StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So my roomies are hardcore Republicans. They're watching the Sean Hannity show on Fox and the current thing is that "The Liberals and their media co-conspirators are planning on rewriting history." No shit, that is an exact quote as per my memory of the last 10 minutes.

Apparently they're freaking out about Obama "piggybacking" off of Lincoln's reputation, even though he's very nearly the exact opposite.

This struck me, and still seems to be, sensationalist garbage. Am I right? Are they? Is Obama trying to be a giant hypocrite? Is it a big deal at all?

I don't imagine that Obama's trying to be a hypocrite, but it may turn out that he is one in office, just like his predecessors. He's not in office yet, and hasn't really done anything - oh, except select Clinton retreads for his cabinet positions - to demontrate any hypocrisy. After all, "Hope and Change" can be interpreted in many ways.

I've seen Hannity & Colmes a few times, and heard Hannity on his own....getting rid of Colmes will be a good thing for the show's ratings, especially on Fox. And ANYONE is better than Blowhard Bill O'Reilly.

Oh, and the "rewriting history" line is a total non sequitur. There hasn't been time to update the textbooks!

There's no point trying to argue with the kind of idiot who watches Sean Hannity and takes him seriously.

The ironic thing about debating is that it is actually easier to debate a smart well-educated person (particularly one with an education in a substantial subject like science, as opposed to a bullshit one like "political science") than an idiot.

An idiot doesn't even understand the concept of debating, nor does he understand the rules of logic. It's like trying to play poker with someone who doesn't understand the rules of poker, doesn't want to learn, and decides on his own whether he's winning or losing.

That's basically what I thought. I've also come to the conclusion that I don't know enough about politics (or care enough about politics to devote a lot of time to it) to debate with two guys that work on political campaigns.

They argued that what I saw (it was right before a commercial break) was just good business in the sense that they are trying to attract viewers to come back and watch the in-depth explanation. However, that doesn't refute the fact that what I saw was a sensationalist little spiel (is that how it's spelled?).