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

It's called 'reading comprehension,' Tico:

Quote:

...Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings.On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out....

There are serious discrepancies with the idea that GG was only attending the WH for press briefings.

If there is no briefing, what was GG doing in the WH? The fact that he was/is a practicing gay prostitute (and yes, this is a fact) now is an important factor in figuring out why he arrived in the WH and in some cases, didn't check out at all or didn't check in.

Therefore, the title change.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's called 'reading comprehension,' Tico:

Quote:
...Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings.On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out....

There are serious discrepancies with the idea that GG was only attending the WH for press briefings.

If there is no briefing, what was GG doing in the WH? The fact that he was/is a practicing gay prostitute (and yes, this is a fact) now is an important factor in figuring out why he arrived in the WH and in some cases, didn't check out at all or didn't check in.

Therefore, the title change.

Cycloptichorn

You must understand that trying to comprehend what you write is often a daunting task.

What is even more difficult is trying to grasp what you have identified as "a lot more going on." Did you want me to guess at your meaning? You have now clarified that you think he was offering services as a gay male prostitute to persons unknown at the White House, merely because he was at the White House, and you don't have an explanation for why. Thanks for the clarification.

0 Replies

Well, like my ol' Pappy used to say, where there's smoke, there's fire...

And the fact that he was/is an active prostitute counts as smoke to me.

Sorry for the confusion, but I figured that you had, yaknow, followed the thread a little bit and all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's that liberal sense of equality and freedom at work again Tico. It doesn't matter what a person does, only what they once did that matters. It doesn't even really matter that either, it could just be what someone might have done that will forever linger and follow that person to their grave.

0 Replies

Yeah, well, when you have current websites advertising your services running, as of Janurary this year, that's hardly something 'Lingering forever,' now is it?

I have a hard time understanding why you would want to defend this guy, McG.... he's a straight-up liar and hack journalist who is also a male prostitute.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am not defending him so much as being critical of the left's obsession with him. He is a non-entity. That you believe he may have been prostituting himself for someone in the Whitehouse speaks volumes about you, but nothing about Gannon.

0 Replies

Interestin' the purported champions of unrestricted sexual expression take the tack they do in this particular case.

0 Replies

Well, we only take that tack due to the holier-than-thou attitude that the Right consistantly displays to the public. It really highlights the hypocrisy of the Administration, and the fact that they are willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, discredit, anything, in order to get what they want.

That's why we are still talking about it. If you don't want to talk about it, leave the thread.

Quote:

He is a non-entity.

He does, in fact, exist, and therefore is an entity. And if he was sucking some cock in the WH, and got his job because of it, I'm sure there are millions of conservatives out there who would like to know about it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

crass

0 Replies

Yeah, but no more so than the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation, don't you think?

I'm sure you were against that as well, right? Right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

CLINTON: But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

Hardly a comparison.

0 Replies

Cyclops, on another thread today, wrote:

Fellow Libs and Moderates, ask yourself the following question: why has this been brought up? Who are the people pushing for this change? What is their greater goal?

I'm sure you'll figure out quickly enough why it is pointless to continue the discussion.

Seemed appropriate to replicate that thought in this thread as well. As I read that, you're suggesting that if a conservative brings up an issue, you must consider what the "goal" is, and if it is a conservative goal, it is pointless to continue discussing the issue.

Should we correlate that thought to this issue with regard to JG? (Changing "conservative" to "Liberals" and/or "Moderates," of course.)

Actually, that would stifle a lot of discussion in the Politics forum, don't you think?

0 Replies

Stiflin' Conservative discussion is seen by some as the greater good.

0 Replies

Well, if you conservatives wish to end discussing this issue in the same fashion as I recommended libs and moderates end discussing the other issue, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

McG: That quote you listed was after months, and months, of investigation and constant media pressure into his private life. So yes, there IS a comparison.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Oh, I think I'll keep watching for you to spew more innuendo, assumption, and wishful thinking. When you do, I may keep pointing out to you that's all you're doing. Hope you don't mind.

0 Replies

It was five days after the story broke.

0 Replies

Oh, I don't mind. It'll be nice to see your posts evolve as more and more investigation is done and it begins to bear fruit Smile

It must suck to be in the position of defending a lying, hack journalist prostitute just because he happens to have the same political views as you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I still haven't seen anyone defend him so much as attack the left for being so homophobic and insensitive.

0 Replies

I don't know JG's political views, nor do I care. So in that respect, it doesn't "suck" (BTW - is that your "Word for the Day"?)

What will be interesting is to see you spin if it doesn't "bear fruit."

0 Replies

You don't know JG's political views? How'd that happen?

I don't think there's anything homophobic or insensitive about condemning the practice of using known prostitutes to spread "administration friendly" stories on news sites that conceal their partisan backing, and expressing curiosity as to the purpose of visits to the whitehouse outside of the usual parameters set for journalists. It reeks.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know