3/3/09 1:21 PM

Newshounds Recycle Lies, Revive Racial Slurs

Updated! Things are getting crazy over at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). In order to keep their site alive they have been reduced to recycling posts from other Fox haters--a real-world exemplar of the internet "echo chamber". Of course, that reduces any research or fact-checking to near zero, but that's the way the haters like it.

We begin with an entire post devoted to "proving" that Sweden is a "neutral country" (with the only "source" cited, laughably, Wikipedia!). The 75 comments are especially illustrative, escalating in hate until one sknabt (who runs his own hate Fox site) bellows his disgust at "O'Reilly's lie about Sweden"! Just what was O'Reilly's "lie"? Declaring that "Sweden is a very nice country"? That's precisely what Bill said. Of course the mastiffs don't tell you that.

Unfortunately for the curs, Sweden may have been neutral 60 years ago, but today they are "anything but neutral" given their work with NATO and the hundreds of troops they have in Afghanistan (Switzerland only has observers there). By the way, do you know O'Reilly addressed this as well? What, the newshounds didn't mention that either? Must have been another oversight.

Of course the Queen Bee of the dog kennel (as unattractive a mixed metaphor as one could ask for) cares little about accuracy. So to inflate her post count, Ellen Brodsky uncritically recycles an attack from an O'Reilly hate site. Things really liven up when someone dares to suggest the site was wrong, and O'Reilly offered a correction to his original comment just minutes after he said it:

  • Bill corrected himself after the break. Guess you conviently missed that portion.
  • Or you conveniently made up facts, which is not surprising. You learned from Fox. Or perhaps you work for Fox. Sorry to get personal, but you are, like O'Reilly, a LIAR!
  • Oh look. A cowardly troll got thru.The coward also conviently [sic] missed where Ellen posted "From borally-sucks.com". Or maybe the troll lacks reading comprehension skills.
  • Try getting the full story next time. In the very next segment, O'Reilly acknowledged his mistake and apologized. Got that? He really did issue a correction. I actually watched the show.
  • This post came from another blog. However, I did see last night's show and I do not remember BOR correcting the record. -Ellen
  • Exactly how did Bill correct himself? Did he mention Ryan by name? ...Or did he gee-shucks it with a wave of his hand mumbling some generalities it wasn't all Democrats? - EyesOnFox
  • How about a link for us to see how exactly he corrected himself? What did he say?
  • In case anyone missed the update in my post, I heard from Steve, the original blogger whose post I picked up. Steve said he watched the whole show and there was no correction. Not tonight, either. - Ellen
  • Mr. Anonymous has disappeared so I guess I won't get my questions answered by him on how Bill corrected the record. But Damail claims he "actually watched the show" and saw it so perhaps he'll explain it to all of us who missed it (even those of us who watched the show and missed it). - EyesOnFox
After an update to her post that a correction may have been made but she doesn't remember it, Ellen added this:
I have heard from Steve at oreilly-sucks.com and he is adamant that O'Reilly never corrected the record. In his email to me, Steve wrote: I watched the entire show and took notes, then I wrote a blog review, at no time did O'Reilly correct it, in that show, or tonight. I watched every minute, and there was no correction. I saw an update to Steve's original post noting that O'Reilly did not correct the record on tonight's show, either.
J$P is proud to be the site that will tell the truth about this and let you hear O'Reilly's correction made just minutes later, immediately after the commercial break. "Steve at oreilly-sucks.com" lied about that correction, while Ellen cared so little about accuracy that she never bothered to fact-check anything he wrote.

Speaking of haters, we recall being told how the new hound policy of premoderating all posts would prevent racially offensive and demeaning comments like these from appearing at the kennel. How's that working out? Not so well. Here are just a few of the comments screened and approved by their "moderators" over the past few days:
  • We can always depend on Ole Uncle Juan to smear or defend whom ever OReilly deems the target....a whore for Murdoch money...
  • Juan Williams has become Fox News' Uncle Tom.
  • Juan is the Happy Negro.
  • At what point will JW stop being a Vichy black...
  • This is the type of nonsense we can expect from the House Negroes at Fox...
  • What is Juan the "black for pay" ahole talking about...
  • i see why juan williams was called a happy negro...
  • he is the favorite House Negro on the Fox Noise Plantation.... Massa Ailes will no doubt reward Juan with some extra cornbread tonight and a warm spot near the fire to sleep.
This is what passes for approved commentary at the dog pound. Such repellent, diseased conduct reminds us again that to be a Fox hater, you first have to be a hater.

Update: The ultimate authority, "steve at oreilly-sucks.com", has emailed us with a reply to our post:
Get a grip moron, you are a right-wing nut who lies and defends for O'Reilly and every Republican in America. Nobody believes a word you say, and your credibility is zero. O'Reilly said it on the radio factor and the tv factor, and I never saw him do a correction. The next day he was e-mailed to do a retraction and he refused. So as far as I can tell he never did a correction, so take a hike sparky.
"Steve" did not explain our clip of O'Reilly actually doing the correction. You know, the clip that proves Steve to be lying. Shocker.




Olby Sucks
"Joe blow fox hater says it so it must be true."
 
newshound logic
January 28, 2009, 1:45:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Why couldn't NH just get the transcript of the show in order to see if O'Reilly issued a correction?
January 28, 2009, 2:50:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Why Cece, how obtuse of you! Why bother to get a transcript, or listen to the actual audio of the show, when you have an authoritative source like "steve at oreilly-sucks.com"? What transcript, what media clip, could possibly complete with that?!?
January 28, 2009, 2:54:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Damail
Oh, it gets better, Johnny. From that same Oreilly-sucks website, Newswoofs took their "story" about Bill bellowing how all the Illinois legislators who got convicted are all Democrats.
 
Oops. I saw that show; O'Reilly corrected himself at the very beginning of the next segment and apologized, pointing out that Gov. Ryan was a Republican.
 
Surprise, surprise. They're having trouble believing it over there.
January 28, 2009, 3:16:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


John-O
I remember thinking in the back of my mind after hearing the correction that some O'Reilly-hater somewhere (Olbermann came to mind) would pounce on the error, because the correction came after the commercial break (not "fast enough"). By that time, the error would have already made an ineffaceable impression on the haters, turning their ears deaf to anything that would detract from a good smear.
January 28, 2009, 3:24:45 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I just did an update to this post to include an email from the world's authority on this matter: "steve at oreilly-sucks.com". It's pretty funny. Doubly so when you consider that just a few paragraphs above is my link where you can actually hear O'Reilly making the correction that steve insists was never made.
January 28, 2009, 3:34:54 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Johnny,
 
Are you sure O'Reilly didn't rush into a sound studio and tape a fake apology in order to make Steve SEEM like a cretin made even more cretinous and sloppy by illogical and rabid hatred, rather than Steve actually being all that?...
January 28, 2009, 3:57:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
You may be on to something there. And then he emailed me the fake apology, managed to have all transcripts retrofitted with the added language, and had fake video of it inserted into all clips retroactively. Yeah, that's the ticket. All to expose steve as a cretin. Which would be tantamount to exposing water as wet.
January 28, 2009, 3:59:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I hear O'Reilly has had 17 year daily phone conversations with Karl Rove...
 
Just sayin'...
January 28, 2009, 4:02:55 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
Come on J$, I KNOW you can impersonate Bill O'Reilly and simply made up the clip!
 
And any transcripts that prove it? Well, um, doctored! Yep, they were doctored by YOU!
 
On another not-unrelated subject....I have been listening to The Joe Scarborough show on WABC as I drive here in the NY metro area and Mika has really grown on me. She was asked by a caller if Chris Matthews was a conservative, would she still respect him intellectually.. I liked how she answered the question and even, ironically, gave a great compliment to Bill O'Reilly at the end of the answer.
 
Not towing Olbermann's line on his enemy! She may not last long at MSNBC!
 
The audio is interesting at about 38:20.
 
http://tinyurl.com/blohvs
January 28, 2009, 4:04:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Here's one of those transcripts that I somehow managed to doctor:
 
http://tinyurl.com/djnd9n
 
LOL!
January 28, 2009, 4:08:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
This post came from another blog. However, I did see last night's show and I do not remember BOR correcting the record. However, it's possible as I am not all that interested in the Blagojevich scandal and tend to tune out discussions about it.
 
I'm updating my post accordingly.
Ellen | Homepage | 01.27.09 - 11:21 pm | #  
 
She's playing the "it's not my fault" card. LOL!
January 28, 2009, 4:09:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
It was after she posted that comment that she went on and on about how the authoritative 'steve at oreilly-sucks.com' insists and is 'adamant' that there was no correction. Absolutely not!
 
Now that we know Steve has been lying, is Ellen going to update her post with the truth? Or permit the lie to stand? Enquiring minds want to know!
January 28, 2009, 4:11:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Steve said he watched the whole show and there was no correction. Not tonight, either.
Ellen | Homepage | 01.28.09 - 12:20 am | #  
 
Can you say "lazy?"
January 28, 2009, 4:15:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Ellen: lazy. Steve: liar.
January 28, 2009, 4:20:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
But you can't properly say that I don't care about accuracy.
Ellen | Homepage | 01.27.09 - 11:27 pm | #  
 
:lol:
January 28, 2009, 4:22:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Thanks, Cee, for the radio clip of the Joe Scarborough show with my man Bernard Goldberg.
 
I going to have to start listening to that show.
 
Between that and Johnny hooking me on the Classic Radio channel on XM, I'll be a regular radio freak.
January 28, 2009, 4:38:28 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
However, it's possible as I am not all that interested in the Blagojevich scandal and tend to tune out discussions about it.
 
I'm updating my post accordingly.
Ellen | Homepage | 01.27.09 - 11:21 pm | #  
 
I guess no one has ever told her about that little thing known as verifying.
January 28, 2009, 4:40:02 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Hah, I just discovered this at Steve the Liar's website:
 
Hey Folks, this is the last week of the oreilly-sucks.com fund drive, and so far I only have one donation, so if you can, please make a donation before 2-1-09.
 
Only one? As OS would say...shocker!
January 28, 2009, 4:47:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Only one donation... and now Ellen wants her money back...
January 28, 2009, 4:49:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
Let me get out my VISA.....
January 28, 2009, 4:49:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Cece, that was LOL funny!
January 28, 2009, 4:53:36 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Fund drive? I can only imagine the hysteria you would generate from the dogs J$ if you held a J$P fund drive.
 
Thanks for the great post detailing Steve and the hounds little faulty scenario about BOR. It gave me some great laughs today.
January 28, 2009, 4:54:32 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Newshounds are always good for a few "LOL's!"
January 28, 2009, 5:06:52 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
BTW - is the whole "Sweden" thing based on the comment from an actress in the Pinheads and Patriots segment? As I remember, she said something about remaining neutral, like Sweden. BOR named her the pinhead.
 
If that is the case, can the newshounds who appear to be so headstrong about defending that statement, find other examples of people referring to remaining neutral like Sweden rather than the common expression, remain neutral like Switzerland?
January 28, 2009, 5:55:08 PM EST – Like – Reply


Scott
It's nice to know Stevie the tail chaser is running a fund drive for his site. I'm sure there are IRS implication's as I pointed out to the a@@ sniffer's in '07 and have seen no other pandering for money in fact the "fund raising" link disappeared as soon as I posted it on there site before being banned.
January 28, 2009, 7:32:41 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Johnny,
 
Are those comments about Juan Williams NEW ones? Are they STILL leveling that sort of insult about him on News Hound boards?
January 28, 2009, 7:37:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yes those are all new comments about Juan Williams, posted yesterday and today, and all cleared in advance by the newshound 'moderators'. Classy place, huh?
January 28, 2009, 7:38:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
The same moderators that ellen claims she "loves."
January 28, 2009, 8:02:53 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Classy, indeed...
 
It might make sense if they had an adamant free speech policy for the blog, but from what I hear... NH does NOT.
 
They can run their blog as they wish, of course, but boy are they BIG hypocrites!
January 28, 2009, 8:04:34 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
No they have no free speech policy. In the post I quote a comment from someone who told the NHs that O'Reilly corrected his mistake immediately after the commercial break. I got an email from that guy. He told me that after he posted that he was banned from making any further posts.
January 28, 2009, 8:07:43 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
It's "free speech allowed" if you hate all things "Conservative, Fox News, Beck, Rush, Savage, Hannity, Bush, Morris, etc." Otherwise, they use the "it's a private blog" card on ya.
January 28, 2009, 8:38:00 PM EST – Like – Reply


ok then
nh...liars????
 
Say it aint so.
 
nh...racist (mod approved) comments???
 
Say it aint so.
 
Best laughs on the www those hounds.
January 28, 2009, 8:42:03 PM EST – Like – Reply


chris
the only donation steve got was a penny from a guy that he calls a right winger-thats funny
January 28, 2009, 8:44:02 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Johnny, the mutts weren't the only ones to put up the story about O'Reilly today without saying that he corrected himself immediately thereafter.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28879799/
January 28, 2009, 8:48:30 PM EST – Like – Reply


Damail
"Let me get out my VISA..."
 
You mean the one you cancelled last week?
January 28, 2009, 10:23:04 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
We begin with an entire post devoted to "proving" that Sweden is a "neutral country" (with the only "source" cited, laughably, Wikipedia!)
____________
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
 
1. Yes - it's a Wikipedia entry on the accuracy of Wikipedia but it cites around about a dozen studies by various groups. The most vocal anti-Wikipedia folks are the publishers of paid encyclopedias (surprise, surprise) It's generally found to be about as factually accurate as its commercial brethren, not as well-written, but articles are more in-depth and cover a broader range and it polices itself pretty well. Would I source it in a scholarly paper? Noooo - but for a blog post it's fine. Want to really "LOL" - check out "Conservapedia" (LOL - "Conservapedia" - these people are nuts...)
 
Swedish Neutrality:
Yes, Sweden Is a Neutral Country
http://www.transparent.com/swedish/yes-sweden-is-a-neutral-country/
 
Swedish neutrality refers to Sweden's policy of neutrality in armed conflicts, which has been in effect since the early 19th century. The policy originated largely as a result of Sweden's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars...Since the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden has not initiated any direct armed combat. However, Sweden's military and government have been involved in major peacekeeping actions and other military support functions around the world.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_neutrality
 
Sweden (now EU) - Sweden has not fought a war since ending its involvement in the Napoleonic Wars in 1814 with a short war with Norway, making it the oldest neutral country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country
 
Friday Fun Fact: Neutral countries
 
Most people know that Switzerland is a neutral country, but may not realize that the Swiss are not alone in their neutrality. There are a total of eight neutral countries: Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkmenistan.
 
Broadly, neutrality means not taking sides in armed conflict between warring countries, but it has a range of real-world manifestations: For instance, Switzerland and Sweden are famous for their large armies
http://equator.eftours.com/2008/05/friday-fun-fa-3.html
|
Should I continue?
|
January 28, 2009, 10:37:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
CE, did you know that naked mole rats "eat their own feces (coprophagia)"? Ironic gravatar!  
 
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole_rat
January 28, 2009, 10:57:23 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
CE, O'Reilly's correction also makes your entire lengthy diatribe...moot. Again.
January 28, 2009, 11:16:01 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
It's "free speech allowed" if you hate all things "Conservative, Fox News, Beck, Rush, Savage, Hannity, Bush, Morris, etc." Otherwise, they use the "it's a private blog" card on ya.
Olby Sucks | 01.28.09 - 8:43 pm | #
 
It is a "private" blog in the sense that it is the private property of the folks who own it.
 
I'm essentially a libertarian to the core, OS.
 
It does not take fences, walls, guns, or even gate-keeping software, to get me to respect other people's wishes about their own property.
 
Even if I don't like or respect them.
January 29, 2009, 1:39:06 AM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
CE, O'Reilly's correction also makes your entire lengthy diatribe...moot. Again.
Fox Fan | Homepage | 01.28.09 - 11:21 pm | #  
________________
 
Unfortunately for the curs, Sweden may have been neutral 60 years ago, but today they are "anything but neutral" given their work with NATO and the hundreds of troops they have in Afghanistan (Switzerland only has observers there).
___________
 
Nope - Sweden /IS/ a neutral country. Alba is correct, it's one of 8 neutral countries, which - like the Swiss, has an army.  
 
Here's what really happened. Ready for the real "No Spin Zone"? Alba made an anti-war comment and she's a celeb. This is a big no-no to brainless TV conservative war mongering blow-hard types like Bill O'Reilly. Not wanting to miss an opportunity to abuse his access to the media and hate-monger and celeb-bash, O'Reilly made a fool of himself, and called Ms Alba out on her statement.  
 
Not wanting to actually do 5 minutes worth or research into deciding:
 
A. What it means to be a neutral country
B. Answer definitively whether Sweden is actually a neutral country or not...  
 
O'Reilly jumped on his finger-wagging, celebrity bashing, anti-war bashing hate-mongering high horse and made a fool of himself. Sweden IS a neutral country - Jessica Alba was correct, and O'Reilly was INcorrect - regardless of wheter Sweden has a small number of troops in Afghanistan (see definition of neutral country).  
 
Jessica Alba - by the way, probably meant to say Switzerland - not Sweden, which is "famous for" its neutrality. She misspoke almost certainly. Big deal. But is this a reason to attack her and try to humiliate her on TV? Noooo. Would he be doing this if it wasn't an anti-war comment she made? No... As it turns out, Sweden IS one of the eight neutral countries and O'Reilly was the one who was humiliated. Of course, O'Reilly isn't man enough to admit he was wrong or admit to being an idiot, so his "apology" or "correction" ended with "Ms Alba is misinformed".  
 
No - it's O'Reilly who's the idiot here for attacking her for such obvious reasons (celebrity making anti-war statements) in the first place, then by being wrong about Sweden's neutrality, then by not being man enough - MAN enough, to simply say, "Yes, Jessica Alba was correct, technically Sweden is a neutral country. However, they do have a small number of troops in Afghanastan. Ms Alba probably meant to say Switzerland."  
 
O'Reilly is an idiot for wanting to bash and humiliate Jessica Alba over something so incredibly trite and stupid in the first place.... Is this news? No - it's conservative idiot "gotchya" which - in this case, blew up in the moron's face and O'Reilly ended up looking both foolish but moreso "small".  
|
January 29, 2009, 8:52:36 AM EST – Like – Reply


Guest
The Crimson Executioner | Homepage | 01.29.09 - 8:57 am | #  
 
There is much you espouse that I disagree with, but with the exception of the word 'idiot,' I'm in total agreement with your "O'Reilly is an idiot for wanting to bash and humiliate Jessica Alba over something so incredibly trite and stupid in the first place.... "
 
IMO, this was not about Sweden or Switzerland and certainly not about neutrality. It was simply childish retribution for Ms. Alba calling O'Reilly an "a-hole."
January 29, 2009, 10:48:17 AM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
"Conservapedia" (LOL - "Conservapedia" - these people are nuts...)
 
by mole boy
 
Link to source, please.
January 29, 2009, 10:48:37 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Oh, right, CE, every network personality save Bill O'Reilly treated the celebrity convergence on Washington for the inaugural with the utmost respect...that it...eh... deserved.
 
And how did O'Reilly's man attempt to entrap Ms Alba for the sake of baleful mockery by gleeful conservatives? By asking her if she had any parting words for President Bush and by asking what sort of shout out she'd give to Bill O'Rielly...  
 
What a bastard...
 
Now anyone who is the slightest bit familiar with O'Reilly knows that he is the original "fan" type when it comes to celebrities in everything from his star-struck interviews with the tv stars of his youth to his trivia game.  
 
But when it comes to beautiful actresses (or his fellow FNC female colleagues), no one is more putty in their hands...so to speak.... as exhibited in his tongue hanging out interviews with Goldie Hawn, Morgan Fairchild, and former model Cheryl Tiegs.
 
However, what did the beautiful actress target of Bill's evil conservative lampoonery do in return when merely asked to give ole Bill a shout-out? She called O'Reilly an "a-hole".  
 
Well, hey, O'Reilly did ask...  
 
However,this belies the specious-in-the-first-place argument that Alba was an innocent target of O'Reilly's ridicule in the subsequent "pinhead" segment.  
 
Isn't it funny how you've moved the argument from being about whether O'Reilly corrected himself after he misspoke, to being an argument that his intentions were bad no matter what occurred.
 
Of course THAT puts the whole thing on the sort of subjective and consequently hyperbolic grounds that you firmly plant your ridiculous self on, CE.
 
That's your territory for sure, and far from being a "no-spin zone", it's seems to relentlessly be the sort of agitprop zone that would even embarrass a Tokyo Rose.
January 29, 2009, 11:01:00 AM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
So - why does Sweden, a neutral country since the Napoleonic Wars, have troops in Afghanastan? How can they have troops there and still claim to be a neutral country? Both the Swiss and Sweden have armies, and fairly sizable ones. Just because you're a neutral country, doesn't mean you won't defend her and just roll over to any threat - obviously. Sweden /probably/ views sending troops to Afghanastan as a way of defending itself from the global terrorism threat posed by al Qaida. They are trying to defeat al Qaida as a way to defend Sweden from terrorism. So - yes, you can still be a neutral country and maintain your neutrality while engaging in military actions if said military actions are in defense of your nation. Just becausd you're neutral doesn't mean you don't defend your country from foreign threats. Please explain this to Bill O'Reilly. Speak nice and slow while you do, so he understands you.  
|
January 29, 2009, 11:01:11 AM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
|
January 29, 2009, 11:03:55 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Except that Sweden may have been neutral 60 years ago, but they are now regarded as a post-neutral country, one that does take sides on a case by case basis, unlike Switzerland whose neutrality is part of its constitution.
 
A country that occasionally takes sides is by definition not neutral. I'll try to write this nice and slow. Take sides? Not neutral.
 
I'm amused by your fascination on the issue of Swedish neutrality, and your complete disinterest in, say, the newshounds recycling lies about Bill O'Reilly. And not correcting the lies even when proof has been posted. How slowly do I have to type for Ellen to understand what an amoral smear merchant she is to print lies about someone and then refuse to correct the record when the liars have been exposed?
 
And that's not even getting into the racial slurs that the newshounds encourage their commenters to toss around. Do you have no thoughts on that either, Crimson?
January 29, 2009, 11:11:50 AM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
Anonymous | 01.29.09 - 10:53 am | #  
 
Moi. Pardon.
January 29, 2009, 11:13:37 AM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
that his (O'Reilly) intentions were bad no matter what occurred.
 
Bingo! Loon logic!
January 29, 2009, 11:55:16 AM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Saw this last night and couldn't help but think O'Reilly and Miller really deserve to die slow agonizing deaths.
FinalFurlong | 01.29.09 - 9:35 am | #  
 
These are the peeps that CE prefers to hang out with......
January 29, 2009, 12:04:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.29.09 - 11:16 am | # 
____________
 
I'm not an expert on "Swedish Neutrality" - and neither are you. From what I've read, and what I've sourced, and what I've cited, Sweden IS one of eight countries that are neutral. Neutral countries do not initatiate armed conflicts, however they DO defend themselves from threats. Their justification for having a small number of troops in Afghanistan is due to their defending their country from an outside threat - terrorism. They're not "taking sides" as you state. I cited several sources on something that borders on common knowledge. You resorted to "because I say so... "by definition". Neutral countries DO defend themselves, DO get involved militarily in peace-keeping missions, and often DO have a military, even Switzerland. Being neutral does not mean you never have military involvement with other countries. 
 
I cite this because - regardless of your beef with NH, BO was simply celeb-bashing, and taking cheap shots at some celeb who misspoke "probably" (but turns out she was correct anyway even if she did misspeak) with whom he disagrees and he was obviously perpetrating a mean-spirited attempt to humiliate someone. He then issued a lame non-correction because BO - as these media blow hards often do, are too small to admit when they are wrong. BO was wrong, Sweden IS neutral, his lame celeb-bashing blew up in his face and he made a foo' of himself. Serves him right. And who cares what "Jessica Alba" says anyway? Why did he choose to focus on this incredibly insignificant non-issue with all that's going on right now? (Why aren't YOU "amused" about that, rather than what I choose to post about?) Answer - obvious. Conservative media blowhards can never pass on an opportunity to go on one of their tired celeb-bashing rants if said celeb espouses a liberal POV. He was condescending to the point of being disgusting, and it's hilarious that he was dead wrong. The whole thing was very stupid and trite to begin with, and BO proved himself, again, to be a very "little" man. 
 
As for your other comments - alls I can say is you are far too easily amused. 
|
January 29, 2009, 12:07:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


Damail
Hey Johnny, I tried last night to e-mail that guy over at Oreilly-sucks, and it got kicked back. Yahoo said that he didn't have an account with them. Let me know how you were able to get through. Maybe they have closed his account, since he has only had one financial donor. (Chuckle)
 
Update: I have tried three times now to inform Ellen that the correction/apology audio exists, and the mods aren't allowing it to post.
 
(Bawwwwk,bawk-bawk-bawk!)
January 29, 2009, 1:15:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I don't know this for a fact, but I have reason to believe that he was getting a surge (anything more than one a week would be a surge for that site) of emails after we exposed his lie about O'Reilly. I suspect he may have turned off the email account for a while; I know that earlier yesterday emails were getting through to him. Perhaps the 8-ball recommendation would work: ask again later. Maybe tonight or tomorrow he'll take emails again.
 
As for Ellen, her actions show that she has moved beyond recycling someone else's lie. Now she's an active participant in continuing the lie herself. But don't you dare suggest that she doesn't care about accuracy! ROFL!!!
January 29, 2009, 1:19:38 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
As for Ellen, her actions show that she has moved beyond recycling someone else's lie. Now she's an active participant in continuing the lie herself. But don't you dare suggest that she doesn't care about accuracy! ROFL!!!
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.29.09 - 1:24 pm | # 
_____
 
Kinda like you're an active participant in continuing O'Reilly's lie that Sweden is not a neutral country?
 
Are you going to issue a correction? 
 
Now do you see my so-call "facination" with this?   
|
January 29, 2009, 1:30:22 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
First of all, O'Reilly didn't say Sweden is not a neutral country. He said it is neutral on a case-by-case basis. Is that a lie? He also said Switzerland is officially neutral because it is in the constitution. Is that a lie too?
 
All I did was cite sources and information. I don't claim to any foreign policy expertise. But it's certainly clear that when international scholars refer to Sweden as post-neutral rather than neutral, that it is absurd to claim that O'Reilly "lied" about Sweden. He didn't. Of course I could be wrong and if you can quote what O'Reilly said about Sweden that is a lie, then I'll apologize.
 
On the other hand, there is no difference of opinion, or viewpoint, over the issue of whether event X took place or not. Either it did or it didn't, and someone who knowingly claims opposite to the facts is a liar. Hence, Steve at his Steve-Lies cite lied about the correction, Ellen adopted the lie, and now refuses to even allow commenters to point it out.
 
See this is the difference between a split of opinion (what constitutes a neutral country) and a matter of fact (O'Reilly did offer a correction, Steve lied about it and Ellen continues to promote his lie).
 
So I will await your verbatim quote from O'Reilly about Sweden that is a lie (and I emphasize the word 'verbatim', since you seem to want to rewrite O'Reilly's words to fit your argument), and then your next attempt to spin the topic away from Ellen and her lying sources.
January 29, 2009, 1:39:53 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Steve lied about it and Ellen continues to promote his lie).
 
Add CE to the long list.......
January 29, 2009, 2:01:07 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
"Kinda like you're an active participant in continuing O'Reilly's lie that Sweden is not a neutral country?"
 
What is the correct sentence?
 
1-Sweden was a neutral country?
 
or
 
2-Sweden is a neutral country?
 
If your answer is 2, how can it be neutral if it has troops in Afghanistan?
 
J$ - the pushback from the doggies and their minions is incredible. It's as if they opened up secret laboratories in New Mexico, filled it with hundreds of their minions, and have started something they call "The Manhattan Project" in an effort to make J Alba not look like a pinhead.
January 29, 2009, 2:20:39 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Saw this last night and couldn't help but think O'Reilly and Miller really deserve to die slow agonizing deaths.
FinalFurlong | 01.29.09 - 9:35 am | # 
 
Such tolerance from the left! Enjoy seeing someone die a slow and agonizing death, all because they have a different viewpoint. The hounds must be proud! So proud, they don't consider it "hate" and refrain from deleting it from the website.
January 29, 2009, 2:25:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"I have tried three times now to inform Ellen that the correction/apology audio exists, and the mods aren't allowing it to post."
 
Damail I notice that they finally let one of your posts thru, mentioning the existence of the O'Reilly correction/apology clip. However they edited your message to make it incomprehensible as to where to find it. It just reads that the audio is "there" without saying where. So anyone who reads it will get the idea that you're just blowing smoke and don't really have the proof.
January 29, 2009, 2:38:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Well, good luck, Johnny, because all I'm hearing is just a restating of the strawman argument that the O'Reilly show was picking on Alba merely by putting a microphone in her face.
 
And even THAT strawman is left unexplained and undefended.
 
I have yet to hear what Alba's "anti-war" statement was. (You know-- the one that supposedly made Bill go after her in the first place.)
 
I have yet to hear how asking her for parting words to Bush and a shout out to Bill was unfairly setting her up, especially when video of Jaime Fox was shown to the O'Reilly audience as being at his best in the same exchange.
 
I have yet to hear how any of this negates the original issue about how NH misrepresented O'Reilly's response.
 
It all just an unsupported opinion that Bill went after an actress who had disagreed with him about the war or because of her political ideology or some such.
 
Putting aside the illogical time frame underpinning this argument, there's just the delicious irony of it coming from a crowd who routinely "amuses" themselves with such "insignificant nonissues" and in fact has an entire site devoted to such matters--- BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH BILL O'REILLY on the war and on ideology, etc....
 
Among the appellations of pinhead and a-hole, I think you'll find no more qualifying and deserving candidates for those titles than these people.
 
You can add illogical and hyperbolic to their descriptors and you'll be even more on target.
January 29, 2009, 2:53:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
First of all, O'Reilly didn't say Sweden is not a neutral country. He said it is neutral on a case-by-case basis. Is that a lie? 
___________
 
LOL - no, it's not a lie it's just silly. Isn't ANY country neutral on a "case by case" basis? I guess we're neutral on a "case by case" basis - huh? 
|
January 29, 2009, 4:09:53 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
OK so I'm waiting for you to quote for me O'Reilly's "lie" (your word) about Sweden. Go for it.
January 29, 2009, 4:22:10 PM EST – Like – Reply


tony
It must suck to be so full of hate that NH posters feel a need to lie so often. My question to them is, if Fox News is so bad, why do you need to make things up? If Fox was that bad NH would be going after legit subjects and be able to back it up with fact.
 
If NH wants to do a service they should tune into MSNBC. They could have a field day talking about the lies of Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and the 10pm female host (forgot her name). And better yet, they wouldnt have to lie.
January 29, 2009, 5:50:07 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
tony, sadly the newshounds think defending people like sean penn is a "legitimate subject." According to the newshounds, keith olbermann tells no lies and chris mathews is a "right wing shill."
January 29, 2009, 7:24:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
chris mathews is a "right wing shill."
 
Tell me it ain't so, OS. Although perhaps he might be. After all he did work for that infamous right wing hayseed Tip o'neil.
January 29, 2009, 8:04:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.29.09 - 4:27 pm | #
 
Crimson Executioner can't seem to execute a simple task such as retrieving a quote, and he certainly isn't crimson (red)!
 
Too bad he got rid of the naked mole rat gravatar, that was the most accurate part of his persona.
January 29, 2009, 8:23:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Guns over the USA flag gives us Fox Lovers a tingle up the leg.
January 29, 2009, 10:25:00 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
'Scuse me, "Fox Fan"?
 
FU.
January 29, 2009, 10:46:53 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Without guns, the American flag would not exist.
January 29, 2009, 11:09:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


Damail
"However, they edited your message..."
 
Oh, you're gonna love this, Johnny. I told Newswoofs the O'Reilly correction/apology exists - and then I told them it was here! My final sentence - "Get over your Dollar aversion and check it out."
 
They nuked that part of my comment. 
 
Good golly Miss Molly. They just couldn't bring themselves to admit that you just punked them.
January 30, 2009, 12:24:23 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Especially if it means people will hear the clip that proves them wrong.
January 30, 2009, 12:30:37 AM EST – Like – Reply


Damail
Oh my gosh, I missed another tidbit. Go back and check out your list of comments trying to correct them. Mine was the fourth comment you listed, where I told them to "try and get the full story". 
 
That comment is now gone. 
 
I'm glad you saved it for me. How do these people sleep at night? Well, this is the same group that is still peddling the discredited Hannity/Hal Turner crap, so I should stop being the slightest bit surprised.
January 30, 2009, 12:37:28 AM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
So - let's recap. O'Reilly - not wishing to miss an opportunity to celebrity bash - part of the conservative cable news and AM hate-jock radio blow hard stock-n-trade, with all that's going on in the world and economy right now, used his access to the media to try to humiliate Jessica Alba because she said Sweden was a neutral country not Switzerland. Turns out, Jessica Alba was CORRECT, Sweden IS a neutral country, and O'Reilly - once again, for the umpteenth time, looked like a blithering idiot. 
 
In his "apology/correction" - whatever it was supposed to be, he said (LOL) Sweden is "neutral on a case by case basis"(tm). LOL... Hilarious. I guess Hitler's Germany was also "neutral on a case by case basjs"(tm). Conservative bobble-heads bob their heads up and down to this hilarious load of purely made up BS... we hear and obey, countries can be neutral on a (lol) "case by case basis..." must be true - Bill O'Reilly said-so on Tee Vee. Neutral countries - as stated earlier, DO get involved in armed conflicts in peace-keeping efforts and for their own self-defense. We are not "at war WITH Afghanistan" we using our military to crush the Taliban and capture or kill bin Laden IN Afghanistan, and Sweden has a small number of troops there to assist in our efforts against global terrorism in defense of Sweden and to assist in worldwide efforts to thwart terrorism. It makes perfect sense for a neutral country to do this. Sweden is one of 8 neutral countries, and it's NOT "neutral on a case by case basis" (lol). It IS a neutral country - Alba correct, O'Reilly WRONG and laughably so. So, this guy sets out to humiliate a celeb - just doing his job as a conservative cable news blowhard - is a small to begin with just by doing this, then made the situation worse in his "apology/correction" when he stated "Ms Alba is misinformed" because (according to O'Reilly) Sweden is "neutral on a case by case basis"(tm) LOL.... He might want to go over to Sweden and explain this to them... 
 
But in all reality, Jessica Alba probably misspoke. She probably confused Sweden with Switzerland. But at least she's smart enough, one assumes, not to confuse a loofah (a sponge-y bath accessory) with falafel (fried patty made from fava beans). 
|
January 30, 2009, 8:14:09 AM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
By the way - as I'm sure you're aware, 3rd post down on the NH blog ... Johnny Dollar Can't Get Over Us by Ellen is pretty much spot-on. And by the way - showing pictures of Ellen and making little childish grammar school slurs about her appearance?!?! C'mon, Johnny. Sure, I'll hit the f-note (which few - if any, are actually offended by) and use some charged language and refer to conservatives as "cretins" and "idiots" in a vague way (usually) and have posts deleted...
 
You, however, will actually post someone's picture, full name, and make snide comments on their appearance? That's "okay"? And you seriously think this doesn't reflect poorly on you? And I'm sure you're the spittin image of Paul Neuman in his prime - or something. 
|
They don't like Fox "News" - Hannity, O'Reilly, and the rest of those loudmouth RW clowns - don't blame them, lots of folks don't. They have a blog about it... Get over it - eh? Why so personal and childish? (Though keep the naked mole rat avatar, that's pretty funny, actually...) 
|
January 30, 2009, 9:38:14 AM EST – Like – Reply


Darby
Who Cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30, 2009, 9:41:23 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"You, however, will actually post someone's picture, full name, and make snide comments on their appearance?"
 
The word would be re-post. I didn't take that photo, you know. It was posted on the internet. Ellen Brodsky's full name? She's given it out herself, so why is it off limits?
 
But I find most intriguing your attack on me for making "snide comments" about her appearance. I do expect you to quote my words back to me, or else to take back that accusation and apologize. Because while I don't like it when people lie about Fox, I don't like it a whole lot more if they lie about me.
January 30, 2009, 10:20:18 AM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Jessica Alba probably misspoke
by ce
 
:lol:
January 30, 2009, 11:07:39 AM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
The Newshounds have a scrupulous devotion to fact and self-correction,
 
by professor duhm duhm
 
I pity his students.
 
ce, no quote from O'Reilly? Shocker!
January 30, 2009, 11:15:03 AM EST – Like – Reply


Priscilla
Swedish neutrality:
 
"Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits."
 
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/sw.html
 
Or is the CIA a tool of the "secular progressives?" I know how you feel about that thread - but what say you about the hypocrisy of an accused sexual harasser (who sees danger in "clustered gays" - see my Bill O'Reilly's greates homophobic hits) mocking a women's right to an abortion - something I covered in several recent threads. And BTW, "traditionalist" Bill's dirty talk can be found on the internet. But do love your version of "selective neutrality." 
 
And Bill O'Reilly so saved Christmas in Great Barrington Massachusetts - let's talk about that, shall we?
January 30, 2009, 11:18:56 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
My my, how quickly the Fox haters revert to personal attacks on O'Reilly when their accuracy and truthfulness is questioned. Nay, when their accuracy and truthfulness is disproved. You see, someone once made unproven allegations against O'Reilly...and that makes it OK to lie about him and claim he never made a correction that he clearly made three minutes later. Oh, and don't ask me why, but that also makes it OK to approve and publish sick, repellent racial slurs about Juan Williams because--gasp!--he works for Fox.
 
Keep 'em coming, newspoodles. You're an endless source of material for this site. As long as you embarrass yourselves daily with your smears and lies about Fox, I'll never starve.
January 30, 2009, 11:31:30 AM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Hence it was no surprise that instead of simply notifying us that one of our guest posters had made a mistake, Koldys seized what he thought was an opportunity to impugn my integrity, my character and take personal potshots. 
 
by ellen
 
A "guest poster?" That's a MOAS! The mother of all spins! :lol:
January 30, 2009, 11:59:04 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Ellen doesn't mention what happened to the two people who tried to mention the correction in their comments. One of them was banned from further posting (and was promptly attacked by the gullible kennel dwellers as a "LIAR"). The other mentioned the correction only to find his comment deleted shortly thereafter. It took pressure from this site over two full days to get the hounds to admit they were wrong. And at that they fob it off on a "guest poster" (they never take responsibility) and go out of their way not to link to the article exposing the lie.
January 30, 2009, 12:02:55 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
If ellen mentioned the FACT that several posters pointed her to the truth she couldn't have made her post today which does nothing more than smear this site. They are over there right now posting pics of you and calling you every name in the book. Shocker! AAP is using a different name, Shocker!
January 30, 2009, 12:15:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
I saw the pics and laughed at who they thought was me. As for the name calling, hey, that's Fox hater operating procedure.
January 30, 2009, 12:19:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
I get a kick out of Ellen and her gang of loons. No one performs more smearing that this group of wanna be's.
 
You are correct Johnny,. They are running out of material.
 
They are also far more racist than Fox thanks to their comments about Juan Williams.
January 30, 2009, 1:07:44 PM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
The Crimson Executioner | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 9:43 am | # 
 
You complain about personla attacks, snide remarks and childish behavior.
 
Have you ever even paid attention to the posts by some of your cohorts at News Hounds?
 
Hypocrisy is alive and well at News Hounds.

Edited By Siteowner
January 30, 2009, 2:23:00 PM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Hence it was no surprise that instead of simply notifying us that one of our guest posters had made a mistake, Koldys seized what he thought was an opportunity to impugn my integrity, my character and take personal potshots. 
 
by ellen
 
A "guest poster?" That's a MOAS! The mother of all spins! 
Olby Sucks | 01.30.09 - 12:04 pm | # 
 
Ellen has no integrity. She and her merry band of hypocrites fear anyone who speaks up about them and then she has them banned for DARING to disagree with one of their so hypocrits.
January 30, 2009, 2:27:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
Where are my posts?
January 30, 2009, 5:35:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 10:25 am | # 
__________
 
Actually, Johnny - that's pretty easy. I reread what you had written and - yes, I misinterprited it. So, in the matter I was referencing I stand corrected and do apologize. I was going from memory and recalled you referred to her as a "mutt" and something about kennel - all I remember. So, yes, wrong on that one. See how easy it is? But I'm not wrong about Sweden's neutrality and neither was Jessica Alba... and countries are not "neutral on a case by case basis" as O'Reilly claims - which is pretty hilarious.
January 30, 2009, 6:01:08 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well there are four of them right here in this thread just above this one. Are there others that are missing?
January 30, 2009, 6:05:05 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
CE, I agree with you to this extent: a country that is neutral on a case by case basis isn't really a neutral country.
January 30, 2009, 6:06:41 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I wonder if Ellen will list the "ad hominem attacks" that you've leveled against he as she claims. She also acts as if the mods there didn't delete several notifications in their comments from readers here.
 
Since she's so proud of her sit's numbers vs J$P's, I wonder if she'd like to check the latest cable news ratings. Don't pat yourself on the back just yet,Ellen! Oh, and nice picture, sea hag!
January 30, 2009, 7:04:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
The Crimson Executioner | 01.30.09 - 6:06 pm | # 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
No quote from O'Reilly?
January 30, 2009, 8:58:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
No quote from O'Reilly?
Olby Sucks | 01.30.09 - 9:03 pm | # 
 
http://johnnydollar.us/2008a/audios08/alba.mp3
________________________
 
It's in the tape... See, in O'Reilly's bizarro world and obnoxious unwillingness to admit he was completely wrong (because that's what obnoxious small people do - they don't have the character to admit when they're wrong - it ain't in them, and it's pretty psychotic actually. EVERYBODY is wrong at times) in his over zealousness to humiliate some celebrity from his bully pulpit (part of the RW TV/radio personality stock-n-trade), and complete laziness on his part and the part of himself and the Fox "News" staff to do five seconds worth of research into the matter... 
 
...he came up with a line-o-crap, that a country can be "neutral on a case by case basis" - which is hilarious. Even more hilarious (and disgusting) is the condescending intonation and way he espouses this complete and utter laughable nonsense to his audience in the clip I posted the link to. Then he says Miss Alba was misinformed (nyah, nyah... So childish). Actually it's O'Reilly and O'Reilly's viewers who are now misinformed by Bill O'Reilly himself. Sweden - IS. A. NEUTRAL. COUNTRY. PERIOD. ... since the Napoleonic Wars as cited. They are not only a neutral country, they are the worlds /oldest/ neutral country. Neutrality does NOT mean a country NEVER gets involved in armed conflict. Peace-keeping efforts and national self-defense - which is why both Sweden and Switzerland have armies, are two examples as explained. Afghanistan is technically NOT a war, we are not at war WITH Afghanistan, we have a military effort IN Afghanistan to destroy a dangerous radical group, the Taliban, who is harboring bin Laden, an international terrorist who perpetrated the 911 attacks and also attacked Europe. Sweden has a small presence there both for national defense reasons and it can also be viewed as a peace-keeping effort. It makes perfect sense for any of the 8 neutral countries to assist in destroying a dangerous group of international terrorists. And, if they do - as Sweden is doing, they're still neutral countries... 
 
This is a nice microcosim of why a lot of people hate Fox "News" and blow-hards like Bill O'Reilly. Firstly, the guy went out and did what they all do - bash celebs who don't espouse their POV. Say what you will about celebs - like them, don't like them - whatever. But they are entitled to their opinion of world events - as we all are, without being humiliated if they don't align with your own. It's unfair for someone to try to make them look stupid over a sound clip like O'Reilly did. Though they are celebs - few of us, including people like Alba, have access to their own daily cable show to rebut what they say. 
 
When it turned out Jessica Alba was correct (probably by accident) - and she WAS correct, rather than issue a proper respectful correction or rebuttal... O'Reilly "makes stuff up" because he's too small of a person to do the right thing.... and misinforms his entire audience that countries can be neutral "on a case by case basis" - which is perposterous, ridiculous, and something he pulled out of his arse. 
|
January 31, 2009, 8:00:53 AM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
This is a nice microcosim (sic) of why a lot of people hate Fox "News" and blow-hards like Bill O'Reilly. -CE
 
CE, please see "today's numbers".
 
BTW, thank you for reinstating the naked mole rat. Its coprophagous diet is an accurate symbology of the stuff they feed you at the kennel.
January 31, 2009, 12:04:03 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
Fox Fan | Homepage | 01.31.09 - 12:09 pm | #
_____________
 
I noticed:
 
A. You did not attempt to refute the case I made...
 
B. Resorted to a childish "to the man" attack which really doesn't offend me in the slightest. 
 
C. Point to ratings, as if that somehow makes O'Reilly's statements true - or even ethical, or anything... 
 
Conservatives, apparently, like to hear their ideologies reaffirmed, mantra-style, for whatever psychological reasons and this has been exploited by people like Murdoch, Clear Channel, Regenery Press - etc. it does not represent the current political tide in this country (the last few elections did), nor does that mean your ideologies represent the mainstream, nor does having higer ratings than whomever mean a statement made on the show is "true", "better" - whatever. It means what it means - X number of people tuned into a show. That's it.
|
January 31, 2009, 1:41:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
You should talk to Ellen about that. In her latest attack on me she wrote:
 
Our blog continues to demolish his in traffic comparisons. Unfortunately for him, there's just no disputing the fact that far more people find us appealing, interesting and worthy.
 
So I guess Ellen disagrees with you. Ratings, popularity, whatever are--at least according to the newshounds--a true arbiter of what is appealing, interesting, and worthy.
 
Perhaps you and Ellen should get your points in order for the next salvo.
January 31, 2009, 1:50:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Restating and restating irregardless of someone else's argument is certainly your cup of tea, CE.
 
Perhaps when dealing with pesky reporters, "be Sweden" was Alba's code for telling her bodyguards to move beyond neutrality into a peacekeeping mission enforced by sidearms...
January 31, 2009, 3:28:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
This is a nice microcosim of why a lot of people hate Fox "News" and blow-hards like Bill O'Reilly. Firstly, the guy went out and did what they all do - bash celebs who don't espouse their POV. Say what you will about celebs - like them, don't like them - whatever. But they are entitled to their opinion of world events - as we all are, without being humiliated if they don't align with your own. It's unfair for someone to try to make them look stupid over a sound clip like O'Reilly did. Though they are celebs - few of us, including people like Alba, have access to their own daily cable show to rebut what they say. 
 
When it turned out Jessica Alba was correct (probably by accident) - and she WAS correct, rather than issue a proper respectful correction or rebuttal... O'Reilly "makes stuff up" because he's too small of a person to do the right thing.... and misinforms his entire audience that countries can be neutral "on a case by case basis" - which is perposterous, ridiculous, and something he pulled out of his arse. 
|
The Crimson Executioner | Homepage | 01.31.09 - 8:05 am | # 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It's not a "nice mircocosim" it's utter silliness.
 
To argue that it is essentially the malevolent bad faith of O'Reilly and conservatives in general that an O'Reilly reporter was there to interview ( and entrap) celebrities is assinine rabid partisan crap.
 
There were reporters all over the place. Reporters who in typical fashion would doubtlessly give their grandmothers for one celebrity, politician, illuminary wipe-out. THAT is part and parcel of such interviews in the frst place and would be of just as much of interest to CNN or Newsweek as to Bill O'Reilly. There is nothing unusual or even unusually malevolent in that.
 
Oh, no doubt O'Reilly would be thrilled to show a famous person's misstep (ratings!) but he was just as willing to to show a celebrity according himself intelligently (ratings...)
 
It's indicative of something that you feel the need to engage in this sort of demonization, in order to bolster your other argument about Swedish neutrality. 
 
However, the real reason why you do it, is because you are arguing on the side of a site that exists in order to say "gotcha!" to the O'Reillys and the Juan Williams. A site that always makes a mountain out of a molehill and that always adamantly and in *bad faith* turns a deaf ear to an exculpating argument, as you turn a deaf ear to Sweden's move to a sort of third wave of "neutrality" that makes O'Reilly more correct than you are.
 
Now you've been addressed AGAIN. Go and repeat yourself as though you're only typing to some NH peanut gallery.
January 31, 2009, 4:05:39 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.31.09 - 1:55 pm | #
___________________
 
So, you're agreeing with me then that Fox "News" ratings is not an indicator that is it is more appealing, interesting and worthy than its competitor? 
|
I stand by my statement - which was:
 
for whatever psychological reasons and this has been exploited by people like Murdoch, Clear Channel, Regenery Press - etc. it does not represent the current political tide in this country (the last few elections did), nor does that mean your ideologies represent the mainstream, nor does having higher ratings than whomever mean a statement made on the show is "true", "better" - whatever. It means what it means - X number of people tuned into a show. That's it.
|
The question is more one of motivation. I might agree with KO. I have little motivation to tune in to him, Colbert, or Stewart or listen to Air America though I'm aligned with them on many issues. 
 
Conservatives are more motivated to tune in to some media personality espousing and therefore reaffirming their own political POV, it seems to me. Hence, "conservative" media. Not saying that's good, bad, right, wrong... Don't know why that is... Just an observation - but I think a correct one. 
 
I would say there are fewer hardcore "Rush Limbaugh" conservatives, as evident in the last election, but those that do exist represent a nice number to build a media business or career around and are "good customers" in that they are more motivated to tune in... This translates to higher ratings for shows with a conservative "POV" in media more suited to "narrowcasting" like cable tv and AM radio. Sarah Palin drew huge numbers to her rallies, they were highly motivated to do so, but she motivated a lot of people to "RUN" to the polls to keep her out of office. The O'Reillys of the world are doing the same thing, and the higher profile they are, the more they motivate people to vote X to block the O. "Smarter" partly leaders in the Republican party are beginning to recognize this. 
 
When conservative point to Fox "News" ratings they, seems to me, do so as a way to make the case that they're the mainstream POV, when they're not - never were, really. The medium is the message - and cable channels and AM radio frequencies is the medium of narrow interest (cable) and religion (AM radio) so radical POV like conservatism thrives there. 
 
Narrowcasting conservative POV works on cable and AM radio precisely because it ISN'T the mainstream POV. The question that really should be asked is why the conservative ideology is relegated to "AM radio" and cable station 68 regardless of ratings, and why this POV is not in the mainstream media outlets. 
 
The base "Rush Limbaugh" conservatives - the Koolaid drinkers who will rationalize any and all failings of their ideology, will always turn in to Fox "News" and listen to Rush Limbaugh, regardless of the prevailing political current. They are as "dug in" as someone is "dug in" to their religious beliefs - probably more so. That's more true - again, subjectively, "it seems to me" than non-conservatives who I dub "The Normal Majority"...
 
Problem is, in the post-Bush era, what "motivates" this particular base - "red meat", attacks on celebs like O'Reilly's attack against Alba, motivates conservatives to "tune in", but also motivates others away from the Republican party at large...
 
Already, Limbaugh is being used against the party in states like PA and other states to contact Specter to vote for the stimulus package, as but one recent example... Disgust of people like "Limbaugh" and "O'Reilly" and "Hannity" and tying these people to the Republican party at large is increasingly being used as a tool... One could argue that Limbaugh lost the majority for the Republicans with his Michael J. Fox impersonation... These people are becoming the Republican's party's worst nightmare, as is increasingly Fox "News". 
|
|
January 31, 2009, 5:47:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"So, you're agreeing with me then that Fox "News" ratings is not an indicator that is it is more appealing, interesting and worthy than its competitor? "
 
I didn't say one way or the other. I merely pointed out that Ellen and the newshounds would seem to think that it is such an indicator. I must have missed your lengthy screed over there taking them to task for citing popularity.
 
"When conservative point to Fox "News" ratings they, seems to me, do so as a way to make the case that they're the mainstream POV, when they're not - never were, really."
 
Well there is an issue where ratings do have a point, since the concept of 'mainstream' is in fact a reckoning of popularity.
 
"The base "Rush Limbaugh" conservatives - the Koolaid drinkers who will rationalize any and all failings of their ideology, will always turn in to Fox "News"
 
And so do independents and Democrats. Or are you unaware that Fox News has more Democratic viewers than either CNN or MSNBC? That statistic alone seems to eviscerate your entire 'point' (and I use the term loosely)...
 
http://tinyurl.com/b2hqln
January 31, 2009, 5:58:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
Cecelia, this guy O'Reilly employs has one purpose in mind. That is obvious. You really think this guy is the same as the field reporter for WXYZ in Schenectady? Please. He is there to entrap and ambush. Personally, I think he kinda sucks at it. (Stern's Stuttering John 15 years ago did this all much better...) My take is a celeb espousing a conservative POV who makes a good showing "might" make it on the air... a liberal "wipe out" (or not even a wipe out, but enough of a misstep to give O'Reilly enough to exaggerate into a wipe out) most assuredly will... And DID! Only is wasn't a wipe out... 
 
C'mon, why even give the Alba interview the time of day if he didn't think Alba "wiped out" or she at least gave his boss enough to "work with" by making a very MINOR misstep of saying Sweden was the neutral country instead of Switzerland? (It's not like she sat in an interview and insisted to a Canadian interviewer that Canada sent troops to 'Nam or something.) He attempted to humiliate her - Oh - she's not "a patriot" (LOL), she's "the pinhead", you see. Gotchya, nyah, nyah. You're a "pinhead"... When O'Reilly was - again, proven wrong, instead of fessing up, he chose to save face and pretty much outright lied to his audience and insisted Sweden is "neutral on a case by case basis" - which is so ridiculous as to be comical. And people (here) believe it and are defending it! 
|
January 31, 2009, 6:17:34 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Cecelia, you called it. "Restating and restating". Repetition makes reality.
 
Cece, you have been en fuego today, and that means you get the much-sought-after, highly-prized accolade: Commenter of the Day.
January 31, 2009, 6:21:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


Guest
hurray!
January 31, 2009, 7:43:02 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
CE,
 
There are just so many ways one can be undermined when asked to give a message to an outgoing president and to give O'Reilly a shout out. 
 
Alba is NOT stupid.
 
What she did was to call O'Reilly an a-hole and then later to essentially adjure someone else to be neutral or nonpartisan about stuff.
 
Could O'Reilly have ignored it? Yeah. Should he have? Not necessarily. She pretty well asked for what she got and she is not an obscure nobody with no media outlet as a resource. She knew that you and yours would be dancing in the streets over her remark.
 
You had your's. He didn't have to air it. He had his.
 
That's a draw in my book.
January 31, 2009, 8:00:43 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
The "hurray is from me.
January 31, 2009, 8:01:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
The Crimson Executioner | Homepage | 01.31.09 - 6:22 pm | # 
 
When you read this rank partisan puffery that really is an attempt to impugn the very DNA of opponents... please remember that Bush was elected twice (hear any sermons bemoaning their alienation from the mainstream POV then?...) and that until the subprime fiasco, McCain and Obama were running almost neck-and-neck.
January 31, 2009, 8:12:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
The question is more one of motivation. I might agree with KO. I have little motivation to tune in to him, Colbert, or Stewart or listen to Air America though I'm aligned with them on many issues. 
 
Conservatives are more motivated to tune in to some media personality espousing and therefore reaffirming their own political POV, it seems to me. Hence, "conservative" media. Not saying that's good, bad, right, wrong... Don't know why that is... Just an observation - but I think a correct one. 
 
by crimson
 
I nominate this for the most mind boggling, for lack of better term, paragraphs of the day.
January 31, 2009, 9:57:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Olby Sucks | 01.31.09 - 10:02 pm | #
 
Agreed. I wonder what he bases his assertion that conservatives only listen to/watch conservative media on? I know lots of conservatives who like Stewart and Colbert, and I happen to be a big fan of Maher myself (record every one).
 
LOL "Conservative" media.
January 31, 2009, 10:42:38 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
She pretty well asked for what she got and she is not an obscure nobody with no media outlet as a resource. She knew that you and yours would be dancing in the streets over her remark.
_____________
 
1. She really didn't "get" anything considering O'Reilly was the one with egg on his face since Sweden is - in fact, the world's oldest neutral country and not "neutral on a case by case" basis as O'Reilly hilariously claims... She didn't "ask for" anything, by the way. She was asked what she thought of O'Reilly. She answered honestly. Maybe O'Reilly's little patsy knew Alba was not a fan and baited her? Maybe he knows that if he asks this question to 20 Hollywood types - representative of the rest of the population, 5 will declare he's an a-hole (which he is...), so it's more of a numbers game, thus giving O'Reilly raw material to celeb bash and fill up a segment or two of TV and radio time? I seriously doubt this was just a "shout out" sans ulterior motive. It's O'Reilly we're talking about here - his show ain't exactly Entertainment Tonight. 
 
2. Alba is certainly not an absurd nobody but she doesn't have a daily cable show and (for now, anyway) a daily radio show like O'Reilly does... Jessica Alba appears in a movie or two a year? Some TV? Maybe she'll go on Letterman in a month? She certainly has no where near the media access that O'Reilly does... to claim parity or anything close in this regard is absurd. 
 
I reiterate the whole "Swedish Neutrality" thing by the way, in the hopes that you'll "get it"... O'Reilly lmade stuff up to save face and had no problem willfully misinforming his entire audience... To me both O'Reilly's absurd claim that Sweden is "neutral on a case by case basis" borders on the type of comedic absurdity of a Steven Wright or Andy Kauffman... it borders on brilliant. I also just like saying it --- it's hilarious. Strange that everyone here seems not to have a problem with this patently and absurdly illogical made up bit of BS - O'Reilly style...
|
 
Oh - and by the way, I guess the Swiss are no longer a purely neutral country and are following Sweden's lead by now being (LOL) "neutral on a case by case basis" (tm): 
 
Swiss to use military to protect ships against pirates 
http://www.topnews.in/law/swiss-use-military-protect-ships-against-pirates
 
... what with them "taking sides" and all against pirates like Sweden is "taking sides" against the international al Qaida terrorist and the radical Taliban...
 
...and chosing not to be "neutral" in this particular "case". 
|
January 31, 2009, 10:42:59 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
I nominate this for the most mind boggling, for lack of better term, paragraphs of the day.
Olby Sucks | 01.31.09 - 10:02 pm | # 
_______
 
Really? What's so mind boggling about it? It's a blog post admittedly typed in haste but it's meaning is faily clear, Mr. blog post readability critic... Is that all you can come up with, lightweight? Cecelia and J$ seem to be the only ones able to spar on this little blog. You don't appear to be capable of it - just trite and ineffective ad hominem attacks. I'm capable of some pointed ad hominem stuff but J$ would certainly ban me if I resorted to that, so I'll respect his blog rules as best I can... 
|
January 31, 2009, 10:52:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Pointing out liberal hypocrisy doesn't take beating out 8 or 9 paragraphs of regurgitated rhetoric. Although, you just showed it can be done in only 1 paragraph in your 10:57.
January 31, 2009, 11:58:10 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
Olby Sucks | 02.01.09 - 12:03 am | #
___________________
 
Here's why the regurgitated "TRUTH"... 
 
Curiously, no one here seems to have any issue whatsoever with O'Reilly jumping on TV and misinforming his entire audience to save face when he "stepped in his own pile of BS" in his (talk about regurgitated) "bash the celeb who doesn't see eye to eye with me..." bit by making a completely absurd comment that Sweden, the oldest of the world's 8 neutral countries, that has been neutral since the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815), is "neutral on a case by case basis"(tm) - so, I'll have a little fun rubbing your collective Koolaid drinking faces:
 
I practice abstinence on a case by case basis...
 
I'm a non-smoker on a case by case basis...
 
I'm a teetotaler on a case by case basis... 
 
I'm a vegetarian on a case by case basis...
|
February 1, 2009, 8:31:28 AM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
os
There is just as much Conservative Hiprocrisy from the likes of Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh, as there is Liberal Hipocrisy. As your name Olby Sucks shows, you are the last person who should say someone is a hipocrit.
February 1, 2009, 10:13:56 AM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
LOL - no, it's not a lie it's just silly. Isn't ANY country neutral on a "case by case" basis? I guess we're neutral on a "case by case" basis - huh? 
|
The Crimson Executioner | 01.29.09 - 4:14 pm | # 
 
You sure get puffed up pretty easily by something you claimed was just "silly."
February 1, 2009, 11:15:18 AM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
CE: "O'Reilly's lie that Sweden is not a neutral country?"
 
CE: "LOL - no, it's not a lie it's just silly."
 
So finally you retract your claim that O'Reilly lied. It took long enough!
February 1, 2009, 11:23:47 AM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
I am just curious if Crimson Executioner calls his buddies over at News Hounds on their distorions, lies and hipocrisy.
February 1, 2009, 1:26:43 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
johnny dollar | Homepage | 02.01.09 - 11:28 am | #
___________________
 
O'Reilly's claim is too silly to be a lie, I think. I'm not sure what it is... A lie? Too ridiculous to even qualify as a lie? There's the confusion. Maybe O'Reilly should discuss it with his new colleague, Glenn Beck - and if the agree it was a lie, then Glenn can teach O'Reilly a lesson and put O'Reilly over his knee and spank him. 
|
February 1, 2009, 1:28:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


The Crimson Executioner
You sure get puffed up pretty easily by something you claimed was just "silly."
Olby Sucks | 02.01.09 - 11:20 am | # 
_________
 
Not "puffed up"... Just wondering why after proving O'Reilly's made-up ridiculous claim... 
 
...after his "conservative talking head loudmouth, frothing at the mouth, finger-wagging, let's humiliate the celeb that doesn't agree with me"-bit blew up in his face...
 
... that "Sweden is neutral on a case by case basis" (LOL) was proven to be both completely and hilariously asinine on its face on logical grounds and otherwise just plain ole completely INcorrect ...
 
...why he gets a pass from y'all on misinforming his viewers with his line of hilarious made up BS in his apology/correction or whatever that was supposed to be...
 
Just havin' a little fun with you knuckleheads is all... not "puffed up" in the least...
|
February 1, 2009, 1:42:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


Blackflon
The Crimson Executioner | Homepage | 02.01.09 - 1:47 pm | # 
 
Hey, CE, go back to the mutts pound and peddle your garbage over there. You have proven nothing other than O'Reilly made a mistake. You see, it's not a lie unless the person knows it at the time.
February 1, 2009, 3:03:06 PM EST – Like – Reply