Gaffney Has NO Shame
When you’re losing an argument with the Ron Reagan, jr. tell him his father would be ashamed of him. Now, I was never a fan of President Reagan, but, imo, if Reagan was alive Gaffney should better start running.
Ron Reagan, jr. was absolutely correct. Frank better watch his mouth. Talk about crossing a line, but, then again, is there a line left Republicans won’t cross?
This hit such a nerve with me. Gaffney is a disgusting piece of garbage. How dare he tell a son that his deceased father would be ashamed of him. Of course, he wouldn’t have had to had said that if he actually, you know, had a point.
Tags: Republican Liars
No, there is no line they won’t cross. But we already knew that didn’t we?
This reminds me of O’Reilly’s tirade against the son of a man killed in the WTC on 9/11. Check out the film “OutFoxed” for the gross scene.
I agree with TC, there is no line they will not cross. Gaffney loves to incite, then retreat when he’s challenged by someone who actually knows something about the issue, he’s a coward and world class putz – and I mean that in the most Christian way.
Ronald Reagan is not a real person to them, he’s like their guardian angel or something. That’s why they feel they can tell a man’s son that they know what the father would think.
Reagan might not be ashamed of his son, but on the other hand I do believe that Reagan would be ashamed of the positions taken by his son.
I find it ironic that so many Republicans don’t like the gays while Ronald Reagan was so open about how much he loved cock.
(That’s my Liberal version of Fox News style accuracy)
Honestly, when I saw your headline, I thought you were talking about Gassney, I mean Dan Gaffney from Sussex County.
Enough with these freaking ignorant homophobes!
“Reagan and Rock Hudson & Lovers” Everyone knows. Google it.
I saw this segment on Hardball last night. Gaffney had no response on being challenged regarding his special recognition of a felon (Scooter Libby) and an alleged war criminal (Dick Cheney). Both Chris Matthews and Ronald Reagan, Jr enabled Gaffney to demonstrate how truly despicable a person he really is. Interesting that in the final frames of the piece, Gaffney could not wait to get his audio stuff off and begin his exit, in utter, humiliating defeat. Sorry, I can’t stand that man!
“I do believe that Reagan would be ashamed of the positions taken by his son.”
You have a strange sense of shame.
Reagan’s fake son is the conservative, right? So, he’s cool with Gaffney.
Rule #1: Don’t get between parents and children. You’ll always lose.
Gaffney came off as a desperate, nasty scumbag. NOT because of his political views (well… okay, imo, his views don’t bode well) but because he went there.
There isn’t a decent parent in this world (well… maybe Alan Keyes) who would side with Gaffney over their child. He should have known better.
I’d like to see him tell his pal Cheney that he (Cheney) must be very ashamed of his daughter. Now that would be a fun show.
He wouldn’t dare!
“Fake son”? THAT is shameless. Thanks for indicating to all adopted children that they are not “real” children — and to all adoptive parents that they are not “real” parents.
But it would be interesting to see what Michael Reagan, who actually attempts to keep his father’s legacy alive rather than destroy it like little Ronnie wants to do, would have to say vis-a-vis the Gaffney comments.
Given that Cheney was the voice of moderation on gay issues in the Bush Administration, we all know that any negative comment would be slapped down hard.
Reagan might not be ashamed of his son, but on the other hand I do believe that Reagan would be ashamed of the positions taken by his son.
You’ve already weighed in, knot-a-dem. You have no right to speak of shame.
Really, pandora? What is shameful about saying that a parent might be ashamed of the words or actions of a child, even if he/she still loves the child and is not ashamed of them? Have you never been ashamed of the words or actions of one of your children? Is it your position that a parent must embrace everything their child does, says, or believes — even if it stands in utter opposition to the beliefs of the parent and their life’s work?
And regardless of whether or not you agree with my point above, are you indicating that you agree with the notion that adopted kids are not “real children” and that those who adopted them are not “real parents”? If so, I urge you to drop to your knees and pray to the loving deity of your choice for forgiveness.
I don’t believe in any deity. And where are you getting the adopted thing? I have never made such a distinction. And, no matter what goes on between a parent and a child there is no room for a stranger to butt in.
Since you ask, pandora, try here in the comments for the adoption thing:
Comment by JustTheFacts on 23 October 2009 at 12:53 pm:
Reagan’s fake son is the conservative, right? So, he’s cool with Gaffney.
Apparently the finely honed sense of what is shameful that you liberals have regarding the words of your opponents does not extend to the much more offensive words of your allies.
And here’s Knotty with more of his fake outrage. You have room to criticize shameful words when you can do so for your pals Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest.
Until then, you are definitely in the top 5 conservative hypocrites posting here.
BTW, RWR, how many names will you be posting under here?
I’m not RWR. I was directed here by by him some weeks ago when he nominated you folks for an award for one of your posts, and I have been lurking here ever since. I’ve just started commenting here since you banned him for daring to state inconvenient truths on comment threads.
Still, I do find it interesting that none of you are willing to criticize shameful words from your own liberal allies here on your own blog. And I find nothing shameful about anything said by Limbaugh or Hannity, nor are their words the topic on this thread.
But then again, cassandra, you lost all credibility as a blogger and commentator when you announced that you don’t care if folks use lies to destroy your political opponents like Rush Limbaugh.
And incredibly enough, not one of you has bothered to offer a single word of criticism about an attack on adoptees and their families right here in your own comments. Is that a sign that you people really believe that adopted kids are somehow not real children, and that the parents who adopt them are not real parents? Is it one more proof that the only choice you people here support is the choice to abort?
Which drug addict radio host was duped by the Obama thesis hoax?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm
BTW here is my abortion policy. If I were around when Rush’s mother was knocked up the drunk loser who got on her – I would have supported her right to have an abortion to the point of performing it with rusty garden implements.
And I find nothing shameful about anything said by Limbaugh or Hannity
And with this, you’ve declared yourself to be a gullible idiot. There are plenty of places on the web where folks like you can share your gullibility and your wingnut idiocy. Here we’ll just know that you aren’t worth taking seriously.
And while I’m at it — abortion is not the topic of this thread and nor is adoption. No one cares what another of the gullible idiots has to say about either. Nor does anyone here find the credibility pronouncements of a Rush Limbaugh-believing fool hiding behind a raft of pretty darned silly pseuds to of any interest, either.
In other words, you don’t want to deal with the topic at hand.
And as for the Obama thesis thing, it is rather silly that people got fooled by it. Except, of course, that it is so damned consistent with things Obama has ACTUALLY SAID.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/debunking-the-obama-thesis-hoax-uh-he-did-say-those-things-.html
And by the way, cassandra, you are making an assumption about my position on Limbaugh and Hannity. The mere fact that I don’t find their words to be shameful does not mean that I agree with them. That is YOUR assumption, and is consistent with your stated belief that you don’t care about and are supportive of lies made regarding your political opponents.
Cassandra: You are half right. Abortion is not a topic on the thread. However, attacks upon families and the parent/child relationship are a topic of the thread, as per pandora. As such, when someone starts declaring adopted children to be fake children, that goes AND NO ONE OBJECTS TO IS, it would appear to be right on topic.
So you are still a gullible idiot. That hasn’t changed. And whatever high dudgeon you get up doesn’t much matter since you aren’t much bothered by the daily and lucrative distastefulness put forward by your party each and every day.
And if you have issues with attacks on people’s families — take it up with the person who made the comment you’ve got your manufactured outrage on for. The rest of us don’t particularly care. And neither do you, except that you think you’ve something to get your poutrage on for.
So come back as one more pseud and tell us how you feel. We won’t care then, either.
Why do you even respond to these nit wits?
Thanks for admitting that you have no decency, cassandra. And for indicating that you feel no need to take on the shamelss statements that appear on your own blog made by your own allies.
But then again, having admitted that you traffic in and support lies about your political opponents, why would anyone with a bit of sense believe you if you did denounce such attacks on families?
I don’t know why I comment here, at this blog run by nitwits, Jason. At least you had the good sense to get out with your integrity intact.
The weirdest part of this Gaffney (who?)/ Reagan tiff is the “in loco parentis” attitude Gaffney has toward a middle-aged man.
It makes more sense to say: Ronald Reagan would never have approved of your position. This “your daddy would be shamed” business is quite odd, and quite revealing of the attitudes of Mr. Gaffney.
Thanks? Coming from you, I think that means I have no integrity what-so-ever.
Sorry Liz. The comment above is my last response to anything written by a self confessed nutbag.
To DL Editors,
I’d just ban these Republican turds. Arguing about Rush Limbaugh and abortion? So 2001. They bring nothing to the table and the election season is nigh.
(Knot-a-Dem, Nigh is another word for near. )
Jason330, they think their witty, they think their smart, but I just look at them with pity.
Oh, come on. The phony sanctimony by the newest Texas troll without anything better to do is the best laugh I had on this rainy Saturday…
Pity? Fuck that; it’s more like astonishment.
As in “They still make people like you?”.
This line of “attack” has been pretty consistent: on a thread about subject A, some liberal uses words in a sardonic, sarcastic or allegorical manner. Then, a conservative comes onto the thread, horribly wounded by said use of language, and makes that use of language the whole thread.
It’s amazing how wounded they get over any use of the word “abortion”, for instance, when they didn’t get wounded over the suggestion — made on the floor of congress — that the President’s mother might have chosen to abort him. It’s amazing how wounded they get over a perceived slight against adoption, when they don’t get wounded over pregnancy being an uncovered pre-existing condition in many free-market health insurance policies.
These aren’t examples from thin air; each of these has been a discussion on this blog.
The outrage is very faux. Very calculated. Very cold.
And very routine on these threads.
…and is most often directed at the female bloggers here, by the way. The vendictive, rancor and nasty personal language is not as often directed at the male bloggers.
Undoubtedly a coincidence.
/snark off
No, it is simply that you ladies are more manly than your male co-bloggers.
just, wow.
and creepy.
Creepy, perhaps, but not a denial.