In his weekly hate post (btw, the only thing he writes) he says this about NHs Ellen:
Ellen doesn't make it clear, but Jesse Watters didn't write the article, and Fox Nation didn't post it. They quoted two sentences and then linked to the full piece. By the way, that link takes you the site that published the "inflammatory article": Talking Points Memo. Brodsky forgot to mention that, but instead focused on several comments talking about a "coming revolution" and "lock and load". Ellen pontificates:
Then he writes what Ellen wrote:
I know as well as anyone that readers' comments do not necessarily - and usually do not - reflect the views of a website. But comments certainly reflect the management decisions of a website run by professionals, with moderators and with the kind of resources that Fox News has. Furthermore, this is far from the first time Fox Nation has allowed comments advocating violence. Is this treason? It certainly looks like it to this layperson.That's odd. We were sure that treason was defined differently:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.Oh wait, that was last-year's newshound definition. Be that as it may, we join in agreement with Ellen about casual discussions of revolution and violence. We're thankful that during the previous administration she didn't allow any of that sort of talk.
Now first of all Ellen didn't ever say Watters wrote the article. Then he says Fox Nation never posted it, they just posted part of it and gave a link to it. DUUUHHHH! Does that make a difference. I don't think Dollar could grasp at the scope of what Ellen was getting at in that article. They've bashed NHs Julie over there for a few days about 2 wrongs don't make a right. Yet Dollar reverts to that.
He gives 2 different links to comments supposedly from the NHs site of people talking violence. Yet there is no proof in them that they are from the NHs site. The second link he gives, the first commenter's date stamp reads: 09.14.07. The second commenter that is supposedly responding to him reads: September 14 2007. Now why would they be different if they were on the same thread on the same site?