The Political Madness Escalates: Sean Hannity...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
But doing with the Tea Party didn't... begin with strong leadership.

That wouldn't work, the TP has a very individual/libertarian bent to it, strong central leadership would be anathema to most of them. Plus it's hard to have strong leadership nowadays without the whole cult of personality thing.

reply to post by pavil


And how did that work for them?

I understand the desire for individualism and libertarianism. I'm all for that. But individuals within the larger movement are the ones who decided to hire Palin to speak because she would bring in crowds. That was a HUGE mistake and many TP ers were strongly against it. But there was no strong, central leadership to stand up and said NO.

Every organization needs leaders.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Wow.

I mentioned earlier this month that the media seems to be inciting a certain segment of America to violence both subtlety and overtly and was crashed for it.

This is a perfect example here, where they are being so conditioned that comparisons to a terrorist is seen as a compliment.

Surprisingly, guys like Hannity were calling out people who disagreed with the previous president and branding them terrorists as if it were a horrible unpatriotic thing. Now that a certain group have a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president they don't support sitting in the White House they want to blow up the entire country as opposed to letting the democratic process take care of itself.

I guess the Dixie Chick should have been proud to have been called Saddams' Angels?

I don't get this country sometimes.
The hypocrisy is so shameless.

- Lee

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

And how did that work for them?

I understand the desire for individualism and libertarianism. I'm all for that. But individuals within the larger movement are the ones who decided to hire Palin to speak because she would bring in crowds. That was a HUGE mistake

Was reading the other day how Dennis Hopper was a lifelong republican voter, who voted for Obama just because of Sarah Palin. I'm pretty sure he wasn't alone, no matter how the media painted it.

I wouldn't know anything about this except for the fact that you guys are actually watching FOX. You see. I don't waste my time watching TV. What you need to do is stop watching the *Snip* TV.

Hannity is getting higher ratings because you are watching it. So all you have done is frustrate yourselves witnessing the next level of perversity. From both the left and the right. Insuring they will continue.

Yeah good ole Reagan and Bush. The Iran Contra scandal. John Lear claims to have flown US arms into Iran to prolong the American Hostage crisis until after the Presidential Election. As soon as Reagan and Bush won the election the hostages were released.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

He's a Republican Shill .. and "Teapartiers" (which I refuse to be called since one of them invited Palin along) are sick of Republicans.. no honest self respecting "Tea Partier" will ever support Republicans OR Democrats. I'd sooner stand beside Anarchist and Communist than a Repub or Dem.

They NEED to demonize them, because they are starting to drift into "fringe" parties (for instance I am a member of the Libertarian Party) and every tea party attender that moves to the fringe is a vote lost on the Republican side (since the majority are former Republicans or Centrist moderates who swung either way)

Let them make fun of us, call us names like Tea Baggers, it's only because they are afraid..

You know you do have a point. Tea Partiers here in Texas hate Governor Perry. He spoutes this confederate of the united States stuff, but the Tea Party Members I know don't like him and don't want him elected for another 4 years. I hate him because he vetoed the Safe passing Bill. A bill that got all vote for, and only 1 against.

So Here's My question, Why is somebody or group trying to make the Tea Party keep voting republican?

I ask this because Of what Rush Limbaugh says to the Black Community. He says that you guys (black people) have voted for democrats for over 40 years now, look where it got you.

To me a good listener would questioning supporting Republicans again due to the fact they got us the Current crop of Democrats.

reply to post by parrothead0333

The left has chosen to call the Tea Partiers racists and terrorists

Because many of the self proclaimed Tea Partiers have made racist and terror laden statements. There was a whole group of Tea Party members yelling racial slurs at several members of congress. Much of the violence that has been directed at the govt in the last few months can be traced back to Tea Party members or some very similar off shoot organization or militia.

Its not as though this stuff is pulled out of thin air. The Tea Party has chosen to motivate people with hate, violence and ignorance. There are many well documented instances of this, be it at rallies, protests or video of their actions.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by semperfortis]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

In a recent event (apparently to promote his new book), Sean Hannity (in apparent calculated "sarcasm") refers to the "Tea Party" protestors as "Tim McVeigh wannabees," and (apparently) "tea party" crowd in attendance applauds and cheers!

This is beyond "political madness" into the realm of apparently misrepresenting violence and diminishing the significance of the murder innocent people... by his purposefully calculated "sarcasm" ... "as they say."

I'm stunned. Is there any hope of recovering from this political psychosis that has an apparent death-grip on the nation?

So what's the verdict?

Sarcasm by repeating the lefts vitriolic sound bites?

Why aren't we calling out the left on this one?

Even though I stayed out of the continual Bush bash fest on this forum, I would have called that just as contemptible,

Yet I never heard Bush call for a limit to your freedom to voice your opinion, I even heard him stick up for protesters a few times saying it was their right to protest.

During the interview, this is what Obama had to say about some of the criticism of his actions as President:

“I do think that everybody has a responsibility — Democrats or Republicans — to tone down some of this rhetoric, some of these comments.…It used to be that someone who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial and now with the blogs, it ends up getting a lot more attention and you guys end up covering it a lot more. It’s not as if there haven’t been a lot of crazy things said out and about over the years, it’s just that it gets much more magnified much more quickly.”

