1/18/10 12:31 PM

Fox Haters Week in Review

Stupidity, duplicity, and the biggest racial slur of them all. It's a dog-eat-dog world in the latest action-packed edition of Fox Haters Week in Review!

Stupid Is As Stupid Does
The rantings of the newshounds are starting to resemble a poor remake of Dumb and Dumber. There's just no rational explanation for the outbreak of rampant imbecility. We've always known that Priscilla doesn't exactly have the sharpest bark in the pound, but even by their sub-prime standards you have to wonder how someone can suggest that judicial rulings are suddenly off-limits:

One would think that Bill, being a good conservative, would let individual states deal with judicial issues. But because Bill is our big daddy, or is it pope, or is it God, he feels it is his duty to right the wrongs across the land.
Yes you read that right. Prissy is of the opinion that judicial rulings should not be scrutinized, or even reported on, if they are in "individual states". Now on the stupidity scale that is just one or two ticks away from "nobody cares about what happens in England, this is America, report on what happens here moron." But Priscilla doesn't follow her own advice, and proceeds to explain why giving probation to someone who sexually abused and molested a child for ten years, starting at age five--why, that's a good thing!:
Bill, who doesn’t understand Missouri sentencing guidelines continued: “he feels he’s entitled to put a dangerous man…you can walk around free…” Bill didn’t note that if this man violated his probation he goes back to jail.
Well, Prissy's got a real point there. Wait for him to rape another five-year-old girl, and then put him away. Why punish him for what he did already when you can give him a chance to do it again--that's the ruling from Priscilla's Court.

No brighter, but more dishonest, is the Alex report on Glenn Beck's Vaporub crying. Alex claims that Glenn Beck is known for crying, and "this video shows how he does it". Which is a lie. Because the video has nothing to do with the times he has cried on live television, with HD cameras zoomed in on his face. "Alex" doesn't tell you this, but the video has been around for months. The newspoodles didn't make much out of it back in June, when Gawker first published it. Perhaps that's because Gawker reported that the whole idea was the photographer's:
"The crying was my idea, and Glenn was cool with trying it," Greenberg says. "We used mentholated balm to make his eyes tear up naturally. From then on it was acting on his part. He had fun with it and was a great sport."
So you mean this video has nothing to do with Beck's tv program? It doesn't "show how he does it"? Like we said, that was another hound lie.

And don't think that Queen Bee Ellen Brodsky is going to escape scrutiny in this compendium of arrogant ignorance. She erupted in outrageous outrage because O'Reilly asked for an investigation into ACORN registrations in Minnesota:
O'Reilly made two baseless assumptions here... First, he assumed that all 43,000 people ACORN registered had actually voted. Additionally, he assumed that at least 312 of those registrations were not only fraudulent but that they had resulted in fraudulent votes.
Ellen must really think her readers are ignoramuses (and she may have a point) because just one paragraph above, she quotes O'Reilly:
O’Reilly called for Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty “to take a look at it” and “go over all 43,000 ballots… and see if these people actually voted…. If they were alive at the time.”
How can Ellen claim that O'Reilly assumed that all 43,000 "had actually voted" when she just quoted him asking to investigate "if these people actually voted"? Ellen is so blind to think that people will believe her lie and forget about O'Reilly's actual words. After all, they are one whole paragraph away.

Is the Proper Term 'Congenital'?
Patterns are a wonderful thing. They are especially probative in legal cases, as they tend to show purpose, motive, a common scheme or plan. In short, they can disprove more benign explanations like ignorance, error, or coincidence. And then there are links: used in website posts to direct the reader to further background, or documentation/proof of a claim, suggestion, or proposal. Ellen Brodsky tells us about a dastardly Fox News plot regarding "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings, who years ago as a teacher counseled a student about a relationship with someone he met in a bus station rest room: make sure you use a condom! The controversy was over the age of the student (15 would have been under the age of consent), so Ellen sought to make her case in this fashion:
Today, there is some discrepancy as to whether or not the student was of legal age or not (Jennings originally said the student was 15 but now says he was 16)
In fact, the "now says" link is a phony, at least insofar as what it purports to prove. The linked article, from that bastion of impartial reportage Media Matters, has nothing whatsoever about Jennings now saying the student was 16. In fact, digging through the links in the linked article turn up no such statement by Jennings. It appears that claim was created out of thin air by Ellen Brodsky.

