Comments: The best words on Jeff Gannon

I've always been a huge fan of Dennis Miller. I love the ending quote, Debbye.

As for the content of your post, I'd only like to add this opine: how petty can the left wing get? Gannon has quickly become the Richard Jewel of the 21st century, the poor guy.

Posted by Rafer at February 25, 2005 10:19 PM

You've completely missed the point Debbye.

1) The Maureen Dowd article was criticizing the Bush press room for keeping her out (despite being from the most respected news daily in the country), but they allow in a man from the Talon News (a right-wing front website and nothing more)... Her criticism had nothing to do with him being gay. (YOU and Ann Coulter are the ones being petty for implying it)

2) The criticism of Gannon for being gay is in no way homosexual. When the side that actually stands up for Gay rights points out that Gannon is gay, it is only to point out once again that the right-wing is being hypocritical. While it contains many who happen to be homosexual, they still say they don't like gays in order to keep the religious crowd on their side.

3) Oh, yeah, there is SOME relevance to the gay-angle... He isn't just gay, which is acceptable even to you apparently... HE WAS A MALE PROSTITUTE, which is considered bad whether your left-wing or right-wing remember.


Please read some alternative viewpoints next time and actually weigh them against each other. Simply parroting opinions from www.rightwingnews.com and Ann Coulter Op-Ed's will do nothing more than make you sound stupid and uneducated. (which I know is in fashion across the U.S.of A.)


Posted by Rafer's Mom at February 26, 2005 09:13 PM

Upon re-reading, in 2), I should have said the gay-angle of the Gannon critique was in no Way HOMOPHOBIC, not 'homosexual' as I accidentally typed.

I felt I should point this out because the only response I would probably get otherwise would be a right-wing-nutjob simply telling me I'm wrong because I used the wrong term.'

Posted by Rafer's MOM Again at February 26, 2005 09:15 PM

Life must be good if the most the left can dig up on the Bush White House is this silly bit of trivia.

1) Gannon had a day pass. Dowd could have gotten a day pass too (if you don't apply, you don't get one). What's the problem here? So Gannon was guilty of asking lame questions, but so does Helen Thomas. And you are saying people should get worked up about this? Whatever.

2) Uh...have you ever thought that maybe Republicans don't care about someone's sexual orientation as much as the Democrats think they do.

Interesting that right wing nutjob sites like the Daily Kos seemed to be the most interested in Gannon's sexual orientation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/174746/7900 a

"While it contains many who happen to be homosexual, they still say they don't like gays in order to keep the religious crowd on their side."

Please enlighten me. Who are these "they" people? Or are you just making this stuff up? I've heard that Dick Cheney's daughter is gay. (Mr Kerry and Mr Edwards made a point of repeating it for some reason :). I don't think the Cheneys' don't love their daughter any less).

Interesting knots that the left ties themselves into. Gannon can't really be gay because he's a Republican? Condi Rice can't really be black since she's a Republican? The US political left is just waay too funny.

3) So are you suggesting that access to the White House should be based on an investigation of someone's sexual history? Are you scared that he was a prostitute (you must be is you had to write it ALL IN CAPS). Please clarify.

One last point. From your first post:

"Simply parroting opinions from www.rightwingnews.com and Ann Coulter Op-Ed's will do nothing more than make you sound stupid and uneducated. (which I know is in fashion across the U.S.of A.)"

From your second post:

"I felt I should point this out because the only response I would probably get otherwise would be a right-wing-nutjob simply telling me I'm wrong because I used the wrong term.'"

Let me get this straight...you call other people "stupid and uneducated" and then you stereotype anyone challenging you as a "right wing nutjob".

Now, that doesn't sound very intelligent. Is that all the rage from where you are or do you just enjoy living an irony free lifestyle?

Seriously, I have a (reasonably) open mind if someone makes a logically consistent argument. This doesn't seem to be it. Care to try again?

Debbye, interesting series of recent posts. You seem to attract the cutest trolls. Don't seem like the sharpest knives though.

Posted by Warren at February 27, 2005 01:25 AM

Nice come back, Warren (and good to see you again.)

Actually, there's only one troll. He amuses himself by using different names.

Posted by Debbye at February 27, 2005 11:55 AM

I suspected. Should I reactivate my Best of Joey contribution?

Posted by mikem at February 27, 2005 12:38 PM


Here you go, Mr. Warren, (and Rafer I suppose)... You didn't have a chance to begin with, but good try anyways. I was very impressed with your arguments at first. It wasn't until I started to pick away at them that I realized you were just labelling me most of the time and ignoring my main points.

-------
1) I don't think people should get worked up about the day passes, but if Dowd is REJECTED despite being from the NYT and Gannon gets in every day on that same day pass, then we MIGHT have a problem. That's the part of my post that you didnt' address by the way. I didn't forget.

2) On accepting gays, I have no doubt that many republicans don't have a problem with homosexuals. On this website particularly I don't think you guys hate them or anything. You just don't want them to marry. I know for a fact (because I watch American TV) that there ARE millions of right-leaning "right wing nutjobs" that hate gays. This is basically impossible to deny. It is common knowledge that the Republicans represent the religions nutballs who hate gays.

On the topic Cheney's daughter, I was assuming her existence. I was also reminded of the Alan Keyes daughter situation which is much worse. I'm not saying the Cheney's hate their daughter, and Cheney coming out on the side of gay marriage was commendable. That must have taken huge balls.

The point on the fact that many republicans are gay but cover it up is simply my earlier point of hypocrisy again. Gannon is simply one example of a "hard right" politico who for some reason would rather have the political benefits of the Republicans while defacing those that are like him.

On Condi not being black because she's republican. I made more sense than that. Let us point out here that the left doesn't tie themselves into knows. The truth of the matter is that the right-wing dominated news outlets LABEL the Left as tying themselves in knots. While Kerry's "flip flops" were easily explainable, he had nowhere near the capability to defend himself publically when he was lambasted from all side with the LABEL.
(Not that me OR John Kerry is a liberal in the first place, in any real sense of the word. That's another problem altogether, with people like Kerry and I again LABELLED before we can defend ourselves. In any other country but the U.S., the view of myself and especially Kerry would be centrist, if not slightly conservative.)

3) Oh my god, I can't believe you just defended a gay prostitute, meanwhile, trying to label me a homophobe. Again, you blatantly disregarded the main point I was making. (Same problem with labels as before)

Questioning my intelligence because I call you a "right wing nutjob"... AGAIN you ignore the facts. I just used good arguments to deflate each one of your attacks, which upon a first read seemed reasonable. On a second read, I simply realized that you weren't addressing what I'd said.

I call you people "right wing nutjobs" because I'm playing at your level... All over the right wing news and blogospher, suppossed left wingers are called "kooks" and other similar labels to what I call you.


There you go. None of your arguments could stand up to a simple retort based on the facts already presented in my first articles responding to Rafer.

Posted by Rafer's Mom at February 27, 2005 04:30 PM

"None of your arguments could stand up..."

Despite judgment having been rendered, I would like to make a few points.

"While Kerry's "flip flops" were easily explainable... he was lambasted from all side with the LABEL."

That would be from the Bush campaign side and the (pro-Bush??) MSM? If you believe that Kerry was unfairly pegged as a flipflopper then you are waaay into faith based belief. You have stars in your eyes.

To be a Republican and gay is to invite the most virulent hatred, not from the right, but from the left and yes, from gays. It is no wonder Republican gays are more secretive after watching the public lynching of Gannon by liberals and leftists and the apologists for the lynch mob, like you.

" It is common knowledge that the Republicans represent the religions nutballs who hate gays."

It is also common knowledge that the Democrats represent the anti-religious nutballs who hate America, freedom and democracy. While it is true that not all Democrats fall under this description, it is certainly true that those type nutballs vote Democratic and not Republican. They also hate capitalism and free speech. In fact, the Democratic Party represents those who support speech codes and the criminalization of 'verbal harrassment'. They support all manner of restrictions meant to stifle free speech in America, as Canadians have done with their Orwellian speech codes.
You are quick with the generalizations, which condemn Deomocrats more so than Republicans.

