It seems the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal) have stepped into some of their own excrement. We've documented how their deliberate lies come back to bite them. Take, for example, their attempt to stir up a nonexistent controversy over an interview with Dennis Ross.
To make it look like some sort of slight, they go out of their way to refer to Ross as a "former Fox News contributor". Really, how gullible do they think we are? Do they believe no one will check his FNC bio? Even more hilarious, he's clearly identified as a "Fox News contributor" in the very video they are hawking! Warning: don't point that out or your comment, like ours, will be immediately deleted. In service to the "greater truth" no doubt.
But the case at hand appears to be more one of ignorance and arrogance than purposeful fabrication. The biased bassets finally decided to report last week's news about Brian Kilmeade's email. But that presented a problem. How to trumpet this story without crediting this site for breaking it? The solution: find a site that reported on what we reported, and credit it to them:
TVNewser reported last week that FOX and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade mistakenly hit "reply all" on an internal email, letting half of FOX News know he was dissatisfied with the amount of segments he was assigned. Also exposed was an outline of the program's structure (easily ascertained after watching for a while, I should add) that confirms the use of daily "talking points" and puts to rest Gretchen Carlson's lie that they don't get talking points.Yes, the newspoodles consider it "breaking news" that Fox & Friends has a "talking points" segment, and therefore, using Hound Logic, that proves Fox "gets talking points" from the White House. No it doesn't make a minute of sense, but that doesn't bother the kennel-dwellers:
- What a bloody shock, a Fox whore caught out in a lie, what ever next, Bush is an intellect.
- What is equally weird is that they often don't even bother to mix up the order or paraphrase which makes it all the more obvious.
- Of course Fox gets talking points.
- They exist to disseminate pro-republican talking points.
- Gretchen has not had a real thought in years. Talking points is her substitute for a brain.
DOOCY: Now Jay, we've included you in the 'talking points' because we know you do a radio show and you talk about things and politics.Funny, you would think someone who watches Fox constantly, or even "for a while", would be aware of such things. Be that as it may, the whippets' foolishness was so dazzling, so profoundly wrong-headed, that the editor of TVNewser himself took the unusual step of correcting their drivel:
So there was no Gretchen Carlson lie. There were no secret "talking points" exposed. And the newspoodles' citation of TV Newser came back to bite them. All that makes their screaming, bold-type headline that much more ironic:
Talking Points on FOX and Friends confirmed beyond reasonable doubtYeah, right. You could fill an encyclopedia with what the newsmutts don't know about Fox News. Their slogan needs an update: "We don't watch Fox so we can make up anything we damn well please about it!"
APPENDIX: Jay Thomas Fox & Friends video:
Any forum that has Satan as one of its regular posters/sycophants . . . well that should tell you something!!
July 21, 2008, 4:14:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Excellent expose on the lies of the newshounds. Well done J$!
July 21, 2008, 4:57:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
here is another mistake from the newshounds:
July 21, 2008, 6:24:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
News Hounds regulars are not capable of telling the truth. Their hate over rides what ever small amount of honesty they have.
July 21, 2008, 6:28:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
What is hilarious about the comment section is that after their source takes the trouble to correct the misrepresentation of "talking point . . . not only is the statement not retracted but the usual sycophants keep posting as if nothing had happened.
If there was ever a smoking gun to show that the folks at NH are deliberate falsifiers. . . meaning they are a bunch of abject liars. . . this is it!
Obviously, the posters and writers at Newhounds were all born ignorant, and they have been losing ground ever since.
July 21, 2008, 7:36:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
It could only have been better if Chris from TVN told the NH that he got the info from this site. They'd be happy to hear that!
Chris (above), I don't get the NH link. The picture doesn't match the article, it should be something about the word 'education'.
July 21, 2008, 8:48:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply
"Yes, the newspoodles consider it "breaking news" that Fox & Friends has a "talking points" segment, and therefore, using Hound Logic, that proves Fox "gets talking points" from the White House. "
Where did Newhound Chrish say the talking points are from the White House? I'm don't see that.
July 21, 2008, 9:08:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Here's one instance, SM.
That idea is perpetually reverberated around the doghouse.
July 21, 2008, 9:12:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> Where did Newhound Chrish say the talking points are from the White House?
I just did a quick Google search and in ten seconds I found the newsmutts claiming that a whole bunch of people were using Republican talking points: Megyn Kelly, John Gibson, Brit Hume, Bill Hemmer (!)... I can't imagine how anybody could imagine their headline was supposed to mean anything else.
July 21, 2008, 9:20:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I was referring to this particular instance where Dollar makes it sound like Newshounds said "that proves Fox "gets talking points" from the White House. " The post didn't say anything about the White House.
But thanks anyhow, Fox Fan.
July 21, 2008, 9:21:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I caught that picture thing too. But watch. Posters will keep posting without any mention of the fact that education does not appear in the picture. As bugs would say, "what a bunch of maroons"!
July 21, 2008, 9:23:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Perhaps you could tell us what it means, then. Since the newspooches have been claiming for years that Fox gets talking points from the White House and/or Republicans, what exactly was the meaning of Chrish's headline that this is proof about Fox's talking points? Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"...of what?
July 21, 2008, 9:23:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Chrish wrote the headline and the article that the white house talking points were used in the above link. Are you saying that Chrish doesn't think that FNC uses WH talking points?
July 21, 2008, 9:23:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I'm not saying she doesn't think that for sure. I'm saying that her headline and her post don't say anything about the talking points coming from the White House. Based on what Dollar wrote, it sounded like she did.
July 21, 2008, 9:27:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
It is insinuated in many of their articles, directly claimed in some, and is stated in the comments ad nauseum. It doesn't even require explicit pronouncement on that site.
July 21, 2008, 9:31:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Well certainly the commenters took her meaning to be Republican talking points. And I didn't see her correct them. And TVNewser took that as her meaning too, since he took the extraordinary step of jumping in on the comments to correct her.
But let's take your theory at face value. If she wasn't talking about Republican talking points, then what WAS she saying about the talking points? She must have been saying SOMETHING since she wrote an entire article about it. If that wasn't her point, then What WAS?
July 21, 2008, 9:31:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Maybe you should change the wording of your post to say that in the PAST Newshounds has said they think Fox gets talking points from the White House since you don't know for sure in this instance.
Maybe in this case Chrish was talking about the RNC, Ailes, Moody, McCain campaign, Rove, etc. since the words White House never appear in the NEwshounds post. Just a suggestion for accuracy sake.
July 21, 2008, 9:40:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Come on, that was surely the implication. The email was supposed to expose "Carlson's lie." And what was Carlson's lie? Well, if you trace it through the links, you find that "Carlson's lie" was that Fox people originate any talking points they use themselves.
So if that is a lie (which TVnewser denies BTW), any talking points used on the show must come from somewhere else than Fox New.
Now, NH repeatedly charges that Fox news is in the tank for the administration. And even if they weren't claiming that specifically (and I believe that they are) they obviously are claiming that the talking points come from someplace just as ominous . . . like the Republican party.
Obviously the talking points aren't coming from Satan because he is a regular sycophantic poster at Newshounds.
July 21, 2008, 9:40:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> Maybe in this case Chrish was talking about the RNC, Ailes, Moody, McCain campaign, Rove, etc. since the words White House never appear in the NEwshounds post.
All equally unsupported, false, and made up. Her piece offers no 'proof', beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise, for ANY of this.
In fact, the show rundown that was leaked makes the OPPOSITE point. All the segments were laid out with topics, guests, assignments, etc. EXCEPT the talking points segment. That was obviously left to the show hosts to develop. In other words, the exact opposite of what Chrish claimed.
So regardless of where you may want to pretend she thought the tps were coming from, fact is the show rundown proved they weren't coming from anyone other than the show hosts. Exactly what Carlson said.
I'm glad you brought this up, because you've made it even clearer that Chrish smeared Gretchen Carlson as a liar when it wasn't Gretchen who lied. It was Chrish.
July 21, 2008, 9:45:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply
"Talking Points on FOX and Friends confirmed beyond reasonable doubt"
sm, time for a shower. You've been pissin' in the wind for a while, now.
July 21, 2008, 9:52:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
It doesn't change the fact that you wrote that according to Hounds logic that "proves Fox "gets talking points" from the White House" when they never actually said anything about the White House.
Just trying to find some accuracy and truth-telling on the web but I guess it can't be found here either.
