The Political Madness Escalates: Sean Hannity...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


And it is unfortunate that has become the Johnny-Come-Lately style of broadcast entertainment. But then again, it is not entirely new. See the comedy routines of the likes of Whoopi Goldberg during the Reagan into Bush era's, especially at the Comic Relief heyday. Several musicians also held similar views like Prince's "Ronnie Talk To Russia" (note the lack of '2' in the proper title as with most Prince songs)

It should always be remembered that Hannity and Rush are to news as Hulk Hogan is to Greeco-Roman Wrestling. And while we all enjoyed SNL's Weekend Update, Chevy Chase and Dennis Miller are not news anchors.

Yes, there is ambiguity in the words, but look at the madness here on ATS and compare the style versus age and exposure to such style. Think of the posts on the group sending letters of notice to all 50 governors to step down. Is their refuse to step down a reason for the average person to take up arms? Of course not. But if that group were to assemble to peacefully protest the refusal and were mowed down in could only be called a modern day massacre, then maybe Joe Average does need to load his gun and be wary for a short time.

In the end, I agree that it is not responsible statement to make. Far too many people are incapable of understanding the context and may find it to be an endorsement of action by a person that they admire.

reply to post by hangedman13


Yes, but the democrats WON. This isn't about YOU, and back in the 2000s, when bush was in office and liberals were angry over the war (and other things) people on the right adopted the view that if we didn't like it, they could "get out."

Again, Obama won.. A majority of American's wanted healthcare reform. The idea that your single opinion trumps everybody else's is part of the problem.

If you ask me, we ought to be looking to make concessions on both sides, so that both parties are happy. But that can be hard to do when both sides seem to be so diametrically opposed, and one side is opting to strip rights from the others -_-


But you can't blame Obama for one thing -- he took single payer option off the table, so that we can have our health coverage administered by private for-profit insurance companies. That was one thing the republicans wanted, and they got it.

Originally posted by ColeYounger

Originally posted by Kaytagg

If people can be this easily wound up and controlled

Are you serious? The political machine has known for decades how easily the people can be controlled. It's not difficult. People line up to be controlled.

I agree, but I would like to extend your statement.

Rather than "decades", let us make that millennium.

For thousands of years TPTB have been cunning in their mechanisms of control over the people.

Consider Rome.

Or even hundreds of years later, consider the writings by Machiavelli.

Controlling the people has been one of the central components of government ever since it began in the fertile rivers of Mesopotamia, the Nile, Indus, and China.

Everywhere you go, same story just different names.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

All politicians are corrupt, the current makeup of congress has no bearing on the corruption level now, two years ago, four years ago, or at any other time.

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a president and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Ugly fact. No matter how corrupt or inept the government is accused of being, their accusers are by no means any better were they in that situation. People don't like to hear that, especially those who cloak themselves in stars and stripes and claim to cherish the constitution. Indeed, when the French rebelled and gained their independence, they (only by the sheerest chance) avoided decapitating their (and our) revolutionary icon Thomas Paine... why? Because he had the audacity to suggest that King Louis was a friend to freedom for his support of the American revolution - and his punishment for crimes against the French populace be exile to America, rather than the guillotine. After all, he was a product of his environment which any of them would have done the same in his shoes.

He didn't have many good things to say about the way George Washington was running the country.

The commerce of America, so far as it had been established by all the treaties that had been formed prior to that by Jay, was free, and the principles upon which it was established were good. That ground ought never to have been departed from. It was the justifiable ground of right, and no temporary difficulties ought to have induced an abandonment of it. The case is now otherwise. The ground, the scene, the pretensions, the everything, are changed. The commerce of America is, by Jay's Treaty, put under foreign dominion. The sea is not free for her. Her right to navigate it is reduced to the right of escaping; that is, until some ship of England or France stops her vessels, and carries them into port. Every article of American produce, whether from the sea or the sand, fish, flesh, vegetable, or manufacture, is, by Jay's Treaty, made either contraband or seizable. Nothing is exempt.

In all other treaties of commerce, the article which enumerates the contraband articles, such as firearms, gunpowder, etc., is followed by another article which enumerates the articles not contraband: but it is not so in Jay's Treaty. There is no exempting article. Its place is supplied by the article for seizing and carrying into port; and the sweeping phrase of "provisions and other articles" includes everything. There never was such a base and servile treaty of surrender since treaties began to exist.

This is the ground upon which America now stands. All her rights of commerce and navigation are to begin anew, and that with loss of character to begin with. If there is sense enough left in the heart to call a blush into the cheek, the Washington Administration must be ashamed to appear. And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.

Exert from a letter from Thomas Paine to George Washington, 30 July 1796. This correspondence was used by the Federalists to suggest that the French were using Paine to smear George Washington for the sake of undermining and overthrowing American institutions.

At least our congressmen aren't beating each other to death in the Senate Chamber these days.... you know, like that time Senator Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner to death over a comment he made earlier that week criticizing Pierce and the southern pro-slavery movement's support of the violence in Kansas.


Do people really think this stuff is new? Do people really think they've got more to be fed up with than previous generations of Americans? These little "Mad as Hell" tirades and Tea Party protests aren't exactly the first responders to the scene here. This has been happening since the nation was founded. Since before the Constitution was even ratified. Do these people understand just how many of our founding fathers argued for America to be a Monarchy?

Yeah, any change in government have to be a systemic change, not a change of politicians themselves. "Kicking all the bastards out" isn't going to do a damn bit of good (though it sure might feel good). I think if people want real change and answers... they should be looking more to the Milgram Experiment and Stanford Prison Experiment, than to Valley Forge or the Boston Tea Party.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Did Sean Hannity say "Tim McVeigh wannabees"? Yes

Is Sean Hannity trying to incite violence against the United States? NO

Was Sean Hannity being SARCASTIC? YES

Was the comment in bad taste? YES

The left has chosen to call the Tea Partiers racists and terrorists and the comment about Tim McVeigh wannabees wasn't meant to say the Tea Partiers are literally domestic terrorists. I admit the comment was in bad taste but he was being sarcastic. According to the left if disagree with the current adminstrations policies you are a racist, you hate children/old/poor people, your a terrorist, and you need to sit down and shut up. I disagree with Obama and where he wants to take this country. I am NOT a racist, I am NOT a terrorist, I am NOT going to sit down and shut up.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
There is just no way to avoid name calling. Even you yourself, called them "ignorant people" who think they can name call others. Well you just called them ignorant, that is a name calling, isn't it?

I believe I used the term "close minded" as a description, and probably should have added a comment aimed in the other direction, as well, to clarify my intent not to chose sides here. Although I successfully avoided the word "ignorant", I couldn't come up with a more polite way to describe the mindset staring me in the face.

Originally posted by Lasheic



Ugly fact. No matter how corrupt or inept the government is accused of being, their accusers are by no means any better were they in that situation. People don't like to hear that, especially those who cloak themselves in stars and stripes and claim to cherish the constitution.

Maybe "they" would have screwed it up.

I doubt I would have.

Rather than bailing out Wall Street, I would have invested in Public Works. You know stuff that matters.

Look if you have electricity running, and clean water flowing, and ample foodstuffs available, who cares if Wall Street collapses?

The commodities market is the only one with real tangible value anyways.

The rest of Wall Street could collapse and the only issue would be how to recycle all of their worthless paper.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Sorry, but believing that Hannity made the term up in order to incite violence is illogical. Taking this soundbite at face value and making a blanket judgment about it is falling into a well-crafted trap. Research it. I'm not lying.

No, you aren't lying. I've watched Hannity enough to know that he's just using these terms sarcastically; in fact, he does it all the time. He is not attempting to paint them in a negative light, but to draw attention to the fact that others have done so. Hannity may not be the brightest guy on earth and his debate skills are lacking, but there's no way in hell I believe he's 'inciting violence.'

Originally posted by inlandempire88
Hannity is an ignorant idiot. Nothing more. He is VERY closed minded and is never open for a debate. He's only open for his one way street of thinking. He's probably the worst "news" person on television

He's among many but surely near the top........i recall reading recently where hannity's foundation, or fund raising, along with Beck, was grossly short of providing funding for anyone except himself, his family, etc?......anyone else recall reading it as well.....i forget where I read it......

SIGH!

I am really saddened after reading this post and the replies.

Sean Hannity is clearly being sarcastic. If You watch the whole thing or even if you've ever listened to him before, you would realize he says things like that all the time to show just how silly the left is when they say things like that.

BTW you do know that the left's tactic right now is to demonize the tea partiers by making them sound like bigots, racists, fear-mongers, and violent extremists.

SIGH!

Looks like you are are falling for the con.
Deny Ignorance!

Originally posted by parrothead0333
The left has chosen to call the Tea Partiers racists and terrorists and the comment about Tim McVeigh wannabees wasn't meant to say the Tea Partiers are literally domestic terrorists.

Some months ago, I spent some time in the "hidden" Tea Party Nation web site's discussion board. Primarily because I'm somewhat aligned with the core values that gave birth to the movement. I was banned for pointing out their inaccuracies and intolerance in a very civil and calm manner.

I can say with absolute certainty that I experienced, first-hand, a great deal of hateful rhetoric that did not assuage concerns that many of the "rank-and-file" faithful are racist and prone to considering violent reactions. While the rhetoric of the "left" is certainly exaggerating the issue for sensational effect, it's not without foundation.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



I have come upon another thread here at ATS that merits, I think, more exposure. Your bully pulpit might help it out.

It is about someone other than Hannity (Dick Armey) but relates on the shared topic of the "Tea Party" movement, with some interesting and intriguing insight.

As pointed out, even IF Hannity was being sarcastic, it was still a noisome and impolitic comment to make.

Here is the thread I'm referring to.

Oh, and it was this post that I found most enlightening.

I wonder how many who are 'supporting' this "Tea Party" activity are aware of how deep the conspiracy may lie. I include Sean Hannity in that wonder --- because either he's in on it, or is an unknowing shill, doing the bidding of others.


As always, I don't want to throw this thread here in the wrong direction, so I suggest people read the other one, and comment on its merits over there...



[edit on 2 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by vor78
but there's no way in hell I believe he's 'inciting violence.'

I disagree. Pundits like him have been purposefully trying to incite violence in people for years.

Luckily, we people are sensible enough and reasonable enough to know that the best route is to just ignore him.

And only watch or listen to them for ENTERTAINMENT value alone. Cuz that is all it is, Entertainment!

You know those video games that suck, when you get to this part where you keep dying because it's impossible and just retard difficult? And you just want to break your game or smash your screen?

Well that is what kind of entertainment form political pundits are. They are the impossible video game that makes you so frustrated you want to break your screen because you can't get past level 4.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by hangedman13

 

Yes, but the democrats WON. This isn't about YOU, and back in the 2000s, when bush was in office and liberals were angry over the war (and other things) people on the right adopted the view that if we didn't like it, they could "get out."

Again, Obama won.. A majority of American's wanted healthcare reform. The idea that your single opinion trumps everybody else's is part of the problem.

If you ask me, we ought to be looking to make concessions on both sides, so that both parties are happy. But that can be hard to do when both sides seem to be so diametrically opposed, and one side is opting to strip rights from the others -_-


But you can't blame Obama for one thing -- he took single payer option off the table, so that we can have our health coverage administered by private for-profit insurance companies. That was one thing the republicans wanted, and they got it.

Single Payer was taken off the table? NO IT WAS NOT TAKEN OFF THE TABLE. The endgame of this health care bill is SINGLE PAYER. WAKE UP! They are Progressives!! One step at a time. As soon as the government starts telling the insurance companies they CAN'T raise premiums then those insurance companies will go out of business and the only insurance in this country will be GOVERNMENT. Insurance companies do not make some huge profit and this health care bill is aimed to eliminate all profit and drive them out of business. Obama has said this is his plan.





[edit on 2-4-2010 by parrothead0333]

[edit on 2-4-2010 by parrothead0333]

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Sorry, but believing that Hannity made the term up in order to incite violence is illogical. Taking this soundbite at face value and making a blanket judgment about it is falling into a well-crafted trap. Research it. I'm not lying.

No, you aren't lying. I've watched Hannity enough to know that he's just using these terms sarcastically; in fact, he does it all the time. He is not attempting to paint them in a negative light, but to draw attention to the fact that others have done so. Hannity may not be the brightest guy on earth and his debate skills are lacking, but there's no way in hell I believe he's 'inciting violence.'

*sigh*

Well, I've tried to lay it out the same that you and others have.

But, after all of it, I'm not going to waste more time defending Hannity, something I thought I'd never do. If people fall into the trap of believing nonsense based on a well crafted hatchet job soundbite, they're the ones that will have to live with being suckers. I tried to help but I think I'm out at this point.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
And only watch or listen to them for ENTERTAINMENT value alone. Cuz that is all it is, Entertainment!

On that point, I agree. I like watching these shows, just to hear them bicker at each other. If you're expecting an unbiased treatment of the news from any of these commentary shows, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Rather than bailing out Wall Street, I would have invested in Public Works. You know stuff that matters. Look if you have electricity running, and clean water flowing, and ample foodstuffs available, who cares if Wall Street collapses?

lol, more socialism. That'll shut up all those fear mongers, pundit putzes, and tea baggers... right, right!!?

The bank bailouts were peanuts, financially, compared to the expenditures in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Budget. Whether or not you agree with them... they're not really that pressing of an issue in regards to our budget. Cut out all the bridges to nowhere you want, but it's not going to make a damned bit of difference in the long run.

The commodities market is the only one with real tangible value anyways.

Not really. Their value is still more or less arbitrary. Anyone who's haggled with a comic book store over baseball cards and whatnot knows that it doesn't matter how much that little valuation book you have says your commodity is worth... you're only going to get out of it what someone is willing to pay.

Besides, commodities (IMO) aren't of much value because they don't generate new commercial growth. Technology, however, has value. Technology builds industry, becomes the backbone of the infrastructure which supports our standard of living. I'd much rather have a few stocks of a good genomic company than a bottle of wine, bar of gold, or bushel of corn.

reply to post by Sirius20


Don't like it when somebody, "spouts off" about the constitution? I know it makes you sick inside, all that guilt bubbling around in there. Apparently you didn't realize that the Sean Hannity show is just that, a show, an opinion based show, NOT the news.
Did you just fall off the turnip truck, or what? Get over the tired old "Bush lied people died" crap. We all know that he lied, it's in the nature of the beast. You know, you should really pick yourself up a copy of the constitution, the bill of rights, etc. And read them for yourself. When you do that, compare what it says with what you see going on in government right now. Come back to us and tell us if you notice any discrepancies.

YouSir

reply to post by Lasheic


Because building roads and repairing Dams or canals is socialism?

You do realize that every government in history has built roads and bridges and things like this? Public works?

This is not socialism, it's the purpose of government. To build roads and maintain them.

You know, facilitate commerce?

It is NOT Socialism. You are way off.