Sean Hannity nails an Occupy Wall Street 'leader'

[Vashon]

Okay, look, Hannity is an intolerable douchebag among other things...and I cant stand him at all and never could even when I watched OReilly for entertainment. Although Shep Smith is pretty damn cool. Doesnt burn bridges like a certain Olbermann.


Anyway, here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxWOy6wpRLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHcr_8Qgdos

[Losonti Tokash]

Uh, could you provide some kind of description instead of rambling about talking head personalities?

[Vashon]

In one of the videos, the nineminute one, Hannity has a OWS guest who...gets eaten alive by Hannity. Problem is is that even if Hannity had conducted a fair and no interruption debate it would have just made the OWS guy look even worse.

[spaceviking]

Well this is not so much a display of Hannity nailing an ows leader so much as showing the kind of tomato cans fox news picks to represent the left.

[Vashon]

Well this is not so much a display of Hannity nailing an ows leader so much as showing the kind of tomato cans fox news picks to represent the left.

Are you perhaps implying that certain MSNBC talking head shows dont do the exact same thing? No, the guy perfectly represents just why a good chunk of other college age kids were highly jaded and cynical regarding a large portionvof Occupiers. Besides, only CNN still does even remotely decent journalism or gives an opposing side to an arguement credit. Ever. Fox News and MSNBC just preach to their own choirs while occasionally stumbling uponblegit points. This is one of those woops I found a points.


OWS idiots refuse to take the blame for a large chunk of selfinflicted suffering due to idiocy and rhink that basically Socialism can work in America.

[weemadando]

Please provide proof of why socialism can't work.

[spaceviking]

I actually don't live in the united States so I don't really know that much about those networks. It just seemed they picked someone extremely inept.

[Alyeska]

Ah, what the hell, I could use a good train wreck.

Yes, Vashon, please do explain why socialism doesn't work.

[madd0ct0r]

'can't work in America' - has to be specific y'all.

actually - i'm not sure socialist nationalism of industries could be reconciled with the USA semi-independent states arrangement.

I suppose you could do each at a state level to start with - hell, you could even have them competing!

[Bakustra]

'can't work in America' - has to be specific y'all.

actually - i'm not sure socialist nationalism of industries could be reconciled with the USA semi-independent states arrangement.

I suppose you could do each at a state level to start with - hell, you could even have them competing!

Keep in mind that socialism is broader than the Leninist-Stalinist state model, which is technically more state capitalism than anything as the means of production are generally held by the state rather than the workers (the distinction should be obvious from collectivization). It also was hampered by the fact that the USSR was not to start an industrialized capitalist society, which is where Marx predicted socialism could actually occur.

So a syndicalist or left-wing communist bottom-up approach to socialism could work very well with federalism or a federalist nation.

[Spoonist]

As we saw with Iosef Cross I think it's important that the persons involved define 'socialism'. Otherwise people outside the US will be very suprised to hear that ordinary "socialist" parties like the UK Labour party for instance would be radical marxist-leninists.

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

As we saw with Iosef Cross I think it's important that the persons involved define 'socialism'. Otherwise people outside the US will be very suprised to hear that ordinary "socialist" parties like the UK Labour party for instance would be radical marxist-leninists.

Labour are socialist? They haven't been since 1997 in my book, and that's quite a mild view among British lefties. Depending on how you view these things the Labour Party stopped being socialist around the time when Harold Wilson got in, or when Hugh Gaitskill won the post-Attlee leadership from Nye Bevan, or even when Labour's 1945 government came in.

Which I suppose highlights the point of how you'd describe "socialist" and, more to the point, socialist policies quite nicely.