July 21, 2008, 9:56:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Isn't strange that SM is calling upon you to correct you post in the interest of accuracy when he does not call upon Chrish to change her post in the interest of accuracy?
This is puzzling since it is extremely doubtful that you were inaccurate. And if you were inaccurate it would be over an extremely minor point (like splitting hairs).
Chrish, on the other hand, was so wrong that even her own source wrote to impeach her. Yet, her post still stands . . . despite the fact that she must know by now that she was dead wrong. Chrish is either a liar or a complete idiot (and very possibly she is both).
So why is it that SM turns his attention to you? Why does SM make no attempt to get Chris to correct her blatant falsehood? Her lie!!!
July 21, 2008, 9:58:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
SM | 07.21.08 - 10:01 pm | #
Exactly the point. "using Hound Logic" speaks to what has been written hundreds of times on their website.
July 21, 2008, 10:02:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
No, not exactly the point. Dollar said "White House" when the Newshounds post did not say anything about the White House.
As I said I'm trying to find accuracy on web and this is not the place either. Guess I need to keep looking for a site that can get it accurate for a change.
July 21, 2008, 10:06:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> I'm trying to find accuracy on web
Then why would you even set foot in the newshounds kennel, whose hundreds of distortions and lies have been documented?
> they never actually said anything about the White House.
Never? Really? Well let's just look at a couple of examples, not just any newsmutt, but specifically Chrish, where she specifically states Fox's talking points come from the White House:
July 21, 2008, 10:06:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
No offense, Dollar, but I'm not talking about what was said in past posts. As I already said, I'm talking about this particular post where you made it sound like Newshounds said "White House" when they did not. Accuracy should be something you strive for otherwise you're just like all the other sites that are full of inaccuracies.
July 21, 2008, 10:11:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
sm, shower time....
July 21, 2008, 10:13:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Hey SM- http://www.aim.org/
There you go, accuracy in media.
What J$ specifically said was "using Hound Logic", which implies that you should understand the mentality of the site in question. If you don't understand the NH's history of lies and extremist bias, then you don't need to be on this comment thread.
July 21, 2008, 10:14:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> No offense, Dollar, but I'm not talking about what was said in past posts.
Well I am. This site instructs people who might be confused, bemused, fooled, or conned by the newspoodles as to the nature of their calumnies. If this includes educating folk on their legacy of fabrications and smears, then consider that a plus of visiting here.
> you're just like all the other sites that are full of inaccuracies.
Something is not an 'inaccuracy' because you decide it is. Or because it was said in a different post at a different time. We've exposed hundreds of newshounds lies. This site is the premier authority on the lies and slanders of Fox haters. We are here to educate people on what they are up to, based on our years of monitoring and study. But if you are unwilling to be educated then you are of course free to go elsewhere.
July 21, 2008, 10:15:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
It is up to Chrish to clarify what she is saying. We know she is lying and she should correct her lie. Reading talking points as coming from the administration is a fair interpretation of what she said particularly in light of what she has said in the past. If she wants to be a little less vauge, it is up to her to do so.
To object that the talking points may have come from the GOP and not the administration is splitting hairs. GOP and Bush quite often act in concert together (I am deliberately using an understatement).
July 21, 2008, 10:17:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny, SM obviously doesn't understand "Hound Logic". But then, who does?!?
July 21, 2008, 10:19:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Certainly there is a greater degree of accuracy here than at NH . . . and that is by a long shot.
July 21, 2008, 10:19:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply
With *video* proof! NHs are liars, "Outfoxed" was cheap trash and so is its offshoot.
July 21, 2008, 10:23:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
SM | 07.21.08 - 10:16 pm
Don't you know by now, over here Dollar is God and he can't be wrong ever.
July 21, 2008, 10:23:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I really don't want to. People who read too much Newshounds . . . their IQ goes into the toilet.
July 21, 2008, 10:23:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> Don't you know by now, over here Dollar is God and he can't be wrong ever.
July 21, 2008, 10:25:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan | 07.21.08 - 10:28 pm | #
john t | Homepage | 07.21.08 - 10:28 pm | #
That standard can be applied to the offfshoots of the offshoot.
July 21, 2008, 10:25:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
[message deleted for rules violation: personal attack, off-topic]
Edited By Siteowner
July 21, 2008, 10:27:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Wow, point out an inaccuracy within the post in question by the site owner and I'm told to leave or hit the showers. Even the mildest of criticism is not allowed here. I guess that's what happens when the truth is pointed out to those who prefer to run with an inaccuracy.
That was not an inaccuracy because I say it is. It is an inaccuracy because the Newshounds post does not say a word about the "White House". Sorry but it's near impossible to accept education from your site when it prefers inaccuracy. Your denial certainly doesn't help.
No, I don't know Dollar is God, John but apparently he thinks he as he doesn't like it when his mistakes are shown to him. But then, that's his problem. I'll look for truth and accuracy elsewhere as it doesn't live here.
July 21, 2008, 10:31:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
When you post stuff on the quotations page, are you trying to demonstrate how the fact that I just stated: that the intelligence level of Newshounders is in the toilet.
I ask this because you cut and pasted one of my posts there with the comment that I did not have the intelligence to know what process meant.
Are you so stupid not to realize that I was responding to the NH writers post. She invited me to process information. I responded by saying that I had processed (her word) and my mind had not changed.
Obviously, her use of the word (without even knowing what it means) demonstrates her abject stupidity.
And, you revealed your stupidity and lack of intelligence when you cut and pasted the post without even knowing where the word came from.
Obviously, you have that section of Newshounds to prove Newshounders total lack of intelligence.
July 21, 2008, 10:32:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> Even the mildest of criticism is not allowed here.
who has censored your attempts at criticism? Who has prevented you from being critical? We want to know in the interests of 'accuracy'.
> I'm told to leave
Who told you to leave? We want to know in the interests of 'accuracy'.
July 21, 2008, 10:34:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
SM | 07.21.08 - 10:36 pm
But he'll come over to the NH's and nitpick a post about the words IF or IT.
July 21, 2008, 10:34:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
But he'll come over to the NH's and nitpick a post about the words IF or IT.
john t | Homepage | 07.21.08 - 10:39 pm | #
Or the entire context of the post where all of the comments accept the lie. If or it; entire thing, what's the difference, huh john t?
July 21, 2008, 10:36:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I still fail to see the substantive inaccuracy you pointed out. It could not have been Ailes because "Carlson's lie" implies it came from somewhere else. So it might have come from the Republican Party and not the Administration. Big deal! They do tend to work together. But then she probably meant it came from the administration.
You could put anything substantive you have said in the navel of a gnat and still have plenty of room for your sincerity.
July 21, 2008, 10:37:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I still fail to see the substantive inaccuracy you pointed out. It could not have been Ailes because "Carlson's lie" implies it came from somewhere else.
Danny | 07.21.08 - 10:42 pm
Good Grief, you people's spin is amazing.
July 21, 2008, 10:42:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I was told to go shower and that I don't need to be on this comment thread. All because of I pointed out your inaccuracy.
Sorry but as I've said I'm looking for a site that deals in accuracy and truth. Instead my truth is confronted with denials. It's too much to ask for a site that calls itself a source for truth refuses to acknowledge it.
July 21, 2008, 10:42:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
But you haven't pointed out any real inaccuracy. Saying that you have when you haven't over and over again does not really impress anyone,
July 21, 2008, 10:44:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Maybe if you take a cold shower you will think more clearly than what you have so far demonstrated.
July 21, 2008, 10:45:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> I'm looking for a site that deals in accuracy and truth.
Really? You claim you're not permitted to be critical, yet you have posted one critical message after another. How is that accuracy or truth? You claim you were told to leave. I certainly didn't.
You were told "I don't need to be on this comment thread." No kidding. That stands. But does that mean I told you to leave, Mr accuracy? All of a sudden YOU'RE reading meanings into things--which you claim is not 'accuracy' or 'truth'--and then making the false claim that you haven't been permitted to speak.
I'd advise you not to make such untrue claims again.
July 21, 2008, 10:46:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Exactly, Danny. SM is focusing on everything other than our comments that show how the NHs are historically claiming that FNC is the WH T Point machine.
July 21, 2008, 10:47:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Well SM's purpose is not accuracy or truth if he's actually posting inaccurate, untrue things in this very comment thread. Plus he said he would look for his 'truth' and 'accuracy' elsewhere. We'll see if even THAT statement is true or not.
July 21, 2008, 10:48:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Word. Fox Fan, Obviously SM believes what he believes no matter what. He cannot be dissuaded by such mundane things as facts and logic.
July 21, 2008, 10:49:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I'm sure it doesn't impress anyone here. My purpose is not to impress. I showed that Dollar wrote an inaccuracy. That is a fact. The use of an inaccuracy about this particular Newshounds post is your cross to bear. Not mine. If Dollar prefers to post inaccuracies, then the site is compromised.
Sorry if the truth hurts.
July 21, 2008, 10:52:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Maybe if you would get away from Newshounds and take the red pill. . . You would be shocked to see things as their really are and not as you fancy them to be. Your intelligence might actually improve as well.
July 21, 2008, 10:53:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
This is really exciting. john t is posting here, then running over to nh forum and reporting on how I responded, then posting about it on the main blog. It's so nice to have such devoted fans.
July 21, 2008, 10:54:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
You were told "I don't need to be on this comment thread." No kidding. That stands. But does that mean I told you to leave,
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.21.08 - 10:51 pm
AWWW Look! Dollar is nitpicking more words too make it fit his purpose.
July 21, 2008, 10:56:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
"I proved that Dollar wrote the truth and that I am no lover of accuracy. That is a fact."
SM | 07.21.08 - 10:57 pm |
July 21, 2008, 10:57:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
John t, welcome to the site as the latest J$P fan! I'm glad that you have such appreciation for the truth above lies to post this site's comments over at the dishonest NHs. You're our faithful message dove!
July 21, 2008, 10:57:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.21.08 - 10:59 pm
That's funny. Since you're a big fan of NH's. You can't stay away from there can you?
July 21, 2008, 10:59:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Dictionarily, john t.
July 21, 2008, 11:00:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Sorry. But you absolutely done what you said. We have totally refuted every argument that you have made with facts and logic.
You have made no counter argument, All you have done is say the same thing over and over again like a dumb parrot. Unless you have something thoughtful to say. . . you lose. I know that repeating the same lie over and over again works and Newshounds but it does not work here,.
You will have to do better.
July 21, 2008, 11:01:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> You can't stay away from there can you?
Oh I post a correction every now and then, since I know they hate my corrections and immediately delete them. Thereby confirming that they are deliberately lying, as they did about Dennis Ross. It's helpful to establish their modus operandi.
July 21, 2008, 11:01:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan | 07.21.08 - 11:02 pm
I put it over there for what a joke this site is. You people bitch about how NH's bitching about Fox. But then you sit around and bitch about NH's all the time.
I'd call that hypocrisy.
July 21, 2008, 11:03:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Yeah it is always good for a laugh. Notice how you have been able to post here but I can't post there. Even when I am being courteous and you are being an ass (as you often are to those with whom you disagree over there).
So which site is gutless? Which site can't stand the truth or honest debate? I give you the obvious answer: IT IS NEWSHOUNDS.
July 21, 2008, 11:04:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar | Homepage | 07.21.08 - 11:06 pm
What do you mean Dollar? You were just over there to know what I did.
July 21, 2008, 11:05:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
and John t,
You even seem to be too stupid to realize that your argument against Johnny turns on itself. You spend a lot of time here.
July 21, 2008, 11:05:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny | 07.21.08 - 11:10 pm
How much time do I spend here? How much time do you call a lot?
July 21, 2008, 11:07:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Newshounds is too gutless and too cowardly to let me post over there. Even when I am far less disruptive over there than you are over here.
To stupid to debate intelligently as well.
July 21, 2008, 11:08:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I know that you post over here more than Dollar posts over there and you said that he spends a lot of time over there.
You tell me. Exactly how much time does he spend,
July 21, 2008, 11:11:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
[message deleted for rules violation: personal attack]
Edited By Siteowner
July 21, 2008, 11:12:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny | 07.21.08 - 11:16 pm
Well before I go, read my post again and try to understand it. I didn't say anything about posting.
Get a Grip.
July 21, 2008, 11:15:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Posting is all that you and I can be sure of, But, Ok forget about posting. Just tell me exactly how much time JOhnny spends over there. Your argument still turns on itself.
Get a grip yourself. Try to reason your way through what I said. I know it is difficult . . . but I am sure you'll make it if you try hard enough,
July 21, 2008, 11:21:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
So funny. You can always tell when NH gets it so right because Johnnies panties immediately wad up. And when it comes to deleting comments nobody does it better than Johnny. Like this one I'm sure. Good job SM.
July 22, 2008, 7:27:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
[message deleted for rules violation: off topic]
Edited By Siteowner
July 22, 2008, 8:05:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply
"... a former Fox News contributor..."
So you extrapolate from a small error of fact that has NO bearing on the thrust of the article to use this as an example of NH's ..."deliberate lies..." During the F&F clip,Mr Doocy refered to Dennis Ross as "former ambassador".By your logic, isn't that a deliberate lie?
"nonexistent controversy"? The thrust of the article that I read was that F&F used a fairly straightforward report about Sen Obama to introduce a series of questions (300 advisors?) and snarks (he doesn't speak any of THOSE languages), which fell pretty flat IMO.If you disagreed with any of the points of the article, you did not state your disagreement.
"Yes, the newspoodles consider it "breaking news" that Fox & Friends has a "talking points" segment, and therefore, using Hound Logic, that proves Fox "gets talking points" from the White House"
This point has already been made,but the addition of 'talking points from the White House' is entirely your own creation, as none of the material you presented mentions the "White House".
"How to trumpet this story without crediting this site for breaking it?" Just guessing,but I think this is the source of your distress, that you didn't recieve attribution.
Now there were dozens,perhaps a hundred or so NH posts between now and the last time you chose to correct them. I think it is a travesty of logic to assume that because of your catching distortions,exagerations or clipped (not doctored) quotes,that there is no truth to any of the other articles. And if only 51% of those articles are true,then Fox is painted in a very unflattering light.
As for the welcome you recieve there, I make no excuses.But if someone spoke of me the way you do towards NH writers and posters, you would not be welcome in my home.
July 22, 2008, 10:15:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply
> So you extrapolate from a small error of fact that has NO bearing on the thrust of the article to use this as an example of NH's ..."deliberate lies..."
Of course it has a bearing, since this was an attempt to make it look like Fox didn't want to hear what he was saying, when in fact Fox PAYS him for the privilege of hearing what he's saying. Also, if it was merely an "error of fact", then why was it when I posted a correction that correction was deleted? And the article itself still has the falsehood in it? That takes it out of the realm of an "error of fact" and into the realm of a deliberate lie that they are deleting messages to protect.
July 22, 2008, 10:22:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply
> This point has already been made,but the addition of 'talking points from the White House' is entirely your own creation, as none of the material you presented mentions the "White House".
It's not my creation as I have documented in this thread, and on many other posts, how the hounds in general and Chrish in specific insist this is the case. As has been noted before, when you see the phrase "using Hound Logic", that indicates that you are about to get the benefit of my skilled and perceptive analysis to tell you what's really going on. If the concept of analysis that adopts the logic of someone else to explicate their meaning is so confusing to people, perhaps I shall have to write in shorter sentences with fewer syllables.
> your catching distortions,exagerations or clipped (not doctored) quotes
Now you are attempting to lie about this site. I have proof of fistfuls of doctored quotes. Quotes that were rewritten, quotes that were attributed to someone else, even quotes that were never said in the first place (the ultimate doctored quote). If you are going to charge me with being deceptive or false in the doctored quotes I have exposed, then you had best put your money where your mouth is, or take it back.
July 22, 2008, 10:27:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply
" when you see the phrase "using Hound Logic", that indicates that you are about to get the benefit of my skilled and perceptive analysis to tell you what's really going on"
I did not know that. Perhaps a glossary would be helpful for the newbies.
"I have proof of fistfuls of doctored quotes."
Well,that very well may be,but the only example of a "doctored" quote that I myself have seen (and thus the only one that I will comment on) was a clipped quote, and not doctored at all.
July 22, 2008, 10:45:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Well then I strongly suggest that you not make claims about doctored quoteS when you are only talking about one. And if you want to know about more than one, there's a search box. Put quote, quotes, doctored quote, counterfeit quote, etc, in and then put your feet up, pour a tall one, and set aside a nice big chunk o' time to go through them all.
I find the fact that you would impugn the honesty of what I do most disappointing, and not at all nice!
July 22, 2008, 10:50:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply
So funny. You can always tell when NH gets caught redhanded, telling lies, because I and my chums panties immediately wad up. So much so that we converge on this site and we splutter and we hysterically spout incoherences and we make little or no sense. And when it comes to deleting comments nobody does it better than Newshounds. For example: This rude and insulting comment remains at Dollar's site while Newshounds routinely deletes courteous comments, simply because they don't want to face the truth and becaue they are too gutless to engage in fair and honest debate. Sorry job SM. All you did was repeat the same talking points over and over again. Then when you got called on your lack of facts and logic, you had no rebuttal. All you could do was stupidly say the same thing again and again. . . like a damned programmed robot. Frankly, you embarrassed me. Of course, I did no better . . . actually I did worse.
John T | 07.22.08 - 7:32 am | #
July 22, 2008, 11:50:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Here is something I just now posted at Newshounds. Since I am sure it has been deleted (I haven't checked and probably won't), I thought I would post it here where it might not be deleted.
My comments at Newshounds have heretofore been courteous and nondisruptive. Yet I have been told by Ellen Brodsky that my comments are not welcome here, so, normally, I don't comment here anymore. I comment where I am welcomed.
Comments by your regulars at Newshounds on Dollars' site have been very rude and very disruptive. Commenters are not asked to leave by the moderator. Many rude and discourteous comments are allowed to remain.
Johnny has stated that courteous comments by Ellen Brodsky or any of the moderators here would be welcomed . . . certainly not be deleted at his site. Conversely, Dollars comments, no matter how respectful, are deleted on sight here.
As long as Dollar is respectful and nondisruptive (as your regulars have not been on his site) why not allow his comments to remain, so that you can refute them? That should be easy since he is so obviously wrong in everything is says, right? You can refute his comments, can't you? Well can't you? Refuting him would make you look so much better than what you are actually doing.
It seems to me that this site hates the truth and it hates honest and fair debate, while Dollars site does the opposite.
Exactly what are you afraid of?
July 22, 2008, 3:14:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply
"Of course it has a bearing, since this was an attempt to make it look like Fox didn't want to hear what he was saying, when in fact Fox PAYS him for the privilege of hearing what he's saying."
If you took the NH post and extracted "former", and leaving 'Fox news contributor', it does not effect the meaning of the post at all.If you only left his name, this still would not have effected it's meaning.
The point of the post was the reaction of the F&F.They asked leading questions, and to some it might seem that the answers thay recieved were not what they hoped for, because otherwise, why would they have asked such leading questions.
Now there is no way to prove this absolutely, and as I've discovered here,there are some who will read (or hear) what they want to read.But I think your "deliberate lie" is a serious reach.
As for NH deleting you,I
don't know,maybe they don't like you for some reason.
PS,can you use your hound logic to tell me why my beagle tries to bite people until they feed him,then he's they're friend for life.
July 22, 2008, 5:14:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
> I think your "deliberate lie" is a serious reach.
You are entitled to your opinion. But the position I take is simple. If it's a mistake, they'll correct it when it's brought to their attention. If they don't correct it, but instead delete the correction so nobody will know about it, and then leave the "mistake" standing, then they are taking affirmative steps to insure that they disseminate false information. The fact that they call out just about everyone on Fox at the drop of a hat for "lying" (as they did Gretchen Carlson in the very piece at issue here) doesn't give me much reason to go easy on their deliberate falsifications.
Biting beagles are beyond my 'hound logic' pay grade!
July 22, 2008, 5:19:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply
As for NH deleting you,I
don't know,maybe they don't like you for some reason.
The reason Newshounds doesn't like Johnny (or me for that matter) is what I have already stated. For your benefit I will repeat:
this site (Newshounds) hates the truth and it hates honest and fair debate, while Dollars site does the opposite.
Hating freedom of speech and honest and fair debate is quite un-American.
Newshounds needs to be more careful. Their arrant Stalinism is showing,
July 22, 2008, 6:00:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
"As for NH deleting you,I
don't know,maybe they don't like you for some reason."
You should tell them to add "not liking" to their "rules."
July 22, 2008, 7:09:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Excellent comment OS!
July 22, 2008, 7:38:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply