The Political Madness Escalates: Sean Hannity...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I don't believe he represents the ideals of many people who have become attracted to the "Tea Party," but he's a fine example of someone who has hijacked the "movement" and distorted it beyond recognition.

What I, as a liberal independent see, is the tea party is a republican party where republicans can put a disguise on and act out the most vile and sick mannerisms they can imagine, then state its not a republican thing, its a angry american thing...that way they dont cause harm to the republicans, but can do whatever disgraceful thing they want under the banner of the tea party.

Has this not always been the way? What is the core values of the tea party anyhow? Someone said it was a tax to debt ration and unchecked/unchallenged spending on programs not needed and not with proper oversight in congress, which by itself was bipartisan...but I seen no evidence of that with what the tea party shows me daily...its a extreme republican talking points agenda straight down the line, from abortion stances, to war, religion, guns, taxes, corporatism, repealing net neutrality, censorship, etc etc etc...

Originally posted by sirbikesalot06
Alan Colmes= Loony Liberal
Sean Hannity= Crazy Conservatives.

Wrong...Alan Colmes = token loony liberal.

I would like to see a show where Hannity, Beck, or any other sit side to side with Maddow...put a real liberal next to them verses a spineless jellyfish pretending to be a liberal.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Just when I think the disease of partisan madness has reached new heights of knee-jerking absurdity, I'm proven wrong by yet another pugilistic pundit spewing startling rhetoric.

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!

Wow, it's clear where you stand politically because since you, yourself, stated it was 'calculated sarcasm', it is crystal clear he was NOT calling his audience a bunch of domestic terrorists like McVeigh. So either you are being intentionally disengenuous or you have some sort of agenda also. I guess you could just be narrow minded and have a problem with believing that mocking and sarcasm is the persons actual viewpoint.

It's obvious he was mocking all the leftist idiots who call the tea party people terrorists and racists. Hannity mocks and uses sarcasm all the time by saying stuff like that. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity would realize this.

Perhaps you should not get your news clips from extreme liberal sites who take everything out of context and try to portray Conservatives as bad people.
MoxNews, yeah that is a real gem right there. I'm sure they are totally unbiased and will give a fair shake to those you disagree with them. See, that is sarcasm. I don't actually believe MoxNews will give a fair shake. Do you see how you missed the point? ZOOM, right over peoples heads.

This article will help explain it better for you:
Dissent must be Silenced!

The only political madness are from those who will use this in a attempt to prove a lame point.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by WhatTheory]

Just watched the clip. Two things immediately stood out.

1. This was the end of the clip. As such, there could be folks associated with the show gesturing to the crowd to applaud as they go to break. This happens with a lot of shows with live audiences, so this is completely with the boundaries of what is happening here.

2. Listen very closely. Immediately after he speaks the "McVeigh wannabe" remark, he says this..."as THEY say." He directs this to his guests. This comment which is not immediately perceptible because of the onset of applause, is not being taken into consideration.

I think he was inferring that THEY (the left) have said that "Tea Party" folks are, in essence, McVeigh wannabes.

I might also add that I can't really stand to listen to Hannity, but I think more is being made out of this than what it really is.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
What I, as a liberal independent see, is the tea party is a republican party where republicans can put a disguise on and act out the most vile and sick mannerisms they can imagine, then state its not a republican thing, its a angry american thing...that way they dont cause harm to the republicans, but can do whatever disgraceful thing they want under the banner of the tea party.

I don't disagree that, by appearances, this seems to be what has happened.

Has this not always been the way? What is the core values of the tea party anyhow?

My understanding of the original impetus is the desire to force elected representatives to do their job of representing the will of their constituents, not the will of lobbyists and corporate donors. Hence the "tea party" reference to taxation without representation developed.

As many have noted, the "movement" was corrupted by many outside factors with a variety of intersecting agendas.

Originally posted by jibeho
I wouldn't be surprised if he loses his contract either.

I would...it is poor form, nightmare commentary, but no doubt it will attract a even broader view from people demanding anger, hate, and fear for entertainment. I would expect a ratings hike...he might even be requested to start giving more and more violent hintings...throw a brick through the window type speaking.

Hannity is not here to try and heal the country...his ratings fully depend on stirring up fear, hate, and near violent opposition. You dont watch wrestling with the hopes that they will all get along and talk out their differences...you watch it for smacktalk and hopefully someone with a chair swatting someone.

Jer-ry Jer-ry Jer-...oops, I mean, Han-nity Han-nity Han-nity...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


This is about as stupid as using the word "terrorism" to broadly sweep anyone who disagrees with how the Government does things, not that they disagree with Government, but the policy of and or usage of domestic and foreign policy.

When something is shown on television and by a commentator like Hannity, words hold more power, because of the following this man has in his audience, and he should be held accountable for his actions towards inciting violent tendencies.

It is just like if someone went on his show and claimed he had raped a woman based on nothing more than he fits the characteristics and profile of a rapist, without being tried.

In other words, it is a trial by television, and slamming the Tea Party and the people.

An idiotic partisan pundit, this country is neither "left-wing" nor "right-wing".

We are either a people united, or a people divided, and a television show host knows better, or should know better, and I cannot believe his rhetoric is forgivable.

Before anyone even bothers claiming I belong to the Tea Party, I do not.

I am not defending nor attacking them, but the irresponsible behavior of Hannity.

It is his behavior, and misuse and abuse of his position as a political commentator.

Then again, I do not particpate in the partisan party politics, I see both sides as flawed.

Either we are united or we are divided, period, and I stand united against partisan punditry.

Here are the statements from "Representative" Brian Baird (no fan of his either), that apparently inspired the Hannity "sarcasm"

"Some of the rhetoric that we're hearing is vaguely, not vaguely but eerily reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim McVeigh to bomb the federal building."
Probably as irresponsible as Hannity's calculated "sarcasm," but Baird is a politician, and idiocy is apparently part of the job.

To me, it now appears clear that Hannity's calculated sarcasm was designed to escalate the situation by extending a comparison never made.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Blaine91555
There is not a doubt in my mind that bad people have latched on to this, but to blame the whole for the vocal minority of nut jobs? Is that right?

I think it is. In so far as, it's the responsibility of people aligned to a worthy goal/cause (such as the Tea Party) to ensure that fringe "nut jobs" don't derail the effort... which is exactly what is happening.

I can't help but wonder, how would you go about doing that? How do they control, nationwide, who claims to be part of a movement that was never intended to be an organized group to begin with?

By the way, the person who banned me and removed my posts was Judson Phillips, the organizer of several national "Tea Party" events. Now, to be clear, I don't believe he represents the ideals of many people who have become attracted to the "Tea Party," but he's a fine example of someone who has hijacked the "movement" and distorted it beyond recognition.

Sorry to hear that. From what I've read of your posts, he must have been out of line. He certainly does not represent me and I'm sure many others.

Some years ago (not that long really), I once appreciated a fair portion of ideas expressed by Hannity and even Beck (but I can rarely say the same of their "liberal" counterparts). But over the past 18 months, it seems as though the script writer for this political game has been switched from someone moderately talented, to a collection of people who can't agree on how inflammatory is too inflammatory... and they're testing the "waters" through a series of escalating bombasts on all sides. This is but one example.

I'll concede. That makes sense and I understand your thoughts now.

I find that Hannity has always been to volatile for my taste. To close to the fringe. Beck I find to be transparent. He is who he is, he is entertaining and I think genuine, but I agree he is inflammatory.

No matter what we do though SO, what can those of us who just want to preserve our country do to stop the fringe from jumping on board with anything we do? We can't. Not without becoming part of the problem ourselves.

In the end, it truly comes down to what we do when we enter that voting booth.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You may be right. It is clearly a problem on all sides. When we have our supposed leaders engaged in such dialogue, how can we not expect it to spill over into everything else? It is dangerous.

As I watch these things going on around me I have flashbacks to examples in the past. Kent State, the Watt's Riots and others. Then I think back to watching MLK and his peaceful movement that did so much good and I take heart that peaceful change is possible with the right leaders. Where have the real leader gone? They certainly no longer occupy the White House or the halls of Congress.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 4/2/2010 by Blaine91555]

Interesting timing?

Obama says Beck, Limbaugh fuel 'troublesome' political climate

news.yahoo.com...

In an interview with Harry Smith on CBS' "Early Show" Friday morning, President Obama called out Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as purveyors of "vitriol" - creating a climate in which he's called a "socialist" and even a "Nazi."

Smith asked the president if he was "aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation about you." Obama replied, "When you've listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck it's pretty apparent." The rancor is "troublesome," he said, but he acknowledged it's also a recurring phenomenon.

"Keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of - this kind of vitriol comes out," he said. "It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling that there's a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans."

A lot of change that needs to take place?

No matter how much you like or don't like these voices of dissent and opposition, it is their right to express it.

The fact that there is a vast audience and that there is a growing demand from these political news personalities is what should be troubling our President.

Our elected president and members of congress are every bit as divisive as the likes of Rush, Beck and even Hannity.

We should not forget that here.



[edit on 2-4-2010 by Fractured.Facade]

Sorry to disappoint you guys but he was referring to a comment about the tea partiers made by a democrat, he said it in a facetious way.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

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

[edit on 2-4-2010 by SkepticOverlord]

With any disease there is hope of a cure as long as the root cause is identified.

It is not the Left...with their unbounded desire to "destroy America"

It is not the Right...with their “hypocrisy, corruption and greed”.

It is not even the corporations and media that look to profit from the division at every opportunity.

It is us...the American People...

We are the ones looking to our TVs to tell us what we think and why..

WE make it possible...the media and the politicians are just doing what they have always done...taking advantage where they can.

Lee Atwater led GHW Bush to power with one of the most ruthless campaigns the country had ever seen...and it worked. He invented the push poll...he championed the poltics of distraction and division...he created the famous Willie Horton ad..great movie about him...

www.boogiemanfilm.com...

He also mentored two men in his career in campaign politics...

Karl Rove and Roger Ailes (now CEO Fox News)

He died of cancer....and before he died he very plainly put his finger on what is ailing us...the "root cause" of our "Psychosis"

Atwater's "deathbed confession" remains controversial to this day. Many interpreted it as a renunciation of the political decade he had helped make possible.

"Long before I was struck with cancer, I felt something stirring in American society," he said. "It was a sense among the people of the country -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- that something was missing from their lives, something crucial. I was trying to position the Republican Party to take advantage of it. But I wasn't exactly sure what 'it' was. My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood."

www.washingtonpost.com...

Anyways...that is the way I see it.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


Obama is the King of divisive rhetoric. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Originally posted by AmenStop
Sorry to disappoint you guys but he was referring to a comment about the tea partiers made by a democrat, he said it in a facetious way.

You really need to read the whole thread. This is not one you can skip to the end of.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Coercive Acts

Patriot Act


... the difference seeming little more than that of the former being reactive legislation/parliamentary response whilst the latter would appear mOar a mere proactive and/or anticipatory enactment ... to be added too/fleshed out, as required deemed/demonstrated necessary.

As for Hannity's comment(s) ... they All (tEh PunDitZ) whore out pointed and calculated "sarcasm" as a means to rile a portion of their audience groupies and/or to draw like-minded "individuals" to the same.

Ratings reign supreme ... and as long as the silent majority prefers being spoon fed their sNewZe, news and "What happened Today" via the stupid tube ... it aint gonna change.

reply to post by maybereal11


That enters the realm of something that can only be taught within our homes, to our children, by us. Brotherhood and humanity in general are not something a generation will get from public schools or government.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Agreed. My post was speaking to what was missing amongst citizens in modern American discourse and how both the Media and Political forces exploit it's absence.

I was not making a case for government, schools, the media or even religion to be the authority for instilling brotherhood and compassion.

That is our responsibility to find it in ourselves and pass it on to our children.



[edit on 2-4-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
2. Listen very closely. Immediately after he speaks the "McVeigh wannabe" remark, he says this..."as THEY say." He directs this to his guests. This comment which is not immediately perceptible because of the onset of applause, is not being taken into consideration.

I think he was inferring that THEY (the left) have said that "Tea Party" folks are, in essence, McVeigh wannabes.

I think you're right. You can watch this Short Clip without waiting for the whole thing to load. And he WAS talking about the Democrats as "they".

He says, "When you think of the vast majorities that they have in Congress and they had the bribe, backroom deals, corruption... That's all because the Tea Party movement, the people... all these Tim McVeigh wannabees here, you know? As they say."

So, he was (IMO) saying that the Democrats were calling the TPM Tim McVeigh wannabees.

I hate what Hannity is doing. He's a liar, a tool and scum, but I don't think he was calling the TP people wannabees himself. He was using the Dem's name for them.

ETA: I'd just like to add that I appreciate threads like this SO much. Where most of us can talk and not necessarily be on one side or the other - but try to find the truth in the issue. So many threads these days are complete right vs left BS. The right says this and the left chimes in with that. It's SO predictable! And boring, NOT educational and worthless. This is, for the most part, a refreshing change.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

One has to wonder if this was a faux paux, Freudian slip, or indeed an
intentional sound-byte.

In any case it is alarming and unfair for Hannity to insert the phrase
"...Tim McVeigh wannabees," into the final words of the show---the very spot
where applause is not only expected as normal behaviour but often is
induced by prompters at TV events like these.

It would be like Bono ending a show with great passion, to the roar of the
crowd and then saying as the finale' "Thank you GOODNIGHT...you all suck."

It just creates an evocative sound-byte...that is all.

I wonder if the MSM will use it.