And then there's another post by Ellen ("co-authored" by "Brian") with this screaming headline:
Cavuto Calls On A Congressman Who Praised Joe Wilson To Attack Alan Grayson
Brodsky attacked Rep Tom Price, with some special venom toward Neil Cavuto for not telling his audience how Price had praised Joe Wilson:
Cavuto not only didn’t challenge Price, he also failed to tell the “we report, you decide” network’s viewers that Price had overtly praised Wilson’s act.... There was no challenge from Cavuto about the lack of respectful debate that has poured forth from the other side, not to mention right there on the Fox News Channel. "You argue that it's just bad form, much as Democrats argued that Wilson telling the President he's a liar was bad form, right?" Cavuto asked. “Sure,” Price said, feigning agreement that Wilson had acted improperly. But in fact, Price had praised Wilson’s tactics.
We followed Brodsky's link, and it took us to this statement from Rep Price:
It doesn’t take a majority to prevail, but an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. Thank you so much for setting those brush fires.
That blog got the statement from this blog, which headlined:
Tom Price praises Joe Wilson
Does this start to look a little incestuous? One blue blog cites another blue blog, which got its story from yet another blog? And none of them links to the actual source of Rep Price's quote! It took us five minutes with The Google to find the original source for this quote. Would you be surprised to learn that Rep Price was not praising Joe Wilson? That contrary to Ellen's allegation he did not "praise Wilson's tactics"? The statement Brodsky based her article on was Rep Price speaking to a rally of tax protesters, thanking them for their efforts. He wasn't talking to Joe Wilson. He wasn't talking about Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson wasn't even there.

Once again, Brodsky concocts an entire posting around a falsehood. A deliberate deception or just another in an interminable string of "mistakes"? Remember, just two weeks ago Ellen pulled the same thing: she called Hannah Giles a liar and cited a police report as her proof. Yet as we demonstrated, the police report actually said the opposite of what Brodsky claimed. That false report still stands, with no update, no correction, no statement of the truth. And so we're back to patterns again. Ellen repeatedly posts untruths, and supports her falsehoods with links whose evidence proves to be either phony or nonexistent. What do the patterns tell you?

Beneath Contempt:
It's never an easy task to identify the most repellent disgrace of the week. An article that uses "teabag" no less than eleven times is certainly notable if only to document the intellectual level of the discourse that pervades the Fox haters echo chamber. But we have bigger fish to fry, which is why we ask: have you ever seen a school fight? Most people have. A couple of students carry their disagreements too far and fisticuffs or worse ensue. Not a pleasant thing, but not like a vicious murder either.

But don't tell that to Ellen Brodsky. Here is her headline:
Hannity Uses School Fight As “Proof” Chicago Should Not Hold Olympics
What is the "school fight" Ellen is talking about? It's the one involving Derrion Albert, the 16-year-old honor student who was beaten to death with railroad ties. No, this didn't happen at a school, despite what Ellen wants you to think. And it wasn't a "fight" either; it was a brutal, murderous attack by a gang of thugs armed with 2x4s, against a 5'7" defenseless boy who just happened to be walking by at the wrong time. Read the full report on this ugly incident. Then ask yourself just how twisted Brodsky must be to insult the victim and his family by dismissing this as a "school fight", just to feed her insatiable, deviant hatred of Fox News.

Finally, another favorite meme of the mongrels continues apace. Fox Nation promotes vile racism. Fox Nation allows racist comments. Most recently the bowsers brought us the wonderfully original observation that Fox Nation is a racist website. We're encouraged that the newspoodles have suddenly discovered the corrosive evil of racist language, but would suggest that they get the beam out of their eye first. The following comments were all approved for publication by the newshounds and are still online months, even years after posting [warning: includes hateful racist language]:
  • That Steele fellow looks like a big black crow, feeding off Obama for his own selfish reasons. He is positioning him self [sic] as the trusted nigger to, strenghten his own ambitions. I would not trust someone like him, just looking at him give [sic] me the creeps.
  • all i can say is amrstrong [sic] is a house nigger, white man's boy, johnny shoeshine,oreo, thomas clone.
  • as soon as F&F got started this morning, they had their two "blacks for pay", just to get the Obama smearfeast stated, a shameful jerk from a radio station, and house nigger Jaun [sic] Wlliams.
Why do the newshounds keep allowing racist comments? Why do they continue to promote vile racism?

Spot something you'd like to see in the next Fox Haters Week in Review? Send us an email!




Ashley
Johnny - thanks for another great installment of FHWiR. The hounds sure kept you busy this week, what a bunch of liars and bigots some of them are. The fact that she downplayed someones brutal murder as a simple school fight, and then exploited that in an effort to attack FNC, just goes to show how low they can sink. That twist of the truth is truly sickening.
 
Thanks for you hard work here J$.
October 4, 2009, 8:15:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply


chris
I see the news liars are living up to their name..........again.
October 4, 2009, 8:43:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
Esoteric question: If KO has become irrelevant, what does that make the Hounds of Liarsville?
October 4, 2009, 9:02:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply


cornycob
I think Terry Keenan is out at FNC. Her picture is nowhere to be found on the Cost of Freedom page at foxnews.com:
 
http://www.foxnews.com/freedom/index.html
October 4, 2009, 9:47:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply


nipigon1
ramjet,
 
Why would you assume that Hounds of Liarsville would be dependant on Countdown?
October 4, 2009, 10:02:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


badbilly
Great work Johnny! The hounds already seem very angry by their posts. But, I wonder just how pi$ed they get when they read your weekly Fox Haters Week in Review? To see all their "hard work" destroyed in just a few paragraphs.
October 4, 2009, 10:05:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Jaynie59
The liberal practice of linking to articles that don't prove anything, or are the opposite of their points, is a common one.
 
Yes, they're stupid. That's a given. But they are also the laziest bunch of imbeciles who manage to make enough money to afford computers and an internet connection. Most of the liberals who read other liberals would never bother to click on the links to read it. Why should they? They believe everything another liberal says so why take the time and make such a huge effort? What are you, crazy?  
 
During the 2004 election one liberal moron I knew from a message board was very fond of posting the running tally of Iraqi civilian deaths. She always linked to the web site that had the total. Outrage always followed, of course, at all these senseless deaths caused by Bush and our blood thirsty American military.
 
Every time she posted it I would reply and point out that the web site was counting ALL unnatural deaths including road side bombs (which killed our guys too), random shootings, stabbings, car accidents, and even drownings.
 
They didn't care. Liberals won't click on links from other liberals, and they won't believe anything any conservative says.

Edited By Siteowner
October 5, 2009, 7:06:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
I'm going to venture a guess here and say that Miss Ellen, the Liar in Chief, will send her Dog Washer, BusterboyT, out on the attack over at Reddit.
 
BusterboyT will then, in his usual incomprehensible babbling, start calling people over here a bunch of names.
 
That is the best he can do because he sure can't play in the big leagues when it comes to facts and logic.
 
Let me check before I post this
------------------------------------------
 
Sure enough, BusterboyT has jumped all over this weekly post in his usual "attack the messenger" mode.
So predictable, yet so stupid.
October 5, 2009, 8:01:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply


SDdude
The hounds won't post my comments anymore, not for about the last 6 months or so. They don't like being called out for their falsehoods. Ellen let it slip that she doesn't even read my posts, just sees the IP address and doesn't post it.
 
I know she reads them tho, and I know I still get on their nerves, so everyonce in a while I'll fire something off, just to piss them off.
October 5, 2009, 9:29:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
This from BusterboyT.....
 
Those Dollarites are real dandies aren't they. Anybody with half a brain can see what Dollar does. He nitpiks a couple sentences or quotes and twist them. He never takes on the subject of the whole article because he knows NewsHounds are telling the truth about Fox, and he wouldn't be able to defend Fox like he's suppose to do. Then his sheep just lap it up and kiss his ass and bow down to their Lord and Master Dollar.
 
*********************
 
I told you so. He cannot tell us where the weekly post is wrong so he goes on the attack.
 
Come on Buster!! Man up!! Stop your whining and give us some facts.
 
Loser!!
October 5, 2009, 12:12:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Blackflon | Homepage | 10.05.09 - 12:17 pm | #  
 
That's been the tactic I've seen coming from John T since the first time I've ever heard of him. "He's knows NewsHounds are telling the truth about Fox". Yea, just as he's proving them to be liars little John. John T is completely lacking in critical thinking skills.
October 5, 2009, 12:21:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
I stand corrected about John T, because technically he is correct when he writes "Anybody with half a brain can see what Dollar does. He nitpiks a couple sentences or quotes and twist them. "
 
As John T only has half a brain, he would see the facts in his own half-brain way.
 
Bad Johnny, he "quotes" them.
October 5, 2009, 12:46:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
From Busterjohnboy...
 
Nowhere did Priscilla say or insinuated anything like that.
 
Well, ladies and gentlemen, here is the quote in Priscilla's own words.
 
"One would think that Bill, being a good conservative, would let individual states deal with judicial issues"
 
You can't fix stupid.
October 5, 2009, 2:08:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Grammie
I just read this blog at the kennel:
 
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/05/huckabee_fleeces_his_sheep_petition_url_redirects_to_huck_pac.php#more
 
The blogger, Alex, concluded with this:
 
"When I went to the site I entered a fake name ("Ignore Me") and fake email address, and this message:
 
Please ignore this signature - I am only testing to see what happens after I sign, since Huckabee has duped his Fox viewers into going to his PAC after telling them they were going to balancecutsave.com. Personally, I think Huckabee is full of s***, and I suspect this petition is really a way for him to gather email addresses.
 
I think I may go back and enter a real (and disposable) email addy to see what sort of crapola lands in my inbox from HuckPac and his buddies."
 
Although Alex was loathe to give the URL (lest any of the faithful take an unapproved side trip?) it is:
 
http://www.huckpac.com/?Fuseaction=Petitions.View&Petition_id=5
 
I signed the petition and left this comment, in silent honor of Alex:
 
"I signed this petition b/c the simplicity of it is the direction I want my country moving in.
 
When we have massive (1.000 plus pages) bills written and voted in before being published for the legislators who must pass judgment on it to read to say nothing of we the people, I am convinced that our long glorious republic is on life support.
 
As horrifying as I find that I am even more horrified by the thought of the tens of thousands of pages of bureaucratic regulations, all depending on bureaucratic interpretations, that will be used to implement and litigate it all.
 
I can only conclude from that that my elected leaders have gone mad with power and nothing good can come from it. "
October 5, 2009, 10:08:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Man, this Alex is elevating the newsliars to new levels of moronic stupidity. A petition is 'duping' people because of the URL it's sitting on? Geez, Huck should have used URL masking and that would've been all right with Alex?!? Redirecting URLs have suddenly become some sort of subversive trick of the eeevil interwebs? And most hilarious of all: they gather email addresses? You mean, like just about every other internet petition that wants to be taken seriously? You mean like candidate Obama gathered text addresses by the millions in making people sign up to get one of his announcements via text in the middle of the night? Were they 'duped' too? Gawd, the idiocy there has gone to '11'.
October 5, 2009, 10:16:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ramjet
nipigon1 | 10.04.09 - 10:07 pm | #  
 
Hey CanNav,
 
Good to hear from you. How ya doing?  
Re: your query. I made no assumption. I posed a question, an esoteric question at that, which presumes knowledge limited to a select or small group, or a small, select group, or even a select, small group.
 
But enough about me. Back to your q: My q has nothing to do with dependency and everthing to do with relativity, theoretically speaking.
 
MSNBC is the major cable news division of a major broadcast news division of a major broadcast television network, which is the primary division of one of the premier mass media entities that is part of a giant, multi-national corporation. Keith Olbermann is MSNBC's falling star. His viewership is plummeting faster than President Obama's approval rating for his handling of the economy....or pretty much any other big issue.  
 
There is a varitable plethora of reasons to explain Olby's decline, but I've concluded that (1) it is his message, and (2) his is a message limited to put downs, criticisms, negatives, ridicule, unfair and dishonest characterizations, distortions, lies, and other bad stuff.
 
He is but a shadow of his former self, albeit a large, round shadow. He is a faux nabob (couldn't resist it;_), who, in a desperate move to exert any influence at all, has been attacking smaller and smaller targets in his nightly diatribes. If all word ending in -ist were removed from KO's vocabulary, he wouldn't know how to talk about his chosen targets. He has become irrelevent. A condition for one of his ilk that is a fate worse than cancellation.
 
Therefor, if the MSNBC King of the Hill has fallen so far, so fast, and sooooo hard, relatively speaking, how would one describe a one-note web-site of kennel dwellers that has been relegated to invention, defamation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, equivocation, vilification, dissimulation, misrepresentation, delusion, evasion, tergiversation, illogical supposistories, idiotic whoppers, and other bad stuff.
 
What what you call being below irrelevancy?
 
Inconsequential? How 'bout moot?
October 6, 2009, 12:23:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Blackflon
ramjet | Homepage | 10.06.09 - 12:28 am | #  
 
Now you've done it. LittleBusterboy is going to go ballistic and his screeching anger will force him to post another unreadable piece of garbage.
October 6, 2009, 8:03:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzel
"An article that uses 'teabag' no less than eleven times is certainly notable if only to document the intellectual level of the discourse that pervades the Fox haters echo chamber"
 
Okay, it is a fair point to say, that using the phrase teabagger 11 times doesn't exactly contribute to a quality debate; but when someone who has used the phrase:
 
"infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann." For at least a year, while posting a link entitled "Keith Olbermann is Crap (Literally,)" on a site that photoshops Keith Olbermann and David Shuster as Batman and Robin, complains about the lack of intellectual discourse on another site, one can't help but find it... amusing.  
 
Never mind I get it. You hate them, they hate you.
October 6, 2009, 12:10:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well if you want to drag a third site into this, you're welcome to do so. I could inform you that the phrase "infamous, deplorable" is one that Olbermann uses himself to attack people he disagrees with. So if you find that it cheapens the discourse I will agree with you 100%, and suggest you go complain to Olbermann, who coined the phrase in the first place. 'K?
October 6, 2009, 12:15:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzel
" Well if you want to drag a third site into this, you're welcome to do so.
 
Why would it being a third site matter? Are you saying that using the phrase "tea-bager" 11 times
wouldn't have mattered if the author wrote it over at crooks and liars instead? it still would have been childish. and I think the same goes for what you write at Olbermanwatch
 
"I could inform you that the phrase "infamous, deplorable" is one that Olbermann uses himself to attack people he disagrees with. "
 
And you did inform me. Thank you. However, If Olbermann called people he disagreed with Mr. Poopy pants, would it make your reporting mature to call him the same back?  
 
"So if you find that it cheapens the discourse I will agree with you 100%, and suggest you go complain to Olbermann, who coined the phrase in the first place. 'K?"
 
I agree it cheapens the discourse, just like using tea-bagger 11 times does, just like posting a video of called "Olbermann as crap" does, just like photoshoping Olbermann and Shuster as batman and Robin does.  
Just like saying "Glenn Beck loves his country so much he'd cry for it does."
 
There's a lot of cheapining of the discourse going on, on both ides.  
 
You know, I get it. I have an Irish temper, myself, and I will retaliate in kind when someone acts childish to me, or my side, as my emails to Bill O'Reilly prove." I'm as guilty as anyone.  
 
Anyway, sincerely, best.
October 6, 2009, 12:55:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzel
Also, looking at my first post, I was taking a jab at you. I could have been a little nicer in the way I went about making my points. So, apologies for my own role in cheapening the discourse. 'till later.
October 6, 2009, 1:00:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"If Olbermann called people he disagreed with Mr. Poopy pants, would it make your reporting mature to call him the same back? "
 
I thought I made it clear when I agreed with you 100% that it cheapens the discourse. You pose the question above as if I had said the opposite of what I did say. I'll try it once more. Yes, it cheapens the discourse. Yes, it is immature. I said that the first time. I agree with you 100%. Again. Olbermann's tactics are cheap, immature, and and brainless, and when others use them they are still cheap, immature, and brainless.
 
What remains odd is how to some people they only become cheap, immature, and brainless when someone uses them on Olbermann. While Olby's use of them against others didn't seem to raise any hackles or objections. Bringing up stuff like "infamous, deplorable" is a tu-quoque-style fallacy. It is of course irrelevant in any logical sense (which is why it's a fallacy), so the only purpose can be to take the discussion away from the newshounds. I can understand why you would want to do that, but it doesn't make the argument any more compelling or logical. Still, appreciate your efforts!
October 6, 2009, 1:05:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


shizzel
"What remains odd is how to some people they only become cheap, immature, and brainless when someone uses them on Olbermann. While Olby's use of them against others didn't seem to raise any hackles or objections."
 
Sure, I'll agree with that, but I'd add, if newshounds refered to Bill O'Reilly as a "pinhead," every day many of your readers would take umbrage with that. , ignoring Bill's own use of the word.
 
" Bringing up stuff like "infamous, deplorable" is a tu-quoque-style fallacy. It is of course irrelevant in any logical sense (which is why it's a fallacy), "
 
Well, I think you are mistaken to say I made a tu-quoque fallacy. Had I argued your assertion that using "tea-bagger" 11 time in a post cheapens the conversation was false, because you do it as well, then I would have been guilty of the fallacy.
 
But I didn't do that. I pointed out you are being inconsistent, in standards I assume you value, by using the same tactics. This is a legitimate use of tu-quoque, and a use I'd like to point out you made in the paragrapgh above, when you argued that: "What remains odd is how to some people they only become cheap, immature, and brainless when someone uses them on Olbermann." I assume hypocrysiy is the point you are making with that.  
 
"so the only purpose can be to take the discussion away from the newshounds. I can understand why you would want to do that, but it doesn't make the argument any more compelling"
 
Well I demonstrated why I'm not guilty of the fallacy, and no part of my motivation was to distract from newshounds,  
 
I really don't care enough about newshounds to bother distracting, anyone from it. Being totally honest, with myself and everyone reading, I'd say my motivation was more of a competitive thing. Basically I wanted to challenge you to a debate and because I want to win I picked firm ground to start the debate.  
 
I guess it would be equivelent of hanging around the playground watching, someone win every game of basketball and then deciding I want to see if I could goad the playground champ into a game of one on one.
October 6, 2009, 2:09:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply