Left Wing Journalist on UN Payroll

as posted by Bout Time
Given the additional fact that our king only grants an audience to certain select reporters, Gukert somehow managed to be one of the chose few to address our king directly during one of the "news" confrences after election.
Gukert also was listed & ran a gay porn escort service up through the time he came on board with Talon ....2002 or 2003. There is currently, on other threads, links to the web authors invoices to Gukert for putting up his escort site.
The only thing speculative at this point is the allegation that the White House Press Secreatary, Scot McClellan , is gay. There have been reports , again on the blog links listed, of him frequenting gay bars in Texas.

As a recap:

- A Republican front organization masquerading as a legitimate news organization ( there is even no physical offices)

- A "reporter" with no journalism background

- A press pass issued to an alias

- "Most favored" status during press briefings

- The same security check flagging the falsehood denying him a press pass for Congress, after the WH was allowing him.

Apparently you have missed this?
Gannongate's a Non-Story:
Gannongate Update

Instead of pointing out what "those" Republicans are doing and saying, try being a bit more objective and read the debunking that has taken place concerning what you have recited above, maybe?





seekerof

Originally posted by James the Lesser
The party that wants being gay illegal according to their higher power, god. the party that wants gays to be second class citizens, like blacks were in the 60's. The party that is always out there saying gays evil, ban them from loving each other, oops, one of our kids is a lesbian, we'll shut up now.(republican)

Man JJ, you always fun to talk with. Not a "God will smite you down for disagreeing with Bush." and not "Yep, whatever you say, yes, i agree, I agree, yes, of course 2+2=7, uh huh, yes, of course." And you use some good stuff to make your point.

hehe thanks, tell that to seapeople

As to the anti-gay party point, though, (oy, I need firefox...Not having that google search next to the addy bar is driving me nuts! Ahh, that's better.) I'm assuming you are refering to Dick Cheney as far as the daughter who is gay point is. His daughter isn't out there telling people where she stands, the democrats are. The Johns both did. The media did.

Now go with me on this example. I'm assuming you, like many people, feel that intolerance is wrong. Now, if you have kids and can imagine what this would be like, that will demonstrate the example even better. When you have children, you love them more than anything you could have imagined. You have a child, you raise them to be tollerant people, and one of your kids goes off and joins the KKK. Holy krump, how the heck could that have happened?! Yet it does, often. Rebellion from the parents is very typical; it allows young adults to define who they are rather than just being an extension of their parents. So your son joins the KKK. You think he's wrong in what he's doing, but you still love him and accept him. You don't accept that part of him, but he's your son.

What John Edwards and John Kerry did, by spouting Cheney's daughter (who has activly avoided the media spotlight) as an example to use for gay rights was purely political to attack both Bush's and Cheney's moral values. Yes, they believe homosexuality is wrong, but they see beyond that one aspect of a person and see the whole person. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

The Dmocrats are using a people who are having a rough time in this country as an attacking point on the Republicans. The religious republicans (not all of them are, contrary to popular opinion, just as not all democrats aren't) feel that this behavior is wrong, and don't believe it should be given special treatment. Anti-sodomy laws are bunk and are on their way out. However, the Jews created marrage from a secular viewpoint, God from a religious point. They defined it 5000 years ago. To have the government come along and say, "sorry, this religious institution now belongs to the government, you don't get a say in it anymore," is what Thomas Jefferson feared in his letter. The democrats seem to want to use the religious rights morality against them any way they can, using anyone they can, even if they don't want to be used. So I would say the democrats are being more anti-gay, or even anti-human rights than the republicans. What about Mary Cheney's rights?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Apparently you have missed this?
Gannongate's a Non-Story:
Gannongate Update

Instead of pointing out what "those" Republicans are doing and saying, try being a bit more objective and read the debunking that has taken place concerning what you have recited above, maybe?

LOL that is debunking? might want to read the comments and how the person on the blog obviously dug up whatever comments he could find about "gannon" and attacked them. While ignoring the real story that everyone is talking about.

If it is so easily debunked, why is "gannon" still hiding and probly now under the federal witness protection and relocation plan

Why is he in hiding? Because the frothing at the mouth ready to rebel Bush haters now have a target that doesn't have the protection Bush does. It could also be that he's ashamed of how this turned out and that his getting called to ask a question at random, and his loaded question has hurt the administration he supports so much. Remember the Cubs fan who caught the ball and disappeared from the public's eye? You think he was planted there by the opposing team?

Originally posted by junglejake
It could also be that he's ashamed of how this turned out and that his getting called to ask a question at random, and his loaded question has hurt the administration he supports so much.

so protection the administration is more important, then admiting he did something wrong? that means there has to be something to protect.

This is an accountability issue, and we all know the Bush administration has none of that. When Bush lies, people die