Out of Time
Updated! Why do we focus so much on the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal)? It's because they exemplify the conundrum central to so many of the Fox haters: if FNC is so bad, why do they have to lie about them? Just this morning, we got another example of manipulating the facts to shape a slander.
We find Donna outraged that Fox is giving "pointers" to McCain on how to beat Barack Obama:
They made no mention of pointers for Obama to beat McCain, but that's what you call fair and balanced on Fox.... Notice how it's a 'how can be [sic] beat them' mentality?Of course the kennel-dwellers fell for it:
- for sure when I need political advice I always look to those vacuous bobbleheads from "fox and friends" for help.
DOOCY: All seven of these points are detailed in the new Time magazine.We braved the slings and arrows to point this out, and ask why Donna didn't tell her readers this salient fact. Donna had no explanation, but minutes later our pal john t rushed to the defense of the whippets:
- If they were going off of that Time article they shouldn't have changed the words around like this: "Number 3 was get into town halls with Obama and Chris Wallace." I thought you were against that kind of stuff?
Number 3 was get into town halls with Obama and Chris Wallace. (Comment, yeah, right)Sigh. After all this time there are still people so gullible as to believe what the newsmutts write? It was Brian Kilmeade who spoke to point 3:
KILMEADE: This is something they're making a lot of progress on, is #3: get Barack Obama in a town hall setting. This is a proposal that was put out there by the McCain camp, and yesterday David Axelrod told Chris Wallace who I know personally, he said that we are apt to accept this.That was the only mention of Chris Wallace. So where did Donna get the idea that Fox said Obama should do town halls with Chris Wallace? She made it up! And john t believed her.
A final observation: after months of FNC calling itself "most trusted", Donna finally noticed:
I've heard CNN say 'most trusted' before -- are [sic] Fox stealing CNN's sayings?No, just their viewers and their credibility. While CNN once held a 24%-15% advantage over Fox in trust, things have changed since 2003. Now polling shows Fox News is most trusted: 27% to CNN's 15%. Quite a turnaround, especially when you have websites working overtime to smear them with distortions and lies.
UPDATE: As is so often the case, the last thing the bowsers want is for someone to expose their trickery. So it took a few hours, but they did their usual and deleted our comments. Better to let falsehoods stand than admit the truth:
Fox Fan
John t and I trust CNN for all the latest communist news, and so should you!
May 12, 2008, 2:41:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Johnny,
Have you ever considered that the reason the News Hounds never reveal ALL the "salient facts" is that they aren't very bright to start with...
May 12, 2008, 7:17:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
WOW! I'm impressed. My name's in the big times now. NOT! Course you didn't answer my other question to you over there. Where do they say those are the plans from the McCain campaign camp?
May 12, 2008, 7:24:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
I forgot to finish that.
Yes they claimed it was from the Times. But why didn't they mention it was the McCain's camp?
May 12, 2008, 7:26:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Are you saying they didn't mention that? Are you as sure of that as you were of everything else you said based on not having even seen the segment? Hmm?
And why are we moving the goal posts? Are you constitutionally incapable of admitting what I said was right, and the newshounds were wrong? Perhaps we should settle that before you move to goal posts to some other side issue.
May 12, 2008, 7:39:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
tony
johnt: Why dont you ask your coward friends at newshounds why I was unable to post and refute their lies.
May 12, 2008, 7:41:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
tony
Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added.
The above message shows when I try to post on News Hounds. Proof that coward liberals are afraid to debate facts. I have had posts deleted, and even worse, they have changed enitre posts that I made.
These are the same people who will try to get the Fairness Doctriane in place if the cowards win in November. They believe, 'If you cant beat them, silence them".
May 12, 2008, 7:50:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
"And why are we moving the goal posts? "
-------------
I'm not moving the goal posts. I admitted that they said it was from the Times article. But I asked you another question this morning.
Why didn't they say they were all from the McCain camp?
In your short video they say something when talking about #3, here is a proposal from the McCain camp.
Why didn't they just say all of them where from the McCain camp?
May 12, 2008, 8:00:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I didn't watch the segment but it is worth mentioning that the Time Mag piece is NOT a rock solid information piece based entirely upon some written or unwritten strategy leak from the McCain campaign. It is analysis by Time of what they think McCain's strategy must be, based upon the campaign's actions and tidbits gleaned from both on and off-record remarks.
Now that's the basic context of the article.
To boot, on the clip that's linked on this site, Kilmeade did say that Time Mag's #3 (get Obama in a townhall venue) was based upon "a proposal that was put out there by the McCain Camp" (that it looks like Obama's camp is inclined to accept).
May 12, 2008, 8:01:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Time starts it's analysis of what it SURMISES as McCain Campaign strategy, this way:
"Sometimes you don't need the secret memo, a Deep Throat source, or the combination to the safe to get the story. Sometimes it's lying right there in front of you, a series of fragments ready to be pieced together."
In other words, they don't have a talking point memo, a direct source, etc. They are "piecing it together" from "fragments". (I think they did a good job in doing that, but this is beside the point.)
Kilmeade personally vouched for the Time's theory on McCain stategy #3, because he knows what Obama strategist Axelrod told Chris Wallace (who Kilmeade jokingly avers that he "knows personally"-- Brian is sure of #3...)
Frankly, John T., the News Hounds' implication that Fox was giving pointers to the McCain campaign, ought to embarrass readers of that site enough. Reaching for anything or everything in order to save them ought to be beneath you.
May 12, 2008, 8:23:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
Cecellia,
What don't you get about this statement from the Times:
"For weeks now, the Arizona senator's campaign has been laying its cards on the table, spelling out a strategy for November. Here's a look at seven of their key strategies. "
--
May 12, 2008, 8:30:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Oh the newshounds have fixed it all. They've erased all the messages that challenged what they said. The whole shebang. It's a perfect defense system; their falsehoods will be preserved with nary a word of dissent.
May 12, 2008, 8:30:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply
steve
i see they've finally gone in and cleansed the comments section of dissent. such good little stalinists
May 12, 2008, 8:34:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
steve
oops didn't see your post there j$
May 12, 2008, 8:35:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
John T., what don't you get about the fact that this is Time's acknowledged TAKE on what the camp is doing. They expressly say that they have no person or document detailing their theories, only that THEY THINK the McCain Camp is obviously doing such-and-such...
I thinkTime made a pretty fair and accurate ANALYSIS, but to say that FNC should have expressly said that these strategies are directly from the McCain Camp (Time started their piece by clarifying that they were NOT, that they are educated guesses) rather than doing exactly what Kilmeade did, which is to say, that based upon his own knowledge and personal contact, Time is correct about #3, is just reaching for something...anything... on your part.
May 12, 2008, 8:54:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
only that THEY THINK the McCain Camp is obviously doing such-and-such...
Cecelia | 05.12.08 - 8:59 pm
------------------
Where do they say that in that article?
May 12, 2008, 8:58:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
In the first paragraph of the article, Jt. They describe their analysis as NOT coming from a "smoking gun" source, but as "fragments" which THEY have "pieced together". It's good analysis, it's insightful analysis...etc... but it ain't the "Word" straight from the McCain Camp.
May 12, 2008, 9:06:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
Cecilia,
This is what it says:
" Sometimes it's lying right there in front of you, a series of fragments ready to be pieced together. "
Then they state:
"For weeks now, the Arizona senator's campaign has been laying its cards on the table, spelling out a strategy for November. Here's a look at seven of their key strategies. "
Now why do you add all the rest of that bull to it?
May 12, 2008, 9:18:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
John t, why can't you admit that the NH routinely lie and delete/reword comments that prove such? Why are you an apologist/defender of their deceitful tactics? Do you actually think that they serve an honorable purpose?
May 12, 2008, 9:21:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Um, why are we arguing about something that the newshounds never claimed in the first place? (For the record, it was clear on F&F that the article was based on McCain camp strategy ideas. In fact, Doocy even cited one of the McCain strategists by name!)
How about resolving the key issue first? That the hounds misrepresented a discussion of a Time magazine article as Fox coming up with suggestions to McCain to beat Obama. That they then used a phony, doctored quote about town hall meetings and Chris Wallace to further their fabricated claim? And then when the accuracy of that quote was questioned, instead of correcting it, they deleted the challenge.
What does that say about their honesty? What does that say about the truthfulness of what they post?
May 12, 2008, 9:22:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
tony
john t: Its hard for you to argue over here when you dont have the benefit of the host deleting and or rewording what we say. People over there are dishonest. They have a true inner rage against those who disagree. They change my comment and then ban me, and you have the nerve to claim that they are honest.
May 12, 2008, 9:37:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
First, the paragraph cited by Cecelia was the first paragraph in the article.
The first sentence that you cited opened the second paragraph.
The second sentence was also next in the second paragraph.
These are not stand alone contradictory statements but is a logical flow that states that the article was assembled from the various cards plainly visible from the actions of the McCain campaign,
The quote with the context of copying it in order with no artificial breaks is:
"Sometimes you don't need the secret memo, a Deep Throat source, or the combination to the safe to get the story. Sometimes it's lying right there in front of you, a series of fragments ready to be pieced together.
Such is the case when it comes to John McCain's general election strategy for defeating Barack Obama. For weeks now, the Arizona senator's campaign has been laying its cards on the table, spelling out a strategy for November. Here's a look at seven of their key strategies."
To use your interpretation would mean that a national magazine of some note had authors covering the most important political story who wrote so badly that he throws in several sentences that he doesn't mean just because?
This "Such is the case when it comes to John McCain's general election strategy for defeating Barack Obama" is the transition sentence that clearly states that they are illustrating his stategy based on putting the pieces together rather than having been given the assembled puzzle by McCain or an aide..
May 12, 2008, 9:40:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
John, so you're suggesting that by these two paragraphs Time is saying that their numbered points are indisputable strategies that have come straight from the McCain Campaign, rather than what Time thinks is it's own fair, reasonable and accurate analysis based upon how it has interpreted things coming from the Campaign?
You think F & F should have labeled these numbered strategies as something that has come straight from the McCain Campaign when Time made sure it's readers knew it was THEIR own interpretation and what THEY argue is accurate analysis of what THEY view as 'the obvious'?
May 12, 2008, 9:46:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
In fact, Doocy even cited one of the McCain strategists by name!
johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 9:27 pm
---------------------
That's strange I didn't hear in the video you gave Doocey citing any McCain strategist name.
May 12, 2008, 9:46:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Do you country line dance john t? You have a great sidestep!
May 12, 2008, 9:51:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
Oh, I almost forgot that I noticed a rather snarky request/accusation from you at NH that seems to have been deleted so I'll answer it here.
First, there is a link to the Times article in J
May 12, 2008, 9:52:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Grammie,
John t, illogically and irrelevantly argues that Fox was remiss in not characterizing Time's analysis of what it thinks is obvious McCain strategy against Obama, as being indisputable McCain strategy.
Evidently, this makes it Fox's fault that some idiot at News Hounds inaccurately declared the whole F & F segment to be Fox's own attempt to give McCain pointers for beating Obama... :D
May 12, 2008, 10:02:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> That's strange I didn't hear in the video you gave Doocey citing any McCain strategist name.
Of course you didn't. My post was responding to what the newshounds claimed, not what I was supposed to predict you would claim. The clip I used rebutted the newshounds. I could hardly know in advance that you would come up with something new to try to discredit, something even Donna didn't claim, and incorporate that via some sort of precognition.
