Sean Hannity...Result of Inter-Species marriage?

[RedOcean]

Is it just me, or is Sean Hannity the biggest dipshit ever to grace America's televisions? What are your opinions on this right-wing gorilla? Is he the result of a failed genetic experiment, or is he just loud and stupid?



(Note: Sorry, but I was watching his show the other day just out of curiosity and was, shall we say, less than impressed. Just needed to vent a little I guess. : )

[Hamel]

His idiotic fans are just as bad

"I've been Hannitized"

Seriously, that's as pathetic as admitting to being a dittohead

[Hamel]

Hannity related:

[RedOcean]

LOL!

[Nathan F]

Is he any worse than, say, Michael Moore? Both sides have their idiots.

[Hamel]

Is he any worse than, say, Michael Moore? Both sides have their idiots.

You know, it gets a bit annoying when, every time a rightwing idiot is pointed out, someone has to drag Moore into it as if he was just as bad if not worse

Moore is a saint compared to Coulter and to a lesser extent, Hannity. At least Hannity didn't want college liberals dead. There is 20 billion lightyears of difference between Moore and the more notorious rightwing pundits

If you want an HONEST comparison, use that piece of shit at your university as an example

[The Kernel]

Is he any worse than, say, Michael Moore? Both sides have their idiots.

You know, it gets a bit annoying when, every time a rightwing idiot is pointed out, someone has to drag Moore into it as if he was just as bad if not worse

Moore is a saint compared to Coulter and to a lesser extent, Hannity. At least Hannity didn't want college liberals dead. There is 20 billion lightyears of difference between Moore and the more notorious rightwing pundits

If you want an HONEST comparison, use that piece of shit at your university as an example

Not to mention that Moore doesn't have a popular program that reaches millions the way right-wing morons like Hannity, Limbaugh, Fallwell and Coulter. These freaks are total extremists but they have the media attention of the mainstream.

[Xenophobe3691]

Is he any worse than, say, Michael Moore? Both sides have their idiots.

I thought Anne Coulter was Moore's Foil...

[The Kernel]

Is he any worse than, say, Michael Moore? Both sides have their idiots.

I thought Anne Coulter was Moore's Foil...

Hardly. Ann Coulter is simply one of the overzealous lawyers that happened to be on the conservative side of a smear campaign against Clinton. She like it so much, she decided to go into professional smearing of anything that offends the Christian Fundementalists in the Unites States. She is the very definition of evil and she owns a shield which makes her immune to all logic.

Moore certainly isn't my favorite liberal, but at least he makes a salient point from time to time. I don't hate him for pissing people off any more than I hate Coulter for pissing people off. I hate Coulter because she is an evil, elitist bitch who calls working families "a family where no one works".

[Knife]

Is it just me, or is Sean Hannity the biggest dipshit ever to grace America's televisions? What are your opinions on this right-wing gorilla? Is he the result of a failed genetic experiment, or is he just loud and stupid?



(Note: Sorry, but I was watching his show the other day just out of curiosity and was, shall we say, less than impressed. Just needed to vent a little I guess. : )

*smirks as I happen to be listening to him right now*

I by no means agree with most of what he says, but he does have on alot of guests who disagree with him and debate him. If anything its a good look into the extremes of both sides of the isle.

Do you have any arguments against him other than the suspision that he is a geniticaly altered freak? I have to assume that you have political differences with him but so far all you listed was BS.

Any way, both sides have their ideolouges. Hannity is just one, and is comparable to Moore. His idea's are just as radical when viewed from the right as Hannities are when viewed from the left.

But your right, Hanitized is stupid.

[The Kernel]

Do you have any arguments against him other than the suspision that he is a geniticaly altered freak? I have to assume that you have political differences with him but so far all you listed was BS.

Sure.

1) He defended Rush Limbaugh's statement of calling 13-year old Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog".

2) Blamed Liberal criticism of America for manufacturing traitors like John Walker Lindh

3) Tried to defend Ollie North's illegal activities under the Reagan administration by blaming liberal witchhunts.

4) He defended the school voucher program by citing The Miracle in East Harlem, a program that had nothing to do with school vouchers.

5) "Decades of liberal no-growth policies have seriously endangered our economic and national security". Apparently Mr. Hannity is unfamiliar with the 1990's.

6) Hannity blames Democrats for not wanting to investigate after 9/11, when it was in fact Republicans that denied Congress access to pre-9/11 intelligence reports.

These are just a few, but you get the idea.

[Knife]

Sure.

1) He defended Rush Limbaugh's statement of calling 13-year old Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog".

Was he agreeing with Limbaugh's freedom to say such dumb things or agreeing that Chelsea is the 'White House Dog'?

2) Blamed Liberal criticism of America for manufacturing traitors like John Walker Lindh

Well, if there was criticism of America, it probably didn't help. If your speaking of criticism of the American Goverment? Then Ok. Not a check in the plus.

3) Tried to defend Ollie North's illegal activities under the Reagan administration by blaming liberal witchhunts.

Come on. Both sides participate in witch hunts. This is nothing new.

4) He defended the school voucher program by citing The Miracle in East Harlem, a program that had nothing to do with school vouchers.

Don't know enough about the 'Miracle in East Harlem Project' to comment.

5) "Decades of liberal no-growth policies have seriously endangered our economic and national security". Apparently Mr. Hannity is unfamiliar with the 1990's.

Funny how the economic decline started at the end of the 90's and the tech bubble built durring the 90's and all the shinanagins of Enron and World Com went on durring the 90's.

On Defense, durring the mid and late 90's we, the US, let so much shit slide that should have been dealt with, that we are now running to catch up. Unless you think bombing the asprin factory held OBL back for a few more years.

6) Hannity blames Democrats for not wanting to investigate after 9/11, when it was in fact Republicans that denied Congress access to pre-9/11 intelligence reports.

IIRC, it was Hanity that brought forth the memo that basicly said that the Dems didn't wan't to investigate rather use an investigation as a political tool. While not unheard of, this issue is not the one to do it with.

These are just a few, but you get the idea.

No problem. While I'm not in total agreement with you, you have points. My critism of the poster was more of his lack of reasons to dislike Hannity.

[Joe]

Ann Coulter's foil is probably Ted Rall, moreso than Michael Moore.

[The Kernel]

Was he agreeing with Limbaugh's freedom to say such dumb things or agreeing that Chelsea is the 'White House Dog'?

Actually, he was in an argument with Al Franken who said the comment was inappropriate and he tried to defend it. Not the right to say it but the tastefullness of the remark.

Well, if there was criticism of America, it probably didn't help. If your speaking of criticism of the American Goverment? Then Ok. Not a check in the plus.

He was saying that the America bashing atmosphere of northern California Liberals caused it. If you've ever been to northern Cali, I think you'll agree that the atmosphere is NOT anti-American.

Come on. Both sides participate in witch hunts. This is nothing new.

Oh yes, both sides participate in witch hunts. In this case it was a justified witch hunt over the Iranian-Contra scandel. The Republicans prefer witch hunts that involve interns and blowjobs :roll

Funny how the economic decline started at the end of the 90's and the tech bubble built durring the 90's and all the shinanagins of Enron and World Com went on durring the 90's.

I'm not arguing that their wasn't some artificial growth, but anyone who argues that the economy stagnated during the 90's is a moron.

On Defense, durring the mid and late 90's we, the US, let so much shit slide that should have been dealt with, that we are now running to catch up. Unless you think bombing the asprin factory held OBL back for a few more years.

Bullshit, that is a bunch of Republican propeganda. Would you like me to show you numbers that show that much more Military growth occured during Clinton's reign then Bush's? Of course some of the senseless programs like Missile Defense were cut, but since these things violated the ABM treaty anyways, it doesn't much matter. Conventional miltitary spending was just as high during Clinton as it ever was.

Fun fact: Bush's invasion of Afghanistan was done using the military that Clinton put together.

IIRC, it was Hanity that brought forth the memo that basicly said that the Dems didn't wan't to investigate rather use an investigation as a political tool. While not unheard of, this issue is not the one to do it with.

It was a load of bullshit. Do you dispute this?

No problem. While I'm not in total agreement with you, you have points. My critism of the poster was more of his lack of reasons to dislike Hannity.

I understand that certainly. Sometimes people don't know the reasons why they think someone is a moron, but if you go and read Hannity's book Let Freedom Ring, I think you'll agree that he is a conservative wacko, and not a very smart one either.

[Stravo]

Sean is generally a knee jerk right winger and an overall idiot. He spouts these hot button words to label the other side as evil, stupid, unpatriotic and I do believe he is physically incapable of not mentioning Clinton.


But the one thing that pissed me off to my core was the day he claimed that drug addicts were simply weak willed and that they WANTED to be addicts. I wish someone would dig up that show and ask him whether he thought that fat turd Rush was weak willed and wanted to be addicted to painkillers. BTW when Colmes confronted him on that point Sean's rebuttal was "My dad quiet cigarettes cold turkey" Gotta love that Hannity indepth research. Fuckwit. Anyone that has experienced what drug addiction can do to someone you love would have strangled that self righteous prick for that comment.

[Knife]

Actually, he was in an argument with Al Franken who said the comment was inappropriate and he tried to defend it. Not the right to say it but the tastefullness of the remark.

Ok.

He was saying that the America bashing atmosphere of northern California Liberals caused it. If you've ever been to northern Cali, I think you'll agree that the atmosphere is NOT anti-American.

Depends. Alot of the stuff that goes on in Berkely can be debatable as to if its anti American. Though a tiny town in Utah named Laverkin (sp?) has the same problem though on the other side of the spectrum.

Oh yes, both sides participate in witch hunts. In this case it was a justified witch hunt over the Iranian-Contra scandel. The Republicans prefer witch hunts that involve interns and blowjobs :roll

Yeah, not a problem with the President lying in a court. None. YOu got me. But yeah, it turned into a witch hunt like so many other good investigations start out as.

I'm not arguing that their wasn't some artificial growth, but anyone who argues that the economy stagnated during the 90's is a moron.

True. As with so much in politics, the truth is in the middle.

Bullshit, that is a bunch of Republican propeganda. Would you like me to show you numbers that show that much more Military growth occured during Clinton's reign then Bush's? Of course some of the senseless programs like Missile Defense were cut, but since these things violated the ABM treaty anyways, it doesn't much matter. Conventional miltitary spending was just as high during Clinton as it ever was.

All that military growth that stopped the aggression of the Imperialist of Yugoslavia and Bosnia? Come on, Clinton spent cash on his little jaunts in Eastern Europe and Hatia but saying that all that growth happened durring his admin instead of the effects and rebuilding and restocking of the Gulf War is misleeding.

It was a load of bullshit. Do you dispute this?

Actually the last I heard, it was genuine but was appearently hacked out of the computers by another Senator's staffer. Sen. Hatch's aide, iirc.

Hell, even the Dem Sen (Rockafeller?) said that the memo wan't for disimination rather than dening the fact that it exisisted.

I understand that certainly. Sometimes people don't know the reasons why they think someone is a moron, but if you go and read Hannity's book Let Freedom Ring, I think you'll agree that he is a conservative wacko, and not a very smart one either.

Doubtfull that I'll read it. I've tried reading these political books. Bill Oriely's was one of the first I tried to read. While I might like or atleast accept the person in their other job, most of these books come off like a wank off. Horrible reads.

Hannity, IMO, is a religious wako. And he is a conservitive. I'll take some and leave most of the rest when it comes to his opinion.

[The Kernel]

Depends. Alot of the stuff that goes on in Berkely can be debatable as to if its anti American. Though a tiny town in Utah named Laverkin (sp?) has the same problem though on the other side of the spectrum.

Oh come on. I've lived in Berkely and it isn't the treason-filled pit that morons like Ann Coulter make it out to be. Certainly there is nothing there that would incite someone to join the Taliban and fight against the United States. See, Liberals actually DO love the United States, but we recognize that it has its problems and that we need to work hard to fix them.

Yeah, not a problem with the President lying in a court. None. YOu got me. But yeah, it turned into a witch hunt like so many other good investigations start out as.

The Clinton impeachment was an investigation the STARTED as a witch hunt. And it had NOTHING to do with lying in court. It had to do with lying to Congress about Clinton's sex life. There are a few problems with this:

1) They had NO RIGHT to ask the question in the first place
2) A man lying about his sex life is nothing new
3) The president's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job

Personally, I wish that Clinton had simply told Congress to go fuck themselves when they asked about this. There were no allegations of rape and this was totally consentual sex between two adults. They had no business dragging this shit up just to make headlines and try to discredit a man who was everything they weren't: young, brilliant and charismatic.

True. As with so much in politics, the truth is in the middle.

Hardly in the middle. The 90's was the biggest period of growth in American history.

All that military growth that stopped the aggression of the Imperialist of Yugoslavia and Bosnia? Come on, Clinton spent cash on his little jaunts in Eastern Europe and Hatia but saying that all that growth happened durring his admin instead of the effects and rebuilding and restocking of the Gulf War is misleeding.

Restocking and rebulding after the Gulf War? Are you suggesting that the military needed rebulding after THAT? Hehe, that was a good one.

Clinton's "little jaunt" in Bosnia was an attempt to put down a regime that was murdering its citizens and turning the survivors into refugees. The Clinton campaign in Bosnia ended this without a single American casualty, with the Republicans fighting him all the way.

Fun Fact: Hannity criticized Clinton relentlessly during the Bosnia campaign. When the Iraq War became an international debate, he critisized liberals for arguing with the President during a wartime situation.

Anyways, you are aware that Clinton took command of the US military during a time when military spending was obviously going to decline because of the end of the cold war right? This trend has continued under Bush, aside from Rummies pet projects like Missile Defense. We are not going to have a military like during the Reagan years in the forseeable future, no matter what the consevatives might say.

Actually the last I heard, it was genuine but was appearently hacked out of the computers by another Senator's staffer. Sen. Hatch's aide, iirc.

Hell, even the Dem Sen (Rockafeller?) said that the memo wan't for disimination rather than dening the fact that it exisisted.

I'm talking about the intelligence reports that the Bush administration withheld that talked about expressing concern over Middle-eastern students taking flying classes when they didn't seem to be interested in landing. There were also other reports that warned of possible terrorist attacks using planes as a weapon. There was a full investigation launched, but the White House has withheld a great deal of these intelligence reports to this day.

Doubtfull that I'll read it. I've tried reading these political books. Bill Oriely's was one of the first I tried to read. While I might like or atleast accept the person in their other job, most of these books come off like a wank off. Horrible reads.

Hannity, IMO, is a religious wako. And he is a conservitive. I'll take some and leave most of the rest when it comes to his opinion.

Good enough. If you want a political book that takes a look at the right's political figures and is easy to read, might I suggest Lies, and the Lying, Liars that Tell Them? It is written by a comedian, but he had the full force of 14 Harvard students researching every point in his book and it is quite good. Of course, whenever reading these kinds of books, it is always good to do your own supplemental research.

[Hamel]

The Clinton impeachment was an investigation the STARTED as a witch hunt. And it had NOTHING to do with lying in court. It had to do with lying to Congress about Clinton's sex life. There are a few problems with this:

1) They had NO RIGHT to ask the question in the first place
2) A man lying about his sex life is nothing new
3) The president's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job

Personally, I wish that Clinton had simply told Congress to go fuck themselves when they asked about this. There were no allegations of rape and this was totally consentual sex between two adults. They had no business dragging this shit up just to make headlines and try to discredit a man who was everything they weren't: young, brilliant and charismatic.

Also, weren't the questions that led to him lying inadmissable?

[The Kernel]

The Clinton impeachment was an investigation the STARTED as a witch hunt. And it had NOTHING to do with lying in court. It had to do with lying to Congress about Clinton's sex life. There are a few problems with this:

1) They had NO RIGHT to ask the question in the first place
2) A man lying about his sex life is nothing new
3) The president's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job

Personally, I wish that Clinton had simply told Congress to go fuck themselves when they asked about this. There were no allegations of rape and this was totally consentual sex between two adults. They had no business dragging this shit up just to make headlines and try to discredit a man who was everything they weren't: young, brilliant and charismatic.

Also, weren't the questions that led to him lying inadmissable?

I'm not sure, but they certainly were irrelevent. I'm not familiar with exactly what Congress can ask the President and expect him to answer honestly, but questions that have NOTHING to do with his job shouldn't be asked.

See, I don't care about the fact that George W. might have had a coke problem and was an alchoholic before he took office. I also don't care that he might have cheated on his wife. That is his problem to deal with and as long as it doesn't interfere with his job, then I really don't give a shit.

Note that this doesn't excuse his dodging the Vietnam War by going AWOL for a year. Past actions DO have relevence, but only if they have direct bearing on the job of being President.

[darthdavid]

The Clinton impeachment was an investigation the STARTED as a witch hunt. And it had NOTHING to do with lying in court. It had to do with lying to Congress about Clinton's sex life. There are a few problems with this:

1) They had NO RIGHT to ask the question in the first place
2) A man lying about his sex life is nothing new
3) The president's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job

Personally, I wish that Clinton had simply told Congress to go fuck themselves when they asked about this. There were no allegations of rape and this was totally consentual sex between two adults. They had no business dragging this shit up just to make headlines and try to discredit a man who was everything they weren't: young, brilliant and charismatic.

Also, weren't the questions that led to him lying inadmissable?

I'm not sure, but they certainly were irrelevent. I'm not familiar with exactly what Congress can ask the President and expect him to answer honestly, but questions that have NOTHING to do with his job shouldn't be asked.

See, I don't care about the fact that George W. might have had a coke problem and was an alchoholic before he took office. I also don't care that he might have cheated on his wife. That is his problem to deal with and as long as it doesn't interfere with his job, then I really don't give a shit.

Note that this doesn't excuse his dodging the Vietnam War by going AWOL for a year. Past actions DO have relevence, but only if they have direct bearing on the job of being President.

Thing is a bj is legal, coke isn't, going awol isnot so this should have some effect on the judgement of the pres.

[The Kernel]

Thing is a bj is legal, coke isn't, going awol isnot so this should have some effect on the judgement of the pres.

Legality doesn't enter into it; this is all about public defemation. Do you remember the infamous Al Gore "I invented the Internet" quote? Complete bullshit and taken out of context (he was a Senator that approved funding increases for the ARPANET and helped turn it into the modern internet). Things like this were manufactured by certain right-wing publications because they couldn't dig up any personal dirt on Gore.

[Johonebesus]

The Clinton impeachment was an investigation the STARTED as a witch hunt. And it had NOTHING to do with lying in court. It had to do with lying to Congress about Clinton's sex life. There are a few problems with this:

1) They had NO RIGHT to ask the question in the first place
2) A man lying about his sex life is nothing new
3) The president's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job

Personally, I wish that Clinton had simply told Congress to go fuck themselves when they asked about this. There were no allegations of rape and this was totally consentual sex between two adults. They had no business dragging this shit up just to make headlines and try to discredit a man who was everything they weren't: young, brilliant and charismatic.

Actually, it started as an investigation into rumors of shady land deals from years before Clinton was in office. However, as the investigation failed to find any crimes, Congress just kept expanding the scope of the investigation in hopes of finding something, anything. Eventually, after six years and millions of dollars and several ruined lives, they finally caught Clinton by leaking to Jones' lawyers the evidence they had found about Lewinsky in the hopes that Clinton would be caught off guard in the deposition and lie about it. The witch hunt didn't start out about sex, it just devolved to that when they couldn't find anything else.

Iran-Contra, on the other hand, began and ended with an investigation into serious allegations of illegal activity within the current administration. That hardly counts as a witch hunt of the same level as the Clinton investigations.


As for the original question, I think O'Reilly is more dangerous. Hannity is an extremist, and he primarily appeals to right wingers. O'Reilly doesn't seem so extreme, and seems to me to have a wider appeal.

[Joe]

Right, right, $100,000 profits in cattle futures is just beginner's luck (although that was Hillary, to be fair, I don't know if Bubba had anything to do with it).

Anyways, you are aware that Clinton took command of the US military during a time when military spending was obviously going to decline because of the end of the cold war right? This trend has continued under Bush, aside from Rummies pet projects like Missile Defense. We are not going to have a military like during the Reagan years in the forseeable future, no matter what the consevatives might say.

Ask Sea Skimmer about what Clinton did to the military sometime.

[The Kernel]

Right, right, $100,000 profits in cattle futures is just beginner's luck (although that was Hillary, to be fair, I don't know if Bubba had anything to do with it).

Hey, if even Ken Starr couldn't find anything wrong with it, then I'm not sure why we should be arguing about it.

Ask Sea Skimmer about what Clinton did to the military sometime.

Hehe, yeah I'm sure he and Shep have a lot to say about it. But it WAS Clinton's military that performed admirably during Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom to a certain extent and it WAS the end of the Cold War. We're not going to see spending like that under a Democratic OR Republican President in the forseeable future.

BTW, as long as I'm being a Franken fanboy today, here's a fun quote from the White House Correspondents Dinner he attended:

FRANKEN: Hi, Dr. Wolfowitz. Hey, the Clinton military did a great job in Iraq, didn't it?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Fuck you.

[Joe]

Hey, if even Ken Starr couldn't find anything wrong with it, then I'm not sure why we should be arguing about it.

Because the likelihood of such profits for a first-timer in the commodities market is something like 1 to 250 million? But since she was never charged for it, I guess that makes it OK.

Hehe, yeah I'm sure he and Shep have a lot to say about it. But it WAS Clinton's military that performed admirably during Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom to a certain extent and it WAS the end of the Cold War. We're not going to see spending like that under a Democratic OR Republican President in the forseeable future.
BTW, as long as I'm being a Franken fanboy today, here's a fun quote from the White House Correspondents Dinner he attended:
FRANKEN: Hi, Dr. Wolfowitz. Hey, the Clinton military did a great job in Iraq, didn't it?
PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Fuck you.

The Navy was hit the hardest. 3 of our carriers are still wrecks.