Tuesday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Monday's numbers: Bill-Beck-Bret 1-2-3. Weekly ranker.
Twitter silence: day 27. Soledad in Conway.
Q&A: Hemmer, Crowley, Gasparino.
Kyra hearts Shaun? Deutsch uses ethnic slur?
Olbermann declines invite. Video: CountBrown?
Gasparino w/Imus. Midterms rising. Alexis at CNN.
The MSNBC mistake? Hotline after dark. Oops.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. fox news cable
Guest
If olbermann had any balls he would go to Texas. Using his dad as an excuse is just weak. He could fly to Texas and be home to see pappy by dinner time. He's simply a lying coward and a poor excuse for a man.
February 23, 2010, 12:40:55 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
When did putting family 1st become a bad thing on the Right?
February 23, 2010, 1:07:18 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
When did putting family 1st become a bad thing on the Right?
So you believe that the opinion of one person, "Guest" 12:40:55 PM Eastern Time, represents the entire right?
February 23, 2010, 1:18:54 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
Glad that you seem to disagree with the stupid comment made by guest.
February 23, 2010, 1:26:46 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
"He could fly to Texas and be home to see pappy by dinner time."
I thought that guest's argument was that Olby could go to the Tea Party; be a better journalist' and check out whether his pontifications concerning the movement were actually true and still take care of his father. I don't know enough about Obly's schedule to be certain that is true, but I don't think guest's argument is stupid.
Olby's most honorable course would have been to check out his assertions before making them. His second most honorable course would be to retract his statement and suspend his judgment until he has the opportunity to determine if it is true.
Oly has once again proven that he is not an honorable man. To say differently is well stupid
February 23, 2010, 1:45:12 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Glad that you seem to disagree with the stupid comment made by guest.
Depends on how you look at it because it is my humble opinion that Olby is a lying coward and a poor excuse for a man.
February 23, 2010, 2:43:04 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Johnny, wasn't there something that happened recently where Olbermann didn't cover a Republican speech because he ostensibly had to tend to his later mother's estate. Later, he was photographed at a baseball game!
There was some sort of criticism too coming from someone on the left, about Olbermann suddenly disappearing from host duties (after saying he'd be back later that night) during some Republican election victories, where he chided the critic by referring to his ailing father.
February 23, 2010, 5:41:24 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Yes, that was election night in 2009. MSNBC promoted a special live Countdown at 10:00 pm to continue the election coverage, but instead they got a rerun of the 8:00 pm showing. (This was a night where several top Democrats lost their election bids). Mediaite reported that they were told Olby was visiting his sick dad in the hospital. Turned out he was at Yankee Stadium, live-blogging a baseball game.
February 23, 2010, 5:48:44 PM EST – Like – Reply
keyboard jockey
Rep Thaddeus McCotter on Hardball “Only 21% Of The American People Think They Are Being Governed By Their Own Consent”
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/02/rep-thaddeus-mccotter-r-hardball-only.html
My critique of the video, McCotter is ahead in class, and intellect. McCotter is calling for Free Market solutions to Health Care Coverage, Matthews and Connelly are having none of it.
Rep Connelly of Prince William Co.,Va., tried to get one of his constituents arrested?
http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2009/11/05/breaking-gerry-connolly-tries-to-get-constituent-arrested/
February 23, 2010, 1:21:18 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
Doocy: Are DOJ attorneys who represented Gitmo detainees "sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause?"
I know Doocy is renowned for making stupid comments but this must be one of the stupidest.
Dose he believe that defense attorneys are in favor of murderers & rapists just because they defend clients in such cases.
February 23, 2010, 1:52:39 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Some just take a legalistic position, so-called 'soulless' lawyers. Others are activists and have personal beliefs that impel the cases they take on. Ever hear of Lynne Stewart?
Someone once said 'there are no stupid questions'. But there are certainly are stupid complaints about people who dare to ask a question that Media Matters doesn't like.
February 23, 2010, 1:58:21 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
Olby's most honorable course would have been to check out his assertions before making them.
Is this some kind of sick joke?
February 23, 2010, 1:57:41 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
I was told by a friend that people on this site would defend Fox, to their dying breath, if Fox said the color of snow was indigo.
I told my friend not to be so stupid. I now realize I owe my friend a sincere apology.
February 23, 2010, 2:25:35 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
I was told by a friend that people on this site would defend Fox, to their dying breath, if Fox said the color of snow was indigo. I told my friend not to be so stupid. I now realize I owe my friend a sincere apology.
What a load! Most of the comments here have nothing to do with Fox. As of TT's 2:25:35 Eastern post, there were only two posts here referring to FNC and both came from TT. The one response was from J$ who made no reference to FNC.
February 23, 2010, 2:50:11 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Yes I'm sure your 'friend' just 'told' you about this site. That's why you showed up here quoting a discredited partisan site like Media Matters, and using all manner of different proxies to hide your identity. Because why would someone who was never here before find it necessary to sneak in under someone else's IP?
Thank you for your comment.
February 23, 2010, 2:40:48 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
and Twinkletoes, thank you for reading J$P!
February 23, 2010, 2:51:46 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
I should have said that I read a number of previous threads before making that comment and not just this thread.
"partisan site like Media Matters"
I would describe this site as a partisan site.
The Doocy video is there for all to see. your not trying to tell use he didn't say what MM reported?
"all manner of different proxies"
I'm not saying this site isn't safe but others are not. That is the reason for my proxy use.
February 23, 2010, 3:06:10 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
You can describe this site as a 'partisan site'. You can say it's made out of green cheese. But that doesn't make it true. Whereas MM expressly describes their purpose to attack one side of the political spectrum only. That sounds pretty partisan to me.
Doocy's question is on the video. But do you really think no one else asked the same question? I hope you don't bet your house on that proposition because it ain't true.
I've documented how MM singles out Fox to somehow imply something wrong going on (even if it's asking a perfectly legitimate quesiton). When in fact others--many others--have raised the same issue, but get a pass from your pal Brock. That's one of the things that make them a dishonest, discredited partisan site.
As for your proxies, we don't like 'em here. If you think the site is unsafe, then don't post here. But we expect people to comment under one name and using their own ISP. We don't release ISP information so there's no reason to sail under false colors.
February 23, 2010, 3:13:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
"Whereas MM expressly describes their purpose to attack one side of the political spectrum only"
Then please point me to where you have criticized Fox news or that blog that Fox run (sorry can't remember the name)
"But do you really think no one else asked the same question"
So your saying that anyone who defends criminals is lightly to be sympathetic to the crimes the criminals committed. I now see the talking point from this mornings F&F has leaked into Fox "proper news." Looks like Jon Stewart was right about how things work over at fox. it starts off with F&F and then the "news programs" pick it up and before you know it their reporting people are worried about X Y & Z http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002230030 Kelly did try and talk some sense to Crowley but by the end of the clip she was walking that back. where was the "fair and balanced" reporting we were promised on Kelly's new show? She may have had someone on after Crowley from the other side,I don't know. But partisan Crowley shouldn't have been aloud to spew crap on her own without a balancing point of view.
"I've documented how MM singles out Fox"
This site appears to single out MSNBC and particularly goes after Olbermann/Maddow. You also wrote for a site called Olbermann watch (not sure if you still do). Doesn't that site do exactly the same thing that you denounce MM for?
"As for your proxies, we don't like 'em here. If you think the site is unsafe"
I never said this site was unsafe. I use other sites that may be unsafe and i don't like changing setting back & forward depending where i am at anyone time. How does it matter how a comment gets here?
February 23, 2010, 3:59:16 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"Then please point me to where you have criticized Fox news"
I could, but why? What is your point? I said MM expressly attacks one side of the political spectrum. That has nothing to do with who I criticize. Why the diversion?
"So your saying that anyone who defends criminals is lightly to be sympathetic to the crimes the criminals committed."
Really, if you could quote me saying that I'd send you a prize. My comments on that were pretty clear. They're just a couple of comments above this one. I suggest you go up there and this time read them.
"he may have had someone on after Crowley from the other side,I don't know. But partisan Crowley shouldn't have been aloud to spew crap on her own without a balancing point of view. "
You admit you don't know if someone from the other side appeared, then you claim Crowley shouldn't be allowed to speak because someone from the other side DIDN'T appear. Can you please pick an argument and stick to it?
"This site appears to single out MSNBC and particularly goes after Olbermann/Maddow."
OK, I post every day of the week. How many of my posts single out MSNBC, Olbermann, or Maddow? I really do want an answer to this question.
"How does it matter how a comment gets here?"
I suspect you know the answer to that question already.
February 23, 2010, 4:07:15 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
"I could, but why?"
I would just like to see all you attacks on Fox news. You say MM attacks only one side. I thought you'd be happy to show all here how balanced your blog is.
"Really, if you could quote me saying that I'd send..."
So are you saying this latest attack from Fox is ridiculous?
"You admit you don't know if someone from the other side appeared"
So was there balance from someone else? please don't keep us all in suspense. I certainly hope there was some balance to the Crowley spew fest.
"OK, I post every day of the week. How many of my posts single out MSNBC, Olbermann, or Maddow?"
I've only just arrived here. But the front page consists of just links to other sites and a number of those links are to sites attacking MSNBC. I haven't had time to look at all your posts in various threads
"I suspect you know the answer to that question already."
No, but please tell me I'm interested why you don't like proxies. I can only imagine you like to check up who's posting here and garner other info about them.
February 23, 2010, 4:50:35 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"You say MM attacks only one side. I thought you'd be happy to show all here how balanced your blog is"
MM does attack only one side of the political fence. This site, however, is not a political one. It deals with cable news, not politics. So it's impossible for us to be partisan like MM is.
"So are you saying this latest attack from Fox is ridiculous? "
It's not an attack. It's a question. This is the last time I'll tell you to read what I wrote before, because I quickly get tired of people claiming to tell me what I said.
"I've only just arrived here. But the front page consists of just links to other sites and a number of those links are to sites attacking MSNBC. I haven't had time to look at all your posts in various threads "
Wait, you just arrived here, but you already knew that I used to write at Olbermann Watch? How did you know that? Another thing that your 'friend' told you? He must be a very talkative feelow. Did he sent you a complete dossier on me or just the executive summary?
I'll ask one more time. Where are all these posts I wrote that "single out" MSNBC, that single out Olbermann, and that single out Maddow? (Note: a post with a couple dozen links in it doesn't single out anybody, so you'll have to do better than that.) Either produce them or admit you are wrong and take back your claim.
"I can only imagine you like to check up who's posting here and garner other info about them. "
Ooh yes, and I pass it along to the Tri-Lateral Commission, and they enter it into their computers and send the coordinates to the black helicopters.
We have rules of behavior here. The only way to enforce rules is to know who said what. We don't require preregistration, so there has to be some way to match person "A" with the comments he posts, or else nobody is responsible for anything they say. The solution is a consistent login under a single IP address. I'm being a little tolerant with you on this point but it won't last forever.
February 23, 2010, 5:15:35 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Wow, Johnny!
This guy just pops over here for the first time to check out this site, and it only takes one comment from you to persuade him/her that not only is his "friend" right in his criticism, but all the criticism ever made about FNC is on the money too.
YOU work fast!...
February 23, 2010, 6:01:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Well Cecelia, you know what get published once a week here. It seems that the attempts at rebuttal made recently just resulted in more embarrassment for the parties in question. So there was no such rebuttal to Sunday's post. I was tipped that they were going to try 'something different' this time. Unfortunately, it appears that 'something different' really turned out to be same-old same-old.
February 23, 2010, 6:08:06 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I don't see "something different" from them in this, J-Man.
Looks like the same ole...same ole...to me.
February 23, 2010, 6:26:27 PM EST – Like – Reply
Grammie
That's nice.
Now, about those devious sneaky proxies.........
February 23, 2010, 3:15:25 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
No. What you should have said was that you came here with an agenda. By your own admission you had discussed this site with a friend and had been previously warned that this is a "partisan" site that defends FNC at all costs.
From there you decided to post a critical comment despite the fact that you were concerned about the safety of the site.
When we were told by a lawyer, that lawyers can indeed have their own agendas (in other words, when you FIRST met with disagreement), you immediately launched into a critical attack on this site.
Looks like your "friend" could have told you that this site was safe ISP-wise too.
Please pay us the courtesy of not pretending to have come here with anything other than the agenda of getting into a dispute. If you're going to come here to argue, fine, but don't then plead unreasonable treatment or innocence when you get exactly what you desire.
Your own disingenuousness is NOT a talking point for you to make in your argument against FNC or this site.
February 23, 2010, 5:54:34 PM EST – Like – Reply
Minuteman46
That's some desperation.
Let's talk about discredited sources. You know, Fox and Friends, O'reilly, Hannity and Beck. How about them apples?
February 23, 2010, 3:09:00 PM EST – Like – Reply
Puck30
Let's talk about discredited sources. Matthews, Maddow, Olbermann, Big Ed, Shuster, Sanchez, Behar, Blitzer, and AC. How about those Oranges?
February 23, 2010, 4:13:34 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
News Hounds lie. Again.
Fox & Friends Report Old News To Smear Possible Candidate For Bayh’s Senate Seat?Reported by Priscilla - February 23, 2010 - Comments (1) Let me get this straight. Going back to old news about a political candiate is called smearing at the Hideous House of Hens.Then, I guess all those old stories about GW Bush and the National Guard were just a bunch of smears.You can't beat News Hounds hypocrisy.
February 23, 2010, 2:52:36 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Go TwinkleToes Go!!
It'll be interesting to see if The Friends and the rest at Fox tear into Scott brown after his vote on the jobs bill....That will be great comedy indeed....as the friends only a few days ago were saying he's the next Regan.
February 23, 2010, 4:24:01 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Didn't they discuss it this morning? Didn't you see it? Oh wait, didn't Brock and Think Propaganda post any video for you? Oh well, so much for that.
February 23, 2010, 4:27:23 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
I didn't see F&F this morning or any other FNC....As I was out on the course at 8am and have played 36 holes and then a couple of snifters then home....But I'm glad to see TwinkleToes is fighting the good fight.
February 23, 2010, 4:32:01 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
By "fighting the good fight", Haggis means that Twinkletoes has come here pretending to not have an agenda and to have known little about the site other than what he sees with the links and comments (despite having had prior conversations with a friend...)
In other words, Haggis is cheering on another poseur.
How many alternate names have you used Haggis where you took on just such a pretense?
February 23, 2010, 6:09:53 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Haggis, thank you for supporting those who attack, deceive, and attempt to smear J$ site as well as all of us. Just days ago you were crying that everyone hated you, all except Stan, Chippy and co. however.
February 23, 2010, 4:29:49 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Twinkletoes:
But partisan Crowley shouldn't have been aloud to spew crap on her own without a balancing point of view.
3:59:16 PM (Eastern)
Hmmmmmm. Let's look back at a post from last week.
Haggis:
Johnny...I wouldn't have though this sort of comment would be aloud under the rules....it's a very derogatory comment towards woman.
Monday, February 15, 2010, 8:18:14 PM (Eastern)
Gee TT, what a coincidence, you and your #1 cheereleader have a few things in common!
Pathetic.
February 23, 2010, 4:54:53 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Couldn't possibly be me....as I said I was at the golf course.
"Fox said the color of snow was indigo."
Why don't you go and see how I spell color in previous posts....then report back.
Very week analysis from Ashley yet again.
February 23, 2010, 5:01:31 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
Oops...should be Very weak analysis from Ashley yet again
February 23, 2010, 5:12:45 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Haggis, how can we believe you when you say you are anywhere? Do you remember last year when YOU LIED to us by claiming that you were in Australia and your "mate" Chippy was renting your flat?
Speaking of Chippy, do you remember that when you were posting as Chippy and denying you were Haggis, you posted the following about Bret Baier:
Bret Baier has numerous bias charges against him...I'll not "cut/paste" them....as the list is so long.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 10:49:07 AM
My question for Haggis, were you lying about this or do you have information to support this smear?
February 23, 2010, 5:25:20 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
That's right, IM Right, how could you expect Haggis to have the small amount of mental acuity it would require to merely spell it 'colour' or 'color', depending upon the alias he was using...
After all, look how he spelled 'weak'....
February 23, 2010, 6:14:26 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
I.M. Right, I have made that spelling error for many years. i know it should be allowed but the spell checker dose not catch it and didn't re-read the post before posting.
Haggis, i assume your English and spell "color" "colour"
February 23, 2010, 5:19:02 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Gee Twinkie, besides spelling "allowed" as aloud like Haggis does, you also spell "you're" as "your" just like Haggis does. What a coincidence!!!
February 23, 2010, 5:28:26 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
This is exactly what you get when people hide behind proxies. Twinkle may be an entirely different person from Haggis, but if he's hiding something, there's no way to know.
February 23, 2010, 5:31:57 PM EST – Like – Reply
Haggis
"Twinkle may be an entirely different person from Haggis"
Spot on Johnny....I'm tired of being told that I'm everyone who turns up here that Ashley doesn't know.
I got caught out before,,,,slip up with youtube if I remember correctly....and admitted it...I was banned at the time...so I used a proxy to answer the attacks.
Ashley I'm not banned at the moment....So why would I come back as someone else?
February 23, 2010, 5:41:19 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
I got caught out before,,,,slip up with youtube if I remember correctly....and admitted it...I was banned at the time...so I used a proxy to answer the attacks.
Ashley I'm not banned at the moment....So why would I come back as someone else?So why would I come back as someone else?
That's not exactly true. You weren't banned when you came back as Alabama Dem then Chippy as shown by you not getting banned when you finally admitted the deception. Yes, you did admit it, but you lied multiple times before hand when you repeatedly claimed that you weren't Haggy (and didn't know him) and you came up with this intricate false tale of working in Alabama, being from Wales, blah blah blah. In fact, you were using the same ISP as Chippy when you were confronted with using that fact by J$. Note, J$ never revealed to anyone what that IP was. After being confroned with that, you then came up with another lie admitting that you knew Haggis.
When you say you used a proxie to answer attacks, that makes no sense under the circumstances. I would hope that after the Chippy experience, you would be a man and not hide behind other identities. But you couldn't do that, you later dual posted as Haggis and "Nibbles".
Why would you come back as someone else? Do you mean someone else who is spewing the same stuff you do then you go on to comment that same someone else? Gee, I don't know!
February 23, 2010, 5:54:02 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Haggis -
Couldn't possibly be me....as I said I was at the golf course.
That post was written at 4:00 PM eastern time, which is 9 PM in Scotland with a sunset at 5:34 PM.
By the way Haggy, I never claimed you and Twinkie were the same. You may think I inferred that you were the same, but I didn't. You sure seem defensive!
Maybe you are, maybe not. There was a former poster here, I can't seem to recall that li'l fellers name right now, but Twinkie seems to be of the same intelligence as that poster. Besides spelling "you're" as "your", that li'l feller also frequently spelled "your" as "you" as in " would just like to see all you attacks on Fox news". Maybe it's that same person coming back here.
Twinkie, have you ever posted here before? Is so, under what name?
February 23, 2010, 5:44:46 PM EST – Like – Reply
GATXER
Haggis
"Haggis -
Couldn't possibly be me....as I said I was at the golf course.
That post was written at 4:00 PM eastern time, which is 9 PM in Scotland with a sunset at 5:34 PM."
Ashley....when I said that I was referring to the 1st post made by TwinkleToes....which if my calculations are correct was around 6pm (UK time)....I finished my 2nd 18 holes at around 5:10pm (UK time)...went for a shower....got changed and was in the clubhouse for around 5:45pm...I then ordered steak and chips + a pint....taking into account that I live 15mins away from the course....I think you'll even admit I couldn't have been home and posting at 6pm as someone else.
I'm tired....so I'll read the rest of the conspiracy theories tomorrow.
February 23, 2010, 5:59:49 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Gee Haggy, such a detail defense! No conspiracy, just speculation. After all, due to your history of deception, its unfortunate that we can't rule it out or even that it seems to be a possibility. There was a conspiracy here once, and you were behind it.
