LGF Is Actually Hallucinating On #Weinergate

Another lie from Little Green Footballs – h/t to @marcoesquondola

also LGF says he left his "laptop" with the pic on it unattended..i listen to O&A every day and it was his ipad and pic wasn’t on

Here’s what Charles Jonson accused Breitbart of …

In fact, two nights ago, Andrew Breitbart went out drinking with Anthony and several others — and according to Anthony, showed the picture to numerous people, even leaving his laptop computer unattended with the picture on the screen for long periods of time.

One of those people was right wing flamethrower Ann Coulter. Here’s Anthony’s photo of Coulter reacting to the picture; notice that his computer is apparently there, but Breitbart is nowhere to be seen.

Breitbart owns a Mac Air, an iPad and an iPhone.Blackberry. Look at the picture – that’s no Apple product.

lgf-lie3

And LizBuddie thinks it might not even be a computer.

That’s doesn’t look like a PC to me. Looks like a restaurant sign/stand, like the kind that hold menus.

And it seems Coulter is laughing at something she’s been told. Right? Not a picture on the imaginary Breitbart computer.

Chuck sees what he wants to see – maybe that’s where the little green footballs name comes from.

UPDATE: It’s a sign – here’s Google Street View

oiz-stand[4]

But Charles – a Mac junkie – won’t correct the obvious error.

liz-no_thumb[2]

19 Comments

  1. Looks like Musto is holding a phone in left hand – maybe he showed her something. Charles is a tool.

    Reply
  2. Yeah, that’s a menu board and Charles Johnson is every little bit of what he claims Breitbart is and more. LGF used to be known as “The blog that fact checks your ass.” Now, it’s “The blog that blows smoke up your ass.”

    Reply
  3. Wow, I had to see it to believe it.

    That’s quite a hobby you’ve adopted, Lee (and not at all creepy!). Let me know when you go pro with this– I can’t wait to see a whole book fulla obsessive parsing of the doings of Anthony Weiner’s dick. Don’t listen to those folks who say that yours is psychotic behavior, okay?

    Reply
  4. Man, I love that logic. Little Green Fucktard lies about Breitbart, Stranahan points out said lie, and Stranahan is OBSESSED! Couldn’t be that Johnson is so obsessed with breitbart that he HAS to lie about him constantly. It couldn’t be that the guy penned an op-ed that was full of factually incorrect statements, in which a reader noticed.

    Jesus, if Stranahan is obsessed with chuckles, then johnson is frothing-at-the-mouth-like-a-rabid-raccoon-who-hasn’t-been-fed-in-days obsessed with breitbart.

    Again, the gymnastics these people go through. Obsessed? When was the last time a sitting congressman called a press conference only to have it taken over by a jounalist AT THE BEHEST of the press? The entire press is obsessed with breitbart. Someone’s gotta make sure they tell it like it is.

    Reply
  5. It should be obvious, Mark, that I was referring to more than just the immediate posting. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear, but frankly, I simply couldn’t imagine anyone’d be silly enough to necessitate it.

    Reply
  6. Chris, where exactly is the “obsessive parsing of the doings of Anthony Weiner’s dick” in this post? The penis in question has only a bit part in the whole Johnson fiasco.

    Perhaps instead of casting aspersions you should defend Charles.

    Reply
  7. See comment and response just above yours, Tom. Thank you for reading carefully.

    Reply
  8. I did.

    So you’re admitting this post has nothing to do with Weiner’s dick, yet you still have to lecture the author on his “obsession”.

    You’re making even less sense now.

    Reply
  9. Its apparently an obsession to question the ethics of a congressman who lies to the country for ten days straight. Or is an obsession to report the facts?

    Lee is obsessed with finding out the truth, even if it means someone he agrees with goes down as a lying liar face. Johnson is obsessed with breitbart.

    I’ve been following Lee’s blogs for months now (uh oh, I’m obsessed!) and he’s never mentioned weiner before weiner tweeted his weiner. Lee covered it as a blogger/journalist. That you see that as an obsession shows what kind of lens you view the world through.

    Reply
  10. Guys, since you’re fans of Breitbart, it may be necessary to simply spell it out: Disingenuousness isn’t an argument; it’s a dodge– the act of a coward. Probably, like Breitbart, you tell yourself that you dislike dishonesty, but are here being dishonest in pretending not to understand what I’m referring to, which is the obsessive nature of Lee’s scrutiny of what is a trivial subject over his past several postings.

    But you knew that, so why the bullshit?

    Right, why’d I ask.

    I’m satisfied that Lee in his heart of hearts knows the truth of it, and may feel a little shame, and I suspect you guys do as well, despite the self-serving nature of your responses.

    And that’s enough for me.

    Reply
  11. Which obsession of things that are trivial? You started out by saying it was his obsession with weiners peen. You’re the one being disingenuous by saying lee is obsessing over trivial things. He’s followed the story, even taking several looks at the hacker theories. Now he’s calling out people who are blatantly lying, know that they are lying, and refuse to retract said lie. Is this what you consider trivial? Now weiner is under police investigation as to whether he was being inappropriate with a 17 year old. Is that trivial?

    Maybe its trivial to you. But that you can’t understand why its not to the rest of us speaks to your character.

    Reply
  12. LGF responds and says:
    “Notice: at no point in my post did I identify the menu board as a computer. This is a pure assumption by Stranahan — he saw the menu board in the picture and simply leaped to the conclusion that I was referring to it, when I wrote that Coulter was reacting to the picture and that Breitbart’s computer was “apparently there.””

    Actually, LGF said:
    “notice that his computer is apparently there”

    which implies by just looking at the image, it should be apparent by what is “seen”, that there is a computer in the picture. When I read the post and saw the picture and his comments, I did “notice” there was a computer there and would have continued to assume that by what I “noticed” in the picture if it were not for Lee’s explanation.

    As for Weiner…I am wondering when charges will be brought against him.

    Weiner has private tweets with this woman that are not sexualized in any way and then out of the blue he sends her an image that shows his manhood bulging in his underwear…most people somehow see nothing wrong with that???? This could relate to two adults meeting and having conversations over a period of time and then out of the blue the male pulls down his pants to reveal his bulge to her…that is a form of sexual harassment whether it is online or in person. Pure and simple sexual harassment which is criminal and should be prosecuted.

    Reply
  13. In his initial post, Johnson wrote, next to the picture of Coulter with her hand over her mouth:

    “Here’s Anthony’s photo of Coulter reacting to the picture; notice that his computer is apparently there…”

    Then, in his rebuttal, he said:

    “Notice: at no point in my post did I identify the menu board as a computer. This is a pure assumption by Stranahan — he saw the menu board in the picture and simply leaped to the conclusion that I was referring to it, when I wrote that Coulter was reacting to the picture and that Breitbart’s computer was ‘apparently there.'”

    This raises the question: If Johnson were not referring to the menu board and Stranahan did in fact jump to that conclusion, how did he expect his readers to “notice” the “apparently there” computer when looking at the image?

    Johnson explains:

    “Breitbart’s computer was ‘apparently there’ because Ann Coulter was reacting to the Weiner photo. Was it a cell phone, not a computer? Could be…”

    So, the simple fact that Coulter has her hand over her mouth is the only thing Johnson was referring to when he told his readers to “notice” the “apparently there” computer in the image? Right…

    And in fact, he might have even been referring to a cell phone, right? I mean, after all:

    “…modern smartphones are computers, if we’re really going to get pedantic about it.”

    Now it makes so much sense. The infallible Johnson never once assumed there was a computer in the image. In fact, he made no claim that it was even a computer Breitbart used to show Coulter the image. It could very well have been a cell phone, as Johnson always said.

    Of course, that doesn’t explain why, if you go back to the original post, Johnson clearly accuses Breitbart of “leaving his _laptop computer_ unattended with the picture on the screen for long periods of time” and states that one of the people “those people” to whom Breitbart showed the image on his “laptop computer” was Ann Coulter.

    It’s so obvious Johnson was referring the menu as the “laptop computer” he implored his readers to “notice” in the image, that his attempt to play it off is just laughably pathetic.

    Of course, he’s right about the substance of his accusations. It doesn’t matter what it was Breitbart allegedly passed around. But if Johnson is incapable of owning up to even the tiniest mistake in his assumptions, how can you believe him about the big things any more than he believes Brietbart (who, of course, turned out to be right this time while Johnson, despite all the Weiner defense he could run, was proven totally wrong)?

    Reply
  14. Well, I guess smartphones are also laptop computers once we set them on our lap, if we’re really going to get pedantic about it. I mean, that’s everyone uses their smartphone, right?

    Reply
  15. *how

    Reply
  16. I think the important question here is, how are his readers able to “notice” something “apparent” in a “picture” if he was only ‘”implying” the presence of a “computer?”

    He’d have had better luck if he would have said, “notice how coulter is laughing at the racist joke she’s being told? Yeah. She’s racist.”

    Reply
  17. Let’s bring up the subject of jazz guitarists who have sexual relations with various barnyard animals. I think that such foul and repulsive people should be the primary subject of this paragraph.

    Gosh, do any of you know Charles Foster Johnson, the owner of LittleGreenFootballs.com?

    If you think that there is some connection between those two paragraphs, boy are you a nut-job.

    Reply
  18. “…notice that his computer is apparently there, but Breitbart is nowhere to be seen.”

    So, because Breitbart isn’t in the image, he’s “nowhere to be seen”. But the “apparently there” computer Charles refers to — you know, the “laptop computer” “with the picture on the screen” — is obviously there even though it’s not in the image, because we all know Charles definitely did not, nuh uh, no way, assume that a menu board was the computer screen.

    Meanwhile, back at LGF:

    17 Udon Sun, Jun 12, 2011 2:24:29am
    “Well, that menu looks like a computer screen to me. :-/”

    18 Charles Sun, Jun 12, 2011 9:20:04am
    “Apparently it looked like one to Stranahan too — so he jumped to that conclusion, pretended I was wrong, then did a victory dance.”

    Haha, how horrendously lame. This guy is seriously a moron if he thinks anyone buys this. Maybe that explains why his Weineresque defense only has 16 reader comments. The echo chamber is too afraid to call him out on his utter bullshit; because, as we all know, dissent is treason in the independent-thinking land of LGF.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Breitbart Laptop Lie &How Liberals Spread It - [...] already shown conclusively that Little Green Footballs author Charles Johnson was totally wrong in a really humiliating way by…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *