Why do the hounds write stuff they know is 100% not true? I guess because they know their readers will never question them, let alone reseach the facts.

I know, I know, I’m turning back into the old website, going after NewsHounds for their blatantly false, lop-sided lies. Well, today I decided to try to respond directly to the houns on one of their posts stating the right (and FOX in particular), were lying about ACORN receiving federal funding, even though laws have been passed prohibiting any federal dollars to go to ACORN, or any organazation that has morphed out of ACORN.

Now honestly, I think ACORN got the shaft. Yes, they were guilty of some scummy things, and they should have been made to answer to those things. However, the organization also does a lot of good, or did. Well, considering they’re still receiving federal funding, I guess maybe they still are. Unless they’re not receiving Federal Funding, which Priscilla tells us their not. She provides no proof to attack the claims that they are – including pretty damning proof from the government’s own website, but hey, Priscilla’s never told a lie, right?

But one last question Priscilla, and this one is rhetorical: Why are you afraid to have an honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you?

Anyway, here is the comment I wrote to NewsHounds, which they denied:

NewsHound Priscilla states: “a right wing rumor, thanks to the right wing Scaife funded site Judicial Watch, has surfaced which claims that ACORN members are getting secret monies from a DOJ grant to the Afforadable (sp) Housing Centers of America. It’snot true.”

Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), formally ACORN Housing Corp. (they filed papers last year to legally change their name), recently received a $79,819 grant from HUD.

According to in Public Law 111-117 (PDF), written to directly apply to HUD, ACORN is banned from receiving any government funding. A portion of the law reads:

Division A – Section 418. None of the funds made available under this Act or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations. [p. 80 of PDF]

But wait, there’s more…. It seems that HUD also gave ACORN $461,086 in January of this year, under HUD’s self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). According to Fox News? Nope, according to USAspending.gov, a government run website. USAspending.gov identifies the recipient as “ACORN Housing Corporation Inc.” even though that nonprofit entity filed papers last year legally changing its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA).

Check out USAspending.com’s accounting of the funds here: http://usaspending.gov/explorecarryfilters=on&overridecook=yes&fromfiscal=yes&tab=By+Prime+Awardee&typeofview=complete&comingfrom=searchresults&frompage=assistance&federal_award_id=SH05002&federal_award_mod=&fiscal_year=2011&pop_state=LA&maj_contracting_agency=86&mod_agency=8620&recipientid=82907&record_id=34663191

The website also provides the address of record for ACORN Housing as 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana. That’s the renovated funeral home that until recently served as headquarters for ACORN’s 370-plus shady affiliates.

Now, does this PROVE the government gave funds to ACORN, or at least to the name ACORN is going as today? Well, I have to admit that it seems pretty damning. Sure, this could be
a scam, an totally illegitimate, however it seems to me that if that were the case, Newshounds would have to provide a little more proof than Priscilla’s “It’s not true” defense.

I also have to take task with the claim “ACORN was exonerated of any wrong doing”. In
fact, to date some 70 Acorn employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. In 2007 the group settled thelargest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after seven workers were caught submitting about 2,000 fake registration forms.

Is ACORN as evil as Fox or Breitbart would have you believe? In my opinion, no. I think this is basically a good organization with a few bad apples. BUT, is ACORN as squeaky clean as
the hounds would have you believe? The answer there is also no.

So Priscilla, my question to you is simple. If in fact ACORN – or whatever name or names the organization goes by today – has received no funding from the government, as the current law states (fairly or unfairly), PROVE that the claims that Fox or Judicial Watch are making is wrong. And have the balls to stand up to the fact that ACORN has acted illegally in the past. Those actions do not merely justify, again, in my opinion, the harsh treatment that ACORN has received, BUT failure to acknowledge the truth removes any credibility you may have.

Advertisements

16 Responses

  1. and you are a partisan hack who like Koldys is obsessed with Newshounds, Olbermann and anything that is negative about Fixed News.

  2. I hope they did and I also hope that Media Matters keeps getting it as well to stop the GOP propaganda that Fox News spreads.
    Why does Fox not talk about what is going on in England with Rupert..The lies are catching up and soon Fox News will fall.

  3. Okay Pat, first of all, thank you for the comments, and allow me to address YOUR comments, starting with your fist comment. I’m assuming you are a hound, although the name is unfamiliar. That of course doesn’t mean anything as some of the hounds, like Aria and Nayef, used to troll here under alias’. Your comments have a “visitor55” feel to them, but let’s just assume you’re Pat.

    “and you are the partisan hack”… Okay, let’s start there: Partisan, meaning I lean right. Okay, so you lean left, and you’re NOT partisan? Think again.

    Hack? Alright, look at the post I commented on. Priscilla claims Fox is lying about ACORN receiving federal funding, without any proof to back up her claim. I claim that it looks pretty convincing that in fact ACORN has received federal funds, which, if that were the case, is illegal. My Proof? A government website that SHOWS were ACORN received these funds.

    Continuing: “…who like Koldys is obsessed with Newshounds, Olbermann and anything that is negative about Fixed News”

    You know, I was aware of Newshounds for almost two years before I ever stumbled onto Koldys site. My impression was that, as you say, it was a site “obsessed” with Newshounds (buy the way, isn’t Newshounds “Obsessed” with Fox News?). Go to Koldys site right now. As of 9:00pm Central time, on the front page there are 112 separate posts, dating back to June 27th. The number that address Newshounds? Zero.

    Not that Newshounds doesn’t come up, they do, maybe every one-or-two hundred posts. Not exactly an obsession, and actually pretty lame concerning that there is at least one post every day on the hounds site worthy or ridicule.

    Sure, some of the commenter’s, myself included, bring up the kennel on the comments section, but I’ve seen NH reader Tawny bring up how great Sarah Palin is, so using your logic “Sarah Palin is an intelligent and Beautiful women” is a common Newshound theme.

    As for Olbermann and Fox, I could care less about Keith Olbermann. I wish him well, but as far as I’m concerned, he’s you’re version of Bill O’Reilly, just more self important (as if that was even possible). And Fox, I haven’t watch Fox since election night 2008. I wasn’t defending Fox, I was merely pointing out that it looks like Priscilla was in fact, to use your words, being a “Partisan Hack”.

    So if Pat you are not a hound, you’re well on your way. Rather than actually proving me wrong – Hell, rather than even addressing the issue, the issue that NEWSHOUNDS brought up, not I. And then you rattle off some (lame) insults. Real mature. Actually, compared to most of the hounds, that would be considered mature.

    You were kind of right on one point, there is a little obsession with Newshounds. Try as I might, it’s hard to look away. Obviously you guys feel the same way about Johnny Dollar… How else do you see this.

    I’ll try to keep part two (your second comment) shorter. Yeah, good luck with that.

    “I hope they did” you responded, to my question “did ACORN get federal funding”. Not exactly an answer to my question, and really it’s not about whether ACORN deserves the funding – hey, I’m not saying they don’t – But whether Priscilla was knowingly lying. Are you okay with that? Sadly, I’m assuming you are (and yet I’m the Partisan Hack).

    I like the added “I also hope that Media Matters keeps getting it as well to stop the GOP propaganda that Fox News spreads”. Really? First, I don’t think Media Matters actually gets federal funding – that’s a whole other can of worms, but rather that they are violating the law considering their tax exempt status (which a blind toddler can see is the case). What you are saying is that you are okay with an administration paying (in your words) an organization to shut up another organization that is critical of the administration.

    Would it be okay if the Bush administration allowed _____ to go after MSNBC, and gave them tax exempt status to do so? It’s wrong regardless of the administration (and sad you don’t realize that).

    “Why does Fox not talk about what is going on in England with Rupert..The lies are catching up and soon Fox News will fall.” As for why Fox isn’t discussing the hacking scandal, um, how do I put this…. DUUUHHH! Look, if it was MSNBC’s parent company who was involved, would they be discussing it? Fox isn’t going to discuss it, that’s why it’s important that we have differing viewpoints.

    My take? I think that everyone involved in this scandal needs to be held accountable, right up to Rupert. What that punishment should be is not up to me (or you) to decide, that’s up to the courts, but I hope all involved get everything coming to them. Unlike the hounds, I like to see justice done regardless of ideology.

    So as I see it, If Priscilla lied, you’re okay with that, but if I pointed it out, I did wrong. and again, in this scenario I’M the partisan hack? Yeah, I was wrong to doubt it, you’re a hound.