It's unclear to me why you insist on your ex-post-facto argument but completely dodge any discussion of what the newshounds wrote. Again I ask if you are incapable of admitting the obvious truth. The newshounds misrepresented the entire discussion. They wanted people to believe that it was Fox coming up with arguments against Obama, when it fact it was Fox discussing a Time magazine article. They then doctored Kilmeade's quote into some made-up deal about town halls with Chris Wallace, a deal that you immediately took as true. Even though it's clear that it was false. You do concede that it was false, right? I'm still waiting to hear from you on this.
By the way, later today on Fox they had on Susan Estrich. She was there to go over HER article on what Barack Obama has to do to win against McCain. Same deal, only this time with the personnel reversed. Do you think Donna is going to complain that Fox is giving pointers to Obama? How about something far more likely... like not mentioning it at all?
May 12, 2008, 10:05:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 10:10 pm
So, nice spin Dollar. Just because you say Doocey named a McCain Campaign worker, then it must be true.
And are you incapable of admitting you made a big deal out of something that you can't prove half of what you claim?
May 12, 2008, 10:38:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
Cecelia | 05.12.08 - 10:07 pm
Why don't you think about what you type before you type?
May 12, 2008, 10:41:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> Just because you say Doocey named a McCain Campaign worker, then it must be true.
No it's because it's true. And while you may be able to call me a liar when you're in the liars' kennel, be careful about trying that here. You can go buy the Lexis/Nexis transcript and see for yourself if you like.
I'll try one last time, because after asking a question three times it becomes rude. What about the newshounds misrepresentations? What about their phony, doctored quote about town halls with Chris wallace--a quote you accepted as true. Only it wasn't. who's the truthteller, and who is the liar? Who is it that fooled you with a phony quote, and why is it you refuse to acknowledge that? Are you ever going to answer that question?
May 12, 2008, 10:43:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 10:48 pm
Look back at any comment I made and see if I came out and called you a liar. You're showing you're true colors Dollar. Because you're the one that likes to throw out the word liar a lot.
I came over here because I don't mind a discussion. I even ignored your little troll friends over here that come over to NH and call people assholes, idiots, retards, etc,etc. Which I didn't do to them.
So you like to play the High and Mighty when this site is no better than the one you like to bash constantly.
May 12, 2008, 11:15:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Look back at what I wrote and see that I didn't claim you called me a liar. I said you had better not try to do so here.
You say you don't mind a discussion. Yet you have now avoided three opportunities to discuss what you have to KNOW is deliberate, conscious deception by the newshounds. You know that I was right in what I wrote. You told Grammie in a snotty way that she had no proof about the wallace/townhall quote while that proof was sitting right here. And yet you don't care. You don't care how many times the newshounds falsify and lie, you come back with the bizarre claim that my site--which exposes lies and tells the truth--is "no better" than the site whose lies I expose.
Your type of "discussion" isn't one I value very highly. I prefer an honest debate, where people don't avoid the truth, and admit it when they see it, or hear it. Where people who disagree with the site aren't deleted en masse.
You, for reasons I cannot fathom, prefer to side with the phonies, even after they have duped you and the evidence of that duping is right before your ears. Fine. That's your choice.
May 12, 2008, 11:26:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
Your type of "discussion" isn't one I value very highly. I prefer an honest debate, where people don't avoid the truth,
johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 11:31 pm
----------------
Then why didn't you answer my question as to where's the proof Doocey refered to a McCain campaign worker?
That's when you started to get all worked up becuse you couldn't prove it. So what am I suppose to take it as?
And you don't like my type of discussion? Why, because I don't kiss your ass? Then ban me and show your flock you're just like everyone else and not some superior human being.
May 12, 2008, 11:39:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> where's the proof Doocey refered to a McCain campaign worker?
Is that something like asking Grammie where's the proof about the Wallace/townhalls quote, and then insisting it didn't exist?
Thank you for your comment.
May 12, 2008, 11:49:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Johnnypeepers
Fox News Rox! I am so glad that brave patriotic Americans refuse to buy into all the left-wing Hate anti-Fox propaganda. For instance, the claim that retired military leaders with defense contract interests would openly advance pentagon talking points on the Iraq war on Fox is such BS. We all know that is impossible. We either stand with Fox and President Bush or will become al Qaeda kaffir slaves in the emerging Caliphate. Thank you for peaching the truth brother.
May 12, 2008, 11:56:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
Is that something like asking Grammie where's the proof about the Wallace/townhalls quote, and then insisting it didn't exist?
johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 11:54 pm
-------------------
Why do you keep saying that? Where did I ever ask her that? I never even responded to Grammie.
Now I'd like to see your proof that I asked her that. Or I will call you a liar.
May 13, 2008, 12:01:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
You asked her if she could produce any proof for the quote as she gave it? And then snottily answered your own question: "NOT!" This was in the NH thread before it was cleansed of any references to their falsehoods.
Grammie herself references it at 9:57 in this thread. Your requests for "proof" of things everyone else in this discussion saw with their own eyes is getting tiresome.
Too bad you didn't ask Donna for her 'proof' of all the stuff she wrote about Fox. Despite all the falsehoods and lies she's been caught in, you never once asked her for 'proof'. And probably never will. Because some people are more comfortable with a lie they like than a truth they don't like.
May 13, 2008, 12:08:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Why don't you think about what you type before you type?
john t | Homepage | 05.12.08 - 10:46 pm | #
Why don't you "think" and make a coherent argument...
Time may characterize McCain Campaign actions as "obviously" meaning such-and-such, but that's still Time's take on the matter and the magazine makes THAT clear to its readers in its first paragraph.
Why should Fox have characterized Time's take on McCain strategies as being something from the McCain camp, when the article itself declared the strategies to be based upon what it (Time) surmises of McCain Campaign actions?
May 13, 2008, 12:15:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.13.08 - 12:13 am
And where does it say in her post I directed that request/accusation to her? As a matter of fact I remember it and it was directed at you.
You're a damn liar Dollar.
You can delete this now, I saved it.
May 13, 2008, 12:22:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Jt ask Donna for "proof"? Ha! :D
He's trying to provide an excuse for her based upon the illogical argument that Fox confused her by not directly stating that these already were McCain Campaign strategies (That would be inaccurate in the first place. They were/are Time.com's take on McCain strategy).
Therefore poor Donna was simply...ummmm.... forced.... to assume the worst.... and think that Fox was directly offering up strategy tips to the McCain folks...
DAMN.... :D
May 13, 2008, 12:27:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
john t, I figured you would resort to name calling when cornered. Grammie posted at NH and you responded directly below her demanding proof and cackling that she couldn't produce it. And now you're denying it. I guess I was wrong when I said you were fooled by the newshounds. Silly me, I assumed that you were being honest. You were never fooled.
May 13, 2008, 12:29:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Thank you for peaching the truth brother.
Johnnypeepers | Homepage | 05.13.08 - 12:01 am | #
And thank you for showing how willing you are to mischaracterize and over-simplify the arguments of others.
It saves us time in avoiding the misperception that you might have something honest to say.
May 13, 2008, 12:38:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
johnny dollar | Homepage | 05.13.08 - 12:34 am
Pretty easy for you to make up stuff like that when it can't be proved isn't it?
Got any more tall tales you'd like to make up?
May 13, 2008, 12:41:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
johnt, if you posted what you just posted on your beloved newshounds as an (R) you would have been banned by now. What do you think of that?
May 13, 2008, 1:01:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
Oh, noooo! The secret police are unleashed! Breaking News in the pound! Sorry, I got a little frothy...
Deborah,
Please advance this story related to John Mccain which is far more extensive than ayers one.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ ne...,6238795.column
sandy | 05.13.08 - 1:06 am | #
May 13, 2008, 1:13:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply
mickey mac
Tony, you are a pathological liar. Newshounds did NOT do this:"even worse, they have changed enitre posts that I made."
The moderator last night put up a copy of a post you made here on this site on Tuesday May 6th as evidence that you instigated a swarm attempt on their threads that night:
" I love posting on Newshounds. You have never communicated with a more ignorant hatefilled group of people.
If you feel like having some fun go over there and light some fuses.
tony | 05.06.08 - 7:24 pm | "
They made that up, huh? Changed the entire post? I just C+P'd that from the relevant thread on this site this morning, May 13th.
You are a liar, and a lousy one at that!
May 13, 2008, 4:35:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I'm glad to see that johnnypeepers graced our comments with his presence, likely in a not-too-secret effort to drive some hits to his conspiracy theory blog that blames America first.
Mickey mac, tony didn't deny having posted your quote and therefore isn't a liar. He admitted to it, but none of the comments we made there as a result were inflammatory. Polite corrections (such as Grammie's and mine) were deleted, more evidence of the mutts' honesty.
John t, when are you going to address the fact that your precious PbDs lie day in and out and ask for proof of their doctored claims? I think dollar has done his job in proving them wrong hundreds of times. You can't slither away from that question, it's been asked of you quite a few times by multiple posters above.
May 13, 2008, 10:08:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
John t, when you accused J$ you also accused me and I really don't take kindly to snot nosed little brats lying about me.
Before responding to your question/accusation @ 9:57 I checked NH to verify that I remembered correctly. My comment pointing out that you had engaged in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning had been erased but your snarky one was still there and I believe some third party had referenced it.
Checking back this morning all comments related to it have been erased. BTW, readers, by "erase" I mean the # of comments on the article page changes and there is no mod comment stating whose post at what time was deleted for what infraction. John t's commennts have also been erased and now he chortles you have no proof after he destoys the proof.
I am somewhat taken aback that a supposedly grown man would stoop so low both intellectually and morally merely to avoid admitting a logical error. God help anyone who needs your honesty to get them out of a serious situation. If you go to these lengths about something of no real consequence what would you be willing to do when the truth would leave you open to a penalty or shame in front of your family and peers?
I really don't expect an answer but based on your behavior here I think I already know.
May 13, 2008, 10:50:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
You are a liar, and a lousy one at that!
mickey mac | 05.13.08 - 4:40 am | #
minnie, I saw the post in question. It has been erased. Shocker! Also, your fearful leaders did the same thing to one of my posts in regards to mangling my words. So, that makes you the liar.
May 13, 2008, 11:01:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
wow. johnnypeepers, get help and soon!
May 13, 2008, 11:09:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
OK we've all had our turn at being called liars. Now let's avoid the name-calling from here on out.
Grammie, your post is most impressive. You are definitely in the running for Commenter of the Day.
May 13, 2008, 11:27:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply
tony
Mickey, john t, goat guy, and any other left wing nuts that I left out. First of all, if you dont want me posting on newshounds why would you then come over here to talk to or about me? Kind of makes you look a little unstable, hmm? And I never initiated a contest on who could get their comments deleted first. It did not say that anywhere on the my post that they used as "proof?". At Newshounds they delete/rewrite posts that they can not argue with. As I stated many times over there, they dont argue with what I said, they argue with what they WISH that I said. And if you hate trolls so much, why are you now trolling on this board/ again, just a little unstable. And the moderator on Newshounds is a coward, first delete, then rewrite, and when that fails ban. And by the way, why are the regulars so obsessed with me being gay? I thought that the left was supposed to be so accepting?
May 13, 2008, 4:59:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Bull's eye, Grammie!
May 13, 2008, 8:17:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
john t
Grammie | 05.13.08 - 10:55 am
All those comments were deleted at the same time. Maybe you're having trouble remembering things.
tony | 05.13.08 - 5:04 pm |
Don't flatter yourself. I never came over here to talk about you. You're not worth the time.
May 13, 2008, 11:05:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Well, with that petty retort you certainly proved Grammie right in calling you a snot-nosed brat, john t. However, we all know the reason you won't address the subject is that she'll paddle your butt and send you back to your Club for Cretins.
May 14, 2008, 12:12:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