First of all, Obama has changed a lot about the way this country works in his short time as President, but so far he hasn’t been able to get rid of the First Amendment,

www.rightofanation.com...

We holler for change yet when a movement such as the Tea Partiers try to rise up against the machine we shout them down and Villainize them.

I don't believe for a second all Tea Partiers are all racist, perhaps a small percentage, but I do believe Obama's presidency has promoted racism on both sides, white and black.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I listen and read all sides, and both sides are bending the truth,

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
I wouldn't know anything about this except for the fact that you guys are actually watching FOX. You see. I don't waste my time watching TV. What you need to do is stop watching the f***ing TV.

You raise a good point.

So what if the OP saw something on TV? Why does that matter? Is that reality?

To a large extent we in America have lost the ability to debate. Much of our discourse now is dominated by name-calling, mud-slinging, insult-trading and other mental and verbal abuse. We seem to prefer the dialogical equivalent of a barroom brawl to a rational argument. It appears to me that Limbaugh and the commentators at Fox News have carried this further than their opponents, but maybe my preference is showing.

A high point of most election cycles since Kennedy vs. Nixon has been the presidential candidates' debates. I watched most of them in 2008, and found them enlightening. It has not escaped me that neither one of the two major candidates has adhered entirely to the positions they outlined for the American people at that time, but at least there was some effort to address matters in a sane and rational manner.

One particular fallacy I have noticed of late is called, facetiously, reductio ad hitlerum. That's when every dispute ends in calling the opponent a Nazi. An example:

Hitler liked dogs
Hitler was a fascist
Obama likes dogs
Therefore, Obama is a fascist

Again, to my mind it looks like Beck and Co. do much more of this than their counterparts at MSNBC. It also looks like every time Obama tries to engage in a rational dialogue with the opposition he is greeted by a picture of him with a Hitler mustache.

That doesn't mean the two sides are really very different from each other; there are, however, some significant disagreements that need more than the hysterical threat of secession to negotiate.

You guys need a 3rd Major Party to offset the Reps and the Dems so that neither have absolute power in congress. Look at how it works for UK politics:
take a vote on a law....
Labour are in power they all vote for the law
Conservatives vote they vote against law
Liberals Vote either for or against
So although Labour are in the driving seat the 3rd party will always keep the ruling party in check if need be. Like the recent unemployment bill you guys have had. It would never have been passed.
As for the media rhetoric expressed by these tv channels...don't you have laws against enciting violence or just stirring the pot.
THE US PEOPLE DESERVE A 3rd MAJOR PARTY Middle Of The Road to keep balance and it confuses the haters.


[edit on 2-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I completely understand where you are coming from with regards to Hannity. He was being sarcastic and I have heard him speak this way before, but as many have pointed out, he lacked the mannerisms or context necessary to convey sarcasm, except for those privy to his previous statements.

In a normal conversation between you and I this may not be a big deal, but when addressing a group of people who are angry and knowing the power you wield, it would be smart to be a little more precise in your speech.

If in my personal life if use an offensive piece of language as sarcasm, I usually change the tone of my voice or am very familiar with the audience around me, so I do not come off appearing to endorse such language.

Knowing your audience is crucial to conveying a point. Had this been a small group he was speaking to, at an un-televised event, his language would not be such a big deal. But this is a televised event and millions of people have access to this video and some may not know the context of such sarcasm. Thus someone tuning into this could easily misconstrue his statement as endorsing the actions of TM.



[edit on 2-4-2010 by iamcamouflage]

I don't get why people don't get it.

It's such a simple, obvious strategy.

Divide and conquer. Distract. Keep people busy fighting shadows amongst themselves. Make sure nobody's looking in the right direction. Run the same ol' scams. And people get fooled every time.

Go figure.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The civility may be the result of this being a thread started by the site owner and commented on by several mods. I would like to think that is not the case but it may have some impact on it.

But I agree, most of the conversation has focused on finding some truth and not complete partisan bickering.

Is it Really "The Powers That Be"?


Or is it really just, We?




I realize that no one wants to take the blame for the apparent, immenent collpse of ou society; it is far easier and much more comforting to point our collective fingers at one generalized group or another and assign all the awful responsibility to Them!; whoever they might conveniently be at the moment. But is this rational?


If All "politicians are "corrupt", then by definition (look up the term "meme" in cognative psychology) anyone elected to any form of government we might ultimately decide upon, will be, of course, corrupt.

We cannot escape the logic of our own delusions; even when that logic leads us into absurdity.



The "Powers That Be", as we sneer and growl at them are, in reality no different than us, save for the presence of certain commodities in greater abundance. But here. too don't we all crave the same advantages as well?


The so-called Powers That Be are, in truth, nothing more than what we, righteous selves would likely be if We had (or could somehow acquire) the Power to be.



And it is this realization that scares Me the most.


It seems that we are doomed to repeat the vicious cycle.