    One last question: Are you okay with Antoinette suggesting that, although there has been no proof or allegations, that you should spread the meme that there has been hacking here as well? Oh don’t get me wrong, there may well have been, but shouldn’t we wait for some proof first.

    Yep Patty, you’ve picked a REAL ethical group to hang out with, haven’t you.

  4. Yes they are much more ethical then the Republican Party. Acorn and MM should get all the funding they can get so they can destroy Fox News. I am all for it.

  5. Pat, I have to give you credit for your honesty, you are not afraid to state what you believe. Sadly, what you believe is that it’s okay for Priscilla to tell a boldface lie, and that you would like to see Media Matters and ACORN working to “”destroy Fox News”. Granted, this would be a major violation of thier tax-free status, but apparently you don’t think the law needs to be followed as long as you’re idelogy is served.

    Then we have what you DON’T believe in: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and in general the laws of the United States.

    Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that FOX – or any media member – has the right to do or say what they want, they don’t. And when FOX steps over the line – and they do – they need to be held accountable to the full extent of the law (you know, the law… that thing you don’t believe in).

    I wonder if you would be as “open minded” if, after they “destroy” Fox News, they set their sights on something you actually like? I’m guessing not.

    Look, I don’t care for a lot of what Newshounds does, but I fully support their right to exist, but they too need to be held accountable for what they say or do. The sad thing is, no one over at the kennel would ever consider holding them accountable, and if when someone tries (and they are usually “moderated out”), it makes no difference. They could care less whether the facts back them up, as long as their targets are smeared, truthfully or not.

    But the saddest part of all, you actually consider yourself to be ethical. Yep, you are a true hound. Congratulations!!!

  6. and damn proud of it.

  7. Again Pat, Kudos for your honesty. I mean, I guess someonje who was truly proud of their association with the hounds, or any other group for that matter, would actually post here under the same name they go by there, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

    So there you have it folks, Facts be damned, a newshound to the end. Good for you……

  8. as you are with the facts of the Coservative movement, liars to the end.

  9. Okay Pat, how about rather than just throwing out a useless insult, you tell me exactly WHERE I lied. I don’t want to hear about how Faox said this, or Beck or Hannity said that, or how conservitaves always yada, yada, yada….. That’s chicken-shit.

    You tell me what I’VE SAID that’s a lie. Granted, there may times where we;ve had differences of opinions, and that’s cool. But be man enough to, if you’re going to accuse someone of lying, tell tham when they lied.

    Ball’s in your court Patrick……

  10. ACORN Housing is NOT affected by the ban because it’s an off-shoot, not “affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations” as the ban states.
    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/Did-ACORN-Get-Illegal-Grants.htm
    That’s something you FAIL to mention (speaking of the “ethics” you claim to have, just like BigGovernment (of the crook Andrew Breitbart) also failed in their article which you appear to have plagiarized:
    http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2011/07/01/despite-congressional-ban-obamas-hud-is-still-funneling-tax-dollars-to-acorn/
    While you pretend to do your own research, your crack-research is basically re-writing what you read from right-wing publications without attribution. Speaking of ethics, you continue to trust a wacko who brought to you the doctored (heavily edited) tapes.
    By the way, the Fox story was about a conspiracy and “secret” payments to ACORN. Yet you link to the government website about the payment and yet stupid enough not to realize it’s no “secret” if the government puts it up on the website. That’s because your brain is dead and mostly sucks extremist’s allegations as truth.
    And drop the “But wait, there’s more…” shtick. You’re not 5 years old any more. You used it way too much.
    Speaking of false allegations and printing things that are not true, you accused Ted Kennedy of having a mistress and having killed her. What right-wing nutjob gave you this idea? And the story about Pelosi and her wine business was again lifted from a right wing nutjob who was told about his wrong assertions. He even responded at the time that it’s not his responsibility to verify accusations and rather it’s the accused who should prove to be innocent.

  11. Oh and Fox Noise is walking back on the story

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201107130050

    Oh and: for all your protests of “censorship” from NH, you deleted my comments!!

  12. Nayef, Buddy, Welcome back.

    First of all, no, I didn’t delete your comments. Remember, I don’t delete comments here. It’s just that this is your first visit to the 2.0 version, which means your first comment needs to be approved, and then any after that go right through. You might have wanted to give us more than one minute before crying censorship, especially since you know I have never censored you. Any future comments will not be delayed.

    Anyhow, let me just make a couple key points to debate your comments.

    According to in Public Law 111-117 (which you can pull up on the PDF in the story), written to directly apply to HUD, ACORN is banned from receiving any government funding. A portion of the law reads:

    Division A – Section 418. None of the funds made available under this Act or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.

    I think the “or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations…” comment trumps your “ACORN Housing is NOT affected by the ban because it’s an off-shoot” comment. Do you have any idea what the terms “affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations” mean, and for that matter, do you have any idea what “off-shoot” means. It’s the same thing Nayef.

    Sure, you link to an article that claims HUD is not breaking the law, and I’ll give you credit, that was a hell of a lot more than Patrick ever did, but it doesn’t make it gospel, does it.

    Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), the folks that got the nearly 80k grant, was known until last year as the “ACORN Housing Corp.”. The currently operate in the same location that ACORN Housing did, but I guess you’re right, they are in no way affiliated, are they. And I’m the one whose “brain is dead and mostly sucks extremist’s allegations as truth.” Right.

    As for “By the way, the Fox story was about a conspiracy and “secret” payments to ACORN”, my issue wasn’t with what Fox is or isn’t saying. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you this Nayef, but I don’t watch Fox or care at all about Fox. I was merely responding to a blatant lie by Prissy that ACORN never received any funding after the law was changed.

    I presented two pieces of evidence: The law as it has been written regarding ACORN and funding, especially as it applies to HUD, and a link to an OBAMA ADMINISTRATION website, showing ACORN Housing receiving government funding after the law was in place.

    I did not go into a lot of partisan discussion, as a matter of fact I actually said I thought ACORN got screwed. But I’m not dealing in ideology here, I’m merely dealing in Fact, and until you can come up with a “fact” that trumps an Obama Administration website – Not Fox, Not Breitbart, Not Heritage Foundation – but an OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WEBSITE showing payments to ACORN, I’m gonna have to stick by Priscilla doing what she does best, Lying. Oh, she’s no Aria in that field, but she’s getting close.

    And Nayef, It’s bad enough that you brought this lame excuse for debate up (after being totally humiliated by the Bachmann/Palin Satire), but really, you should have stopped there.

    “You accused Ted Kennedy of having a mistress and having killed her. What right-wing nutjob gave you this idea? Seriously Nayef, are you really that effing ignorant? Ever heard of a little thing called “Chappaquiddick”? Google it.

    As for Pelosi, I assume your referring to the blog I wrote about the millions she and her husband make off of their Wineries (and restaurants, and hotels), despite the fact that Ms. Pelosi, the savior of the Unions, Does not work with any unions, and has fought repeated efforts to unionize her businesses.

    You responded that I “lifted from a right wing nutjob who was told about his wrong assertions. He even responded at the time that it’s not his responsibility to verify accusations and rather it’s the accused who should prove to be innocent.” So I take it that A) you can provide a link (curiously missing today), and that B) you know where my research came from. But the bottom line is, was I wrong. Are Pelosies Wineries, or any other businesses, now Unionized, and can you provide proof.

    If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it, but I need more than your word to make that change, especially since you recently showed you can be so incredibly easily mislead.

    • On the ACORN subject, it was determined nothing illegal took place and Fox propaganda show of the morning with the 3 idiots walked back on the story. I put the link up. Before you cry it’s from media matters, DON’T read the whole thing. Just want the video at the bottom from FOX. Yes: from FOX.

      On the Pelosi thing, she pays her workers more on average than workers in unions get paid:

      http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=4804677

      The idiot I was referring to is Peter Schweizer. He broke the story but later added the following gem:

      “It’s really for her to explain why there is this inconsistency. It’s not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.”

      From the article: The 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act is pretty clear, what Peter Schweizer suggests would be illegal. Growers like Pelosi can’t just hire workers from a union, but workers can unionize on their own and then negotiate with growers after they have organized. Schweizer told me this morning he would call me back and clear this all up — he hasn’t. We’ve left several messages.

      This story was debunked long ago. Funny you ask me to use “google” for Kennedy yet you can’t do the same for Pelosi.

      On Kennedy: the car went off on the road (ACCIDENT) and he survived while she drowned. It was not “killing” and there is little evidence to suggest the “mistress” thing so unless you have 100% PROOF he KILLED her and/or she was his MISTRESS. Good luck!

    • You say:

      I think the “or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations…” comment trumps your “ACORN Housing is NOT affected by the ban because it’s an off-shoot” comment. Do you have any idea what the terms “affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations” mean, and for that matter, do you have any idea what “off-shoot” means. It’s the same thing Nayef.

      From the article I linked to:

      The Government Accountability Office and Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, both claimed Affordable Housing Centers of America was not tied to ACORN and therefore not subject to the ban on federal funding.

      “A GAO appropriations decision concluded that as of September 2010, ACHOA was not a subsidiary, affiliate, or allied organization of ACORN…” the GAO wrote in a June 2011 report on how much money went to ACORN.

      So yes: off-shoot means it USED to be ACORN and not any more. It’s NOT affiliate, subsidiary, or ally. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me which of the three is “off-shoot” in.

      Now it’s clear which one of us can’t accept any evidence!

      “Sure, you link to an article that claims HUD is not breaking the law, and I’ll give you credit, that was a hell of a lot more than Patrick ever did, but it doesn’t make it gospel, does it.”

      So what you say is gospel? It’s not what I say; the GAO said it!

      Speaking of “humiliation” by satire: do remember one thing. I retracted what I said. You took another satire (that of Beck) and never got to wrap your head around it not be a real accusation but satire to poke fun at his logic. I responded to this point on that thread.

  13. Okay Nayef, I’m going to see if I can address your numerous comments. Might be hard considering you keep going off on tangents (aren’t you the one on Newshounds who keeps screaming “The subject of this post was _____” every time someone brings up a side point.). Taking the family to the Cubs game tonight, so If I can’t get to everything now, I’ll follow up in a day or two.

    First, good job with the research on the ACORN funding. Personally, I think we’re going to have to “agree to disagree” on this one. Why? Well, IF Acorn is receiving funding, that would be a violation of federal law, so it’s not unlikely that the same administration – and I’m not talking Obama or Holder here, more likely HUD – would not try to distance themselves from whether or not the funds went to an affiliate of ACORN. Considering the governments own website shows the funds went to “ACORN Housing Corporation Inc.”, I’m going to say they’re part of Acorn, or at least what Acorn has become.

    Look at it this way (he said, knowing Nayef has a difficult time with Analogies): Newshounds is a Fox News “watchdog”, right? Suppose tomorrow Fox announced they were shutting down their channel. Then, the next day, a “new” channel appeared, called ANN – The American News Network. It’s on the same channel Fox used to be on, it has the exact same talent that Fox used to have, and even the same line up, BUT they now refer to themselves as ANN. Does Newshounds shut down? I mean after all, they were dedicated to debunking Fox, and “Fox” no longer exists. At least in name.

    But when Acorn’s housing changes its name – and that’s all it appears to be, a name change – then it is no longer Acorn. Technically, yes, it is no longer Acorn, because it no long uses that name – Just as ANN no longer uses the name “Fox”. But have things really changed?

    Now onto your litany of side issues.

    1) As for Pelosi, I never made any comment that she pays her workers substandard wages, merely that I found it surprising that of the dozens of business she and her husband either own or have an interest in, none of them are union. And given the hospitality and agriculture businesses are ripe union industries, ESPECIALLY in Northern California, it’s a little odd.

    2) Kennedy: Your right, I was wrong to use the term “Mistress” referring to Mary Jo Kopechne – In reality she appears to be a one night stand. And you are equally wrong to use the term “Accident”. If you and I are in a car and your are driving and make a wrong turn and we go off a bridge, that is an accident. If you are drunk (as many at the party Kennedy and Kopechne were at claimed Ted was), it becomes vehicular manslaughter at best.

    You write that “the car went off on the road (ACCIDENT) and he survived while she drowned”. You failed to note that Kennedy didn’t alert the authorities for more than nine hours (hmm, just enough time to sober up). If he HAD alerted them right away, would Mary Jo have been saved? Hard to say, and I’d have to guess probably not, BUT there would have been a chance, where after nine hours, well, not so much.

    3) Satire, Part One: You write “Speaking of “humiliation” by satire: do remember one thing. I retracted what I said.” Yes you did Nayef, but if you read my comments, the point I tried to make was this: First, In your eagerness to jump on Palin and Bachmann, you didn’t even read the whole story, which stated (twice) that it was Satire, so you lose points for comprehension.

    As for retracting what you said, again, this is a gray area. Yes, you did admit that it was a hoax, but what I commented on was that you stated “Yes after checking the article again and trying to find sources, it turned out to be a hoax; quite tasteless too and serves absolutely no service”.

    My point was simple. After you were embarrassed for falling for this hoax, the story was “Quite tasteless” and “serves absolutely no purpose”. However, when you thought the story was real, you were so giddy you wanted to write a story about it. Why was it any less tasteless when you thought it was real.

    4) Satire, Part 2: Nayef adds “You took another satire (that of Beck) and never got to wrap your head around it not be a real accusation but satire to poke fun at his logic. I responded to this point on that thread.”

    What Nayef was referring to was that at some point, someone had written a satirical piece claiming Glenn Beck had raped and murdered a girl in the 80’s (I wonder if he thought that was tasteless as well?). The point of this article was that by asking “If” this rumor was true, not directly saying it was, were they employing the same reasoning that the right, and Beck, used, when they asked “If” the left was guilty of “fill in the blank”.

    But there is one missing detail here. On the Newhound website, from time to time on an article about Beck, one of the readers would say something like “…and what about that girl the Beck supposedly raped and killed in the 80’s”. The problem is, this comment was never provided as a piece of satire, or linked to the original satirical link, so someone reading that piece who was not familiar with the earlier piece, would think that the reader was serious.

    Sorry Nayef, but those comments of and by themselves, without a link to the original, are not satire. They are merely irresponsibility, or put another way, par for the course at Newshounds.

    By the way, I did “wrap my head around it not being a real accusation” as soon as the link was provided. Kind of hard to do so without that piece, and I stated what it truly was once the info was provided.

    5) Bill O’Reilly/Dr. Tiller: This falls into the desperate “throw anything up and see what sticks” tactic. A Common Meme at Newshounds is that Bill O’Reilly is directly responsible for the death of abortion doctor George Tiller. Why? Because O’Reilly was overtly critical of Tiller (which he was), and therefore it was O’Reilly who drove Scott Roeder to murder Dr. Tiller. I’ll tell Nayef the same thing I tell the other hounds: Show me where Roeder, who is currently serving life for the murder (and should have been executed in my opinion) has stated even once that O’Reilly was an influence. Hell, show me where Roeder has even mentioned O’Reilly. No one has ever taken me up on this.

    6) The Basement: This is truly one of my favorites, because it shows how truly ignorant the hounds are (or at least Nayef). Nayef adds “By the way, you also contend a lot at NH live in their parents’ basement, yet provide no proof.” Nayef, Buddy, it’s an insult. I can’t believe that I have to explain this, but when someone says you live in your mom’s basement it is an insult, to imply that you are (and believe me, you and most of the hounds are) socially awkward. The mere fact that I have to explain that says it all. (Nayef then goes on to imply I live in my Mom’s basement…. Oh so clever). Although actually, if you look at my last post, it appears there is actual proof The Count lives in his mom’s basement. And to be far, it could just be a bedroom on the second floor.

    7) And in closing, Nayef adds this: So a bunch of people who monitor a major propaganda network must be losers in a basement, yet you, an idiot who is reduced to monitoring COMMENTS of said blog, are somehow any better. In fact you’re way worse.”

    Nayef, I kind of have to agree with you. The hounds are in fact pathetic, and the fact that I waste any time on them makes me a little pathetic too. Hmmm, I guess that means if your wasting time on me wasting time on them that makes you uber-pathetic, huh? But there is one big difference: I waste a couple of hours a week on this crap, you folks waste hours and hours (and hours) a day on this, so I think in the pathetic Olympics you still have the gold.

    One last thing, I again want to say that none of your comments have ever been deleted, and you know that.

    Have a nice day, I’m off to the ballgame

    Oh, and as far as Willie Horton and Al Gore go (another wonderful piece to address Acorn funding), you’re right, Gore did not mention Horton by name. He merely referred to giving murderers with life sentences furlough’s. Gee, I wonder who he was talking about? Nope, Gore had nothing to do with bring the Mass. furlough program to the attention of the public, short of actually bringing it up in a debate LONG before Bush’s team got it. And I wonder where they got it from.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: