Friday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Thursday's numbers: Bill-Beck-Sean 1-2-3.
Shuster banned from Twitter? SotU chart.
CNN makes #1 in something! Obama Olbergasm.
Beck is really #1? Haiti's heroes. Hasty cut-off?
Trust verified. Dems for Dobbs. Reich's time machine.
Twitter-happy CNN. CNBC profits. Hotline after dark.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. fox news cable
Blackflon
The Looney Ladies at the Hen House are all over O'Reilly(did I just say that?) for complaing about Nancy Pelosi "popping up and down" at the SOTU speech.
Bill O’Reilly Obsessively Smears Nancy Pelosi Over State Of The Union SpeechReported by Ellen - Thu 3:28 PM
Ellen calls it sexism.
And then you get this from the dog washers.
mj - the same one<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
"Could it be Billo is guilty himself of bashing Pelosi because he fancies her?"
Could be, Count. Look at Laura Ingraham -- as much as she complains about Obama, its rather obvious that she wants him to do her .
Pegleg Peggy - Coffee Drinker<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
Having said that I can remember watching Nancy Pelosi during a speech Pres. Obama gave last year, jumping out of her seat at every third word ... Up, down, up, down... It looked like she was sitting on a space hopper rather than a chair. At one point she was halfway to sitting down and had to spring up again before her butt even hit the seat. It was pretty funny...
There are plenty more examples of the Dirty Dogs "sexism". It just goes to show what kind of person Ellen really is for allowing this on her site.
But maybe we should cut her a break. After all she has cried about Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity.
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/15/hannity_colmes_spends_full_hour_smearing_obama_via_his_pastor.php
Ellen got all weepy when Boortz and Hannity called out Obama on his Marxist leanings.
Poor baby.
January 29, 2010, 8:26:55 AM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Obviously Reich just throws up a few memes using his usual suspects and callls that analysis.
He doesn't even apologize for getting it wrong.
What a sorry excuse for a teaching professor.
January 29, 2010, 9:22:17 AM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
Maybe Reich was living under a rock for the past few years-idiot
January 29, 2010, 9:46:06 AM EST – Like – Reply
keyboard jockey
Imus In The Morning, Fox Business News, has been updating us all week on Harold Ford Jr's bid for the New York Senate Seat.
Is Harold Ford Jr A Gutless Weasel? Does A Bear Go In The Woods?
January 29, 2010, 11:44:15 AM EST – Like – Reply
JC in OC
Proof positive that the Republican Party is run by time lords.
January 29, 2010, 12:05:10 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
Blackfon: My favorite recent comment at NewsB* website was can be found in Julie's stupid column about J$ and reputable polling companies. Count (don't remember the name) said that J
January 29, 2010, 12:09:12 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
I don't get why my entire comment was not posted so I will try again.
J$ 's site is loved by admitted pedophiles. From which reputable polling company did he draw that information? He doesn't say. Yet we know that Julie is a stickler for having your assertions backed up by a reputalbe poling company (whether germane to a reputbale polling companies' normal activities or not). This welcoming/non-deletion of this comment demonstrates once again the abject hypocrisy, stupidity, and moral banruptcy of the Newshounds (female dogs) website.
--Edited by Siteowner: I put a space between the $ and the apostrophe and seems to have blocked whatever glitch is causing this problem. Moral: do not follow a $ with an apostrophe!
January 29, 2010, 12:16:44 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Just goes to show how stupid some of those hounds can be. "J$ 's site is loved by admitted pedophiles admitted pedophiles"? And this Count knows this.....how? Was the Count attending a Pedophile Anonymous meeting and his fellow members commented about liking J$P?
January 29, 2010, 1:08:59 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
OK I give up.
January 29, 2010, 12:17:36 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Danny, looking at the insides of what you're trying to post I get the notion (just a guess on my part) that typing J followed by a dollar sign and an apostrophe does something weird to the comment and sends the rest of it off into the ether.
Try reposting your thoughts avoiding that string of characters and maybe it'll work.
January 29, 2010, 12:36:19 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
The psychopaths over at the Hideious Hen House havn't even seen the Tebow ad and are already whining just so they can attack O'Reilly.
Bill O’Reilly Burnishes His Anti Choice Creds By Defending Tebow AdReported by Priscilla - Fri 12:02 PM
January 29, 2010, 12:37:58 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
so now the hounds are bashing fpeople who are for life? what a bunch of sick morons-Why doesnt the group that is against the ad buy some air time and show one of their own?
January 29, 2010, 1:59:07 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
If this were an ad about a woman having an abortion and telling her story the Hounds would be saying what a wonderful ad it was.
Mrs. Tebow made a choice. Apparently the Bombastic Blowhards at News Hounds are for choice only when an abortion is involved. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
January 29, 2010, 6:02:40 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Let's try, J
January 29, 2010, 12:46:15 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Excellent detective work J$. I tried the J$ followed by an apostrophe, then some text. Everything from the $ on did not post.
January 29, 2010, 12:47:55 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Fox News Has a “Brain Room”? Who Knew!?Reported by Alex - January 29, 2010 - Comments Poor Alex. Must be taking lessons from littlejohnt on stupidity.Alex claims that Obama was correct about foreign corporations and political donations. She bases her belief on a quote from a disenting justice.I know how they hate facts at the Hen House but here it is.http://cnsnews.com/news/article/60660They make it sooooo easy.
January 29, 2010, 12:46:55 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
This particular article (parroted from Media Matters) is especially stunning in its moronic stupidity. To determine the effect of a ruling, don't go to the majority--which happens to be THE LAW. No, go to the dissent, which is NOT the law and is exactly what its name says: a dissenting OPINION. Opinions are like...well, I'm not going into that old saw. But a dissenting opinion does not prove anything wrong, and has no more effect than the opinion of Freddie at the Corner Bar, because neither is the law. In fact, Freddie's opinion might just be more pertinent, because at least it hasn't been rejected by the Supreme Court, like the dissenting opinion has been. The dissent is not only not the law, it's also been flat-our rejected. Just when you thought the mongrels couldn't be any dumber...
January 29, 2010, 12:53:56 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
but if the basset hounds want to start accepting the dissenting opinion as the rule of law, perhaps they want to revisit Roe v. Wade.
January 29, 2010, 12:57:50 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
newshounds=newswhiners
January 29, 2010, 2:00:19 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
What would the poor Hounds do without Media Matters and Think Progress as their sources.
The only thing that seems original over there is their hate.
January 29, 2010, 6:04:27 PM EST – Like – Reply
Grammie
While reading your link to "reich time machine" at Big Journalism I noticed that they have a statement by James O'Keefe telling his side of the story:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/3643
His account is totally consistent with the FBI Affidavit and he rightly points out that the same media (can you say MSNBC, WaPo?) that has insisted that he is NOT a journalist have their own explaining to do about their smea, uh reporting, of the incident.
January 29, 2010, 3:50:58 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
Re: Obama Olbergasm: Nothing but spin for two hours
Re: Shuster: I don't think he was banned-maybe taking a break from twitter. We have to look at his twitter history to see if there was a period of time where he didnt do any "tweeting"-nobody will but its just a thought
January 29, 2010, 6:46:02 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
one more note, its only been two days
January 29, 2010, 6:47:11 PM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
Hi again,
I read Alex's piece - twice - and nowhere did he or she say that the rule of law is in the opinion.Your (J$) reasoning is backasswards and sideways, and as Alex said over on his/her thread, sophistic - and I dont think he or she meant that as a compliment. And since you brought up Roe, can you point out to me any time you have taken Fox News to task for implicity supporting the minority opinion on that? That knife cuts both ways, honey.
And for Blackflon, of all people, to call "sexism" on anyone is nothing short of bizzare. And Blackie, hon, just because a person tells a story about Pelosi, who happens to be female, doesn't make it sexist. Howzabout pointing out exactly what Peggy said in her story that was sexist? Or are you reading sexual innuendo into it, hmmmm? Quelle suprise!
Kissy,
~~ Foxy ~~
January 29, 2010, 7:35:40 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
You and Alex are entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your own laws. It's not just "Fox News" who sez the President is in error. You'll also find that at the Huffington Post, the NY Times (or WaPO I forget which) and multiple other sources. Do you know what all of them have in common that distinguishes them from Alex? They read the ruling. They didn't parrot idiocy from Media Matters. They didn't cite the dissent (!) in a case to prove what the ruling said. They cited the ruling.
Let's be honest. Alex's piece is simply Alex's rewriting of Media Matters profoundly stupid analysis, with Alex tossing in some juvenalia to appeal to the intellect of newshound readers. You want to know what the decision says? You read the ruling. Citing the dissent is like turning to Sean Hannity to find out what Rachel Maddow said. It's ignorant, dumb, and just plain stoooopid. And that says something about the people who fall for it.
January 29, 2010, 7:52:02 PM EST – Like – Reply
RICHARD SCHLOSSER
Chris
I don't take anything from Media Matters seriously anymore-they cherry pick everything, so doesnt the newshounds. There are things I don't like about Fox News, but I won't flat out lie about it-unlike others
January 29, 2010, 7:59:52 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Mr Bill just nailed Media Matters in his TPM.
January 29, 2010, 8:04:36 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
just saw that. I wonder if MM will attack rapper Lupe Fiasco
January 29, 2010, 8:09:00 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
that name does sound like it could be made-up, but its not-video proves it
January 29, 2010, 8:12:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Mike C.
And I linked to that TPM in my Bold Fresh blog post. I'd embed, but FOXNews.com doesn't have script for embedding to WordPress.
January 29, 2010, 10:33:26 PM EST – Like – Reply
ramjet
It's funny how certain phrases shake loose memories long ago stashed away in deep crevices far from the light and out of reach, sort'a like post-it notes buried under old and dirty clothes in the hinterland of a teenager's closet. "Foreign donations" and "political campaigns" are two such shakers.
Vague memories of Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung making deleveries to the Clinton White House and DNC, Algore and the Temple of Doom.
January 29, 2010, 8:58:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Grammie
Thank you, Ramjet.
I've been thinking about that since last night but just couldn't remember the names.
No wonder the Libs are so upset. They're afraid if it's made legal (which is a smole screen, anyway) they'll lose their advantage when the Repubs get in the game too.
January 29, 2010, 9:20:28 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
And remember Al Gore saying "There is no controlling authority" over and over again.
January 30, 2010, 7:24:33 AM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
Replying to Johnny Dollar from last night:
Oooooh, Johnny, I just love it when you get all hot and bothered!
Now listen honey, I just had a look around and found this very interesting blog, SCOTUSblog, with this article: Commentary: Alito vs.Obama: Who's Right? Now, it looks to me like those folks know what they're talking about. You can read about the author of the article, Lyle Denniston here and here. You should go have a look at his article. One thing Mr. Denniston reports is,
The early indications, from a flurry of activity in Congress and among groups that favor limits on campaign finance, is that the first attempt to pass new legislation will focus on foreign corporations. For example, Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, on Thursday became one of the first to introduce such a bill (his office’s press release discussing the measure is here). One of the more active lobbying groups in the campaign finance field, Democracy 21, is also promoting that initial approach, as are other groups.
The debate that now seems to be getting under way in Congress will focus on just how far a ban on foreign money should go. Sen. Franken, for example, said that nothing in present federal law “explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates.”
It thus appears that new legislation, if passed, would reach American entities of some definition. And, presumably, if those entities have an existence under U.S. law (such as state corporation law), they might have the same First Amendment rights that the Court recognized in Citizens United for purely American companies. It is likely, therefore, that there will be future tests in U.S. courts on the constitutionality of the new post-Citizens United legislation.
Now, if you read Alex’s piece honestly and without malicious intent (ha) you would see that she wrote “we can safely assume that they [the dissenting Supremes] have good reason to believe that a back door may have been opened wide for campaign funding by foreign-controlled U.S companies.” Patriotic Americans, including four Supreme Court Justices, are worrying about the effects of stealth foreign financial influence on elections, and you're sneering? Shame on you. I can just imagine the outrage at this place if the shoe was on the other foot.
January 30, 2010, 6:13:37 PM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
(continued)
Your examples notwithstanding – and we could have a “cite my supporting source” contest until the cows come home - it appears that Alex, I, and the dissenters have company among those of our lawmakers (and Franken is not alone by any means) who seem to feel that new laws are necessary to ensure that the back door remains firmly shut.
Yes, the opinion of the majority is the basis for law. Like DUH, honey! Is that supposed to be profound?
Your "argument" boils down to “tough sh*t, this is the decision, too bad if you (or Alex) don’t like it – you’re all stupid, anyway." Talk about juvenilia! Maybe that goes down well with your little fan club here but its not the type of "argument" I would expect from someone who seems to consider himself intelligent. You get a D minus, Doll!
Laws frequently need further interpretation and necessitate the creation of more laws. They can also be overturned, as you well know. Even supreme court decisions. Law is not necessarily good law, in either the practical or the moral sense (and we should leave morality out of this argument), or even proper interpretation of earlier law. “Rule of law” is not necessarily just or democratic. As I learned in college, rule of law is a necessary but not sufficient condition for democracy. I think this is where the dissenting opinion plays an important role in giving first voice, on the record, to potential flaws in a ruling.
Re: your bitching about Alex supposedly rewriting the Media Matters piece, s/he gave their links and the H/T to them for it, which was the right thing to do, but included a lot more, snark aside, including a link to an explanation of why corporate bodies are considered “persons”. Alex did something which you do not do, which is write a researched opinion piece (and the links show research aside from Media Matters), and tried to educate people about the underlying issue. For YOU to complain about Alex borrowing from Media Matters when you run a site that consists of nothing but links to other people’s work and videos created by other people is hilarious!!!
And exactly HOW do you know that Alex didn’t read the ruling? It was an opinion piece, not a term paper, so there was no need to quote the ruling. Alex linked to it and that was enough.
Now that’s enough of that. Toodles, Toots – it’s Saturday evening, and my stilettos want to hit the dance floor.
Kissy,
~~~Foxy~~~
January 30, 2010, 6:18:19 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"Alex, I, and the dissenters have company among those of our lawmakers (and Franken is not alone by any means) who seem to feel that new laws are necessary to ensure that the back door remains firmly shut."
That's nice, but the Supreme Court decision didn't even deal with that law. The law that you are talking about is exactly the same now as when it was passed. You're talking about a hypothetical, possible change in the law sometime in a time-galaxy far far away. And no matter what you, Alex, or her ghost-writers may "feel", she wrote that Fox was 'wrong', when they weren't. They said what the ruling held, and said it accurately. The fact that someone else doesn't like the ruling, and thinks that maybe in some undetermined future it might affect something else, is an opinion. You can't say Fox is wrong because of somebody else's opinion. Is that difficult to comprehend? And all the speculation, and hypothesizing from dissenting justices (!) doesn't change that. She lied in claiming that Fox was wrong, and she is responsible for her words.
"For YOU to complain about Alex borrowing from Media Matters when you run a site that consists of nothing but links to other people’s work and videos created by other people is hilarious!!! "
And now you too have lied. I expect you to retract that statement and admit you are wrong if you wish to continue to comment here. Unless of course you can prove that statement to be true, which would be tantamount to proving that water isn't wet.
January 30, 2010, 6:34:13 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
I went out to lunch with a co-worker and a former co-worker on Friday and we talked about this decision by the surpreme court. McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002, the supreme court over ruled that and now we are back to where we were BEFORE 2002. So we can look at all the elections before 2002 to see how Corpations spent MOney. Corps are out to MAKE Money, they would not be so stupid enought to Blow all the money on one or more Cantidates. This is Free Speech-But because its speech that Obama and his followers don't like it should be censored. Am I right in the Fact that Corprations can NOT directly give money to the canidate of their choice?
January 31, 2010, 11:19:49 AM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
You are correct. This is about corporations, groups of individuals etc buying ads and such, and the restriction of doing so within 60 days of an election. At one point the government attorney argued to the court that they had the right to ban books that came out within 60 days of an election if they decided it was improper political advocacy by a corporation, union, or group of individuals.
Yes, the government actually thought it had the right to ban books. It is no great surprise that such an un-American idea was overturned by the court.
January 31, 2010, 11:26:36 AM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
Thanks.
January 31, 2010, 11:44:23 AM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
Oh, here are the links for the first paragraph.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/commentary-alito-vs-obama-whos-right/
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=192
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_Denniston
January 30, 2010, 6:33:50 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Here's some Fox hater trivia for you. The comments in this thread about Alex's brainless interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling sat for awhile, but things changed when little john t made an issue of them over at the dog pound. When he did, "Alex" posted about coming over here and reading the comments, while tossing in a few lies about my personal life. What's fascinating is that just one hour after "Alex" posted over there, "Foxy Lady" posted over here. Or to put it another way, "Foxy" had nothing to say about what was written here until someone pointed it out to "Alex".
January 30, 2010, 7:50:04 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Why isn't Alex smart enough to confine her plans to private email? And why does Foxy Lady find it necessary to do a bad imitation of Fran Drescher?
January 30, 2010, 8:13:15 PM EST – Like – Reply
Grammie
Geesh, Johnny, be a gentleman and put the Foxy Whatever (somehow "Lady" just doesn't say Her) in touch with a publisher.
She is obviously a frustated author who will subject anyone to her drivel. When desparate for something to read I've been known to pull out prescription inserts. But that I couldn't even get halfway thru the first one.
January 30, 2010, 9:34:23 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Alex was wrong. They know it. We know it. Anyone with 2 ounces of common sense knows it. They can spin all they want. But, Hey, they are the Hounds. What would you expect.
January 31, 2010, 7:55:15 AM EST – Like – Reply
