Fred, selectively quoting the one paragraph. Tsk, tsk. Not rising to bait. Sorry.
Well reading through all of your posts I would say you are a master baiter.
still waiting to hear exactly what was planned and who was caught.[/quote]
still waiting…
Is being a prostitute (gay or straight) legal where Guckert/Gannon was doing it?
Yeah, he check out real good. He real identity is heap-big man whore. He show driver’s license, say: “Me so horney, me love you long time.”
Recreational activities? Sounds more like “oldest profession” activities. In any case, real journalists covering the White House normally have to go through extensive background checks. To give an example of the one-sided nature of this, the White House pass for the NYTimes’ Dowd (a writer critical of the Bush administration who has reported on the White House for a couple of decades now) was not renewed – the White House is subjecting her to an extensive multi-month background investigation as if she’d never worked that beat before.
Great. Then you should recognize the Bush administration’s hypocrisy in skipping a normal security measure just to get a sycophant in the briefings. Combined with the payola schemes exposed in recent months, it would appear that the Bush administration is going to desperate measures to get any good press for their failed/failing policies.
What have MTV reality shows got to do with this? In any case, as pointed out already the journalists who work the White House beat do normally get asked tough questions before they get access. If you want to know more about journalists’ wacky sex lives, I’m sure you can run a google search on Marv Albert or Bill O’Reilly.
Mighty Big Bush? What about a mighty big Ted?
Dear Chouteau:
But did Bush do any of the things that you are claiming? I mean it is funny and it is one of those laugh-laugh haha moments for late-night television but where is the crime? Where is the presidential involvement? Where is the scandal? This is just one of those cheap titillating stories like:
Prince Charles’ butler seen at gay nightclub
Or
Queen Elizabeth’s chauffeur seen at notorious strip club
In both cases, the smirk smirk wink wink effort is to tar the famous person in question via someone with whom they have had some contact.
But elbow elbow, hubba hubba, it sure got our resident Chouteau going, smirk smirk.
I think the Bush administration, which is, after all, deeply involved in the credentialing of those attending White House press briefings, does have an involvement.
Frankly, if I were to choose a character out of literature that you remind me of, it might be Absolon from Chaucer’s “Miller’s Tale”. Now that was a funny story.
Less funny is the efforts by the Bush administration to propagandize. “Propaganda” is, in fact, the term used in the law prohibiting the sort of payola Mr. Armstrong Williams and numerous others have received. Frankly, I see the Bush administration as doing everything possible to abuse the press by propagandizing. If that includes skipping all possible normal background checks to get a sycophant into the room who copies their press briefings directly into his articles, then I think that’s pretty bad.
If I be Absolon, then you my dear sir may fancy yourself Nicholas? Fine with me. Either way, you get your just “desserts.”
After spewing your Bushian nonsense, do you have to clean your lips “with dust, with sond, with straw, with clooth, with chippes”? I don’t fancy myself a Nicholas. Perhaps Gannon/Guckert would be willing to present himself to be “smoot” with your “Iren hoot”. For a price, of course.
Getting back to Gannon/Gluckert, you still haven’t addressed any of the key differences raised:
1.) Do you agree that prostitution (male, female, gay or straight) is usually an illegal activity in most U.S. states, including the ones surrounding the District of Columbia?
2.) Why did you try to indicate this was “recreational” activity? (Perhaps it was for his customers, but certainly not for a paid manwhore.)
3.) Because extensive background checks are normally given to journalists reporting from the White House press briefings, what compelling reason existed for making a very special exemption for Gannon/Gluckert?
4.) Will the Bush administration exercise greater caution in the future, perhaps by giving out press credentials to strippers or Hooters waitresses who come in off the street?
Listen to you whine…
You are the one who suggested the Absolon connection, now you do not like it when someone who is actually far more literate than you can throw this back in you face immediately? Hah! Philistine haha
AND you are the one making all the outrageous claims again. So prove one of them. In the meantime, you sound more and more like Chouteau with all his outrageous plots and machinations and every whinging against this, that and the other. You are pathetic. But it just goes to show every society and every age and period has thrown up the mouthy barroom conspiracy theorist that you represent. Like Chouteau, you will no doubt fine your present day moral and political positions eminently expendable should the opportunity arise to ever make a few quick bucks. No wonder every society, every author and every age has always treated such behavior and its perpetrators with the contempt that is so richly deserved.
When?
Oh, sorry… I guess you don’t like that I can quote back Chaucer to a person who apparently only vaguely remembers there was a character named “Nicholas” in the same story as Absolon.
What do you consider an “outrageous” claim?
-
prostitution is still illegal in most U.S. states;
-
that most White House journalists have to go through extensive background checks;
-
that Gannon/Gluckert did not go through the same extensive background checks;
-
that Gannon/Gluckert was a highly partisan “journalist”, writing articles that often parroted/copied the Bush administration press releases;
-
that the Bush administration has made payments to journalists to endorse its programs and policies; or
-
“recreation” as a word is not normally used with regards to a person’s compensated illegal activities.
Plots? Looks pretty simple. The Bush administration appears to have bent the normal rules yet again for somebody they thought would give them a lot of good press.
My only response to your tirade shall be to express concern over the hygiene of kissing Bushian “berd” this much.
I don’t plan to fine anyone – I’m a private citizen. My morals currently don’t include letting manwhores, crack dealers, or other riff-raff into close proximity to the U.S. president, no matter what party is in office.
