Is Sean Hannity a pussy or what?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-27 12:35pm

Last night at the convention, he demanded police protection, presumably from all those menacing old yentas in the audience who were giving him dirty looks. I guess the thought of liberals speaking into microphones he couldn't cut off scared chickenshit Sean Insanity into peeing his pants. What a pussy!

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2004-07-27 02:09pm

I didn't bother to watch Hannity's tv show, but I caught him on the radio in the afternoon. He was trying to 'Hannitize' random people at the convention. Digusting.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-27 02:43pm

I can hardly watch Hannity. Not because I don't agree with him, I can listen to people I think are wrong, but because he's so fucking annoying to listen too. If he were any smugger and self-righteous, it would cause Colmes to burst into flames, and he's not funny. At least O'Rielly is kind of funny to watch.

In this case, he needs to get over himself. What, did he think that the Liberals were going to lynch him, or something?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-07-27 02:49pm

My favorite Sean Hannity moment is when he denounces drug addicts as wanting to be in that lifestyle because its glamorous and if they really wanted to they could kick the habit. It's all about willpower.

Fucking asshole, that's right, its gamorous to live on the street, be in the same clothes day in and out, do the vilest things imaginable just to get that next fix...oh where can I sign up jerk off.

Sean Hannity is a pathetic mouthpiece that can spout any jingoistic phrase to spin something bad into right wing gold. He makes me physically ill when I listen to him and Colmes is the bigger pussy in my opinion for sitting there next to that protoHitler and taking it up the ass without lube.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-27 02:55pm

Right, and then he turned around and was talking about how Rush Limbaugh had a sickness and people should get off his back when Limbaugh was revealed to be a pill-popper. Hannity's hypocrisy could be seen by astronauts on the ISS.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-27 03:43pm

The worst thing about Hannity, Limbaugh, et al is that they have successfully disseminated the notion that "balanced" news is to allow wild-eyed irrational spin-doctoring bullshit from people who call themselves journalists, under the presumption that "the other side will do it too", hence the public will eventually find a Golden Mean between the two.

There are so many things wrong with that reasoning that it's difficult to elucidate them all, yet that seems to be the growing consensus. People increasingly do not expect journalists to be objective; instead they look for "balance", by taking in propaganda from extremists on both sides and then trying to sort it out themselves. In this worldview, the best way to get informed is to watch "Farenheit 9/11", listen to Al Franken, and then absorb several hours of O'Reilly, Coulter, and Hannity.

Note: "objective" and "balanced" are not the same thing. Courtrooms are based on the ruthless-adversaries model, but journalism should not be. All this does is dilute the public respect for journalism in general.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-07-27 05:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:The worst thing about Hannity, Limbaugh, et al is that they have successfully disseminated the notion that "balanced" news is to allow wild-eyed irrational spin-doctoring bullshit from people who call themselves journalists, under the presumption that "the other side will do it too", hence the public will eventually find a Golden Mean between the two.

There are so many things wrong with that reasoning that it's difficult to elucidate them all, yet that seems to be the growing consensus. People increasingly do not expect journalists to be objective; instead they look for "balance", by taking in propaganda from extremists on both sides and then trying to sort it out themselves. In this worldview, the best way to get informed is to watch "Farenheit 9/11", listen to Al Franken, and then absorb several hours of O'Reilly, Coulter, and Hannity.

Note: "objective" and "balanced" are not the same thing. Courtrooms are based on the ruthless-adversaries model, but journalism should not be. All this does is dilute the public respect for journalism in general.

Funny you should mention that, as Michael Moore is the guest on O'Rilley tonight. Perhaps they'll annihilate each other, like matter and antimatter.

Or perhaps two blowhards will scream and holler for sixty minutes and manage to say nothing of consequence to anyone at all.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-07-27 05:35pm

I bet somebody gets his mike cut off...

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-07-27 06:34pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I bet somebody gets his mike cut off...

Both of them?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-07-27 07:07pm

RedImperator wrote:
Funny you should mention that, as Michael Moore is the guest on O'Rilley tonight. Perhaps they'll annihilate each other, like matter and antimatter.

Or perhaps two blowhards will scream and holler for sixty minutes and manage to say nothing of consequence to anyone at all.

You know, I'm actually looking forward to it. I know its going to be he said - he said and not alot is going to BE said. But if nothing else, seeing them gnaw at each other will be entertaining.

Middleclass · Post by **Middleclass** » 2004-07-27 07:44pm

Not that I like Hannity or anything, but to be fair he was a guest on the Al Franken show today. Top grade humor ensued.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-27 07:48pm

Middleclass wrote:Not that I like Hannity or anything, but to be fair he was a guest on the Al Franken show today. Top grade humor ensued.

Just another example of my thesis that journalistic objectivity has gone by the wayside in favour of the "opposing shameless extremists" model. No doubt these people believe that by butting heads on national radio and TV, they are producing something that collectively adds up to an objective viewpoint for the audience. It does not.

Middleclass · Post by **Middleclass** » 2004-07-27 08:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:Just another example of my thesis that journalistic objectivity has gone by the wayside in favour of the "opposing shameless extremists" model. No doubt these people believe that by butting heads on national radio and TV, they are producing something that collectively adds up to an objective viewpoint for the audience. It does not.

So true, so true. At work I switch between listening to the local conservative talk station (KLIF 570 AM) and Air America Radio, which I stream. Both will cover some event, in completely contradictory ways. When I read up on the event later, both sides had misrepresented everything about it.

As a corrolary, I would propose that the newspapers and thier infamous bias come from a change in demand. People at some point got really interested in op-ed pieces, and now there is a pressure to put some opinion in the daily reporting. It is my best explaination as to why there are seemingly no papers that just report what happened and leave the unnecessary modifiers at home.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-07-27 11:03pm

If the left-wing guy and the right-wing guy are evenly matched, it can be a good thing since one can keep the other honest -or at least call him on his bullshit. Gore Vidal and William Buckley in 1968 was a good example if you can find the site with the footage.

But right-wingers want it fixed like pro wrestling. Whether it's Hannity's whipping boy, Alan Colmes or James Kilpatrick's patsy, Shana Alexander (made immortal in Airplane!), it's rigged. The reason Vidal reduced Buckley to growling obscenities on national TV was that he was no "ham-and-egger" and nailed Buckley to the wall. On Firing Line, Buckley would work over some too-well-mannered liberal who was daft enough to think Buckley would play it straight.

I love C-Span, though.