Sean Hannity

[Mikeoxenormous]

Funny thing about television. It has an off switch. I use it on Maddow constantly.
Hannity has that same feature. Apparently some can't shut him off in their head. That is a personal mental issue.

The "shut off" tool is the basic tool of the willfully ignorant. Which explains why someone would dismisses a Rhodes Scholar with an advanced degree in Political Science out of hand, and equate their learned opinions with that of a college drop out who reads a script.

Rhodes Scholar is about as credible as the Nobel Peace prize given to Obama, who started bombing Muslim women and children in the middle east...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny thing about television. It has an off switch. I use it on Maddow constantly.
Hannity has that same feature. Apparently some can't shut him off in their head. That is a personal mental issue.

The "shut off" tool is the basic tool of the willfully ignorant. Which explains why someone would dismisses a Rhodes Scholar with an advanced degree in Political Science out of hand, and equate their learned opinions with that of a college drop out who reads a script.

Rhodes Scholar is about as credible as the Nobel Peace prize given to Obama, who started bombing Muslim women and children in the middle east...

Haters must hate!

 

[petro]

Funny thing about television. It has an off switch. I use it on Maddow constantly.
Hannity has that same feature. Apparently some can't shut him off in their head. That is a personal mental issue.

The "shut off" tool is the basic tool of the willfully ignorant. Which explains why someone would dismisses a Rhodes Scholar with an advanced degree in Political Science out of hand, and equate their learned opinions with that of a college drop out who reads a script.

Spoken like a true sock.
I watch neither as they are opinion commentators. Yet you assume anyone who can't stand Maddow must somehow be generalized as an uneducated Hannity follower.
Education has nothing to do with wisdom, and I see none from either talking heads. There is a reason the time slots are the same as both Maddow and Hannity are the loudest pooches barking on the porch. Her pedigree means nothing.

 

[PredFan]

Good old boy Sean Hannity, college drop out and universal mouthpiece for the far right wing, is at it again, to wit: Character Assassinations.

Fox News, so to speak, has encouraged (conspired?) with Hannity to go after Mr Mueller, a Vietnam combat vet, a former FBI leader and someone hired to look into the possibility that Trump, his Administration and inner circle committed high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hannity has zero evidence to support his over the top attacks on Mr. Mueller, and once again the new right does what it claims the MSM does, produce fake news, i.e. propaganda.

Meh, you and the left have zero evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians but that doesn't stop you does it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good old boy Sean Hannity, college drop out and universal mouthpiece for the far right wing, is at it again, to wit: Character Assassinations.

Fox News, so to speak, has encouraged (conspired?) with Hannity to go after Mr Mueller, a Vietnam combat vet, a former FBI leader and someone hired to look into the possibility that Trump, his Administration and inner circle committed high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hannity has zero evidence to support his over the top attacks on Mr. Mueller, and once again the new right does what it claims the MSM does, produce fake news, i.e. propaganda.

From everything I have learned, and not from Hannity, from credible left of center sources, the CFR media has zero evidence that the Trump administration committed "high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy."

Here is the truth, by a progressive and a defender of the first Amendment.

It seems the left is being tricked by the neo-cons into giving up the first Amendment, and they don't give a shit about Trump, he is just their patsy.

You folks should stop playing politics with the structure of our government, our civil liberties and civil rights. This is a must read article by a Harvard prize winning journalist.

Russia-gate Breeds ‘Establishment McCarthyism’
Russia-gate Breeds 'Establishment McCarthyism'

". . . This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about “Russian propaganda” and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin’s “hordes of Twitter bots,” but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington’s “groupthinks” by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as “disputed” or “rated false” by mainstream “fact-checking” organizations like PolitiFact.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and, indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.

For instance, PolitiFact still rates as “true” Hillary Clinton’s false claim that “all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies” agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama’s intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called “hand-picked” analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.

And, the larger truth was that these “hand-picked” analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced “stove-piped intelligence,” i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community.

Even then, what these analysts published last Jan. 6 was an “assessment,” which they specifically warned was “not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.” In other words, they didn’t have any conclusive proof of Russian “hacking.”

Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable “consensus” of the “intelligence community.” Contrary information, including WikiLeaks’ denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and contrary judgments from former senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.

The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from “fracking.”

How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American “democracy” is hard to comprehend.

However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report’s admitted uncertainties about Russian “hacking” and the troubling implications of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can’t be questioned or challenged. . . (con't)"

Huh, this ^^^ is evidence? There is nothing probative in this long post or in the link to make your conclusion credible. It is noise, nothing more and just like Hannity.

Let's all wait to see what the investigations uncover.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Funny thing about television. It has an off switch. I use it on Maddow constantly.
Hannity has that same feature. Apparently some can't shut him off in their head. That is a personal mental issue.

The "shut off" tool is the basic tool of the willfully ignorant. Which explains why someone would dismisses a Rhodes Scholar with an advanced degree in Political Science out of hand, and equate their learned opinions with that of a college drop out who reads a script.

Which explains why someone would dismisses a Rhodes Scholar

Why did Clinton drop out of the Rhodes Scholar program?

 

[MisterBeale]

Good old boy Sean Hannity, college drop out and universal mouthpiece for the far right wing, is at it again, to wit: Character Assassinations.

Fox News, so to speak, has encouraged (conspired?) with Hannity to go after Mr Mueller, a Vietnam combat vet, a former FBI leader and someone hired to look into the possibility that Trump, his Administration and inner circle committed high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hannity has zero evidence to support his over the top attacks on Mr. Mueller, and once again the new right does what it claims the MSM does, produce fake news, i.e. propaganda.

link?

-Geaux

link? Sure:

Skip the ad.

Sure, I watched the video, but I did not see any "Character Assassination."

Perhaps we have different ideas of what this term means?

I'll provide a definition, if this is not suitable, you provide a different one.

Character assassination
Character assassination - Wikipedia
"Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that destroys the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, organization, social group, or nation.[1] Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumours, and manipulating information.


Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument."

Sorry, I didn't see any of that going on against Mueller's credibility or an attempt to personally destroy him. I saw a legitimate approach to question conflicts of interest, as you would in a reverse scenario. Everything is politics in D.C., you know that. Seriously though, no ad hominem was going on.

 

[MisterBeale]

Good old boy Sean Hannity, college drop out and universal mouthpiece for the far right wing, is at it again, to wit: Character Assassinations.

Fox News, so to speak, has encouraged (conspired?) with Hannity to go after Mr Mueller, a Vietnam combat vet, a former FBI leader and someone hired to look into the possibility that Trump, his Administration and inner circle committed high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hannity has zero evidence to support his over the top attacks on Mr. Mueller, and once again the new right does what it claims the MSM does, produce fake news, i.e. propaganda.

From everything I have learned, and not from Hannity, from credible left of center sources, the CFR media has zero evidence that the Trump administration committed "high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy."

Here is the truth, by a progressive and a defender of the first Amendment.

It seems the left is being tricked by the neo-cons into giving up the first Amendment, and they don't give a shit about Trump, he is just their patsy.

You folks should stop playing politics with the structure of our government, our civil liberties and civil rights. This is a must read article by a Harvard prize winning journalist.

Russia-gate Breeds ‘Establishment McCarthyism’
Russia-gate Breeds 'Establishment McCarthyism'

". . . This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about “Russian propaganda” and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin’s “hordes of Twitter bots,” but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington’s “groupthinks” by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as “disputed” or “rated false” by mainstream “fact-checking” organizations like PolitiFact.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and, indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.

For instance, PolitiFact still rates as “true” Hillary Clinton’s false claim that “all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies” agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama’s intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called “hand-picked” analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.

And, the larger truth was that these “hand-picked” analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced “stove-piped intelligence,” i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community.

Even then, what these analysts published last Jan. 6 was an “assessment,” which they specifically warned was “not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.” In other words, they didn’t have any conclusive proof of Russian “hacking.”

Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable “consensus” of the “intelligence community.” Contrary information, including WikiLeaks’ denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and contrary judgments from former senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.

The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from “fracking.”

How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American “democracy” is hard to comprehend.

However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report’s admitted uncertainties about Russian “hacking” and the troubling implications of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can’t be questioned or challenged. . . (con't)"

Huh, this ^^^ is evidence? There is nothing probative in this long post or in the link to make your conclusion credible. It is noise, nothing more and just like Hannity.

