PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Should Hannity just go full out and start wearing a KKK hood?


Logical
08-22-2008, 08:04 PM
I have been noticing his tendencies to pick on Obama's statements about his white grandmother and to broadcast over and over Obama reading from a Rev Wright statement and attributing it wrongly to Obama. So does he just hate Democrats (yes of course) or does he have racism in his intentions.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKNGBFCZNYw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YKNGBFCZNYw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Logical
08-22-2008, 08:06 PM
By the way I am a news junkie and after watching Lou Dobbs, (ok I admit then the Colbert report), I flipped to some Hannity and over to Olbmerman. So Olbmerman makes this suggestion and I start a search on YouTube and find this gem.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 08:11 PM
Watching Hannity get made a fool of never get olds. He dedicates a whole segment to race-baiting and gets it thrown right back in his face.

Direckshun
08-22-2008, 08:13 PM
I listen to a lot of Hannity's radio show, and I don't detect racism on his program.

I think he's just doing his best to make Obama look like an asshole who doesn't give a shit. That's his main perogative. Wright, Ayres, Rezko, hates on his white grandmother, hates on his half-brother in Africa, hates on religious gun owners, etc.

Direckshun
08-22-2008, 08:14 PM
Having watched this YouTube, though, it's been hilarious watching Hannity trumpet Corsi as an honest author, when he attacks any 9/11 truthers on his show if they're liberals.

Of course, he doesn't mind 9/11 truthism if it's a conservative dopeshit.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 08:15 PM
Here's what Turner said about Hannity on his blog:

"In my opinion, based on my first hand experience, I believe Sean Hannity is, in fact, a Hal Turner sort of guy. It seems to me that a big difference between Sean and me is that I am willing to say publicly what I think about savage Black criminals, diseased, uneducated illegal aliens and the grotesque cultural destruction wrought by satanic jews while Sean and many others keep quiet to protect their paychecks."

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 08:15 PM
Hannity is no more of a racist than Olbermann is. Furthermore, one is no more or less intelligent than the other.

Direckshun
08-22-2008, 08:19 PM
And of course, I love it when Hannity's show devolves into insanity.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 08:21 PM
Hannity is no more of a racist than Olbermann is.

:spock:

Furthermore, one is no more or less intelligent than the other.

Olbermann's a complete hack, but he's light years more intelligent than Hannity. I don't even see how that's debatable. Hannity does nothing but yell over his guests and parrot the party line. Tell me what profound thing you've ever heard him utter.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 08:22 PM
Anyhow, "Hannity at first denied knowing Turner, then asserted that Turner was someone running a campaign in New Jersey whom Hannity had banned from his radio show. Then in what sounded like a tacit admission to me, Hannity told Shabazz, “I’m not running for president.”

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/23/neo_naziwhite_supremacist_hal_turner_confirms_friendship_and_kinship_with_sean_hannity.php

***SPRAYER
08-22-2008, 08:25 PM
Opening this thread is like I just I just hitchhiked aboard the short bus. Let me off at the next red light.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 08:27 PM
:spock:



Olbermann's a complete hack, but he's light years more intelligent than Hannity. I don't even see how that's debatable. Hannity does nothing but yell over his guests and parrot the party line. Tell me what profound thing you've ever heard him utter.

? Yeah, the accusation applies to neither. ? at the smilie.

Let's see, Olbermann's an intelligent "hack"? :spock: And let's continue to play the game: Tell me something profound that you've heard Keith say.

Both are a couple of idiots who parrot the party line. At least Hannity is willing to have a guest on his show who disagrees with his political view, thus risking being exposed, but Olbermann will not even do this.

Direckshun
08-22-2008, 08:30 PM
And let's continue to play the game: Tell me something profound that you've heard Keith say.
I'm sorry but this is foolish. Olbermann has penned some of the most expertly worded Special Comments that cable news has heard over the past few years. I believe Olbermann is very insightful, but his bias of course is extremely obvious.

On the other side is Hannity. I don't pretend that Hannity isn't intelligent, but he doesn't put that intelligence to use the way Olbermann does. He funnels it into a sales pitch and he's brilliant at delivering it.

As a regular listener to both guys, I will contend that Olbermann always, always makes the stronger arguments, but Hannity usually has him beat in the pathos department.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 08:33 PM
I'm sorry but this is foolish. Olbermann has penned some of the most expertly worded Special Comments that cable news has heard over the past few years. I believe Olbermann is very insightful, but his bias of course is extremely obvious.

On the other side is Hannity. I don't pretend that Hannity isn't intelligent, but he doesn't put that intelligence to use the way Olbermann does. He funnels it into a sales pitch and he's brilliant at delivering it.

As a regular listener to both guys, I will contend that Olbermann always, always makes the stronger arguments, but Hannity usually has him beat in the pathos department.

I could not disagree with you more. Both have become caricatures of their respective parties.

Profound and Olbermann (or even Hannity) together in the same sentence? Laughable. Clever, at times? Perhaps. Profound? Never. Stringing together a few aptly-chosen phrases does not make one profound.

Logical
08-22-2008, 08:36 PM
Opening this thread is like I just I just hitchhiked aboard the short bus. Let me off at the next red light.
I am betting you did not bother to watch the video.

Logical
08-22-2008, 08:38 PM
I'm sorry but this is foolish. Olbermann has penned some of the most expertly worded Special Comments that cable news has heard over the past few years. I believe Olbermann is very insightful, but his bias of course is extremely obvious.

On the other side is Hannity. I don't pretend that Hannity isn't intelligent, but he doesn't put that intelligence to use the way Olbermann does. He funnels it into a sales pitch and he's brilliant at delivering it.

As a regular listener to both guys, I will contend that Olbermann always, always makes the stronger arguments, but Hannity usually has him beat in the pathos department.

Pretty accurate.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 08:39 PM
Pretty accurate.

No. Not close.

max sleeper
08-22-2008, 08:47 PM
They will say or do what ever it takes to pull an audience and are running scared that Obama and the democrats are gonna slap the fairness doctrine down them. They are all hacks they copy each other all day long and the right just eats this sh..it up. When you talk to a con. the same crap that was on Rush(never saw a pill I didn't like) Limp..baw's show the day before is the same garbage coming out of there mouths. I bet 1/3 of the listening audiece are liberals(always study your enemy) and that is what they want... a classic stir em up and take a few nut ball calls... say get of my show you idiot! and hang up. They want you to be scared. Scared that your guns are gonna be taken, your liberty (they say this word 40 times a day each),gays are gonna get your poopers, gov. run healthcare = death, taxes... o all the taxes we are gonna pay, and spew all this crap acting like the love the millitary and first responders.... knowing not one of them would take his or her ass over to iraq or join the police force. They need ratings and this is there last stand... If Obama gets in they have to go pay radio and loose that audiance that will not pay for it. .:thumb: Go Chiefs!!!!

Logical
08-22-2008, 08:51 PM
Interesting (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/03/hannitys_white_supremacist_pal_threatens_obama.php)

Sean Hannity was in a self-righteous (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/02/29/hannity_overlooks_his_own_direct_association_with_white_supremacist_while_attacking_obamas_indirect_ association_with_farrakhan.php) lather (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/01/after_smearing_liberals_and_pretending_he_wasnt_jonah_goldberg_smears_obama_and_pretends_he_didnt.ph p) last week about Barack Obama’s indirect and unsubstantial associations with Louis Farrakhan and a former 60’s radical, William Ayers. But a white supremacist named Hal Turner, with whom Hannity bonded (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal) during the 90’s, has contemplated the “necessity” of murdering Obama (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/02/bond-had-q-jethro-has-hal-turner.html) and suggested that ricin be used to “clean out” all the “trash candidates.” (Hat tip to our reader, GrannyStandingforTruth). Will Hannity renounce Turner in the same vein with which he has demanded Obama renounce Farrakhan and Ayers?
According to Jesus' General (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/02/bond-had-q-jethro-has-hal-turner.html), Turner posted on his website last week,
I'm starting to come to the realization that it may be up to a sole person, acting alone, to make certain (Obama) is never allowed to hold the most powerful office in the world. Sorry it may have to be that way, but it may. Obama has renounced Farrakhan (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270006?f=s_search) and the radical organization the Weather Underground (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/01/after_smearing_liberals_and_pretending_he_wasnt_jonah_goldberg_smears_obama_and_pretends_he_didnt.ph p), of which two former members developed a seemingly loose association with Obama 40 years later. Naturally, those renunciations were not good enough (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/01/after_smearing_liberals_and_pretending_he_wasnt_jonah_goldberg_smears_obama_and_pretends_he_didnt.ph p) for Hannity. But Hannity, to my knowledge, has never renounced Turner.
Obama’s “connection” to Farrakhan is tenuous at best. Obama’s pastor’s daughters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) awarded Farrakhan some kind of lifetime achievement award. It’s worth noting that Obama has said he disagrees with the award (http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270006?f=s_search). But that did not satisfy the ever (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/03/02/hannity_invokes_martin_luther_king_while_race_baiting_barack_obamas_minister.php)-vigilant (http://www.newshounds.us/2006/02/08/sean_hannity_and_michael_reagans_tasteless_racially_insensitive_smear_of_coretta_scott_kings_funeral .php)-against (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/09/21/on_hannity_colmes_jena_6_demonstration_presented_as_issue_of_black_racism.php)-black (http://www.newshounds.us/2006/11/29/hannity_uses_new_york_city_police_shooting_to_promote_racial_divide.php)-racism (http://www.newshounds.us/2006/03/17/sean_hannitys_latest_target_for_bigotry_a_sevenyearold_girl.php) but ever-sympathetic (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/02/14/fox_news_goes_to_bat_for_ed_rendell_another_white_man_in_trouble_for_racial_insensitivity.php)-to (http://www.newshounds.us/2006/12/14/was_mel_gibson_too_chicken_to_face_alan_colmes_or_was_fox_news_too_chicken_to_allow_it.php)-white (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/04/27/imus_producer_calls_sharpton_a_terrorist_laments_loss_of_ability_to_make_racially_offensive_jokes.ph p)-racism (http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/07/hannity_devotes_full_hour_to_duane_dog_chapman_and_coincidentally_squeezes_out_colmes.php) Hannity.
Obama’s connection to Ayers is also sketchy. It has been reported (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/02/fox_news_falsel.php) that Obama met with the two former radicals, Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, in 1995; Obama served with Ayers on the board of an anti-poverty group; Ayers donated $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate campaign; and the two men are "friendly" according to an Obama spokesperson.
But Hannity’s association with Turner was direct and prolonged.


By the way, Hannity is also friendly with former 60’s radical David Horowitz who has admitted to committing treason (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=188812A4-BF11-4391-AD24-D6BC6B7FED68) and was never prosecuted for it.

Programmer
08-22-2008, 08:52 PM
:rolleyes:

I expected better of you.

Logical
08-22-2008, 08:55 PM
:rolleyes:

I expected better of you.I have suggested for years you modify your behavior on this BB why when I do something that is no worse than most of your baiting for the last 5 years would you call me on it?

memyselfI
08-22-2008, 08:59 PM
ANYONE who does not :drool: over NObama is a racist. That must be the ONLY reason they won't support him, right????

DaKCMan AP
08-22-2008, 09:01 PM
Opening this thread is like I just I just hitchhiked aboard the short bus. Let me off at the next red light.

You belong on the short bus.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 09:01 PM
? Yeah, the accusation applies to neither. ? at the smilie.

Let's see, Olbermann's an intelligent "hack"? :spock: And let's continue to play the game: Tell me something profound that you've heard Keith say.

Olbermann's Special Comments, whether you think they're verbose and over the top or completely off base(and the ones I've seen usually are), show an intellect Sean Hannity doesn't have. Hannity's a college dropout who got a radio gig and made it up the right-wing circuit by being a loyal pawn to the cause.

At least Hannity is willing to have a guest on his show who disagrees with his political view, thus risking being exposed, but Olbermann will not even do this.

I take the opposite look at this. The people Hannity invites on his program are usually fringe loons who he thinks he can embarrass in front of his conservative audience. It's all about him trying to make his guest look bad.

Direckshun
08-22-2008, 09:04 PM
I could not disagree with you more. Both have become caricatures of their respective parties.

Profound and Olbermann (or even Hannity) together in the same sentence? Laughable. Clever, at times? Perhaps. Profound? Never. Stringing together a few aptly-chosen phrases does not make one profound.
What does make someone profound?

Curious.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 09:08 PM
Olbermann's Special Comments, whether you think they're verbose and over the top or completely off base(and the ones I've seen usually are), show an intellect Sean Hannity doesn't have. Hannity's a college dropout who got a radio gig and made it up the right-wing circuit by being a loyal pawn to the cause.



I take the opposite look at this. The people Hannity invites on his program are usually fringe loons who he thinks he can embarrass in front of his conservative audience. It's all about him trying to make his guest look bad.

I suppose. But when the analysis is empty and shallow, the fact that one speaker might have a slightly higher verbal than the other doesn't matter much to me. I think some mistake Olbermann's ability to use a big word (!) as proof of intelligence. It's a weakly constructed facade, IMO.

I don't disagee that this is his ultimate goal, but I find this somewhat less disgusting than Olbermann's move to further analysis, which usually involves an Air America host. What's the point? "Yeah, Keith. You're SO right!" Brilliant!

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 09:09 PM
What does make someone profound?

Curious.

Engaging ideas. Substantive content. Not empty rhetoric.

No offense, Obama fans.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 09:11 PM
I don't disagee that this is his ultimate goal, but I find this somewhat less disgusting than Olbermann's move to further analysis, which usually involves an Air America host. What's the point? "Yeah, Keith. You're SO right!" Brilliant!

You're not going to get an argument from me on that. His show is awful.

Direckshun
08-22-2008, 09:14 PM
Engaging ideas. Substantive content. Not empty rhetoric.

No offense, Obama fans.
What's the difference between "substantive" and "empty," I guess is what I'm asking.

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 09:25 PM
What's the difference between "substantive" and "empty," I guess is what I'm asking.

McCain's, by running a campaign completely devoid of substance, has done a great job eliminating 'emptiness' as a line of attack against Obama.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 09:32 PM
What's the difference between "substantive" and "empty," I guess is what I'm asking.

In theory? Or are you requesting an example? I'd assume the latter.

Well, let's see...

Empty: "Change you can believe in."

Substantive: "I'm going to do X to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and this is why it's a good idea....(explains)."

The cable news talking heads excel in empty rhetoric. Most of the shows are staunchly devoted to calling the other side a bunch of poopy heads. Earnest debate? Not with Keith and Sean. One is slightly more eloquent than the other. But both talk a lot and say very little. Sometimes similar to televised ChiefsPlanet threads...

Direckshun
08-22-2008, 09:36 PM
In theory? Or are you requesting an example? I'd assume the latter.

Well, let's see...

Empty: "Change you can believe in."

Substantive: "I'm going to do X to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and this is why it's a good idea....(explains)."

The cable news talking heads excel in empty rhetoric. Most of the shows are staunchly devoted to calling the other side a bunch of poopy heads. Earnest debate? Not with Keith and Sean. One is slightly more eloquent than the other. But both talk a lot and say very little. Sometimes similar to televised ChiefsPlanet threads...
Tell me what you think about this. Empty or substantive, and why?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTyRdK3BWs0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTyRdK3BWs0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

HolmeZz
08-22-2008, 09:44 PM
Empty: "Change you can believe in."

So your critique of Obama is that he has slogans? All politicians have campaign slogans. They're not supposed to be descriptive. They're supposed to be catchy.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 09:47 PM
Empty. And this is what Olbermann is really skilled at doing. The clip begins with the suggestion of actual analysis. We get sound and the text, thus increasing the author's ethos. Great tactic. Then, we move to Keith's brilliant commentary, of which I've transcribed the first several lines:

"The Iraq you [McCain] see is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about honor and victory. This is a war you, and the Pres. you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into..."

Whoa!!! Bush lied/people died!!! And McCain is part of this!!! Profound indeed.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 09:48 PM
So your critique of Obama is that he has slogans? All politicians have campaign slogans. They're not supposed to be descriptive. They're supposed to be catchy.

No, I wasn't trying to criticize Obama, just provide an example of an empty sentence/statement. One could do the same with McCain. Perhaps it's telling that his slogan doesn't come to mind quickly...

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 10:24 PM
Olbermann has penned some of the most expertly worded Special Comments that cable news has heard over the past few years.



"The Iraq you [McCain] see is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about honor and victory. This is a war you, and the Pres. you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into..."

Whoa!!! Bush lied/people died!!! And McCain is part of this!!! Profound indeed.

You're right. Olbermann can really dress up the talking points of the left. The standard "Bush lied/people died" is becoming cliche, anyway.

Programmer
08-22-2008, 10:37 PM
I have suggested for years you modify your behavior on this BB why when I do something that is no worse than most of your baiting for the last 5 years would you call me on it?

What did you expect? good boy jim?

irishjayhawk
08-22-2008, 11:00 PM
In theory? Or are you requesting an example? I'd assume the latter.

Well, let's see...

Empty: "Change you can believe in."

Substantive: "I'm going to do X to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and this is why it's a good idea....(explains)."

The cable news talking heads excel in empty rhetoric. Most of the shows are staunchly devoted to calling the other side a bunch of poopy heads. Earnest debate? Not with Keith and Sean. One is slightly more eloquent than the other. But both talk a lot and say very little. Sometimes similar to televised ChiefsPlanet threads...

I would agree except then if people talk in substantive terms, the audience gets bored. It's America's biggest weakness when it comes to voting and attention.

Policy bores. Period.

DeezNutz
08-22-2008, 11:07 PM
I would agree except then if people talk in substantive terms, the audience gets bored. It's America's biggest weakness when it comes to voting and attention.

Policy bores. Period.

True. It's very hard to do, but it can be done.

I found Meet the Press very entertaining, for example...

irishjayhawk
08-22-2008, 11:09 PM
True. It's very hard to do, but it can be done.

I found Meet the Press very entertaining, for example...

With respect to Obama, I would call upon Saddleback as an example.

McCain just told stories and spouted off key talking points. Obama actually tried to have a conversation.

Which one worked?


It is exactly like the difference between politicking and policy talk.

beer bacon
08-22-2008, 11:11 PM
Opening this thread is like I just I just hitchhiked aboard the short bus. Let me off at the next red light.

You are the short bus. Dumbass.

NewChief
08-22-2008, 11:15 PM
With respect to Obama, I would call upon Saddleback as an example.

McCain just told stories and spouted off key talking points. Obama actually tried to have a conversation.

Which one worked?


It is exactly like the difference between politicking and policy talk.

Yeah, I completely disagree with him that the vast majority of people want policy talk or nuanced utterances. I had hopes for this election, but it's pretty clear from recent polling that attack trumps policy. Let the mudslinging begin. SOSDD.

***SPRAYER
08-23-2008, 09:13 AM
You are the short bus. Dumbass.

Riiiiiiight, Sean Hannity is in the KKK. :rolleyes:

I think you spend too much time in the sun with that tinfoil hat on.

Chief Henry
08-23-2008, 10:02 AM
So your critique of Obama is that he has slogans? All politicians have campaign slogans. They're not supposed to be descriptive. They're supposed to be catchy.


Here's Barry's campaign slogan...




Vote for me, I'm half HONKEY but all DONKEY

patteeu
08-23-2008, 11:17 AM
Interesting (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/03/hannitys_white_supremacist_pal_threatens_obama.php)

FTR, there's a huge difference between William Ayers and David Horowitz. Both were anti-American radicals, but Horowitz has reformed himself, rejected his past, and spent a lifetime paying a penance by exposing his former fellow-travelers for what they are. Ayers has not.

Baby Lee
08-23-2008, 11:40 AM
As a regular listener to both guys, I will contend that Olbermann always, always makes the stronger arguments, but Hannity usually has him beat in the pathos department.

Wow! That is surprising. My take is that both are pretty worthless, but if there is anything that Olbie traffics in, it's pathos. I don't watch much outside the "OMG!!! Troof ta' Powah!!!" highlights that get youtubed and passed around, but those, and in particular the clip above, he sashays between Fez shouting "I said good day Sir!!!" and Jimmy Swaggart weepingly beseeching his syndicated audience. My God, he even has the lighting and camera changes to denote tonal shifts.

BigMeatballDave
08-23-2008, 12:50 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me? Calling Hannity a racist when he's arguing against a member of a group that is as far out on the fringe as Aryan Nation. A whole lot of stupid coming from the left here...

DeezNutz
08-23-2008, 04:01 PM
NOW SERVING, POST #49!!!

Logical
08-23-2008, 04:26 PM
FTR, there's a huge difference between William Ayers and David Horowitz. Both were anti-American radicals, but Horowitz has reformed himself, rejected his past, and spent a lifetime paying a penance by exposing his former fellow-travelers for what they are. Ayers has not.I believe Ayers is currently on the University of Chicago faculty that is pretty mainstream.

HolmeZz
08-23-2008, 04:27 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me? Calling Hannity a racist when he's arguing against a member of a group that is as far out on the fringe as Aryan Nation. A whole lot of stupid coming from the left here...

Did you watch the friggin' clip? The other guy called Hannity out for his association with Hal Hunter, a neo-nazi and white supremacist.

If Sean's trying to portray Obama as some racist and actually attributing quotes of Wright's to Barack, he's opened himself up to the same kind of criticism.

HolmeZz
08-23-2008, 04:27 PM
I believe Ayers is currently on the University of Chicago faculty that is pretty mainstream.

Patteeu has a justification for everything.

DeezNutz
08-23-2008, 04:30 PM
I believe Ayers is currently on the University of Chicago faculty that is pretty mainstream.

How familiar are you with university faculty?

***SPRAYER
08-23-2008, 04:56 PM
How familiar are you with university faculty?

ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-23-2008, 05:00 PM
How familiar are you with university faculty?

How familiar are you with the fact that the U of C is one of the most conservative major universities in the country?

DeezNutz
08-23-2008, 05:11 PM
How familiar are you with the fact that the U of C is one of the most conservative major universities in the country?

Ok. Sky blue is not quite as vibrant as royal blue. Got it. Good stuff.

Baby Lee
08-23-2008, 05:16 PM
How familiar are you with the fact that the U of C is one of the most conservative major universities in the country?

As opposed to UIC?

BigMeatballDave
08-23-2008, 09:08 PM
Did you watch the friggin' clip? The other guy called Hannity out for his association with Hal Hunter, a neo-nazi and white supremacist.

I have old friends who are racist, doesn't make me racist. We agree to disagree. Had Hannity been a member of the Klan or Aryan Nation, then I'd agree with this. That dude is a member of the Black Panthers.

Logical
08-23-2008, 09:11 PM
How familiar are you with university faculty?Enough to know that they are considered mainstream even when liberal. Nice try.

DeezNutz
08-23-2008, 09:33 PM
Enough to know that they are considered mainstream even when liberal. Nice try.

You're working with an interesting definition of mainstream.

HolmeZz
08-23-2008, 09:41 PM
I have old friends who are racist, doesn't make me racist. We agree to disagree. Had Hannity been a member of the Klan or Aryan Nation, then I'd agree with this.

I don't think you're following.

Hannity was insinuating Obama was a racist and a radical because of a few of his associations. The guy from the new Black Panther party brought up an associate of Hannity's that Sean doesn't want people to know about to turn the argument back on him.

ROYC75
08-23-2008, 09:42 PM
Unbelievable ........just unbelievable, but highly expected from the liberals in the world.

Logical
08-23-2008, 09:43 PM
You're working with an interesting definition of mainstream.Mainstream pretty much coincides with the idea that a person has accepted and maintains a respected position in American society.

MadMax
08-23-2008, 09:44 PM
No, but maybe you should wear a penis on yours :)

irishjayhawk
08-23-2008, 09:47 PM
Unbelievable ........just unbelievable, but highly expected from the liberals in the world.

ANOTHER SWEET POST FROM ROY!!!!

I thought he wasn't partisan to the extreme.

DeezNutz
08-23-2008, 09:48 PM
Mainstream pretty much coincides with the idea that a person has accepted and maintains a respected position in American society.

Ok. I would say it means "representing the prevailing current," which would make your original statement inaccurate.

But, based on the above quotation, we can agree.

Logical
08-23-2008, 09:52 PM
Ok. I would say it means "representing the prevailing current," which would make your original statement inaccurate.

But, based on the above quotation, we can agree.By the way, there is nothing wrong with the definition you quoted, but it is hard to apply to a person and his position in society. It was nice that this did not turn into a name calling affair.

DeezNutz
08-23-2008, 10:06 PM
By the way, there is nothing wrong with the definition you quoted, but it is hard to apply to a person and his position in society. It was nice that this did not turn into a name calling affair.

Never a reason for that. :thumb:

patteeu
08-24-2008, 09:18 AM
I believe Ayers is currently on the University of Chicago faculty that is pretty mainstream.

Ayers has not rejected his anti-American ideology and expresses no remorse for the crimes he and his cohorts committed during his more active days. Where he works now is not relevant to that point.

patteeu
08-24-2008, 09:19 AM
How familiar are you with the fact that the U of C is one of the most conservative major universities in the country?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious about what measure you're using to make this evaluation.

HonestChieffan
08-24-2008, 09:21 AM
What a totally stupid thread.

***SPRAYER
08-24-2008, 09:23 AM
What a totally stupid thread.

Butt Bacon is driving the short bus.

Baby Lee
08-24-2008, 09:25 AM
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious about what measure you're using to make this evaluation.

Evidently, he starts by measuring the wrong University.

patteeu
08-24-2008, 09:32 AM
'I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.' - NYTimes article published, coincidentally, on 9/11/2001

patteeu
08-24-2008, 09:35 AM
Evidently, he starts by measuring the wrong University.

Good point.

The University of Illinois at Chicago isn't The University of Chicago

ROYC75
08-24-2008, 10:51 AM
ANOTHER SWEET POST FROM ROY!!!!

I thought he wasn't partisan to the extreme.

Whatever, the fact is it happens every 4 years ......... 2 biggest things I dislike about the democrats, tax and spend plus the BS rhetoric like this, claiming foul .

Jenson71
08-24-2008, 10:54 AM
Whatever, the fact is it happens every 4 years ......... 2 biggest things I dislike about the democrats, tax and spend plus the BS rhetoric like this, claiming foul .

Roy, it sounds like under Obama, you would be taxed less. That's what he said during the Warren Forum.

ROYC75
08-24-2008, 11:22 AM
Roy, it sounds like under Obama, you would be taxed less. That's what he said during the Warren Forum.

I hear this all the time but Words are cheap, plus his programs, his vision of America will cause the cost of living to escalate until some means, some proven alternative fuels are in the mix to soften the price at the pump. His plan calls for exploration into this. We are already using solar panels, wind mills, bio-fuels, etc.

Look, food, merchandise, daily expenses will continue to skyrocket and with his meager tax breaks he claims you will get, But it will not offset the cost of living to the American people. The rising cost of fuel has made everything we do, everything we buy escalate ... EVERYTHING .

His higher corporate taxes and windfall taxes will allow more lost jobs due to less profit to business's and corporations. They must either cut expenses, jobs, benefits, etc. or move to a country where it is cheaper to operate. He will create more social programs for a free handout for some lazy Americans to take advantage of, of which, we must pay for . Universal health care would be great, but the quality of care you get could suffer but most of all, it will cost all Americans, even the poor (a great sales pitch ) the democrats claim to be pulling for

His plan does "NOTHING " now but does lay out a plan for the future . His comments that "ALL AMERICANS MUST MAKE SACRIFICES " is enough to back up his plan. The " poor" and "Middle Class " need relief, Now, as well as in the future.

I have nothing wrong with planning ahead for the future, we need to do this, but this is what we should have done 20 - 30 years ago as well. We are in this position because of that.

If we do not survive until his vision comes. I said " IF ", there isn't a future for our children.

Sorry. I just do not believe his plan is best for Americans, now.

IMHO, McCains plan does allow a greater chance of relief to all Americans at the pump, allows the cost of fuel to come down, which will help lower the cost of living. His plan for the future is a simple and less costly to the American people than the Obama plan. Neither plan is guaranteed to work .... I'm all for trying the the simple , less expensive one, that brings relief much quicker to Americans.

Which one is correct, we really do not know this, you have to go with what you feel and see, We need relief now just as much as we do in the future.

Programmer
08-24-2008, 12:35 PM
Roy, it sounds like under Obama, you would be taxed less. That's what he said during the Warren Forum.

You might want to take off your blinders and read what his talking points are regarding taxes, who and how they will be taxed.

With McCain there will basically be the status quo. Not so with Obslama.

HolmeZz
08-24-2008, 02:10 PM
With McCain there will basically be the status quo. Not so with Obslama.

Yes, that's been the focal point of Obama's campaign. Glad you're catching on. Despite your constant denial of reality, the status quo is a bad thing.

***SPRAYER
08-24-2008, 07:52 PM
Ba ba booey.

WilliamTheIrish
08-24-2008, 08:09 PM
Ba ba booey.

Fla - fla -flo hi.

J Diddy
08-24-2008, 08:10 PM
Yes, that's been the focal point of Obama's campaign. Glad you're catching on. Despite your constant denial of reality, the status quo is a bad thing.

NO ****ING SHIT

glad I'm not the only one who realized that

***SPRAYER
08-24-2008, 08:15 PM
Fla - fla -flo hi.


;)

Programmer
08-25-2008, 11:54 AM
Yes, that's been the focal point of Obama's campaign. Glad you're catching on. Despite your constant denial of reality, the status quo is a bad thing.

How so? My taxes are lower than they were with Clinton. If your taxes are higher and you aren't happy, wait until Obslama throws out his "needs" for the country and your taxes will go up ... and up ... and up... and up.

Chief Henry
08-25-2008, 11:58 AM
Whats the difference between Obama and Osama... just a little BS :)

penchief
08-25-2008, 12:20 PM
No. Not close.

Yes it is. Olberman is way more articulate and intelligent than Hannity. Also, you won't find Olberman making stuff up the way you do with Hannity.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 12:28 PM
Yes it is. Olberman is way more articulate and intelligent than Hannity. Also, you won't find Olberman making stuff up the way you do with Hannity.

See posts #32 and #34. Like, so way intelligent. Do you prefer grape or cherry?

To add: Olbermann claims that the current war situation is a "figment of McCain's imagination." Is this a fact? "Fact"? Or did Keith make this up?

Now serving post #88.

ROYC75
08-25-2008, 12:31 PM
Yes it is. Olberman is way more articulate and intelligent than Hannity. Also, you won't find Olberman making stuff up the way you do with Hannity.


Get over it, they all twist it, fabricate it to a way that matches their personal choice and spill it out to the public. Just like kids, we eat it up as thou it were candy.

It's just I don't like the turds that the Donkeys are pushing out their asses right now.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 12:36 PM
Get over it, they all twist it, fabricate it to a way that matches their personal choice and spill it out to the public. Just like kids, we eat it up as thou it were candy.

It's just I don't like the turds that the Donkeys are pushing out their asses right now.

You're so wrong. Dems. deal with facts, but Republicans play make believe to inspire fear and hate.

Chief Henry
08-25-2008, 12:54 PM
Yes it is. Olberman is way more articulate and intelligent than Hannity. Also, you won't find Olberman making stuff up the way you do with Hannity.

Olberman is a first class :o)

irishjayhawk
08-25-2008, 01:01 PM
You're so wrong. Dems. deal with facts, but Republicans play make believe to inspire fear and hate.

You know, more often than not, in a practical view, that is almost a perfect description.

At least from the POV of the last 8 years of the Republican Party. It also doesn't take into consideration the spinelessness of Democrats.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 01:05 PM
You know, more often than not, in a practical view, that is almost a perfect description.

At least from the POV of the last 8 years of the Republican Party. It also doesn't take into consideration the spinelessness of Democrats.

Come on. I can't have this conversation in all seriousness.

Promising voters a lot of "stuff" that is theoretically possible but has no practical chance of happening is dealing with "facts"?

Most criticisms of one party are absolutely applicable to the next.

irishjayhawk
08-25-2008, 01:09 PM
Come on. I can't have this conversation in all seriousness.

Promising voters a lot of "stuff" that is theoretically possible but has no practical chance of happening is dealing with "facts"?

Most criticisms of one party are absolutely applicable to the next.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all.

But on the whole, Republicans deal more with fear and scare tactics than Democrats do.

Democrats try to deal with the issues. Even if they do it in a piss poor, spineless, critter-like manner.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 01:11 PM
Oh, I don't doubt that at all.

But on the whole, Republicans deal more with fear and scare tactics than Democrats do.

Democrats try to deal with the issues. Even if they do it in a piss poor, spineless, critter-like manner.

The war on terror isn't an issue?

How the parties approach the issues is a different discussion, as is the effectiveness of their differences.

irishjayhawk
08-25-2008, 01:13 PM
The war on terror isn't an issue?

It's about as an issue as the War on Drugs is. Which is, it isn't an issue because it's impossible to wage. Impossible to win. Impossible to fight. Etc.


How the parties approach the issues is a different discussion, as is the effectiveness of their differences.

No doubt. I was merely remarking that your in-jest summary was closer to the truth than the truth behind the joke.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 01:19 PM
No doubt. I was merely remarking that your in-jest summary was closer to the truth than the truth behind the joke.

So "Republicans are poopy heads and Dems are honest and responsible" is closer to the truth than "Republicans play make believe to inspire fear and hate"?

ROYC75
08-25-2008, 01:23 PM
Oh, I don't doubt that at all.

But on the whole, Republicans deal more with fear and scare tactics than Democrats do.

Democrats try to deal with the issues. Even if they do it in a piss poor, spineless, critter-like manner.

You saying the democrats do not use fear and smear tactics ?

That's like saying donkeys aren't jackass's ......... it's just not true.

J Diddy
08-25-2008, 01:24 PM
You saying the democrats do not use fear and smear tactics ?

That's like saying Donkeys aren't jackass's ......... it's just not true.

example?

Pitt Gorilla
08-25-2008, 01:25 PM
You saying the democrats do not use fear and smear tactics ?

That's like saying Donkeys aren't jackass's ......... it's just not true.Actually, he didn't say that at all. Read fail.

ROYC75
08-25-2008, 01:26 PM
Actually, he didn't say that at all. Read fail.

OK, define , more , as in how do you come to this conclusion.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 01:28 PM
example?

General Betray Us.

Naturally this is the only example from the last 20 years or so. Dems = Good. Reps = Bad.

Pitt Gorilla
08-25-2008, 01:32 PM
OK, define , more , as in how do you come to this conclusion.At no point did he say "democrats do not use fear and smear tactics." He said "Republicans deal more with fear and scare tactics than Democrats do," which means they could still employ those tactics. His statement, though, could be considered inaccurate, depending on your perspective. Your take on his statement, though, was not accurate.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 01:36 PM
You're so wrong. Dems. deal with facts, but Republicans play make believe to inspire fear and hate.

At no point did he say "democrats do not use fear and smear tactics." He said "Republicans deal more with fear and scare tactics than Democrats do," which means they could still employ those tactics. His statement, though, could be considered inaccurate, depending on your perspective. Your take on his statement, though, was not accurate.

That's not what I said.

Obviously I was contrasting the "factually accurate" Dems. with the "factually deprived" Repubs. Roy was more accurate in his response.

Baby Lee
08-25-2008, 01:39 PM
Come on. I can't have this conversation in all seriousness.

Promising voters a lot of "stuff" that is theoretically possible but has no practical chance of happening is dealing with "facts"?

Most criticisms of one party are absolutely applicable to the next.

John Edwards would've made Christoper Reeves walk again, and that's a FACT!!!

ROYC75
08-25-2008, 01:39 PM
At no point did he say "democrats do not use fear and smear tactics." He said "Republicans deal more with fear and scare tactics than Democrats do," which means they could still employ those tactics. His statement, though, could be considered inaccurate, depending on your perspective. Your take on his statement, though, was not accurate.

I did say OK, I did read it wrong, so I asked, define more, because IMHO, it doesn't matter if your core beliefs is republican or democrat, most will tend to side with their party, at times over looking what might be seen as a fear / smear tactics.

Baby Lee
08-25-2008, 01:43 PM
Interestingly, it would seem, War on Terror aside, that when Republicans use fear, it's fear of Democratic aspirations. That doesn't seem all that different from accurately portraying the differences.

DeezNutz
08-25-2008, 01:43 PM
John Edwards would've made Christoper Reeves walk again, and that's a FACT!!!

As long as Olbermann will vouch...