I Got Hannitized This Morning!

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if there is ever a steel cage death match between these two guys, well, lets just say I would pay top dollar to see that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now that's the best idea I've heard in a long time. However, I have a suspicion that neither one could fight their way out of a wet paper sack. Hannity is a pretty-boy who seems like a typical "all-mouth" sort of guy. Moore is just a big lard-ass who probably has all the speed and reflexes of a beached whale.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's sad that these people rally around someone like Hannity.

[/ QUOTE ]

They crowd didn't rally around Hannity in actuality. Methinks your applying your own predjudices here. He got applause but it was reserved IMO which I tried to point out earlier and as I tried to point out earlier as well his talk didn't really have anything in it that you haven't heard from him before.

FWIW I think many people there had this feeling that their lifestyle, values, morals what have you are under attack and threatened. I can't quite put my finger on it but that's the impression I got.

[ QUOTE ]
Hannity is a professional commentator, just like Rush Limbaugh and even Michael Moore. All three of these men have the same purpose, to present ideas that rally people based on political ideas (ideas that are sometimes correct, but are almost always short of being complete) for the purpose of selling books, movies, promoting their shows, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as Hannity is concerned I think this is a fair assessment.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By "Hannitized," do you mean sodomized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hannity calls the tour to promote his book the Hannitization of Amererica tour. He refers to those that attends these events as Hannitized.

[ QUOTE ]
Because you seem to have an unhealthy attachment to the man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you say that?

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I'm only giving you a hard time 'cause I think Sean Hannity's a douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I see you're a close minded and homophobic to boot. Nothing personal.

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing personal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah right you just made a run of the mill gratutous insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sean Hannity annoys me. I don't think anyone but stupid, brainwashed conservatives like him. I could be wrong on this, but I'm reasonably sure that I'm not. "The Hannitized" sound a lot like Rush's dittoheads. I always thought of dittoheads as groupies, or people that fawn over a public figure so much that they'd have sex with him/her if said figure wanted to. "Hannitized" sounds like sodomized.

I was joking when I said that it appeared that you had an unhealthy attachment to the man. The source of my joke was the assumption that you already understood the above paragraph. You clearly didn't. This was obviously an error on my part. I apologize.

If you told anyone who knew me that I was closed-minded or homophobic, they would laugh.

Explanation for the above paragraph, just in case it slipped past you: I am neither closed-minded, nor homophobic. Let's make out some time.

I don't know you. The only thing I know about you is that you spoke of Sean Hannity, whom I despise. Thus, I decided to teasingly give you a hard time. I'm sorry if I offended you. Go change tampons or something.

Sincerely yours,
Me

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Hannity is a professional commentator, just like Rush Limbaugh and even Michael Moore. All three of these men have the same purpose, to present ideas that rally people based on political ideas (ideas that are sometimes correct, but are almost always short of being complete) for the purpose of selling books, movies, promoting their shows, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is true, but I have listened to Rush, Hannity, and Moore, and while Rush and Hannity will certainly take shots at liberals, it is pretty rare for them to do so with blatant lies or half-truths. When Rush or Hannity play a sound bite and then do their spin (opinion) of it, they have still been honest enough to show the true sound bite, while Moore is documented as an editing genius who alters reality.

I listened to Hannity many times this summer because he happened to come on after a different show I listened to, and while I'm not a huge fan of his overall style and/or entertainment factor, it's hard for me to fault the guy much on the honesty side. He had Jesse Jackson on one time, and while clearly disagreeing with him on many points, still let Jackson speak.

Another time he had a spokesman for a campaign running an ad that attacked Bush with the entire message aimed at black people and how Republicans don't want African-Americans in positions of power and how they prevented black people from voting, etc. The ad was just so blatantly mean-spirited with no real facts at all that I was surprised it even got on the air, and I was also surprised at how calm and polite Hannity was to the spokesperson. Hannity was obviously annoyed by him because the guy just kept trying to just throw crap out there and hope something stuck, but the only "spin" Hannity did at all was asking the guy to name ONE Republican who did the things the ad said they did. The guy kept trying to change the subject and just go off on a rant and never provided any factual information to back the ad up. After asking the guy about ten times to name ONE specific Republican who did the things the ad accused them of and getting no answer, Hannity finally kicked the guy off.

That is a good example of how Hannity and Rush conduct business. While Moore needs to make magical edits to make people think Charleton Heston wants to shoot them or that recounts show Gore won the Florida election despite every major news outlet saying otherwise, Rush and Hannity just show people in their own words because usually those people and words are so absurd that they don't need to make anything up. They give their opinion which someone may or may not agree with, sure, but they don't blatantly make stuff up or are way off on their facts and run with the story anyway like CBS News. It's hard for me to believe even Al Franken takes Michael Moore seriously.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it's sad that these people rally around someone like Hannity.

[/ QUOTE ]

They crowd didn't rally around Hannity in actuality. Methinks your applying your own predjudices here.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're probably right. I really dislike Hannity.

[LargeCents]

RE: Michael Moore v.s. Sean Hannity
[ QUOTE ]
Now if there is ever a steel cage death match between these two guys, well, lets just say I would pay top dollar to see that.



[/ QUOTE ]

At least we'd be less one major national menace. Sign me up for a ticket.

[John Cole]

Adios,

So, how's life among the great unwashed?

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[adios]

......

[BobH42]

If you're going to come up with a web site that debunks Hannity, beholdr, try a bit harder next time. That link is more propagandist in its treatment of the issues than Hannity is.

I'll post two examples and leave the rest as exercises to the reader...

[ QUOTE ]
HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)

FACT: Hannity's assertion comes more than six months after Bush Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified his inspection team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons. (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03)


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this is a standard propagandist move here. You refute one statement with another that doesn't actually contradict the first but at least sounds official. Hannity said 3 things here:
1) That Saddam had weapons of mass destructions. Saddam DID gas the Kurds, so I suppose we have to take that one as fact.
2) He promised to disclose them. The last UN resolution before the war held Saddam responsible for disclosing the disposition of all weapons programs, so this is true for the most part...I guess one could make the argument that Saddam didn't agree to the UN resolution, but that's more of an argument of semantics than of substance.
3) He did not disclose them. Again, Saddam was being an obstinant sob and wasn't playing nice with the UN weapons inspectors, nor had he met the requirements of the UN resolution.

Everything Hannity said in the quote was true...they just tried to paint it as untrue by using a quote that seems to contradict him but doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
HANNITY: "He did inherit a recession, and we're out of the recession." (2/2/04)

FACT: "The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at other times, has said so himself." (Washington Post, 7/1/03)

[/ QUOTE ]

There were a ton of other quotes there too (I guess trying to make the point that this is a BIG Hannity lie as opposed to a normal one?). If the recession starts as stipulated to in the fact in March of 2001, then I seriously doubt you would find more than a handful of economists that would disagree with labelling this as a Clinton/Gore recession. Bush had not had the time at that point to have any impact whatsoever on the economy with his policies. Like it or not, the recession was not the fault of Bush. IMHO it was not the fault of the Clinton/Gore administration either, but that's a debate for another thread. In any case, this is another result of putting a quote in to debunk Hannity when it does nothing of the sort.