Let's all wait to see what the investigations uncover.

So either you didn't read it or didn't understand it.

Denial, I can understand that.

 

[Mac1958]

Hannity is just another hardcore partisan ideologue. He only sees what he wants to see, and he ignores or distorts any contrary information.

Dime a dozen, on both sides.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good old boy Sean Hannity, college drop out and universal mouthpiece for the far right wing, is at it again, to wit: Character Assassinations.

Fox News, so to speak, has encouraged (conspired?) with Hannity to go after Mr Mueller, a Vietnam combat vet, a former FBI leader and someone hired to look into the possibility that Trump, his Administration and inner circle committed high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hannity has zero evidence to support his over the top attacks on Mr. Mueller, and once again the new right does what it claims the MSM does, produce fake news, i.e. propaganda.

Meh, you and the left have zero evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians but that doesn't stop you does it?

The evidence you demand has yet to be presented to a Grand Jury, the efforts to obstruct justice have become epidemic by partisans like you, who have fallen prey to propaganda, by agents of the Russian Government.

In fact the link in Mr. B's post appears to be a document which convinces the easily led to draw conclusions before all the evidence is collected, collated and presented to a Grand Jury.

 

[PredFan]

Good old boy Sean Hannity, college drop out and universal mouthpiece for the far right wing, is at it again, to wit: Character Assassinations.

Fox News, so to speak, has encouraged (conspired?) with Hannity to go after Mr Mueller, a Vietnam combat vet, a former FBI leader and someone hired to look into the possibility that Trump, his Administration and inner circle committed high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hannity has zero evidence to support his over the top attacks on Mr. Mueller, and once again the new right does what it claims the MSM does, produce fake news, i.e. propaganda.

Meh, you and the left have zero evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians but that doesn't stop you does it?

The evidence you demand has yet to be presented to a Grand Jury, the efforts to obstruct justice have become epidemic by partisans like you, who have fallen prey to propaganda, by agents of the Russian Government.

In fact the link in Mr. B's post appears to be a document which convinces the easily led to draw conclusions before all the evidence is collected, collated and presented to a Grand Jury.

As I said, no evidence. The support for Hannity's pouts are out there for all to see but the questioning from the authorities on it has yet to be done. You and your kind are doing the same thing that Hannity's is doing.

You are still a hypocrite.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny thing about television. It has an off switch. I use it on Maddow constantly.
Hannity has that same feature. Apparently some can't shut him off in their head. That is a personal mental issue.

The "shut off" tool is the basic tool of the willfully ignorant. Which explains why someone would dismisses a Rhodes Scholar with an advanced degree in Political Science out of hand, and equate their learned opinions with that of a college drop out who reads a script.

Spoken like a true sock.
I watch neither as they are opinion commentators. Yet you assume anyone who can't stand Maddow must somehow be generalized as an uneducated Hannity follower.
Education has nothing to do with wisdom, and I see none from either talking heads. There is a reason the time slots are the same as both Maddow and Hannity are the loudest pooches barking on the porch. Her pedigree means nothing.

You're welcome to your opinion; if you ever need surgery please feel free to consult your barber or bartender for advice, a board certified surgeon's pedigree is just piece of paper. Right?

 

[PredFan]

Hannity is just another hardcore partisan ideologue. He only sees what he wants to see, and he ignores or distorts any contrary information.

Dime a dozen, on both sides.

You are committing the same errors the partisans commit, without choosing a side. You assume that because you don't agree with him that every single thing he says is false.

 

[Mac1958]

Hannity is just another hardcore partisan ideologue. He only sees what he wants to see, and he ignores or distorts any contrary information.

Dime a dozen, on both sides.

You are committing the same errors the partisans commit, without choosing a side. You assume that because you don't agree with him that every single thing he says is false.

Nope, I didn't say that. Not even close.

A person can point out facts that are perfectly true, but ignore facts that are also true, but that don't support their agenda.

So while they are indeed being factual, they are also being intellectually dishonest by purposely leaving out part of the story.
.

 

[PredFan]

Hannity is just another hardcore partisan ideologue. He only sees what he wants to see, and he ignores or distorts any contrary information.

Dime a dozen, on both sides.

You are committing the same errors the partisans commit, without choosing a side. You assume that because you don't agree with him that every single thing he says is false.

Nope, I didn't say that. Not even close.

A person can point out facts that are perfectly true, but ignore facts that are also true, but that don't support their agenda.

So while they are indeed being factual, they are also being intellectually dishonest by purposely leaving out part of the story.
.

Did you not just dismiss Hannity without actually making an argument against what he says? I believe you did.

 

[Mac1958]

Hannity is just another hardcore partisan ideologue. He only sees what he wants to see, and he ignores or distorts any contrary information.

Dime a dozen, on both sides.

You are committing the same errors the partisans commit, without choosing a side. You assume that because you don't agree with him that every single thing he says is false.

Nope, I didn't say that. Not even close.

A person can point out facts that are perfectly true, but ignore facts that are also true, but that don't support their agenda.

So while they are indeed being factual, they are also being intellectually dishonest by purposely leaving out part of the story.
.

Did you not just dismiss Hannity without actually making an argument against what he says? I believe you did.

Nope. I've now described what he does, twice, in two different ways. What he said might have been perfectly factual but still intellectually dishonest.

Three times now.
.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good old boy Sean Hannity, college drop out and universal mouthpiece for the far right wing, is at it again, to wit: Character Assassinations.

Fox News, so to speak, has encouraged (conspired?) with Hannity to go after Mr Mueller, a Vietnam combat vet, a former FBI leader and someone hired to look into the possibility that Trump, his Administration and inner circle committed high crimes and misdemeanors, mislead the public and represent a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hannity has zero evidence to support his over the top attacks on Mr. Mueller, and once again the new right does what it claims the MSM does, produce fake news, i.e. propaganda.

link?

-Geaux

link? Sure:

Skip the ad.

Sure, I watched the video, but I did not see any "Character Assassination."

Perhaps we have different ideas of what this term means?

I'll provide a definition, if this is not suitable, you provide a different one.

Character assassination
Character assassination - Wikipedia
"Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that destroys the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, organization, social group, or nation.[1] Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumours, and manipulating information.


Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument."

Sorry, I didn't see any of that going on against Mueller's credibility or an attempt to personally destroy him. I saw a legitimate approach to question conflicts of interest, as you would in a reverse scenario. Everything is politics in D.C., you know that. Seriously though, no ad hominem was going on.

Apparently you are deaf and blind.

 

[PredFan]

Hannity is just another hardcore partisan ideologue. He only sees what he wants to see, and he ignores or distorts any contrary information.

Dime a dozen, on both sides.

You are committing the same errors the partisans commit, without choosing a side. You assume that because you don't agree with him that every single thing he says is false.

Nope, I didn't say that. Not even close.

A person can point out facts that are perfectly true, but ignore facts that are also true, but that don't support their agenda.

So while they are indeed being factual, they are also being intellectually dishonest by purposely leaving out part of the story.
.

Did you not just dismiss Hannity without actually making an argument against what he says? I believe you did.

Nope. I've now described what he does, twice, in two different ways. What he said might have been perfectly factual but still intellectually dishonest.

Three times now.
.

Now you are spinning like a true partisan.

 

[BlindBoo]

I love watching Hannity lie. He makes me laugh. Pisses of the wife though........

 

[Mac1958]

Hannity is just another hardcore partisan ideologue. He only sees what he wants to see, and he ignores or distorts any contrary information.

Dime a dozen, on both sides.

You are committing the same errors the partisans commit, without choosing a side. You assume that because you don't agree with him that every single thing he says is false.

Nope, I didn't say that. Not even close.

A person can point out facts that are perfectly true, but ignore facts that are also true, but that don't support their agenda.

So while they are indeed being factual, they are also being intellectually dishonest by purposely leaving out part of the story.
.

Did you not just dismiss Hannity without actually making an argument against what he says? I believe you did.

Nope. I've now described what he does, twice, in two different ways. What he said might have been perfectly factual but still intellectually dishonest.

Three times now.
.

Now you are spinning like a true partisan.

If I had said the same about Maddow - which I would - you'd be fine with it.

I've said the same thing, three times now.

I just think you don't like being compared to those you so loathe.
.