1
   

Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 12:58 pm
I've always been of the opinion that with enough red sauce and cheese, anything can be made edible.

Fear Factor has proven me right so far...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 01:06 pm
Quote:
I've always been of the opinion that with enough red sauce and cheese, anything can be made edible.

Fear Factor has proven me right so far...


I detest the 'eating' portions of that show.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 01:41 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I've always been of the opinion that with enough red sauce and cheese, anything can be made edible.

Fear Factor has proven me right so far...


I detest the 'eating' portions of that show.

Cycloptichorn


(... at some risk of being accused of changing/confusing the topic (Rolling Eyes), I'll continue this diversion ....)


I enjoyed a particular show where the contestants had to eat tomato horn worms. It was disgusting, because there was so much "juice" inside those little buggers, it kept squirting out of their mouths as they bit down on them. From the descriptions, the juice was not tasty.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 04:48 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
[Townhall or newsmax exist exclusively to forward an ideology. That's why they were created.


You forgot salon.com ... again ......


tico

Not comparable, not in range of content (or lack of it), not in funding, not in raison d'etre, nor in a few other features.

If you simply wish to play a shirts vs skins game, I'm not even slightly interested. If you have some integrity towards the careful and discerning, that would be different.


I'd be satisfied if you would simply admit the obvious fact that salon.com has an anti-Bush bias in its news reporting. It is what it is, and I feel compelled to point it out to you because you persist in railing against Townhall and Newsmax for carrying their conservative messages to their audiences, and at the same time denigrating those who would deign to post a snippet from such sources, yet choose to ignore the fact that salon.com does the very same thing, and you like to post regularly from that site. I suspect you are having trouble seeing the forest, but one large difference I discern is that Townhall and Newsmax make no claims to being anything other than conservative conservatories. Salon is a liberal rag, but does not possess the intellectual honesty to simply acknowledge this fact, when it is clear its purpose is to try and take down the Bush Administration. I have asked you to post a pro-Bush article from the site, and you've yet to do so. This is either because you can't locate one, because one doesn't exist, or because you haven't looked. I've looked and been unsuccessful.


Yes. Your conclusions are already formed which is why I have no reason to bother.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:02 pm
Oh, yeah, Tico asked for a pro-Bush article on Salon. Here's one of many. Admittedly nothing recent, but that wasn't a requirement.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/sullivan/2003/06/10/museums/index.html
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:06 pm
Now, let's see something Pro-Kerry from Newsmax.com, Ticomaya.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:21 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Oh, yeah, Tico asked for a pro-Bush article on Salon. Here's one of many. Admittedly nothing recent, but that wasn't a requirement.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/sullivan/2003/06/10/museums/index.html


Yeah ... actually Blatham had posted one other article in support of his claim that Salon is balanced ... and it too was from Sullivan, I believe, written on 9/13/01. And you are correct, I did not state that as a requirement. But I do find it interesting that in this supposedly balanced rag, the most recent pro-Bush article was written in June of 2003. Just not balanced recently I take it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:22 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Now, let's see something Pro-Kerry from Newsmax.com, Ticomaya.

Laughing


Not going to happen any time soon, Dookie. You have failed to grasp the point. Nothing new here.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:27 pm
What point? Your points change with your every posting.

The only point you've made is your complete gullibility regarding the Bush administration. That much is certain.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:33 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Oh, yeah, Tico asked for a pro-Bush article on Salon. Here's one of many. Admittedly nothing recent, but that wasn't a requirement.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/sullivan/2003/06/10/museums/index.html


Yeah ... actually Blatham had posted one other article in support of his claim that Salon is balanced ... and it too was from Sullivan, I believe, written on 9/13/01. And you are correct, I did not state that as a requirement. But I do find it interesting that in this supposedly balanced rag, the most recent pro-Bush article was written in June of 2003. Just not balanced recently I take it. Laughing


Was a claim made that salon was balanced? I must have missed that. I thought the point was to differentiate between salon and newsmax and townhall, which I think has been done. Clearly the purpose of Salon is not to take down the Bush administration (it predates them). I don't know why those two conservative columnistst no longer contribute, but the fact is that they did for several years. There is quite a bit more diversity of opinion to be found on Salon than on the others. There's also the completely balanced news wire stories to consider. So it doesn't seem reasonable to completely dismiss Salon as a source of information, though it is important to keep in mind how they lean politically.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 06:20 pm
Salon is so slanted, I can only wipe my left cheek with it. I need Townhall to balance it out.

I believe this all got started by Blatham's comment that Tico was using slanted sources and chose to use Salon to demonstrate a balanced source. He was soon scoffed at as Salon may have, at one time in the 90's, been balanced, but no longer.

That is the point I believe.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 06:24 pm
Yes, but was Newsmax.com EVER balanced?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 06:36 am
Compilation of Guckert videos

Click to view
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 06:38 am
Democratic leadership joins call for Gannon inquiry; Whip calls on members to join push

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=117
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 06:48 am
And, it looks like some "never live" domains are for sale with some decent traffic... Especially for domains that have never been made into sites! Oh, wait. That was a lie.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/guckerts-military-escort-domain-names.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 02:56 pm
http://www.americablog.org

Quote:
BREAKING NEWS: Top House Judiciary and House Rules Dems ask GAO to investigate Gannon scandal, suggest Fitzgerald subpoena Gannon's daily journal!
by John in DC - 2/23/2005 02:18:00 PM

Now both the House and Senate Dems are getting involved in the scandal.

Today, Reps. John Conyers (Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee) and Louise Slaughter (Ranking Member, House Rules Committee) have asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to include Jeff Gannon/James Guckert in an investigation of "whether the Administration violated the ban on prepackaged news stories by siphoning print stories to James D. Guckert, also known as "Jeff Gannon."

You can see a pdf of the letter here.

And just as good, Conyers and Slaughter wrote to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, today letting him know that he might want to subpoena Gannon's daily diary, the existence of which became known yesterday, thanks to Editor & Publisher.

You can see that letter here.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:25 pm
Shall we talk Talon serial plagerism?

Quote:
link
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 04:55 pm
pssst.... for some data on the money behind townhall and newsmax and the other sites/outlets of a similar nature
http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/apparat.html

(cute bit a ways down where GOPUSA (behind Talon and Gannon) describe Soros as "a descendant of Shylock" (soros is jewish, of course).

But you want to follow the money.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 05:06 pm
One can only imagine the number of phone numbers Gannon has got for his many contacts in the White House.

I'm sure we'll get to see some form of that diary, after the myriad redactions performed by the administration's journalistic whore.

The lunacy of the Rightwingers continues unabated...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 08:09 am
Republicans, bloggers and gays, oh my!

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 websites are coming under more intensive background checks than CIA agents.

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 website 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 website 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 website 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 and John Kerry) 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 television 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.
source
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 7.51 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 11:01:13