Republicans don't hate gays. I don't. Most do not support changing a thousands years old tradition to include anything that people wish it to include. It is as simple as that. For many gays, including the ones who masturbate and feign anal sex in front of St. Patricks Cathedral to show their tolerance for others, it will always be all or nothing. They will increasingly have to settle for less, as people like myself tire of being abused as hatemongers and homophobes after supporting gay rights for years but not being willing to support gay marriage. Civil unions? Sorry, not enough, you f**king bigot. See, that makes a hatemonger feel good to be able to express such hate, but it leaves people like me scratching our heads and wondering why we should support people who hate.

I'll also say that you would be taken more seriously if you did not use multiple avatars and fake email addresses. I'm usually dismissive of comments from fake addresses, but using different avatars is just pathetic.

All in all, you definitely qualify to be a Kerry supporter. You are trolling, and shaming any real liberals.

Posted by mikem at February 27, 2005 06:41 PM

testing

Posted by Rafer's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:19 AM

MikeM, I am not into faith based belief... that's for you guys... Let's recap. Bush hasn't banned gay marriage or abortion... He flip flopped on the reason for war... And you and his followers still follow blindly. THAT is faith-based political beliefs.

Don't force me to defend Kerry. I don't even like him. I just now he was a more reasonable candidate than George W. Bush, and he was mislabeled as a flip flopper and anti-American. It was an extremely unfair election. Kerry didn't have the guts to defend himself, and for that reason I think he's a horrible politician.)

Posted by Rafer's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:20 AM

I keep getting some error...

Posted by I give up at February 28, 2005 12:26 AM

I can see why he would be the choice for you. Out of 300 or so fellow swift boaters, only SIX could be found to support his version of WarriorKerry. 200 plus said he was a liar, a traitor, and unfit to command. The rest refused to be quoted. His political career was begun and grew on his record as an anti-veteran, slandering his 'band of brothers', then he goosestepped across the DNC stage as proud Vietnam veteran WarriorKerry, scourge of the VC.
Definitely your type of leader.

Almost every self-critique by Democrats cited Kerry's flip flops as the primary reason for his defeat. Yet you see it as much ado about nothing, an illusion, that only you had the sense to not see. Not surprising.

Sorry about Saddam.

Posted by mikem at February 28, 2005 02:04 AM

PS When are you going to stop hiding and what are you so ashamed of?

Posted by mikem at February 28, 2005 02:05 AM

Rafer (in all of your incarnations):

Mikem is such a dogmatic hack that he has gradually turned the corner from "agressive defender of Debbye's honor and democracy" (odd coincidence there) to "hilariously oblivious self-parody".

To which you will respond with something about all "liberals" (Amrican "liberals" at that.Ha) hating America and God you're boring

Posted by Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 11:23 AM

Oh my God, this is too rich. It IS you, Joey. I recognize the "...and God you're boring" and "Debbye's honor" remarks as well as the sdfsd addresses. How very rewarding. I actually shamed you into changing your online name. I am laughing my butt off at the thought of you embarrassing yourself so badly that you felt the need to reinvent yourself. Not only that, but your ego did not survive intact and you have emerged with multiple personalities/avatars, the better to show support from others.
Lord, I am unworthy of this honor.
For those who missed Blackglasses in his previous life as 'Joey', the following is a limited collection of his attempts to point out how dumb Americans are.

Best of Joey (1 - 3)
“You are either very funny, or very dumb. I going to assume you are very dumb..."
"We all know you aren't a vetran. You are much to fat too leave your house"
"Have you ever had sex with a human womam?"

Welcome home, Joey etc. And thanks for this gift, sincerely.

Posted by mikem at February 28, 2005 01:43 PM

Thanks?
(I guess)

Posted by Blackglasses at March 1, 2005 12:13 AM