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

How dare he try and make a buck or two ....

The issue is HYPOCRISY. Hello? HYPOCRISY. What I don't want the blind such as yourself to forget is the HYPOCRISY. Do you know that word? Is it not hypocrisy when someone who is gay DEMONIZES the homosexual community?

Oh, and to further that hypocrisy, it would seem you neocons were MUCH more concerned with a heterosexual President who had a sexual trist with an intern to point where you tried to impeach him (but was summarily acquitted by the Senate), rather than a homosexual escort who demonizes gays on behalf of a fake news website.

I have many gay friends who don't share Mr. Gannons style of hypocrisy. But you are doing a splendid job of demonstrating the classic neoconservative style of hypocrisy so prevalent in today's politics.

[\quote]

Based on what you have written then, are you saying that it is the president's fault that a gay man chooses to demonize homosexuality? So how are conservatives demonstrating hypocrisy?? Because we are allowing a gay man to demonize homosexuality? So if this guy were straight and demonizing homosexuality, you would have no issue with him, right? If he were straight, you would have no issue with him and his press pass because this is all about hypocrisy to you, as per your statement, right?

If I am not reading you correctly, please set me straight cause I really want to understand why this guy has become such an issue to so many.

The business plan called for using tax dollars to boost the value of the Rangers franchise. By threatening to leave Arlington, Texas, the new owners induced the city to spend $150,000 to convince voters to approve a sales tax hike that would raise $135 million for a new ballpark. Arlington also approved a sweet rent-to-own deal in which the Rangers gradually would buy the new stadium for $60 million -- or less than half of what taxpayers paid for it.

Arlington's generous taxpayers greatly enhanced the value of the Rangers. Bush's partnership sold the team in 1998 for $250 million, or three times what they had paid for it 10 years earlier. While Bush ended up sinking $606,302 of his own money into the team, his partners kindly gifted him an additional 10 percent share. He personally made $15 million off the Rangers.

Bush's $15 million came from the new Rangers owner, Tom Hicks of the Dallas corporate takeover firm of Hicks Muse Tate & Furst. The Rangers were not Hicks' first professional sports team. Six months before he bought the Rangers from Bush, the governor helped Hicks get some corporate welfare for his Dallas Mavericks basketball team.

Bush signed 1997 legislation that expressly authorized Texas cities to impose new taxes to finance sports facilities. Months later, Dallas voters agreed to chip in for a $230 million new arena for Hicks' Mavericks and the Dallas Stars. Richard Rainwater had a minority stake in this hockey team, which was principally owned by H. Ross Perot, Jr. Perot, who gave $5,000 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns, is the son of the 1992 Reform Party presidential candidate. Leading the pitch for this taxpayer-financed stadium were Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and City Manager John Ware. Soon after the vote, Ware resigned to work for Hicks and the public learned that Mayor Kirk's wife had $500,000 in stock options in a Hicks company.

As this stadium deal reveals, Governor Bush was now in a position to repay the wealthy people who had kept popping up and bailing out his troubled business career. At the same time, the people who had supplied the brains and bucks for his oil and baseball deals again stepped up to the plate to fund his campaigns.

Bush's two gubernatorial campaigns received $146,000 from Hicks and his brother Steven, $100,000 from Rainwater, $61,000 from Rose and his partner, Marshall Payne, and $20,000 from DeWitt and his business partner, Mercer Reynolds.

Known Bush presidential "Pioneers" linked to the Rangers deal include Rose, Payne, DeWitt, Reynolds, Steven Hicks, Roland Betts and Craig Stapleton, a Bush in-law who is an executive at the investment and consulting firm Marsh & McLennan. These seven men already have raised a total of at least $700,000 for Bush's presidential race.

Well Endowed
Taxpayer-financed stadiums aside, mergers and acquisitions are Tom Hicks' favorite sport. For years, Hicks had urged the University of Texas (UT) to take greater risks in investing its $13 billion endowment. In 1990, Hicks had failed to get the endowment to invest in his takeover of Healthco, a dental supply company that went bankrupt three years later.

"My biggest liability in Texas," Bush told Time magazine in 1989, "is the question, 'What's this boy ever done?'"

"I find myself just staring at it sometimes..."

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1189247&highlight=#1189247

Based on what you have written then, are you saying that it is the president's fault that a gay man chooses to demonize homosexuality?

So how are conservatives demonstrating hypocrisy??

Because we are allowing a gay man to demonize homosexuality?

So if this guy were straight and demonizing homosexuality, you would have no issue with him, right?

If he were straight, you would have no issue with him and his press pass because this is all about hypocrisy to you, as per your statement, right?

Ticomaya wrote:

How dare he try and make a buck or two ....

a buck or two? one or two?.........you have got to be kidding me. Surely you're not that poorly informed.

Not only did it make GW 15 million dollars, and all that money for Hicks and others, not to mention favors, it also paved the way for his gubernatorial campaign.

just for the record, McG. Your avatar even offends me.......and that's hard to do. And I'm not kidding.

...
Oh, and to further that hypocrisy, it would seem you neocons were MUCH more concerned with a heterosexual President who had a sexual trist with an intern to point where you tried to impeach him (but was summarily acquitted by the Senate), rather than a homosexual escort who demonizes gays on behalf of a fake news website.

Would everyone that is offended by McG's avatar of a woman's hand on a mouse please explain why?

Quote:

Would everyone that is offended by McG's avatar of a woman's hand on a mouse please explain why?

duh........

I've given you more benefit of the doubt, Tico.......but maybe it's just true. Are you really that literal minded?

As predicted,

The thread has been derailed by continuing arguments about the politics of sexuality.

There are two angles to this story: deception, and sexuality. By continually accusing the liberal voices in the thread of demonizing this man due to his sexuality, the conservatives have shifted the argument completely away from the fact that this man entered the WH as a shill for the pres, had access to secret documents, and was allowed inside without working for a news company OR having published any articles (Tico, I note you dropped that point after I clarified; any more thoughts on the 'shifting attack' on the fellow?).

Conservatives, take the opportunity to try to defend the guy based on arguments other than his sexuality. Liberals, I know it's hypocritic and ironic, but lay off the gay angle for a while and let's get some real answers out of them as to how this could happen.

Cycloptichorn

Maybe I am dense, but how are conservatives making a big deal about a gay man in the W/H press room asking ridiculous questions?