February 23, 2010, 6:10:59 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
I.M. Right. haggis is not Me end of story!
February 23, 2010, 6:15:14 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
I.M. Right. haggis is not Me end of story!
I can't blame you, no one wants to be Haggis. But, better to be Haggis than that other poster, whoever that li'l feller was!
Twinkie, have you ever posted here before? Is so, under what name?
February 23, 2010, 6:20:37 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
No i have not posted here before.
haggis seems alright and reading some of his past post he appears to share my view of fox news.
why the hostility towards him?
February 23, 2010, 6:28:59 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Twinkle, I'm waiting for you to document your claim that this site singles out MSNBC, Olbermann, and Maddow. I assume you're working on that but again, I expect either the proof or your retraction.
February 23, 2010, 6:36:09 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
No i have not posted here before.
If so, then how could you make the statement
I was told by a friend that people on this site would defend Fox, to their dying breath, if Fox said the color of snow was indigo. I told my friend not to be so stupid. I now realize I owe my friend a sincere apology.
when at the time of your writing, only two of the comments here had anything to do with Fox, and both were from you?
"Colour" me skeptical.
February 23, 2010, 6:44:29 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
Sorry johnny for not replying.
I'm having to go back & forward on this site to find new posts. Normally posts just go one under the other.
The site seems to post any link that can show MSNBC in a bad light. I have yet to find a link to anything showing Fox in the same way. we all know Fox have done things wrong. just take a look at their editing tricks. Posters here are always hammering MSNBC and some even call their anchors names. But it's hard to find anyone. except haggis. that criticize them. That's why i came to the conclusion that this is also a partisan site.
I think we got off on the wrong foot. That was not my intention. i was simply saying what I saw.
February 23, 2010, 6:58:06 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
" I have yet to find a link to anything showing Fox in the same way"
I know how hard that must be. Especially if you don't even look at today's post.
"That's why i came to the conclusion that this is also a partisan site. "
Partisan is a political term. I do not write about politics, and this is not a political site.
You're right we got off on the wrong foot, because you misrepresented what this site is and what it does, made off-the-wall claims like we 'single out' or somehow go after MSNBC and Rachel Maddow (!), and still have yet to admit you were wrong. What does it take?
February 23, 2010, 7:07:55 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this point. just like they do in Washington.
I'll have to go now, I'm going out for dinner with a girlfriend.
February 23, 2010, 7:24:09 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
She smelt a whiff of Exile Island in the air...
(must be John T's dirty socks)
February 23, 2010, 7:27:57 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Because under many names, Haggis has come here posing as a mere newbie, here with little clue and no biases.
However, Haggis did show some sense by waiting for more than just one contradiction before falling into the "you and FNC are partisan hacks" mode.
But then...you may be pressed for time...
February 23, 2010, 6:38:04 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
why the hostility towards him?
Not hostile, but maybe that's a matter of opinion.
To answer your question, perhaps because he regularly makes smears against people that he will not back up with facts, he regularly ducks, dodges, and diverts attention in order avoid answering questions posed to him. Plus he has a long-term history of deception, dishonesty, and outright lies to posters here and to our esteemed host, J$.
February 23, 2010, 6:41:11 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Thank you, IM Right, for checking out what Haggis says in this manner.
I strong believe rather than being in Great Britain, Haggis truly COULD be an Alabama democrat...
February 23, 2010, 6:19:47 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
Maybe haggy smokers lectric sat dish that he seems to wear on his back has lights?
February 23, 2010, 6:04:11 PM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
Haggis truly COULD be an Alabama democrat...
Bingo.
February 23, 2010, 6:42:46 PM EST – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I was reading through TT's posts, and then I remembered something. Haggis chose several names based on UK kid's shows.
http://www.britfilms.com/britishfilms/catalogue/browse/?id=57C241D413f2d25D4AvVR28A0FB9
Viola.
February 23, 2010, 6:47:53 PM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
There are also several instances I've found where Haggy was banned and later that day, a new poster would appear, make a few inconsequential posts, then make a post in support of Haggis. Bungling Bob comes to mind. In this case its different because Haggy is not banned though.