I think Chaucer has you pegged pretty well.
Well MFGR:
Since I am Absolon and you are Nicholas, I would suggest that you after all the one who was “pegged” and not just by Chaucer. haha
You lose again!
Please substantiate your post that I had made an “outrageous” claim.
[quote]What do you consider an “outrageous” claim?
-
prostitution is still illegal in most U.S. states;
-
that most White House journalists have to go through extensive background checks;
-
that Gannon/Gluckert did not go through the same extensive background checks;
-
that Gannon/Gluckert was a highly partisan “journalist”, writing articles that often parroted/copied the Bush administration press releases;
-
that the Bush administration has made payments to journalists to endorse its programs and policies; or
-
“recreation” as a word is not normally used with regards to a person’s compensated illegal activities. [/quote]
We’re waiting. Please provide some actual facts and not the usual mush. If you can’t find anything “outrageous” among the above, then please have the intellectual honesty to own up to it and let the discussion move on. I guess when Republicans don’t have the facts on their side, they just have to pull out lots of sparklers, whirl their capes about and drop a smoke bomb or two in hopes that the audience doesn’t pay attention to what’s really going on.
still waiting to hear exactly what was planned and who was caught.[/quote]
Poor choice of phrasing/words, granted. I was missing a “Mounting evidence suggests” and “It looks as though”
However, Flipper, could you address some of the very pertinent questions raised by Mafagongren that you and Fred are dancing around?
Otherwise, here is one more thread where semantics trump substance. Yawn.
I won’t even bother asking that of Fred since without semantical arguments, and the odd reminder for all about his education, what would be left? A wine and cheese lover? I dunno. But, I still like you Fred, maybe because you’re funny.
Thank you Rooftop:
I am glad that you find me funny. At the very minimum that must count for something.
Why do I need to prove anything? I am not the one claiming a crime has been committed. That is for MFGR to do. Surely, you do not expect us to make his case for him do you?
I have repeatedly said, I don’t know what the beef is all about. I still do not. MFGR as usual is wildly accusative but where is he proving anything about anything.
I therefore have nothing to conclude except that once again MFGR is making wild accusations and that he cannot prove them.
Now, if you want to talk about my accusations: the UN is riddled with corruption, France has a corrupt and dishonest leadership, or that Germany’s Fischer is a nasty little radical that is subverting German foreign policy to his own personal vendettas then I will be happy to supply proof and I have.
Until then, I will as usual wait for MFGR to prove anything. I expect however that the amusement will be in watching him turn and squirm like he is now. Prove that this is not true! he thunders but why should I? Am I responsible for strating this thread? Making these assertions? Has anything illegal occurred? Is there any proof that Bush or administration officials are involved? No. No. No. No. So until there is a yes to any of these…
Sign me
Bored with MFGR but amused to see him fit his Chouteau characterization so well…
So what you’re saying is you can’t or won’t answer him then?
Tetsuo!
He’d never say that. Don’t pay ANY attention to the man behind the curtain…
%VVn3P (guess what that says)
No, not fair.
I started this thread, so get your dukes up Fred. Leave Mafogongren out of this. He’s one of the few people posting on this thread that isn’t all smoke and mirrors and bluster.
Proove Gannon didn’t get the normal background check? Have you READ the linked articles? Have you been following this story from any source other than the usual Right is Right rags?
Why, I oughta… put 'em up, put 'em up!
Cry me a river. Such is the story of life.
Actually I am a count.
You have restored my faith in you with this delightful bit of irony.
why should I prove anything. It is up to those prosecuting to supply the proof and conduct the prosecution. I simply do not care.
Become sensible and vote Republican. I quite agree!
glass after glass of wine? I fully intend to. See you at the happy hour on Sunday!
[/quote]
If prostitution is legal in the District of Columbia or the surrounding states, then that’s a new one on all of us. Please provide some basis for claiming that prostitution is legal in DC, Virginia, Maryland, etc.
Oh, so you have no substance.
[quote=“fred smith”]MFGR as usual is wildly accusative but where is he proving anything about anything.
I therefore have nothing to conclude except that once again MFGR is making wild accusations and that he cannot prove them.[/quote]
Please provide a basis for that statement. Which accusation is “wild”. I provided a list for you, but you’re still dodging. So far you’ve used “wild” and “outrageous” as descriptions, so back it up or clarify what you think is “wild” or “outrageous”. We’re waiting.
[quote]What do you consider an “outrageous” claim?
-
prostitution is still illegal in most U.S. states;
-
that most White House journalists have to go through extensive background checks;
-
that Gannon/Gluckert did not go through the same extensive background checks;
-
that Gannon/Gluckert was a highly partisan “journalist”, writing articles that often parroted/copied the Bush administration press releases;
-
that the Bush administration has made payments to journalists to endorse its programs and policies; or
-
“recreation” as a word is not normally used with regards to a person’s compensated illegal activities. [/quote]
Please clarify what proof you need. We’re still waiting for you to actually pin down something you don’t understand. Were you under the mistaken impression that manwhoring is legal throughout the United States? Do you feel that it is not adequately documented within the already cited news articles that White House reporters normally have to go through extensive background checks? Please clarify.
Fred, you’re the one who avoiding our questions and not even providing any clarifications of your own. It’s sad to see you laid out on the tray, not even keeping one loop of your body ahead of the vivisectionists’ pins.