Disappearing Ink

The Outfoxed gals squelch dissent, forge comments, and even make their own articles go away!

We have a couple of pickings from the Fox haters' grapevine, starring the premier purveyors of poppycock, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed syndicate).

The newspoodles are well-known as the go-to source for misinformation and nonsense. From their claim that Karl Rove has been indicted, to their insistence that Fox News doesn't have any overseas bureaus, no drivel has been too preposterous for the curs to claim as truth. Their recent expose on the secret love affair between Condi Rice and the President says it all. Now they have uncovered another stunning bit of news that has eluded everyone else on the planet:
We all know Keith Olbermann is currently beating Bill O'Reilly in the "key" demographic.

Little Janie provides no source for this scoop. No numbers are provided. That might be because the truth is slightly different:

June cable ratings [25-54 demo]:

O'Reilly: 402,000
Olbermann: 106,000

July cable ratings [25-54 demo]:

O'Reilly: 488,000
Olbermann: 117,000

So where did Janie get the idea that Olbermann is beating O'Reilly? She made it up! But just minutes after a commenter called her out on this fiction, a funny thing happened. It turns out the newsmutts write in disappearing ink, because the entire article vanished from the site! It's not on the front page, not in the category listings, and is gone from the archives page. Fear not; it can still be found at this secret URL. [Update: Janie writes in our comments it was removed for technical reasons.]

When it comes to hypocrisy, it's hard to top the bowsers. Here's one of their favorite talking points, playing the "race card". A few examples:
  • Playing the Race Card
  • Hannity's Race Card
  • Fox Plays the Social Security Race Card
  • Fox News Uses Louis Farrakhan to Play the Race Card

And those are just from hound headlines! Keep that in mind as we journey into the twisted mind of newspup Ellen. She writes about a Hannity & Colmes broadcast where the former was at the site of a benefit for children of war veterans. There were a couple dozen people behind Hannity, and Ellen couldn't stand it:
He's surrounded by a crowd waving flags and wearing flag-decorated tee-shirts. Not a black face in the crowd.
This is outrageous...two dozen people attending a country music concert, and none of them black! Who's playing the race card now, Ellen? Commenter "truthteller" wanted to know:
  • Since you are so eager to play the race game, I was wondering how many black faces write for News Hounds?
Ouch! That hit too close to home, so Ellen, rather than answering the question, rewrote truthteller's post, so it now reads:
  • I love the News Hounds!
She added a comment of her own:
My point is that the white-only crowd underscores how much of America Hannity does not include in his "patriotism."
Not to be deterred, truthteller soldiered on:
  • I'm sorry ellen, but was that an answer to my question? Did Sean Hannity personally select the "white-only" crowd? Did he prevent San Diego blacks from coming to his concert? Do you claim he excludes black Americans from his concept of "patriotism", based on who comes to a country music concert?
Within seconds, Ellen erased this post completely, adding:
Other people are always free to disagree with me but if you're going to insult me and come back after you've been banned a zillion times, like Truthteller - well, you'll just have to accept that you'll either be banned or edited into a more appealling format.
  • Ellen, don't delete my messages and then falsify what they said. All I did is ask a question: how many black faces write for the News Hounds? Why are you so afraid of that question?
Ellen forged new content on the above, so it now reads:
  • News Hounds is my favorite blog!
Truthteller made one last try:
  • Ellen, please don't delete my messages and then falsify what they said. All I did is ask a simple question: how many black faces write for the News Hounds? Why are you so afraid of that question?

That last posting was expunged in its entirety. Ellen never answered the question, because the question was made to go away. That apparently wasn't a good enough attempt at revisionist history, however, and before long the entire page evaporated! But we have screencaps:

Again the newsliars think they can hide their embarrassments, but once more they prove to be as incompetent as they are ignorant. The page is still there, sitting on their server, at this secret URL. Their disappearing ink leaves traces, and they lead right back to the mastiffs of mendacity, the newshounds.

posted: Mon - August 7, 2006 at 02:37 PM       j$p  send 

Fox Fan
Ellen has a habit of editing and deleting posts that unequivically prove her statements as outright false. The censorship demonstrates the fact that they know they're lying. Newshounds occupy a wasteland of falsehoods that only prove what desperate nutjobs the depressive left can be on their waste of a domain name. The propaganda purveying poodles pander to people who are eager to eat from the putrid trough of regurgitated prevarications.
Oh, and dan is weak.
August 7, 2006, 4:46:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Nope, sorry guys!
Truthteller had a habit of personal attacks from what i can remember.
Also it is made clear any personal attacks or comments that are off topic my be deleted.
If you guys keep it civil and provide good arguments not just "No, your just wrong" type of statements then you guys are more than welcome.
but your in a free contry for now so do what you like! 
August 7, 2006, 4:52:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Why don't you share with us some of the "personal attacks" you've seen from truthteller. Link to 'em if you like. I'd like to know what was uncivil about the truthteller comments that were summarily deleted (or altered) by Ellen.
August 7, 2006, 4:57:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply

unfortunelty I can't.
As i said it was from "memory" and anything i post from memory is not admisible in your court without links.
ufortunelty were not in a william Gibson Cyber Punk novel so i can't just jack my memories up on-line!
but stick around and post on the forum J$, if you keep grabbing screenshots you might prove or disprove your comments!
August 7, 2006, 5:06:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I guess asking a legitimate question is making a personal attack these days...
August 7, 2006, 5:08:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
"As i said it was from "memory"
Well, that's pretty convincing. Anything stopping you from using the newshound search box and FINDING all these personal attacks from truthteller?
August 7, 2006, 5:10:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply

well johnny the offer is there!!
Lurk, take screengrabs, and make your point,
Don't take a single post as a represenitive of the whole of the site.
do some investigation.
August 7, 2006, 5:49:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Hah! We've exposed hundreds of slanders, distortions, and lies from just the newshounds alone. Doctored quotes, fake quotes, made-up facts, you name it.
I don't take a single post as representative. I don't even think ALL newshounds articles are defective. But they post so much drivel and so many lies that no one can trust anything they write, even if it happens to be on occasion true.
August 7, 2006, 6:07:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

just like Fox! eh? drown 'em with info?
Please! this forum is not sooo busy you have to give it 24/7/364.25
come on!
give us the "COLD HARD PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF!" other wise you're just a blowhard!!
it's a genuine offer to give your few readers proof!
August 7, 2006, 6:31:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
"give us the "COLD HARD PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF!" other wise you're just a blowhard!!"
Have you ever seen the scores of TIVO videos on J$P that show exactly what Fox News reported and then the verbatim lies the newshounds made up just to smear?
How much more cold hard proof do you need, for the newshounds dogs to come to your house and lie directly to you while you all watch Fox? What you said just goes to show you what a blowhard YOU are.
August 7, 2006, 6:57:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I'm afraid I have to side with Fox Fan on this one, Solitaire. Do you have any idea how many video clips from FNC we have on this cite illustrating where the newsmutts have doctored quotes, or outright lied, about what was aired on Fox? Just check our slanders & lies category and indulge yourself with tons of "PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF!"
August 7, 2006, 7:06:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Jose Chung
Ellen has always had a bug up her ass when it comes to the subject of African Americans.
August 8, 2006, 3:37:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Better yet Solitaire, WATCH FNC for yourself and then read a newsmutts article about what you just watched. You'll think one of you lives in an alternate universe.
August 8, 2006, 12:20:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Jose Chung
Newshounds is not reality-based, it is feelings-based.
August 8, 2006, 12:54:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
It's based on feelings and emotions for sure, particularly hatred. It's also driven by ideology, where someone can be a hero one week if they say something the pups like, then a villain the next for the opposite reason. That's why Judge Napolitano (a nonpartisan libertarian) can be "best in show" in one article, and a shameless "pimp" in another.
August 8, 2006, 1:07:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Very true, but they present it as fact.
August 8, 2006, 1:12:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I think something is getting lost in this squabble: Fox News Network is incredibly biased. You can toss a dart at a dart board of their programming, watch the show, and become overwhelmed by the right-wing spin.
I have a new web site. Granted, I've only posted fresh content for 2 days running but each day my methodology is the same. Pick a show - any show - on Fox News. Tape it then watch the right-wing Fox News formula play out.
A predictiable as the tides and sunrise.
August 9, 2006, 12:02:12 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Yes I checked your new web site. Ooooh, Neil Cavuto interviewed Dennis Praeger without a Democrat there. But you didn't say anything when he interviewed Charlie Rangel without a Republican. Oooh, Greta van Susteren interviewed Susan Estrich with no Republican there. OOOPS! Nope, we can't mention that. Let's find another example, to preserve the propaganda that it's all right-wing news.
Thanks for your website. You can expect J$P to critique closely your claims.
August 9, 2006, 12:12:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Just to help out your number, j$ and because someone was stupid enough to ask for a single lie that you've told, I thought I'd come here and help out.
August 9, 2006, 1:23:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Let's see, after a few seconds of looking I found this:
[truthteller asked a question]
Ouch! That hit too close to home, so Ellen, rather than answering the question, rewrote truthteller's post, so it now reads:
* I love the News Hounds!
Here, j¢ claims that the question "hit to close to home" and because of that Ellen rewrote the post.
The truth is that, at least two days prior, Ellen began editing posts by known trolls and those who were being particularly abusive or were adding zero to the discussion beyond their attempts to portray the NHs in a bad light.
August 9, 2006, 1:24:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Oh, I forgot, nice smear about the 'secret' link to the demographics post implying NHs hid it away from the public. I mean you should've created your own 'secret' link rather than use News Hounds own archives. If they didn't want that on the record don't you think they would've deleted it entirely?
I'm also sure you're equally aware that there was a problem with the demographics poll (hence the dramatic change in respondents), but, of course, that could never have been why the post was deleted, could it? Or the fact that someone convinced NHs that it was probably a bad idea to allow the poll since it probably would've been skewed by trolls, eh?
August 9, 2006, 1:42:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply

BTW, by my count that something like 150 lies that I've caught you on in what less than .01% of the time you've spent trying to catch the NHs lying?
August 9, 2006, 1:44:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Sorry, I wrote that poorly. Let me try again:
BTW, by my count that something like 150 lies that I've caught you on. In what, less than .01% of the time you've spent trying to catch the NHs lying? And, yet, you've never apologized or admitted it to me.
August 9, 2006, 1:46:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Your opinion doesn't make my facts a "lie". The question was not "abusive". SHE raised the race issue, and tt followed up on it. Only ellen decided she didn't want that question to appear and repeatedly deleted it. You claim she didn't do it because it hit too close to home? How do you know? Are you really Ellen? Your opinion on her motives is no better than mine; much worse, actually, since I've been following her machinations from the start.
She did rewrite the post. No lie there. Since tt wasn't abusive, he obviously wasn't a "known troll", or this wouldn't have been the FIRST TIME any newshounds rewrote one of his posts.
So much for that. Now perhaps YOU can explain why the newshounds were so afraid of his question, why they can't take criticism, and why the entire page was made to disappear. What do they have to hide?
By the way, a "lie" is the intentional misstatement of a provable fact. Don't try to pawn off opinions as anything more than that: an opinion about something that is not a provable fact. Now knock yourself out.
August 9, 2006, 1:52:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
"If they didn't want that on the record don't you think they would've deleted it entirely?"
You should go back thru the archives. They've been "deleting" pages in this fashion for months and months. We have examples that go way back. And they always leave that orphan copy on their server. That's called incompetence.
"by my count that something like 150 lies that I've caught you on"
I'm sorry, I made an error. I assumed for a moment that you were attempting a serious discussion. I should have realized you were just playing troll games and making inane statements. Sorry I wasted my time on this.
August 9, 2006, 2:07:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Your opinion doesn't make my facts a "lie". 
Interesting, your opinion becomes 'fact'. You said she deleted the post because it "hit too close to home", that's an opinion, not fact. I never gave my opinion, I pointed out the fact that she started doing rewriting posts two days earlier. C'mon get the facts straight from the opinoin. In addition, you yourself call your opinion 'opinion' when you said "Your opinion on her motives is no better than mine"
the question was not "abusive". SHE raised the race issue, and tt followed up on it. 
Oh, nice evade there. I said "Ellen began editing posts by known trolls and ..." tt was indeed a known troll. IMO, she probably didn't even bother to read it. 
She did rewrite the post. No lie there.
I can't remember what tactic that is, you know, say that someone said something that they didn't. Where did I claim that it was a lie that she rewrote the post?
a "lie" is the intentional misstatement of a provable fact. Don't try to pawn off opinions as anything more than that: an opinion about something that is not a provable fact
So, then you admit you lied? You gave an opinion (admitted it yourself) and declared it as fact. A lie is also when a person claims opinion as fact.
See in all that I never once gave my opinion. Where? Show me, in plain simple English.
Too make it easy for you, I'll recap in structure:
1) I cnp'd your post
2) I indicated what your claim was.
3) I provided a fact, not an opinion.
August 9, 2006, 2:24:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Oh, forgot, logical fallacy time.
You said "or this wouldn't have been the FIRST TIME any newshounds rewrote one of his posts."
The fallacy is that a) Ellen started rewriting the posts two days earlier and b) tt may have posted since then it follows that c) tt had posted on one of Ellen's reports. I did a quick look and, AFAICT, that was the FIRST TIME that tt posted on Ellen's work since she began doing it. She had previously rewrote Scat, ., and a few others that I can't remember.
August 9, 2006, 2:36:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply

That's called incompetence.
I could swear you've once said that the NH gals read your site and change their own accordingly. 
It is NOT a logical fallacy that a) if they read your site and change their pages accordingly and b)you talk about 'deleted' pages then it follows c) they would (likely, for the sake of completeness) insure that pages would be deleted entirely.
As to the 150 or so lies/errors, you know and I know that you've seen me around and I've never put up with your spin. You also know I've caught your lies time and time again. As I have now.
August 9, 2006, 2:40:25 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Your opinion doesn't make my facts a lie. I didn't say my opinion was a fact. I said opinion can't make facts a lie, but didn't specify the facts I was talking about, did I? Try to read more carefully.
"I never once gave my opinion. Where? Show me, in plain simple English."
Right here: "because of that Ellen rewrote the post. Untrue."
Unless you're ellen (which from your level of rationality could very well be possible) you are merely stating an opinion of why ellen did something, because her true motives are not a provable fact. You called my opinion untrue: that's YOUR opinion, because you have no idea if it's true or not, because you have no idea why ellen rewrote the post.
Nice try but you still have 150 to go. LOL!
August 9, 2006, 2:41:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
"The fallacy is that a) Ellen started rewriting the posts two days earlier"
Now who's lying? This rewriting of posts has been going on for months. SickOfSpin had it happen to his stuff months ago. Here are examples from April and May where posts was rewritten to read "News Hounds Rock" (the preferred forgery phrase back then); though they've removed the comments from the pages, the Google search still turns up the original contents:
So now you're employing the dishonest tactics of the hounds themselves (falsifying the facts) to make your points here? I have very little patience with prevaricators, and you just tried to get a whopper past me. But as usual, you were caught.
"they would (likely, for the sake of completeness) insure that pages would be deleted entirely."
That assumes they know how, without Jim Gilliam coming in and doing it for them. That's a big assumption.
Now tell me all about how Keith Olbermann beats Bill O'Reilly (in case you've forgotten, that's the latest newshounds lie, except for what I'm saving for my next expose).
August 9, 2006, 2:45:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Now who's lying? 
Oops, my bad. I changed "at least two days prior" to "two days". I take it you don't know what AFAICT is? It's net-speak for "As far as I can tell". And, AFAICT, Ellen was not rewriting the posts in the weeks prior to Aug. 1. It does not detract from the fact that she did restart it just two days prior.
I take it you had no luck on finding my 'opinion' that you claim I made? Or on any of the other things I posted? I'm not sure if that's another lie or the same one. Tell you what, I'll cut you some slack and not count it.
BTW, I saw Janie's original post (I was one of the one's who didn't finish the poll caused it crashed). As I read it, I presumed she was talking about the, what was it, one day (?) that KO beat O'Reilly and the FACT that BORe's numbers are declining. That was why she said "we all know" or somesuch.
August 9, 2006, 3:01:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I pointed out your opinion, where you claim psychic knowledge of why ellen did something. Do you now insist you know as a FACT why Ellen rewrote the post? If so, I would like to know the source of that knowledge. If you cannot read her mind and do not know in FACT why she rewrote it, then your original statement ("untrue") is simply your uninformed opinion.
You can presume whatever you want. But Janie didn't say one day, she didn't even imply one day, and besides, WHAT ONE DAY WOULD THAT BE?
As for the two days, I'm sorry but I cannot be responsible for your words. You claim this has only gone on for two days, when it's gone on for months. What's the purpose of your making a false claim of that sort? To score a debating point, in the hope that I won't check it out and catch it?
This is why it is a joy to debate issues with an honest individual, and a waste of time to do so with a dishonest one. When the dishonest person throws made-up "facts" into the hopper, as soon as one of these is discovered, the whole discussion becomes pointless. Because every last thing he says now has to be fact-checked and researched to see if he's throwing more crap onto the pile. An honest person will not do that.
You did serve up a provably false argument to make a trivial point, and got caught at it. I don't have the time or energy to research and Google every time you write a sentence, because I don't know if this is another "two days" fiction. Sorry, but you've lost credibility, and I'm going to sleep.
August 9, 2006, 3:23:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply

You're being more than a tad disingenuous. It's more than an anchor interviewing only a person on one side of the political fence. Obviously, that happens all the time in the media.
But there's a journalistic obligation for the interviewer to play, to a reasonable degree, the unbiased other party. Neil not only asks no tough questions, the entire affair is an orgy of unsubstantiated liberal-bashing essentially accusing liberals of turning a blind eye to the slaughter of Jews world-wide. That's ridiculous spin that merits a counterpoint BY ANY STANDARD. 
It'd be like Anderson Cooper and some lefty accusing Bush of being a mass-murderer in Iraq without offering a single counterpoint. Conservatives would be rightfully upset.
Not to mention Neil is supposed to be a business analyst but all too often uses his microphone as an excuse to promote a very conservative political agenda.
Oh, and before you accuse me of being a Fox-basher, I'm not all that fond of CNN's prime-time business analyst, Lou Dobbs.
August 9, 2006, 7:39:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well, if you want to talk about news anchors you could have a point. Neil is a commentator and an analyst and an editorialist. He is not Shepard Smith or Bill Hemmer or Jane Skinner. He is expected to have a point of view (just like Dobbs) and employ it to some extent.
As for offering a counterpoint, that's a phony argument when it's taken out of context. To single out Dennis Praeger having no Democrat on for counterpoint suggests that every interview has to be conducted in pairs. This is Your World, not Noah's Ark. Sometimes interviews are done with just one person; it happens all the time on Meet the Press.
To complain about Dennis Praeger, but not when Neil has on (alone) Charlie Rangel, or Anthony Wiener, or any other Dem, is just a trick to give a false impression. Oh, it's all right-wing news. Sure it is, when you only cite the Republicans who appear and conveniently overlook the Dems and liberals.
If you are honest in your analysis, you will not play this game. But if you do, then you can expect to be called on it.
August 9, 2006, 11:19:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Sorry for the influx of ignorance johnny, I suggested that some newshounds come see your page.   
Radmod, you claim that KO beat BOR for one day. It may have been true in the key demographic but never in the total. In fact, I don't believe it happened at all, please provide a link to the ratings. It's just more spin out of spinstress Janie. 
Sknabt (stupid name), not liking Lou Dobbs does not mean that you are not a Fox basher. Also, Cavuto interviewing one conservative one day is far from "Anderson Cooper and some lefty accusing Bush of being a mass-murderer in Iraq without offering a single counterpoint". Your point is lost on anyone with a shred of logic.
August 9, 2006, 11:51:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Radmod, here are the ratings for Monday's cable news. It looks like this every day. FNC has been the top rated channel every hour of every day for 55 consecutive months according to this unbiased ratings site.
August 9, 2006, 11:57:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Oh, wah, wah, wah!
You make a nuisance of yourself, won't stay away from our blog despite the fact that we repeatedly ban you, continue posting under different names and different IP addresses with the sole purpose of slipping under our radar, and then you whine about my interpretation of your inability to leave us alone?
Cry me a river.
August 9, 2006, 9:17:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Gee ellen, if I were you, I'd rewrite that message, or delete it and ban you. But thank God. I'm not you.
August 9, 2006, 9:59:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I think you're bobbing and weaving like crazy on this one.
You watch Neil's extremely biased series I documented of him essentially accusing liberals of not caring that Jews are being slaughtered.
Tomorrow. Spend all day watching that so-called liberal mainstream TV media neo-cons whine about so much. You pick 'em. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, or MSNBC. I DARE YOU to find anything that reaches that level of over-the-top, vile, biased bombast directed toward conservatives.
And even if you find some lonely lib - Olbermann's the only one I can think of - that even approaches Neil's level of extreme bias I'll trump you right back with Bill O'Reilly ranting about the far left smear sites needing to drink the Koolaide. Or run a clip of Hannity using knock-over pretend lib Alan Colmes for comic relief. Or big haired John Gibson blurting out some foolishness. Maybe Brian Kilmeade will lose his cool once again and mouth off at a Democratic Senator.
And while Olbermann is liberal he's outnumbered by conservatives on MSNBC with Scarboro and Carlson both hosting shows. CNN has conservative Glenn Beck but no liberal with a show.
Not a single, solitary liberal hosts a show on Fox News. Period. Alan Colmes is a mere co-host and is a reknown joke at that.
I'm covering but 1 media outlet, Fox News. Right-wingers like you have to comb every media outlet on the planet to keep pace.
August 9, 2006, 11:50:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well sknabt, it's good to know you're "not a Fox-basher".
"knock-over pretend lib Alan Colmes"
One of the surest signs of a Fox-hater: smear Alan Colmes. If he's a pretend lib, why did he write a book called Red, White, and Liberal? If he's a pretend lib, why don't you cite the key issues where he does NOT hold liberal views? I can't give you the 20-second clock on this one, so take your time. I'll wait.
"Not a single, solitary liberal hosts a show on Fox News."
Greta van Susteren. Kimberly Guilfoyle. Oh sorry, that's not a single, solitary liberal. That's two.
August 10, 2006, 12:23:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
"Tomorrow. Spend all day watching that so-called liberal mainstream TV media neo-cons whine about so much. You pick 'em. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, or MSNBC. I DARE YOU to find anything that reaches that level of over-the-top, vile, biased bombast directed toward conservatives."
Dobbs, Rather, Matthews to name just a few of the primetime libs. Not only is the cable news media overwhelminly liberal, so is public broaccasting and especially the printed press. Did I mention overseas media? I could go on but I realize that it's wasted typing on thick skulls like sknabt and Ellen.
Oh, and Ellen, "I love this blog!"
August 10, 2006, 11:07:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Conservatives scream and fume over the liberal media. They often defend Fox News to the death. Yet, I ask a conservative to provide a single, solitary example on a given day of the media's obsessive bias and the comeback is I'm a "Fox-hater". What a hoot!
There is no mainstream media outlet in America that is remotely as biased on a daily basis as Fox News. Period. Thanks for confirming it for me.
Alan Colmes is a joke. I hardly watch H&C every day but I do watch it frequently. I have NEVER - let me repeat NEVER - seen him win an argument.
No kidding. A couple of years ago when I first watched the show I wasn't sure there was a liberal on H&C. I had to ask a conservative friend who was a fan of the show to make sure. Granted, Colmes has tried of late to bump it up a notch but he's still a complete pudtz, a complete wienie.
Greta's a liberal? Really? You'd never know it watching her show. But then it's a LEGAL ANALYSIS show devoted to the missing white girl of the day stories - tabloid trash. But I'll call your bluff. Please post her DAILY leftist political rants that match the right-wing vomit of all the rest.
Ditto Kimberly Guilfoyle who, even if she's a lib, is doing a legal/crime show. Gee, I see a trend there. 8^)
We should move our debate to my forums
Debating in a comment textbox is a little painful. Later.
August 11, 2006, 7:55:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I like my little text boxes. Besides, why should we adjourn from here when we're not through. Remember, I asked you to cite the key issues where "pretend-lib" Alan Colmes does NOT take the liberal position. I read over your post very carefully but did not find the answer to that question.
August 11, 2006, 10:46:51 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
He can't and won't answer the question johnny. Colmes argues the liberal position with every sentence. That said, let's deal with his main point "There is no mainstream media outlet in America that is remotely as biased on a daily basis as Fox News. Period."
Fox News invites high level democrats onto their broadcasts along with high level republicans. The other networks invite high level democrats on and couple them with weak republicans. The other networks employ 90% democrats and 10% faux republicans. Lou Dobbs claims to be a republican. He is the most glaringly obvious of the faux republicans. It looks to me like Fox News is, in fact, the more fair and balanced of the networks.
August 11, 2006, 1:52:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Blogs are designed for monologues. Comments are designed for a couple lines of feed back. Forums are designed for debate. 
If you're afraid to debate me in my forums or are too self-centered to direct traffic to another board then just create some here. It ain't hard. If I can do it anyone can.
I've just started my video collection. I have nothing or very little of H&C. That will come.
From MEMORY, my favorite Colmes moment was when he literally said nothing during a supposed 3-way exchange. I mean not a single, solitary word. Hannity savaged his liberal guest. At the end, pathetic pudtz Colmes (I paraphrase) said, 'Gee, maybe next time I'll get to say something.'
I'm liberal. I should be taking Colmes' side, no? Often I disagree with him and 99.9% ot the time I am disgusted with him because he misses obvious debate points. I have NEVER seen him win an argument. Have you?
That's it. I'm gone. You want to debate get forums or go somewhere that has them. If you don't like my pathetic start-up BBS then we can meet at, say, Newshounds or a conservative place of your choosing if you're afraid of the libs.
Let me know. sknabt@blog.eyesonfox.org.
I'm heading out tonight for a week's vacation so we'll have to wait a week to connect on this.
August 12, 2006, 12:35:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Sorry, we cannot meet at newshounds because they usually delete my posts and ban me any time I try to post there. It's that fair-minded tolerance that Fox-haters are renowned for. Besides, here is where I asked the question: what are the key issues where "pretend-lib" Alan Colmes does NOT take a liberal position? And here is where I expect that you will answer. Well, not really, but you get my point.
Your "memory" of Colmes saying nothing is highly suspect. Each segment is divided in time: Hannity gets half and Colmes gets half. The producers use a stopwatch to keep track. If you watch the programs you will see how this works, and sometimes one of them even makes a reference to how it's his time now.
If you want to know my opinion of Colmes's debating skills you'll find them on this site. I have opined in the past that he is a better, more logical debater than Hannity and scores more points, and I have seen nothing lately to make me change my mind on that. If you think Hannity is sharper, more intelligent, and more knowledgeable than Colmes, then that's your opinion of Sean Hannity. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and matters of opinion are not logically disputable.
Interesting that you suggest I'm "afraid" to debate you in your forums. If I recall correctly I was the first person to post a comment on your site, and even wished you well. I didn't know the result of that would be accusations of cowardice. Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished.
August 12, 2006, 1:12:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
sknabt hates a comment-based debate but is more than happy to suggest going to newshounds for one. For some reason, the same exact haloscan comment page is better over there.
It's a classic case of cutting and running.
August 12, 2006, 3:51:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply

First of all - the page you have mentioned was our demographics poll. One that didn't work - which is why I took it down. When you have technical problems, you usually take a post down. But that just makes for a more professional blog.
If you'll notice, the demo poll didn't go back up for another week, while I was attempting to figure out how to get it to work (you may have noticed instead of imbedding the poll, it became a seperate link. Wouldn't to mention any of this to your readers, right?)
And here's where I got the info about Olberman/O'Reilly:
I never said he was beating him entirely, J$ - I said in the "key" demo, which I got from a premiere news watch site.
Wouldn't want to mention THAT either?
Another lesson from Janie!
August 16, 2006, 11:17:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
First you are not telling the truth about what the story said. Olbermann did not beat O'Reilly for 15 minutes because O'Reilly wasn't on the air that night. And you didn't write that Olbermann beat him one night for 15 minutes in the demo. You wrote this:
We all know Keith Olbermann is currently beating Bill O'Reilly in the "key" demographic.
"IS CURRENTLY BEATING"? That's a lie, pure and simple. If you had said Olbermann beat O'Reilly one night a month earlier for 15 minutes when O'Reilly wasn't on, you wouldn't have told a lie. To say he "is currently beating O'Reilly" a month later (or at any other time) IS a lie. And you were caught. You'd serve your credibility better to admit it and move on instead of digging yourself a deeper hole.
"Wouldn't want to mention THAT either?"
I quoted your words verbatim. Anything that wasn't mentioned is because YOU didn't mention it.
By the way I'm not going to rush to delete your message like the newshounds scramble to erase what I post over there. It's hard to defend lies so I understand why Priscilla had to erase my post proving she lied about John Gibson. But it's easy to defend the truth, so we don't have to delete messages that challenge what we write. Someday the newshounds will have the honesty and integrity to take the same approach. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber of lies.
August 16, 2006, 11:30:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Johnny -
I took that article at face value. If it's wrong, it wasn't a lie, it was based on that. I didn't hear anything about him not being on that night. If it's wrong it's wrong - and I would have changed it either way, but the post was coming down one way or another as the Demo questioning didn't work! I'd rather you be honest about my motivations for taking the post down than for he mistake (not lie) that I made.
August 16, 2006, 11:33:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
The article is hardly wrong. It says right on the link you provided that O'Reilly was off that night--they aired an old repeat from several months before. It's at the very top of the story. I'm perplexed that you can't see it--you just gave me the link!
"but the post was coming down one way or another as the Demo questioning didn't work!"
I have no reason to doubt that's what you are saying now, but you made no such announcement at the time.
"I'd rather you be honest about my motivations for taking the post down..."
I said NOTHING about your motivations. I noted that the post came down after the error/lie was pointed but did not state it was for that reason. I just laid out the facts.
"he mistake (not lie) that I made."
Why is it when Bill O'Reilly says something wrong the newshounds immediately put up a headline that Bill O'Reilly LIED! But when the newshounds get something wrong, oh it wasn't a lie, it was a "mistake". You people set the rules by calling other people liars. So you have to be ready to play by the rules you set.
Just for the record: IF you made a mistake about not knowing O'Reilly wasn't even on live that one night, that still doesn't explain your claim that Olbermann, a month later, "is currently beating O'Reilly". "IS?" "CURRENTLY?" Where did you get the notion that a month later Olbermann was "currently beating O'Reilly?" I'm afraid you made that up.
Them's just the facts, ma'am. If I got something wrong, I'll apologize. And I won't delete your messages. Unlike the newshounds, we aren't afraid of debate here.
August 16, 2006, 11:44:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I was wrong. Plain and Simple. I read the headline, and saw it elsewhere - and got it wrong. I admit that.
But yes - you WERE attacking my motivations. You are insinuating that I deleted your comment, then took the post down because you "exposed me", which is hardly the case. The post was up for about 1 full minute, and I saw no reason to make an announcement, I still don't for that matter. You'll note the demos went up a week later, and remained at the top of the page for almost a full week.
And you know full-well that I RARELY delete your comments, so don't try to throw that in my face.
August 16, 2006, 11:48:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
If you say you didn't take it down for that reason I will take your word for it. I have no proof one way or another--which is why I didn't make any claim as to why you took it down, and I have noted your explanation in the body of the article.
I do note the poll went up a week later, and without the claim about Olbermann ratings.
I can't really say how often you delete my comments because I've only resumed posting there a few days ago, and I'm not sure I did so on any of your articles anyhow. We have a very simple, plain, and unambiguous policy for posts here. If you follow the clearly defined rules, you are fine. If not, you can get deleted.
But at the newshounds, it's like anything goes. You can be civil and on-topic, but if you dare challenge the orthodoxy, there's always the convenient catch-all "rule":
"We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason..."
Apparently every time I catch one of the newshounds stretching the truth or outright lying, that's deemed to be "non-constructive". But I'm as open-minded as the next guy. Just as I did with your explanation on motivations, I'll take your comments about posting at face value. Should I decide to post on one of your upcoming articles we'll see how it goes. Thank you for your comments.
August 16, 2006, 11:56:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply

You know I had hope for humanity at one time. I might have once believed a group of people who gathered to expose the misinformation and bias supposedly spread by a network calling themselves fair and balanced might really want to get to the truth behind real issues that affect us all. 
Then I made the mistake of frequenting Newshounds. I was banned from their off topic forums recently. My capital crime was to create a topic named "Joe Wilson's damage to US foreign policy is incalculable", avoiding the more partisan snakepit of Rove/Libby/Novak leaks and related what the events and facts were as I believed them to be, of how one man could put a bridge across the chasm between repeating intelligence the white house believed true, and offering testimony to the world that the 16 words were known to be false sll along. After over 300 posts and a few corrections on both sides the underlying point was backed up by repeated MSM links and Senate documents. They then decided the truth was too uncomfortable to face and banned me. 
Now in the last few days of posting inteligent, well sourced arguments on several threads in the main blogs, polite yet competant posts are disappearing by the dozen. Censorship. I had thought the users might be surprised that their debating is akin to a boxer whose manager lines up a succession of amputees and blind men for sparring partners. No, they don't care. From the mental midgets like john t.,the deranged and irrelevent woke, even the pretending intelligence yakki, they don't want their skewed view challenged. 
A textbook example is found after 9/11's speech by the president. Four or five threads arose ridiculing Fox for not blasting Bush, or Fox themselves, for even implying a connection between Iraq and the War on terrorism. 
After pasting several passages from the Joint Resolution (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) containing repeated mention of Saddam's support for international terrorism, and not one but two MSM links to document prolific and substantial examples of the Palestinian Intifada rewards, you'd think that was the end of that. 
It was. Posts in disappearing ink.
Amazingly, users there repeatedly accuse the Bush admin. of fascist behaviour. Newshounds wrote the book. 
Any Newshounds who might view this, you know what I'm saying is spot on, and I'd like you to check Webster's dictionary for the definition of "liberal". That's not what goes on there. There are people like me all over this once proud nation, moderates- trying to bridge the divide you're carving, and offer the truth to you - yet you bite like a rabid squirrel through the bars of its cage, you'll have none of it. 
Nothing stagnates one's intellect like surrounding yourself with ass slapping "yes" men. 
Thank you for considering my point of view.
September 13, 2006, 7:22:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well said, batvette. They must buy disappearing ink by the barrel over there. Thanks for your efforts at keeping them honest, but frankly, they're not interested in being honest.
September 13, 2006, 7:54:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply