cool.... lefties whine when he talks about stuff.... and they whine when he doesn't....

How about STFU?

You know, I'm wondering if they're scared. They've talked a lot of shiat over the years, and all of a sudden, people are starting to act on the hate they've preached. And now, finally, maybe, they're discovering consciences.

I doubt it.

The 5 sentences of that article make a good point.

Cue the "but teh muslin shot the recruiter"-garbl.

SilentStrider: You know, I'm wondering if they're scared. They've talked a lot of shiat over the years, and all of a sudden, people are starting to act on the hate they've preached. And now, finally, maybe, they're discovering consciences.

I doubt it.

good because you would have been wrong.

Well, at least he didn't say he was a leftie. I'm almost proud.

Sean volunteered to be waterboarded for charity, Olberman offered $1000 per second, that's pretty damn good.

When's Sean gonna demonstrate how gentle this enhanced interrogation technique is and make millions for charity?

I actually watched him make that statement, you could begin to see him regretting saying that as he was finishing the sentence.

As for the article, I think Fox are going to try as hard as they can not to acknowledge right wing extremism.

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: The 5 sentences of that article make a good point.


It's a bit light, I agree, but then again it's not trying to fill airtime with wharrrgarrbl, so I'm fine with brevity in this case.

/or El Duderino, if you're not into that whole brevity thing.

Speaking of haters, I hope somebody submits something about the GOP worker calling an escaped gorilla a member of Michelle Obama's family or something. Heard about it on the radio.

I want an excuse to post the "Watermelons on the White House lawn" picture and the 'Obama Bucks' with the fried chicken and watermelon on it that the one lady was emailing around.

Hey libs, do you consider the victim to be a "little eichmann" or was that just for the WTC victims?

Hannity is Lord.

deadsanta: holiday_inn_in_cambodia: The 5 sentences of that article make a good point.


It's a bit light, I agree, but then again it's not trying to fill airtime with wharrrgarrbl, so I'm fine with brevity in this case.

/or El Duderino, if you're not into that whole brevity thing.

I prefer Duder

Noam Chimpsky: Hey libs, do you consider the victim to be a "little eichmann" or was that just for the WTC victims?

weeeeeeeeeeaak

So after lying about Fox News, claiming that the news channel only spent 1 minute 50 seconds on a story, they're now lying about Sean Hannity too? Or are they just overlooking the amount of time he spent talking about it during his radio show?

What's wrong Kos, talking about how much time Hannity spent talking about it on his radio show not fit the propaganda campaign?

Noam Chimpsky: Hey libs, do you consider the victim to be a "little eichmann" or was that just for the WTC victims?

A swing and a miss~

Lionel Mandrake: Noam Chimpsky: Hey libs, do you consider the victim to be a "little eichmann" or was that just for the WTC victims?

weeeeeeeeeeaak

How anyone can think that Ward Churchill speaks for anyone besides himself is beyond me.

randomjsa: So after lying about Fox News, claiming that the news channel only spent 1 minute 50 seconds on a story, they're now lying about Sean Hannity too?

Actually, from the article Fark linked, KOS made the claim that Fox spent almost two minutes covering the museum shooting during prime time, which was true and confirmed by Greta to Politico.com, but as she also said, the story was pretty much over by then and it was leaving the news cycle. They had covered it pretty extensively during the day.

So while technically true, it's disingenuous because it makes it sound like they didn't cover it at any length at any point in the day.

SilentStrider: maybe, they're discovering consciences.

More likely they've discovered "criminal liability".

I'd like to thank the Daily Kos and Media Matters, those well-known non-partisan organizations, for their constant vigilance regarding what Sean Hannity says on the air.

Hopefully, President Obama will have a office in place soon to vet what news is important to show and read on the air.

After all, the country's future is at stake.

SilentStrider:

I doubt it.

That's correct. Look at the post right above yours

angrygrizzly: Hopefully, President Obama will have a office in place soon to vet what news is important to show and read on the air.

OMG I know! It's like, the other day I was in a crowded theater and I yelled "Fire!". Hoo boy I got into some trouble. Turns out what I should have said was "Some people say there's a fire in this theater!".

farc: cool.... lefties whine when he talks about stuff.... and they whine when he doesn't....

How about STFU?

Given the context he said it in (he was talking about Rev Wright... still) I think the article is just pointing out his continual WHARRLGARRBL.

Everything from "Kos scares me" to "lefties!, lefties!, WHARGRRRBLE... waaaah!".

Is no one even going to try to refute the substance of the story? Or is this going to remain a rightard whine-fest?

Haha, look at the henpecked conservatives and Fark Independents come out of the woodwork to defend Hannity and Fox News.

Yes, this racist anti-semite was fully on your side. There's a reason why racists and anti-semites are attracted to your side. And likewise, there's a reason why these racist, anti-semitic scumbags aren't attracted to liberalism. While I'm sad for the company you keep, I can't think of any group more deserving.

angrygrizzly 2009-06-13 06:02:39 PM
I'd like to thank the Daily Kos and Media Matters, those well-known non-partisan organizations, for their constant vigilance regarding what Sean Hannity says on the air.
Hopefully, President Obama will have a office in place soon to vet what news is important to show and read on the air.

After all, the country's future is at stake.


A tad too much wharr, not enough gharrbl.

I think what the KOS is getting at is that Hannity will literally spend 45 minutes making and building upon a false premise, especially if it involves Muslims or the "socialist" or the "homosexual" agenda.
If this were perpetrated by a Muslim it would have have been a weeks worth of news for him

But since the shooting didnt involve anybody that fits his agenda, even when it was against the Jews, all it gets is one sentence.

xxysyndrome: More likely they've discovered "criminal liability".

now THAT i believe.

Steve Zodiac: That's correct. Look at the post right above yours

I was referring more to Fox News, specifically, not the internet keyboard commandos.

Oh cool, another Kos lin SNORE

Corn_Fed: ...there's a reason why these racist, anti-semitic scumbags aren't attracted to liberalism. While I'm sad for the company you keep, I can't think of any group more deserving.

"Racist, anti-semitic scumbag" isn't just drawn to the modern conservative party. Racist, anti-semitic scumbag IS the modern conservative party.

Glad to see a few conservatives on this thread and not just the usual bed wetters.

What Fox news and their ilk need to realize is that these maniacs don't have an off switch. If you go out to the far borders of crazy and then try to pull it back a notch the loonies will feel betrayed - and when they feel betrayed who do you think they will take it out on?

Hender: Lionel Mandrake: Noam Chimpsky: Hey libs, do you consider the victim to be a "little eichmann" or was that just for the WTC victims?

weeeeeeeeeeaak

How anyone can think that Ward Churchill speaks for anyone besides himself is beyond me.

He spoke for almost every liberal. If you want to see some loving support of Ward Churchill, try this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/2/715963/-Ward-Churchill-wins-lawsuit-agai n st-Colorado

Noam Chimpsky: He spoke for almost every liberal.

Bullshiat. You're either an idiot or a liar. Or both. I know lots of liberals...virtually everyone of my friends and family members would qualify as liberal (at least by FARK standards). They all think WC is an asshole. As do I.

If you want to see some loving support of Ward Churchill, FREE SPEECH try this link:

You FAIL

Lionel Mandrake: Noam Chimpsky: He spoke for almost every liberal.

Bullshiat. You're either an idiot or a liar. Or both. I know lots of liberals...virtually everyone of my friends and family members would qualify as liberal (at least by FARK standards). They all think WC is an asshole. As do I.

If you want to see some loving support of Ward Churchill, FREE SPEECH try this link:

You FAIL

Don't feed the racist, anti-semitic trolls.

Corn_Fed: Don't feed the racist, anti-semitic trolls.

You're right...I'll stop now

Corn_Fed:
Yes, this racist anti-semite was fully on your side. There's a reason why racists and anti-semites are attracted to your side. And likewise, there's a reason why these racist, anti-semitic scumbags aren't attracted to liberalism. While I'm sad for the company you keep, I can't think of any group more deserving.

No he wasn't. Considering Hannity continues to support Israel and the Jewish people as a whole, I could say Von Brunn was not fan of his.

randomjsa: So after lying about Fox News, claiming that the news channel only spent 1 minute 50 seconds on a story, they're now lying about Sean Hannity too? Or are they just overlooking the amount of time he spent talking about it during his radio show?

What's wrong Kos, talking about how much time Hannity spent talking about it on his radio show not fit the propaganda campaign?

The claim was that Fox only devoted 1:50 during it's prime time line up. This fits in perfectly with that. Nice try.

Noam Chimpsky: Hender: Lionel Mandrake: Noam Chimpsky: Hey libs, do you consider the victim to be a "little eichmann" or was that just for the WTC victims?

weeeeeeeeeeaak

How anyone can think that Ward Churchill speaks for anyone besides himself is beyond me.

He spoke for almost every liberal. If you want to see some loving support of Ward Churchill, try this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/2/715963/-Ward-Churchill-wins-lawsuit-agai n st-Colorado

I saw no love for Ward Churchill in that link. It reported on the civil suit against the university, and the only bit of op-ed in there was this:

No matter what you think of Churchill's scholarship and politics, the manner in which he lost his job stands as yet another example of the Republican politicization of every aspect of American life, in this case sacrificing academic freedom to the demands of state power.

CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE? CAN YOU FEEL IT?

Oh right, plus there's all the commenters saying "He's a dick and he shouldn't have said that, but he shouldn't have been fired for it." And you know what? He wasn't.

Is there anybody in this thread who would admit to being a regular viewer of Sean Hannity's program? By this, I don't mean watching it for humor value -- I mean watching it as a genuine source of information.

/curious

In Hannity's defense, it's not like he's employed by a news channel or anything.

seventypercent: Is there anybody in this thread who would admit to being a regular viewer of Sean Hannity's program? By this, I don't mean watching it for humor value -- I mean watching it as a genuine source of information.

/curious

I listen to his radio program about everyday.

Hender:

No matter what you think of Churchill's scholarship and politics, the manner in which he lost his job stands as yet another example of the Republican politicization of every aspect of American life, in this case sacrificing academic freedom to the demands of state power.

CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE? CAN YOU FEEL IT?

Oh right, plus there's all the commenters saying "He's a dick and he shouldn't have said that, but he shouldn't have been fired for it." And you know what? He wasn't.

Why shouldn't a professor be fired for calling the innocent victims in the World Trade Center on 9/11 "little eichmanns"? Any employer would fire an employee for saying shiat like that so why should someone whose job it is to influence kids not be fired?

If a professor called Tiller a "little eichmann" you'd be calling for his firing and possibly his arrest.

Jesterling: In Hannity's defense, it's not like he's employed by a news channel or anything.

Hannity's not a journalist, he's an analyst. And an anal cyst.

SilentStrider: You know, I'm wondering if they're scared. They've talked a lot of shiat over the years, and all of a sudden, people are starting to act on the hate they've preached. And now, finally, maybe, they're discovering consciences.

I doubt it.

You are clueless. The guy that did the shooting was a rabid Fox News/AM talk radio hater. He hated Fox almost more than the Jews.

Don't let the facts get in your way though.

seventypercent: Is there anybody in this thread who would admit to being a regular viewer of Sean Hannity's program? By this, I don't mean watching it for humor value -- I mean watching it as a genuine source of information.

/curious

Yes, this is the only source of news anyone needs.
I wish it was 24/7 on every channel. That would be awesome.

Considering this story had nothing to do with Obama, I don't see why Hannity would be talking about it.

Noam Chimpsky: Hender:

No matter what you think of Churchill's scholarship and politics, the manner in which he lost his job stands as yet another example of the Republican politicization of every aspect of American life, in this case sacrificing academic freedom to the demands of state power.

CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE? CAN YOU FEEL IT?

Oh right, plus there's all the commenters saying "He's a dick and he shouldn't have said that, but he shouldn't have been fired for it." And you know what? He wasn't.

Why shouldn't a professor be fired for calling the innocent victims in the World Trade Center on 9/11 "little eichmanns"? Any employer would fire an employee for saying shiat like that so why should someone whose job it is to influence kids not be fired?

If a professor called Tiller a "little eichmann" you'd be calling for his firing and possibly his arrest.

Don't tell me what I would and wouldn't be doing, because not only do you not know shiat about me, but it's pretty clear you don't know shiat about the subject at hand. Are you even aware what free speech is? I don't have to like what someone says in order to understand why they're allowed to say it and put up with it. For example, today I'm begrudgingly putting up with your lunacy.

Besides, he had tenure and the university had no legal right to fire him in that manner. And he won in court. Know how much he was awarded? $1.

Hender: So while technically true, it's disingenuous because it makes it sound like they didn't cover it at any length at any point in the day.
============================================

No one really gives a shiat how long they covered it.

We care that O'Reilly called the shooter 'A liberal if anything'. Which is ridiculously stupid. His proof? 'I was on his list'

In continuation: Also, don't you think that it's a bit crazy that a domestic terrorist gets like an hour of newscoverage?

Imagine if that shooter had been middleeastern. We'd probably declare war on another country in the middle east (Even without trigger-happy Bush at the helm) and cover it for weeks 24/7.

And I'm not being sarcastic either. I'm 100% serious.

I just love how whenever two liberals have an encounter that they don't announce on every news channel, suddenly they become "secret meetings." Can't the president have a conversation with someone without it being blown up into some kind of anti-America orgy?

Mentat: Jesterling: In Hannity's defense, it's not like he's employed by a news channel or anything.

Hannity's not a journalist, he's an analyst. And an anal cyst.

Awesome, I heard those can be used to avoid conscription.