point Don....the rule was set by Chucky, not me. Yes, I broke the rule. But he made the rule, not me, and he broke it. Understand now? Good. Now go back to enjoying your freedoms.....freedoms earned for you by our men and women in uniform...the same ones you despise. Jim...you know very well I was refering to 'our' agreement. Sorry, but you broke it once you started to 'dis our men and women in uniform. |
|
"JimH" wrote in message ... Sorry, but you broke it once you started to 'dis our men and women in uniform. I see. You're one of those guys who changes the rules as you move along.. I haven't 'dissed' any men or women in uniform...just Bert. I've got two nieces and a nephew's wife in the Canadian Military. I don't want the family on my case too...it's bad enough in here. |
P. Fritz wote:
Why am I not surprised he is defending asslicker? ***************** Perhaps because you lack the noodles to realize I'm not "defending" anybody. Funny, I didn't even mention bass's name in my comment. Nor did I mention yours, or JimH's.....but you guys sure knew who I was talking about (and came out swinging) when I remarked about childish behavior, didn't you? Posting the photo was a stupid stunt. It reminds me of grade school, where kids draw funny, distorted pictures of one another and hold them up to the class to try to get a laugh. The first guy doesn't know any better and this sort of behavior typifies his "contributions" to the NG. The three or four guys who piled on apparently don't know any better, either. If the shoe fits, wear it proudly. If not, don't sweat it. But save all the "it was a right, adult, or justified thing to do" nonsense for like-minded little bullies who hide behind computers and design entire threads around personal attacks. |
wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wote: Why am I not surprised he is defending asslicker? ***************** Perhaps because you lack the noodles to realize I'm not "defending" anybody. Funny, I didn't even mention bass's name in my comment. Nor did I mention yours, or JimH's.....but you guys sure knew who I was talking about (and came out swinging) when I remarked about childish behavior, didn't you? Posting the photo was a stupid stunt. It reminds me of grade school, where kids draw funny, distorted pictures of one another and hold them up to the class to try to get a laugh. The first guy doesn't know any better and this sort of behavior typifies his "contributions" to the NG. The three or four guys who piled on apparently don't know any better, either. If the shoe fits, wear it proudly. If not, don't sweat it. But save all the "it was a right, adult, or justified thing to do" nonsense for like-minded little bullies who hide behind computers and design entire threads around personal attacks. Lighten up Chucky. Then go find a sense of humor. It was all in good fun. And the guy was well deserving of the joke. As I said before if you are going to slam me at least be man enough to direct it to me by stating my name. And start using some self discipline by obeying the rules *you* set for this NG. |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:25:22 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
More info from another republican shill By Ann Coulter (best hold your crucifix as you read this) In response to the public disgrace and ruin of New York Times editor Howell Raines, CBS anchor Dan Rather and CNN news director Eason Jordan, liberals are directing their fury at the blogs. Once derided as people sitting around their living rooms in pajamas, now obscure writers for unknown Web sites are coming under more intensive background checks than CIA (news - web sites) agents. Ann Coulter Ann Coulter The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown "Talon News" service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a Web site where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis? Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon's only offense is that he may be gay. First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions -- a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while "real" journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a Web site that no one has ever heard of -- but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?) On the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: "I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' is credentialed?" Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter. But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass -- even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.) Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name is "James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing Web site get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?" Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist" -- as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com" and laughing. Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner -- aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is "TRB" of The New Republic. Air America radio host and "Nanny" impersonator "Randi Rhodes" goes by a fake name, and she won't even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for "privacy reasons." That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses "to withhold anything from her listeners" and says conservatives "are less likely to share such things." How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh. Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and John Kerry (news - web sites)) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious "Talon News" service; they were merely Democrats running for president. Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like The New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on TV and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.) Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed. Liberals' hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay. Damn, Jimcomma, where did you find an honest article? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:59:34 -0800, jps wrote:
In article , says... Now go back to enjoying your freedoms.....freedoms earned for you by our men and women in uniform...the same ones you despise. Another simple-minded assertion by JimH. Black and white worlds are easy to comprehend for the intellectually challenged. jps I guess old man Descartes was a pretty binary kind of guy also, huh? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Don White wrote:
This is rich! You have the gall to call another poster on the carpet for breaking an agreement. I can't decide if you are suffering some kind of dementia,,or are a natural born liar. *********** Consider the second possibility. If you check the archives, you'll discover that I *never* posted this group of f'd up "rules" that JimH keeps attributing to me. He either believes his own bullcrap, or is insulting the intelligence of the rest of the NG, en masse, by figuring that constantly repeating a falsehood will somehow make it seem real. Oh well, why not? Works for Rush Limbaugh et al, doesn't it? I'd rather be branded as a breaker of a "rule" I never set, than self-exposed as a liar without principles of any sort. How fricking twisted, to base a series of attacks on some person based your own lie and as if it were a factual event. A brain is a waste when awarded to a man without a conscience. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... P. Fritz wote: Why am I not surprised he is defending asslicker? ***************** Perhaps because you lack the noodles to realize I'm not "defending" anybody. Funny, I didn't even mention bass's name in my comment. Nor did I mention yours, or JimH's.....but you guys sure knew who I was talking about (and came out swinging) when I remarked about childish behavior, didn't you? Posting the photo was a stupid stunt. It reminds me of grade school, where kids draw funny, distorted pictures of one another and hold them up to the class to try to get a laugh. The first guy doesn't know any better and this sort of behavior typifies his "contributions" to the NG. The three or four guys who piled on apparently don't know any better, either. If the shoe fits, wear it proudly. If not, don't sweat it. But save all the "it was a right, adult, or justified thing to do" nonsense for like-minded little bullies who hide behind computers and design entire threads around personal attacks. Lighten up Chucky. Then go find a sense of humor. It was all in good fun. And the guy was well deserving of the joke. What is grade school is the way liebrals like chuck and crew point fingers at everyone else for the very things they are guilty of. As I said before if you are going to slam me at least be man enough to direct it to me by stating my name. And start using some self discipline by obeying the rules *you* set for this NG. |
wrote in message oups.com... Don White wrote: This is rich! You have the gall to call another poster on the carpet for breaking an agreement. I can't decide if you are suffering some kind of dementia,,or are a natural born liar. *********** Consider the second possibility. If you check the archives, you'll discover that I *never* posted this group of f'd up "rules" that JimH keeps attributing to me. Sure you did. They may not have been specifically listed as rule #1, #2, etc. but you listed them to me when posting about things you don't like that I (and others) do here from time to time. All I did was number them. Here they are again Chuck. You may want to study and abide by them....they are, after all, *your* rules. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chuck's rule #1. No name calling. (Chuck, you can start by dropping the childish change of my last name.) Chuck's rule #2. No discussions about people No politics. No religion. No union talk. No talk about war. Boat talk only. Chuck's rule #3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats or anything else. One must remain focused and serious when discussing boating. Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Chuck's rule #5. A contributor to rec.boats is rated only on the percentage of boating related topics he/she contributes to the NG. In order to be considered a contributor one must be 100% on topic with no side bars on non related items. See rule #3. Chuck Gould will be the ultimate judge as to ones rating. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school
pig-pillers? wrote in message oups.com... Why stir thing up? Oh well. At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. |
Do as Chucky says.....not as he does. ;-)
"Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd." wrote in message ... How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? wrote in message oups.com... Why stir thing up? Oh well. At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. |
|
|
|
jps wrote:
In article , says... Damn, Jimcomma, where did you find an honest article? More proof that you're a complete ****in' idiot. She's makin' money off your stupidity as are 1% of the population. jps By now, almost everyone's heard of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. He's the fake reporter with a false name given all-too-real press credentials by the White House. He's known for asking biased, leading questions during press briefings before finally being exposed a month ago as a right-wing operative with no journalism experience, a fake name, and a shady past. There are some serious ethical, professional and national security issues at stake. Now, "Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) is circulating a letter among his colleagues that asks President Bush to launch an investigation (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000816326) " into how Gannon gained access to White House press briefings without any journalistic qualifications. Durbin and other concerned lawmakers are adding their voices to a previous investigation request by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), as well as a subpoena request by two leaders of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who want federal prosecutors to gain access to a record Gannon kept of his time over the past two years. Here are some basic questions that must be answered by the White House: HOW LONG CAN JOURNALISTS GAIN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK? Most White House journalists have what is called a "hard pass," a permanent pass obtained after undergoing a rigorous FBI background check (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ert/print.html) . Gannon skipped over that step. Instead, as Salon's Eric Boehlert explains, "the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass." Now, day passes are special exceptions that are "designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need access to the White House, not for indefinite use (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...non/print.html) by reporters." If the background check is necessary for reporters with extended access to the White House, why were the rules circumvented for Gannon? Is there a limit to how long a reporter can slide on "day" passes, as Gannon did for years? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS SUPPOSED PUBLICATION EVEN EXISTED? Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted the White House gave Gannon his first day press pass in February 2003 (http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/ar..._id=1000808705) .. The problem: His "publication," Talon News, didn't exist until April 2003. BY WHAT CRITERIA DID THE WHITE HOUSE EVALUATE TALON NEWS? Talon News is the brainchild (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280006) of a Republican activist from Texas, Bobby Eberle. Eberle, who runs the aptly named "GOPUSA," told the New York Times he created Talon News because he wanted to quietly construct a news service with a conservative slant: "if someone were to see 'GOPUSA,' there's an instant built-in bias (http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/ar..._id=1000808705) there." In denying Gannon a pass, the congressional press office pointed out Gannon was unable to show that "Talon News has any paid subscribers (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...non/print.html) ." They also found that while actual working reporters can show their principal income comes from reporting stories for publication in actual news services, Talon's "paying a single reporter a 'stipend' does not meet the intent of the rule." As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank put it, Gannon was "representing a phony media company (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html) that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership." HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS UNDER A FAKE NAME? Jeff Gannon's real name is James Guckert. (He told Wolf Blitzer that he changed his name because "Jeff Gannon" was easier to pronounce.) Although all applications for White House press passes are supposed to be thoroughly vetted, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said he was unaware (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html) that Gannon was using an alias. His predecessor, Ari Fleischer, also pleads ignorance (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000807754) .. Gannon signed in to the White House each day as "Jeff Guckert," (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...10/wbr.01.html) a name which did not match his pass -- yet no one seemed to thing that was strange. In fact, no one at the White House seems overly concerned with what amounts to a stunning national security breach. WHAT IS GANNON'S CONNECTION TO THE VALERIE PLAME CASE? Jeff Gannon has been interviewed by FBI agents who are investigating another security breach in the White House, namely, the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press. So far, Gannon has been coy, giving " conflicting signals (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000816326) , over many months, concerning whether he saw a secret document or merely knew about it from other sources." Today he says he never really saw the memo, he'd only read about it in the Wall Street Journal. Reps. Conyers and Slaughter are asking Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the Plame investigation, to subpoena the journal Gannon kept over the past two years to find out what Gannon actually knew, and when. |
Dr. Jonathan Shmithers asked:
How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? ********************* How can you be so obtuse? The comment about grammar school pig-pilers was an opinion expressed about a deliberate behavior exhibited in this forum. To gratify a sick, twisted, predatory sense of "humor", one of your crew posted a photo (so full of stereoypes it almost had to be staged) and claimed "This is the recent wedding photo for so and so." In fact, the predatory personality felt the idea was so inspired it deserved an entire thread of its own. An easily predicted group of folks jumped on the sick, twisted, predatory bandwagon with celebratory high fives and gratuitous reach arounds. What portion of the previous two paragraphs would you care to factually refute? Now let's address the photo, as you're asking how posting the photo compares to expressing an opinion that doing so was juvenile. Unlike the activites upon which I based my opinion, all of which were easily observable in the NG, the photo was not based in fact or reality. It was, as I have said, the internet equivalent of a grade school drawing with distorted features and some poor *******'s name penciled in below. The hillbillie picture thread didn't say a thing about the guy it was purported to represent, but it spoke volumes about the guy who launched the thread and the easily led group of hypocritical psychophant pile-ons unable to distinguish between adult or juvenile behaviors. |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:25:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
jps wrote: In article , says... Damn, Jimcomma, where did you find an honest article? More proof that you're a complete ****in' idiot. She's makin' money off your stupidity as are 1% of the population. jps By now, almost everyone's heard of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. He's the fake reporter with a false name given all-too-real press credentials by the White House. He's the one who asked the only literate question at the press briefing, to wit: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" You gotta love it! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
wrote in message oups.com... Dr. Jonathan Shmithers asked: How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? ********************* How can you be so obtuse? The comment about grammar school pig-pilers was an opinion expressed about a deliberate behavior exhibited in this forum. To gratify a sick, twisted, predatory sense of "humor", one of your crew posted a photo (so full of stereoypes it almost had to be staged) and claimed "This is the recent wedding photo for so and so." In fact, the predatory personality felt the idea was so inspired it deserved an entire thread of its own. An easily predicted group of folks jumped on the sick, twisted, predatory bandwagon with celebratory high fives and gratuitous reach arounds. What portion of the previous two paragraphs would you care to factually refute? Now let's address the photo, as you're asking how posting the photo compares to expressing an opinion that doing so was juvenile. Unlike the activites upon which I based my opinion, all of which were easily observable in the NG, the photo was not based in fact or reality. It was, as I have said, the internet equivalent of a grade school drawing with distorted features and some poor *******'s name penciled in below. The hillbillie picture thread didn't say a thing about the guy it was purported to represent, but it spoke volumes about the guy who launched the thread and the easily led group of hypocritical psychophant pile-ons unable to distinguish between adult or juvenile behaviors. A five minute google search turned up these Chucky classics: ============================================= Will I continue to respond to childish name calling and personal insult? Not for long. Name calling and personal attack? Desperate, fearful acts that betray a weak personality. As you're not an extreme idiot, I'm genuinely surprised you would lump *all* of any group into a single category. Are you as much an idiot as a wise ass, xxxxx? Ah, whatsa matter xxxxxx? The big bad discussion get so cereberal for ya that you're left with no recourse except launching unprovoked personal attacks? What a lightweight. xxxxx is an incompetant and blithering idiot Probably a good thing there's no truth to the rumor that your ass is where your brains are, you'd be a stupid frickin' Jose by now. Or is enough to imply that people who have not been impressed with some aspects of his intellectual profile are just too stupid to appreciate the man's obvious brilliance? I've been taking lessons from an asshole in Ohio. The half-witted SOB never posts a line without attacking somebody, and then runs crying about his hurt feelings whenever anybody says "boo" back at him. My little sister used to act the same way, before she grew out of it. Come to think of it, Jim, you live in Ohio too! On the off chance that you run into the asshole I'm referring to, give him my regards, OK? ================================================== ============= I pasted only a fraction of what I found, and this was with a search of only 3 foul words. A 5 minute search. Do as I say, not as I do.....eh Chuck? |
|
|
John H wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:25:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: jps wrote: In article , says... Damn, Jimcomma, where did you find an honest article? More proof that you're a complete ****in' idiot. She's makin' money off your stupidity as are 1% of the population. jps By now, almost everyone's heard of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. He's the fake reporter with a false name given all-too-real press credentials by the White House. He's the one who asked the only literate question at the press briefing, to wit: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" You gotta love it! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes I note the questions remain How did Gannon gained access to White House press briefings without any journalistic qualifications. HOW LONG CAN JOURNALISTS GAIN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK? Why did the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass. Is there a limit to how long a reporter can slide on "day" passes, as Gannon did for years? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS SUPPOSED PUBLICATION EVEN EXISTED? BY WHAT CRITERIA DID THE WHITE HOUSE EVALUATE TALON NEWS? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS UNDER A FAKE NAME? WHAT ( if any) IS GANNON'S CONNECTION TO THE VALERIE PLAME CASE? Did his sexual orientation "buy" him any favors from the White House? Time to live up to your motto John "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it" |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:27:22 -0800, jps wrote:
In article , says... He's the one who asked the only literate question at the press briefing, to wit: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" It's surprising Guckert had enough time to attend press briefings with all the pitching, catching and sucking he had going on. Quite an entrepreneur. Just the kind Republicans admire most. Fake ones. jps I thought you liberal folks were pushing homosexuality as the only way to go! Now you're coming down on someone who may be gay. Y'all need to clean up your act! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:19:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
I note the questions remain How did Gannon gained access to White House press briefings without any journalistic qualifications. HOW LONG CAN JOURNALISTS GAIN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK? Why did the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass. Is there a limit to how long a reporter can slide on "day" passes, as Gannon did for years? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS SUPPOSED PUBLICATION EVEN EXISTED? BY WHAT CRITERIA DID THE WHITE HOUSE EVALUATE TALON NEWS? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS UNDER A FAKE NAME? WHAT ( if any) IS GANNON'S CONNECTION TO THE VALERIE PLAME CASE? Did his sexual orientation "buy" him any favors from the White House? Time to live up to your motto John "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it" There is no 'difficulty' to divide, Jimcomma. No one, except you, gives a rat's ass about Gannon. The important question to answer is: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" Don't you just love it? That question kind of says it all, doesn't it. I can see why some folks just seem to forget it. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
wrote in message oups.com... Dr. Jonathan Shmithers asked: How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? ********************* How can you be so obtuse? The comment about grammar school pig-pilers was an opinion expressed about a deliberate behavior exhibited in this forum. So was the picture Chucky. Hypocrisy thy name is Chuck Gould. |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:26:09 -0500, John H wrote:
There is no 'difficulty' to divide, Jimcomma. No one, except you, gives a rat's ass about Gannon. The important question to answer is: You are right, no one should care about Gannon, but you are also wrong. The important question is: How did someone with inadequate credentials gain access to the President? The President's security *should* be more important than any damn question Gannon asked. |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:50:49 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:26:09 -0500, John H wrote: There is no 'difficulty' to divide, Jimcomma. No one, except you, gives a rat's ass about Gannon. The important question to answer is: You are right, no one should care about Gannon, but you are also wrong. The important question is: How did someone with inadequate credentials gain access to the President? The President's security *should* be more important than any damn question Gannon asked. I expect there were enough Secret Service folks around to handle any supposed 'security' issues that may have arisen. I find it hard to believe that you liberals are so suddenly concerned with the 'security' of the president! No, the important question remains that which you folks and the major media delete: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" What a great question!! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
Gould,
This post reminds me of Netsock repeatedly posting OT messages complaining about Off topic messages. The picture was an attempt at a joke, and an opinion on the intellectually level of Basskisser. No one expected anyone to believe the picture was real. This post in which you call a number of people "sick and twisted",and "predatory" is your opinion. The only difference between these two opinions, is one person attempted to use humor and you did not. wrote in message oups.com... Dr. Jonathan Shmithers asked: How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? ********************* How can you be so obtuse? The comment about grammar school pig-pilers was an opinion expressed about a deliberate behavior exhibited in this forum. To gratify a sick, twisted, predatory sense of "humor", one of your crew posted a photo (so full of stereoypes it almost had to be staged) and claimed "This is the recent wedding photo for so and so." In fact, the predatory personality felt the idea was so inspired it deserved an entire thread of its own. An easily predicted group of folks jumped on the sick, twisted, predatory bandwagon with celebratory high fives and gratuitous reach arounds. What portion of the previous two paragraphs would you care to factually refute? Now let's address the photo, as you're asking how posting the photo compares to expressing an opinion that doing so was juvenile. Unlike the activites upon which I based my opinion, all of which were easily observable in the NG, the photo was not based in fact or reality. It was, as I have said, the internet equivalent of a grade school drawing with distorted features and some poor *******'s name penciled in below. The hillbillie picture thread didn't say a thing about the guy it was purported to represent, but it spoke volumes about the guy who launched the thread and the easily led group of hypocritical psychophant pile-ons unable to distinguish between adult or juvenile behaviors. |
John H wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:19:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: I note the questions remain How did Gannon gained access to White House press briefings without any journalistic qualifications. HOW LONG CAN JOURNALISTS GAIN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK? Why did the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass. Is there a limit to how long a reporter can slide on "day" passes, as Gannon did for years? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS SUPPOSED PUBLICATION EVEN EXISTED? BY WHAT CRITERIA DID THE WHITE HOUSE EVALUATE TALON NEWS? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS UNDER A FAKE NAME? WHAT ( if any) IS GANNON'S CONNECTION TO THE VALERIE PLAME CASE? Did his sexual orientation "buy" him any favors from the White House? Time to live up to your motto John "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it" There is no 'difficulty' to divide, Jimcomma. No one, except you, gives a rat's ass about Gannon. The important question to answer is: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" Don't you just love it? That question kind of says it all, doesn't it. I can see why some folks just seem to forget it. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes You can chant that mantra all you want, but it still appears to me that Gannon had some boyfriends in the whitehouse who arranged for him to be a plant. You're not following your own tagline "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it" So do some resolving chant away if you like -- it's sorta like them monks spinning the wheels. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com