Who knows.
If they are not the same people, Haggis has absolutely no right to get annoyed or angry over it, he brings it on himself with his history of deception.
February 23, 2010, 6:53:06 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Whether it's Haggis, or more likely one of his pals, it's yet another person who makes a pretense of coming here with no agenda SHEERLY in order to make us seem unreasonable in comparison.
A cheap ploy, by cheap ploy artists.
As Johnny says, same old same old.
February 23, 2010, 6:56:21 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
Fox Fan, I'm called TwinkleToes at home. My dad started it due to my dancing.
Just in case people here haven't realized I'm female.
February 23, 2010, 7:12:38 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Yeah, you're good at dancing.
February 23, 2010, 7:20:11 PM EST – Like – Reply
TwinkleToes
i am actually. But i understand your bitchy comment in the context you mean.
February 23, 2010, 7:29:49 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
If Haggis does not really tear into you for using the b word I am going to call him an utter hypocrite.
BTW I don't believe you are a woman, but even if you are it would be, no doubt in Haggis eyes. still reprehensible.
tHaggis professes to be really sinsitive about using the b word to describe women, whether you actually use the word or not.. Let's see how sensitive he really is, or if it was all a sham.
February 23, 2010, 8:46:13 PM EST – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Why would Haggis not chastise TT whether he is her or not?
If it's not Haggis, I like the idea of a female dancer named TwinkleToes. TT, do you do bachelor parties?
February 23, 2010, 9:08:04 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Oh, good. I was counting on you.
February 23, 2010, 9:10:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Guest
Chris
That "countbrown" video was funny-and the only two "black faces" was Eugene who's voice I can't stand-Olby can't find anyone else?
Now to the twitter silence: it's getting old, we all know he has been banned so why still count the days? I know some will disagree and that's fine, it's just my opinion
weekly ranker: looks like things are back to normal
I also see the trolls are back under new names
February 23, 2010, 6:54:12 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
The video CountBrown is brilliant!
February 23, 2010, 7:15:24 PM EST – Like – Reply
Minuteman46
Patriot Glenn Beck hits the nail right on the head again. (Scott Brown is not a real Republican. He is a turncoat, just like McCain.)
My only complain is that Glenn seems unwilling to run for the 2012 nomination but maybe in time he will realize how much we need him to deliver us from this regime leading us down the road to wrack and ruin.
[politicking Edited by SiteOwner]
February 23, 2010, 10:37:09 PM EST – Like – Reply
Johnny-Five
I have to say, Haggis must be a hale and hearty lad. Playing golf this time of year, especially 36 holes is quite a feat. Cold weather has a tremendous impact on the game. That must be why play was so slow for him today. I think I read that nine different Scotland football games were cancelled due to weather over the weekend. My hat is off to any golfer that endures 36 holes in the cold. Eighteen is usually all i can endure on a chilly and damp day. Usually I opt for the ninteenth hole a bit early to warm the spirits. That must be why Haggis needed either the couple of snifters before going homw that he initially mentioned, or maybe the steak, chips and pint was what warmed him up for the trip home before he checked in at J$P.
February 24, 2010, 1:21:50 AM EST – Like – Reply
ramjet
"Haggis truly COULD be an Alabama democrat..."-by the lovely and talented Cecelia, and Bingoed by OS
Please, there's absolutely no reason to insult Alabama democrats in this manner.
The reason behind this latest Haggis proxy deception could very well be a desire to avoid being asked to answer previous unanswered questions. I'm surprised he's been aloud to get away with not being responsive this long, usually a condition that ends with burial. It truly is a habit that is wearing thin. He is, IMO, well overdue getting his Wimple whomped.
February 24, 2010, 1:24:01 AM EST – Like – Reply
Olby Sucks
I agree, ramjet. Haggy smoker should be buried and forgotten.
"johnny-five," I believe the "golfing" haggy smoker was referring to is the kind you play on tv. His trolling schedule would never allow him away from his pc long enough to even get 8 holes of miniature golf in let alone 36 holes on a real golf course.
February 24, 2010, 11:45:22 AM EST – Like – Reply
