Fox news "fair and balanced" yeah RIGHT

#303
#303
MontereyVol said:
Which one? I haven't heard this.
Click to expand...
If the pacifist clown ever tried to compare himself to TR, I assume he would be laughed from the room, even by the likes of the lackeys at MSNBC.

He's more of the free gov't money solution type like FDR, so I assume that was the comparison.
 
#304
#304
yes people have compared him to FDR. it's funny that people think that is a compliment.
 
#305
#305
BigPapaVol said:
If the pacifist clown ever tried to compare himself to TR, I assume he would be laughed from the room, even by the likes of the lackeys at MSNBC.

He's more of the free gov't money solution type like FDR, so I assume that was the comparison.
Click to expand...

Okay, I have heard that. I guess I had TRex on he mind and was about to get angry.
 
#306
#306
sorry I didn't specify which Roosevelt. Although it's obvious that Obama has far more in common with FDR than TR.
 
#308
#308
#309
#309
#310
#310
nickknx865 said:
I actually watched that little incident. Was it in good humor? No, it was a tasteless act. But I don't think anyone reads too much into those two people's comments.
Click to expand...

Well, Hannity provides reasoning behind what he opines on air. Olbermann, like most of thee Democratic Peoples Party, slanders and insults when he is frustrated by a superior more reasoned argument.
 
#311
#311
nickknx865 said:
I actually watched that little incident. Was it in good humor? No, it was a tasteless act. But I don't think anyone reads too much into those two people's comments.
Click to expand...

Here's the irony though - the woman is being attacked for stating a belief. Why should they put much into her statement?

I'll all for not putting much into their comments - they can say what they want; tasteless or not. But they should follow the same rules with regard to her.

Which of the comments is closer to hate speech? I'm betting these guys think her comments were.
 
#312
#312
volinbham said:
Here's the irony though - the woman is being attacked for stating a belief. Why should they put much into her statement?
Click to expand...

Me and my dad pretty much agreed that it was a question that was a no-win situation for her. She says, "Yes, I believe in gay marriage", and that's not really her belief in the subject. If she actually answered the question like she believed, which she did, she polarizes the audience, which she did.

Having Perez Hilton asking that question was going to lead to some type of incident with her belief system.
 
#313
#313
nickknx865 said:
I actually watched that little incident. Was it in good humor? No, it was a tasteless act. But I don't think anyone reads too much into those two people's comments.
Click to expand...

so when has Sean Hannity ever engaged in such tasteless, gutter humor at someone else's expense?
 
#315
#315
nickknx865 said:
I don't know. I don't watch his show but maybe once or twice a month.

I'm sure he has though.
Click to expand...

so I can provide concrete examples of Olberman's complete lack of class and character and the best you can do is "Oh, I'm sure Hannity does too, but I don't watch his show enough to say for sure."

that's called "intellectual dishonesty".
 
#316
#316
So when Hannity does his "Liberal translation" segment you don't believe that's somewhat tasteless.He takes a few words out of what is said then interprets what he thinks they mean.
 
#317
#317
TENNFOLD1974 said:
So when Hannity does his "Liberal translation" segment you don't believe that's somewhat tasteless.He takes a few words out of what is said then interprets what he thinks they mean.
Click to expand...

Is he attacking them personally, or is he attacking the message by editing the words and adding his own interpretation?

Hannity's Liberal translation segment more closely resembles Olbermann's Worse Worser and worst segment. Olbermann has gone way over the line on a couple of occasions recently(or allowed his guests to do so unchallenged).
 
#318
#318
TENNFOLD1974 said:
So when Hannity does his "Liberal translation" segment you don't believe that's somewhat tasteless.He takes a few words out of what is said then interprets what he thinks they mean.
Click to expand...

well, liberals, especially this crop of Washington DC liberals, are idiots.

but, this in no way is analogous to Jeneane Garafolo calling the tea party attendees white racist retards, or Matt Musto calling Carrie Prejean a man with his d*** cut off. Both of those occurred on Olberman's show, and all that fat moron did was slobber all over himself in agreement.

Hannity has NEVER sunk to such a level and like Little Nicky, you can't provide a single example of him ever having done so.
 
#319
#319
MG1968 said:
well, liberals, especially this crop of Washington DC liberals, are idiots.

but, this in no way is analogous to Jeneane Garafolo calling the tea party attendees white racist retards, or Matt Musto calling Carrie Prejean a man with his d*** cut off. Both of those occurred on Olberman's show, and all that fat moron did was slobber all over himself in agreement.

Hannity has NEVER sunk to such a level and like Little Nicky, you can't provide a single example of him ever having done so.
Click to expand...

You seem pretty offended.
 
#320
#320
rjd970 said:
You seem pretty offended.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to get people to back up their assertions that Hannity is as bad as Olberman. Thus far I've gotten a weak "well, I don't really watch his show" and a blubbery "his liberal translation segment is mean".
 
#321
#321
MG1968 said:
I'm just trying to get people to back up their assertions that Hannity is as bad as Olberman. Thus far I've gotten a weak "well, I don't really watch his show" and a blubbery "his liberal translation segment is mean".
Click to expand...


Hannity has exactly five arrows in his quiver:

1) Use of the straw man logical fallacy. He takes an out of context statement, says his spin is what the speaker/writer really meant, and then proceeds to attack the straw man he has built. Even though its invariably WAY off the mark of what the speaker/writer originally said.

2) Fear. Pure, unadulterated this is the end of the world fear.

3) Red herring. Similar to the straw man, when the topic of discussion is something he doesn't like, or more likely that is over his head, he yanks out some tried and true irrelevancy and distracts with it.

4) False outrage. He'll take what is in reality a fairly moderate or widely supported (or at least not really all that controversial) item or statement or policy, and feign outrage.

5) The slippery slope. He'll take a modest change in policy, and extrapolate from that the inevitable complete swallowing of the rest of the area at issue by the modest change.

That's it. Its every time, without fail.
 
#322
#322
I'll add that the fact that he is so popular is testament to the lack of the most fundamental reasoning skills being taught in our schools. Sad, really.
 
#323
#323
lawgator1 said:
3) Red herring. Similar to the straw man, when the topic of discussion is something he doesn't like, or more likely that is over his head, he yanks out some tried and true irrelevancy and distracts with it.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree with this one.
 
#324
#324
lawgator1 said:
Hannity has exactly five arrows in his quiver:

1) Use of the straw man logical fallacy. He takes an out of context statement, says his spin is what the speaker/writer really meant, and then proceeds to attack the straw man he has built. Even though its invariably WAY off the mark of what the speaker/writer originally said.

2) Fear. Pure, unadulterated this is the end of the world fear.

3) Red herring. Similar to the straw man, when the topic of discussion is something he doesn't like, or more likely that is over his head, he yanks out some tried and true irrelevancy and distracts with it.

4) False outrage. He'll take what is in reality a fairly moderate or widely supported (or at least not really all that controversial) item or statement or policy, and feign outrage.

5) The slippery slope. He'll take a modest change in policy, and extrapolate from that the inevitable complete swallowing of the rest of the area at issue by the modest change.

That's it. Its every time, without fail.
Click to expand...

Ditto for every slanted commentator.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top