Olbermann named Hannity "Worst Person" for saying Dem debaters were not questioned on "partial-birth" abortion, NIE
On the June 18 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Sean Hannity the "winner" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for claiming to be "frustrated" by purported differences between the Democratic and Republican presidential debates: "The Democrats don't get the questions on partial-birth abortion or asked if they've read the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE]. It seems like the Republicans are getting more scrutiny." However, as Media Matters for America noted, two Democratic candidates were asked during an April 26 debate about the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, and at a June 3 debate, two Democratic candidates were asked whether they regretted not reading the September 2002 NIE on the threat posed by Iraq.
Hannity made his remarks about the debates during the June 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) response to the NIE question was specifically noted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz -- the guest on the June 14 broadcast -- during an appearance on Hannity & Colmes 10 days earlier.
On Countdown, Olbermann noted the abortion and NIE questions posed at the debates and added: "Thanks for paying attention out there, Slappy. Sean Hannity, today's Worst Person in the World."
As Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, here, and here), Olbermann frequently names Hannity in his "Worst Person" segment.
From the June 18 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But our winner, Sean Hannity, who told his audience that he was, quote, "frustrated" that at the Republican debates, the candidates got asked questions about partial-birth abortion or not reading the National Intelligence Estimate, but in the Democratic debates, the candidates did not.
Even though in the April debate in South Carolina, [former] Senator [John] Edwards [D-NC] and [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] were asked about partial-birth abortion, and in the New Hampshire debate two weeks ago, Senators Clinton and Edwards were asked about not reading the National Intelligence Estimate. Thanks for paying attention out there, Slappy. Sean Hannity, today's "Worst Person in the World."
How can Hannity get something as simple as this wrong?
Don't bother replying, I already know the answer.
Hannity also got Liebermann's party wrong. Connecticut voters should ask Lienerman why he allowed Hannity to mischaracterise his party affiliation by putting a D next to Lieber's name. Liebermann is a Independent, not a Democrat.
I wonder if FOX will call Michael Bloomberg a R now that he has left the Republicans and is now an Independent.
Hannity is a paid liar. Whether he knows he's lying about any given subject may be up for debate, because he obviously isn't very smart, and obviously doesn't do any research. He just says what the show's producers tell him to say. He's a pretty-boy talking head...that's all.
Sean Hannitty ... pretty boy? .... well taste is a strange thing!
The fact is he knows it is not true. He also knows his audience would never watch the democratic debates. Therefore he can say this, and his legion of "great American" fans will accept it as truth as they always do. He is the king of repetition breeds truth. I listen every night just to get an opposing viewpoint (he is on a delay here in Chicago so I can't call in) but I get so angry that I go home mad. I just yell "You are lying" all the way home.
You write - "The fact is he knows it is not true. He also knows his audience would never watch the democratic debates. Therefore he can say this, and his legion of "great American" fans will accept it as truth as they always do. He is the king of repetition breeds truth. I listen every night just to get an opposing viewpoint (he is on a delay here in Chicago so I can't call in) but I get so angry that I go home mad. I just yell "You are lying" all the way home."
Here I am reading the opposing views, and I watch the Republican and Democratic debates, even though I watch Fox Shows. I am from the UK which is a home of biased media so I think I'm qualified to hold an opinion. I believe Sean hannity is partisan in the extreme but there is no attempt to hide this. I too dislike statements when they are known to be false however it is my view from spending perhaps 4 years of my life in the US through work/leisure that the media is biased towards a liberal worldview. Under those circumstances I have some sympathy for the shrillness of the minority concervative voice even though it NEVER serves a purpose to distort because you end up looking as bad as that you disagrre with as you did with your post unfortunately.
I am a UK conservative and am distressed that America is not learning the lessons of the European statist disaster and seems to be relentlessly moving towards big govermnet as we did decades ago. Incidentally we have socialised medicin in the form of the NHS and overall it is very poor. True there are good experiences but there are bad and those take us nowhere. The only thing that matters is death rates (survival rates) post cancer treament / heart attacks and their ilk. I'm not Sean Hannity so I'll let you look them up for yourselves. The facts (not my facts) will demonstrate that despite best efforts and a great deal of money nationalised medicine works very badly in terms of what it is supposed to do - elongate life.
I agree with tolerance and many so called liberal values but big government doesn;t work and the facts are availble in the communist east and now the EU. Sean Hannitty nor Al franken can change the truth but please lose the self delusion everyone. America is best and i'ts the best because it is relatively free and it defends itself.
My preference for this side of the pond would be Rudy Guiliani at this stage. Hillary terrifies me because of her beilef in big government - I'm quite willing to accept she is a good women and well meaning but good intentions and social welfare systems have destroyed the British family, obvioulsy it didn;t mean to but it has. Don't make the same misatkes - please.
In before "why is this here" whining from trolls.
I believe the Latin term for what Hannity did is called Argumentum ex Uranus (someone please explain it to tommy).
; )
Argumentum ex Uranus: An antibiotic you take before traveling to Uranus.
I'm starting to think that Sean Hannity's America is located in the Reagan Hemisphere of Planet Wingnut.
Don't look for it on a map. You can only find it in the dreams of special children and the hallucinations of bedwetting whiny Republicans.
I'm starting to think that Sean Hannity's America is located in the Reagan Hemisphere of Planet Wingnut.
Is that anywhere near Mayberry Paw?
Closer to the Dark Side of Mt. Pilot.
Thank you.
Considering many here are much more familiar with extracting arguments from there, your expanation would be very useful.
I am overjoyed that you got it. Latin can be difficult at times. Feel free to use it any time.
: )
Thanks, but no thanks. I don't use latin or foreign phrases in an attempt to impress, nor do I pull from "Uranus" logical fallacy type words when losing an argument.
But your recommendations are heartfelt, nonetheless.
nor do I pull from "Uranus" logical fallacy type words when losing an argument.
Why provide an educated response when you can just state that you stand by what your original point, eh?
But seriously, what's with your contempt for education? Are you really buying into the nonsense posted on some of the conservative blogs? Do you really think logical fallacy is a liberal expression?
First of all, I didn't start this little exercise in futility.....open_mind did. I merely responded.
Contempt for education? Anything that ridiculous deserves no response.
Logical fallacy a liberal term? No, obviously. It just appears to be used by certain liberals around here when they have no argument or sensible rebuttal to a point being made. Draw your own conclusions as to why, or any ideology attached to it.
First of all, I didn't start this little exercise in futility.....open_mind did. I merely responded.
The fact that you were responding vs offering the point as an original thread has no bearing on your point. It's an irrelevant observation, i.e., a fallacy.
Contempt for education? Anything that ridiculous deserves no response.
Would that be a non-response response? In any event, your recent comments liberal's references about logical fallacies - an unoriginal idea - warranted the remark; so did your comment about "latin and foreign phrases."
Logical fallacy a liberal term? No, obviously.
Granted, I took some license there in making a point, i.e., some conservative posters are essentially attempting to reduce the term to that. Feel free to substitute your more detailed explanation of how you've used it.
It just appears to be used by certain liberals around here when they have no argument or sensible rebuttal to a point being made.
Can you provide some examples? I doubt the veracity of that. You seem to have used this claim previously just as another fallacious rebuttal.
Your insistence on dissecting this silliness is curious, but not enough to provoke me into some long discussion. Take or leave it, at this point my interest has waned.
Liberals win, I suppose.
:)
Now you need PROVOCATION to engage in a long discussion???
I think history dictates otherwise.
Good job though diverting the discussion away from the original subject.
You miss the point. Do you even KNOW what rhetoric and debate ARE? If we are pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument your argument is faulty by definition. I get why it would frost you guys that we actually point out your arguments are worthless, illogical and have no substance but to make the argument that USING logical fallacies actually somehow make a point we need to refute is astonishingly brazen and frankly dumb. When you actually HAVE a point you wont need to use a logical fallacy to make it.
Oh, so let me get this straight. I should wait until you and your fellow liberals peruse my arguments so you can then advise me if it's logical fallacy or not, by definition? Is that about it?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Thanks for responding with another logical fallacy (strawman). No wonder you don't like it being pointed out to you.
Oh and I almost missed it...The creepy "HAHAHAHA" was Appeal to Ridicule. Good work, tommy!
Actually if you had a normal IQ you would KNOW what a logical fallacy is and attempt to avoid them. It really isnt our obligation to educate you on what is and isnt a logical fallacy. Try to keep up.
Solon,
Even for you that is the most arrogant and condescending post you have ever done.
If you and your buddies can't refute an argument, or find it unworthy in some way, just ignore it........hauling out your logical fallacy baloney just sours one's entire appetite.......like bad clams casino or something.
There's no such thing as a logical fallacy? Or you just don't make them? Which of these is your absurd point here?
Even for YOU that was one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen. If it is a logical fallacy it is by definition fallacious that IS a refutation. It has no validity if its based on a logical fallacy. I cant believe anyone would be arguing that it is PROPER for them to use a logical fallacy in their argument and we have some obligation to refute an argument that is by definition FALLACIOUS. I am not sure you understand what fallacy MEANS. I know you like to be stubborn but really you are embarassing yourself badly now.
I don't use latin or foreign phrases in an attempt to impress,--tommy
I have to congratulate you at achieving that goal. You are quite unimpressive in English as well.
nor do I pull from "Uranus" logical fallacy type words when losing an argument.--tommy
What a coincidence. It seems that when you are loosing, you resort to fallacious logic. Strange coincidence huh?
And you just made both my points far better than I did through exemplary examples of exactly what I was saying.
Three times thank you today, you're good.
Classic, tommy.
I would tell you to never change, but it seems I don't have to.
Open, that joke was shopworn by the time we got to fifth grade. Thanks for the memories.
That's funny. I just googled "Argumentum ex Uranus" and got nothing. I may have just coined the phrase. Be sure and give me credit if you repeat it.
That was even weaker than the original try. Give it up bro.
I wouldn't have replied if I had known you didn't have a point.
Have a nice day.
: )
I never heard it before. I googled it too in order to see if it was a classic joke with a history
I think AA was just trying to interupt the pummeling tommy is deservedly taking here.
If the statement is indeed anywhere near as hackneyed as AA suggests, it shouldn't be hard for him to provide evidence to backup such an apparently dubious assertion.
BBBppppppp!
Stroking your own ego may impress your likethinkers here, but the rest of us view it as rather humorous. But you go for it.
I never said I was doing the pummelling. CD and later Solon did a much better job of it. I kind of felt remorse about my part after a while to be honest considering your outrageously irrational replies. I hope you really don't believe what you typed.
I don't expect you to be embarrassed for yourself. However, I am embarrassed for you.
Really? You are nothing if not contradictory. Look at AA's post, he responded before any of the others you mention.......so the "pummeling" he was protecting me from, according to you, would have been from you, fueled by your own ego - not from CD or Solon. But nice try anyway.......
So you stroked your own ego and then tried to backtrack off it. In any event, who cares?
Making you appear foolish is getting too easy. We're done.
Christian Democrat posted before AA did:
- ChristianDemocrat / Tuesday June 19, 2007 02:39:01 PM EST
Then AA, seeming to sense trouble posted his baseless assertion in what I view as an attempt at running interference:
- anotheramerican / Tuesday June 19, 2007 03:02:05 PM EST
You are simply lying when you state "AA's post, [anotheramerican] responded before any of the others you mention" It is clear that CD responded before AA.
It is possible that AA genuinely believes the remark was "shopworn. Considering how flimsy that explanatin was, I was merely speculating as to other motives he may have had. There is more evidence to support my speculation than has been provided by AA for his.
As for solon, I acknowledge in my post that he came later, so I don't see what your beef is:
"CD and later Solon did a much better job of it."
You must be pretty desperate to restore your self-esteem if you are willing to nitpick like this.
I am, however, flattered that you apparently think I should take some of the credit for pummelling you. If you insist...
Open,
I simply thought it was a not-so-funny joke.
But then we can't all bat 1.000 can we.
hannity is a copra phagic hebra phrenic
If I was to say this to the appropriate quaint native. Would I get slapped, or would I have to marry someone?
"big headed s..t eater" depends on who you approach. hantywaste would say: how did you know? I wasn't out of the closet on this thing. If you told the world it wouldn't hurt his image.
two Democratic candidates were asked during an April 26 debate about the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion.
That seems a pretty accurate term for it, IMO. What else would you call it? I don't care one way or the other for abortion, but if its accurate, what's the complaint? Pulling a fetus out by the feet and ramming a sciccors into its brain sounds about right. Partial birth....you bet. Its partially birthed.
It's the divisive term for it.
What happens is that because the health and welfare of the pregnant woman are more important than the way in which the fetus is removed, an "Intact Dilation and Extraction" is performed.
Why do rightwingers insist on coming up with their own offensive names, like the Democrat Party and partial-birth abortion?
Here are some reasons why women might choose this option. One of them is the reason my sister chose this. She had 2 kids before the procedure and 3 after, but an intact dilation and extraction was the best option when her fetus had hydrocephalus. It allowed her the reproductive safety to have additional children and didn't force her to carry a child to term that could not survive outside the womb and that was getting ready to adversely affect her health!
Thank you for that thoughtful comment, Nothtatgeorge. We often forget the sad human faces realities behine the hateful language. So, I guess we can all assume your sister is not "anti-life" and "anti-family"?
Sue,
The term partial birth abortion is not an incorrect description at all. It is used interchangably. If some find if offensive, that is up to the individual.....but for you to act as though the term partial birth is inaccurate is ridiculous.
The term numbskull is correctly given to people like you, Tommy. I'm not Sue, and never have been her sockpuppet, but you seem so terrified of a cogent argument that when all hope is lost you throw out the unfair smear of the sockpuppet allegation. How like the typical rightwinger argument that is!
I didn't say it was "inaccurate", I don't believe. I said it was divisive. It was a term created in the mid-1990's, after my sister had her procedure, by activists on the right who wanted to demonize the procedure. It's like people on the right saying that people on the left are pro-abortion instead of pro-choice. They want to demonize choice supporters by saying they want abortions to happen, rather than that they want women to have the choice to have one.
I didn't "act" like it was "inaccurate". But you did pull a strawman argument out of your butthole by trying to claim that I did do that!
So, the score is now Tommy, -2 because of the unfair smear and the strawman argument, George 2 for the pointing out that it's the divisive way to describe it and the total debunking of Tommy's post!
Sue, If the term is divisive and accurate, then you will just have to live with that, won't you? You can use the medical terminology if you please......just as others are to accurately label it partial birth.
And to perfectly honest, I could care less if you're Sue or the Queen of Scots - it's immaterial actually, but to sit there and deny it only plummets your credibility deeper into oblivion.....any point you feebily attempt to make gets lost in the masquerade party your mind is engaged in.......but hey, if you can't fess up, then by all means - Carry on George!
The man who could not refute what I said, and then made a strawman argument so he could shoot down a point I didn't make, while all the time repeatedly calling me a sockpuppet, now says, after being called out on both errors, says he doesn't care if I'm a sockpuppet.
Pardon us if we don't believe you, Tommy.
If you don't care, then you should never again call me Sue. I'll copy this post by you, and shove it down your throat every time you do it again, numbskull!
My credibility is not diminished by your unfair and false smear. Your credibility is diminished when you make unfair smears, and when you make strawman arguments,. That is further diminished when you won't admit that when liberals point out the fallacious arguments from those on the right it's a sign of the fallacious arguments from those on the right, but rather, in some incomprehensible twisting of reality, it somehow means that the liberal has lost the argument and is grasping at straws.
It would be you who is grasping at straws, Tommy. Making unfair smears, making strawman arguments, and then denying it meant anything at all to you.
Someone got up on the wrong side of a logical fallacy this morning, apparently.
"shove it down my throat", Sue, tsk, tsk.....let us know when you resurface again, because NotthatGeorge is headed for the banned bin with that kind of talk.
Medicate thyself. Have a wonderful day.
Yeah, when Media Matters looks to your side to get reports on the liberals here who are sockpuppets, I'll note that in my calendar.
But I still won't be Sue, and therefore still won't get banned.
So, don't worry, I've got it saved. Every time you try to claim I'm Sue, I'll post your assertion that you could care less. That will do more to diminish your credibility than anything any other poster could do! It is immaterial, as you said, but you keep bringing it up anyway! That doesn't hurt my credibility. You doing it does hurt yours!
And to perfectly honest, I could care less if you're Sue or the Queen of Scots - it's immaterial actually.Sue darling,
The fact that I could care less what your real name or moniker is these days is in no way related to my committment to accuracy. So, Sue it is, until the final reincarnation.
And to perfectly honest, I could care less if you're Sue or the Queen of Scots - it's immaterial actually.
Except I really do care - was I so scared of Sue that any thought that she returned makes me mess in my pants?
Except I really do care - am I so incapable of making a reasonable argument that when I am forced into a corner, my only option is to make an unfair smear?
Except I really do care - sockpuppets come and go here, but I cannot seem to get rid of George. Maybe he's not a sockpuppet then, but repeating a lie works for us rightwingers in other avenues, so I am going to keep repeating it here!
Except I really do care - about almost everything except being "perfectly honest!"
Tommy JERK give it up. You only look like a fool
it's not just looks in tommy-boys case, it seems to be his job to post nonsense and hate-wing talking points and it seems it is his joy to turn his brain off to post...
Sue
Please read the rules of MMFA, I noticed your name calling has been taking off the boards in the posts yesterday when you called Rino a name. Its gettting old.
DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned.
DON'T post here if your sole purpose is to start a flame war. Arguments and debates are fine; obscenity, name-calling, and trolling are not. Violators will be banned.
DON'T take another person's comments personally. Have a thick skin and ignore posters who insist on trolling, obscenities, and name-calling
Like I am going to take direction from you?
Ha!
When Media Matters is upset with me, I expect they will have no fear of telling me that. Until you become my boss, I will have no fear of ignoring your demands.
However, you should keep up your unfair smears of me, like above. I have documented them and forwarded them to Media Matters. No posts were removed because of my name calling, according to Media Matters. Posts previous to mine were removed, and they remove the whole string when they do that!
All these personal attacks do is make you look corrupt and insincere.
Casey is not making personal attacks, he is pointing out how you violate the rules.
Pardon us if we don't believe you, Tommy.
We??? Now you speak for all of us?
Funny someone else who used to post here always pulled that "We" stuff too. ;-)
Speak for yourself.
ON this very thread, Jeter, several posters have called Tommy to task.
If your ability to understand that when multiple people say similar things, one can then call those similar voices "we" if one is a part of that chorus, is in such a state of incompetence, than you had best retire.
"We" have had similar comments to Tommy on this thread, Jeter. That's why I said "we".
You seem to suffer from the same disease at Tommy, and think that I'm Sue too. I never saw Sue post in the many months I read this site but if she said "we" on occasion, then she probably understood the English language too! I know that's hard for some people whose understanding of the language is hampered by the fact taht they're numbskulls, but not all of us struggle with that. West Point taught me well even if it was decades ago, and a lifelong love of learning has taught me even more.
ON this very thread, Jeter, several posters have called Tommy to task. Several? About you? Other than Julia the Limerick Lady. Who?
It's ok, I'm bored with this now.
BTW "partial-birth" abortion is the term generally used & it's not divisive. Figured I'd mention the obvious.
Sore that I called you out on AC? Calling me the limerick lady sounds a bit belittling. Is that your intention? Just wondering.
Calling me the limerick lady sounds a bit belittling. Is that your intention? Just wondering.
Aw Julia, not at all. I just thought that would help George or whomever ;-) figure out which poster I was talking about.
I'm not the vindictive type...well not towards 99% of the posters here.
My Hit List is quite short ;-)
Poem Princess?
Lolita of Limerick?
be a man and admit you were belittling her
Sue/Ellie/Notthatgeorge continues to call people names . Sue please read the rules and respect people.
DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned.
DON'T post here if your sole purpose is to start a flame war. Arguments and debates are fine; obscenity, name-calling, and trolling are not. Violators will be banned.
DON'T take another person's comments personally. Have a thick skin and ignore posters who insist on trolling, obscenities, and name-calling
stop spamming, also against the rules, then print those rules out and have a nice sit down on them.
Americanmutt
Casey is not a spamer, that Sue/Ellie Notthatgeorge has attacked almost everyone on here. I can see exactly where you are coming from. Casey keep up the good work in informing us of the gameplayers.
do you have proof they are the same people? if not you are lying just like casey and tommy-boy. and yes, posting the same thing over and over is spam and is against the rules on just about every board.
Calling someone a "numbskull" over and over again is also against the rules, why no outrage about that?
i dont know sue and dont if george is so and it really isnt that important but completely dismissing what he or she says because they may have been somone else is very childish this george sue argument is getting very old lets just move on despite the anger george makes some valid points
Give me a break.
The name calling I do is getting called out because of the attempt to paint me as a sockpuppet!
Many people here call names, and when I call someone a numbskull it's after they have demonstrated that they are a numbskull, and I have just finished pointing out that they are a numbskull!
For anyone to try to claim that what I do is different from what Solon does, for example, is disingenuous to the extreme. Solon regularly tells people that they don't have the intelligence to blow their own noses. He got called out recently for his repeated usage of the term "short bus" to ridicule a poster! You want to claim that me calling people numbskulls after they act like numbskulls is out of line from others on this site? Then you're a numbskull if you think that's the case!
oh and pointing out logical fallicies using the very words the people used is not 'attacking' it is called correcting errors. Now if someone does not like their errors and stupidities shown they should not post on any board.
You are an angry person.
Oh dear Lord, now she's claiming West Point to give her gender more legitimacy.
Where is Colbert when you need him, this is hysterical.
Oh dear Lord, now she's claiming West Point to give her gender more legitimacy
West Point? Not unless they relocated in Austin Texas. Home of the Sue Beast.
What a jackass you are to denigrate my attendence and graduation from West Point.
Even more so to assert that if I was female, I could not have gone to West Point - of course, when I went in the 60's, it was all male, but they've let females in for decades!
I served my time in the service, then worked for decades, and then retired to a small town near the military base my daughter is stationed from in order to be closer to my grandkids and to help out our son-in-law while she is overseas!
You think you know so much. Why is that? Why is it so imcomprehensible that someone besides Sue could be so tough to debate? Did she really stymie you so terribly that you have yet to recover? I have been reading here for about a year, and I haven't ever seen her name, but you seem to quiver in your boots at the very thought of her!
I think it's funny that you are so deathly afraid of her! I guess this stems from the Malkin thread, when you tried to claim something I proved wasn't true, then you tried to claim that a previous comment by Solon backed you up, and then Solon said you were full of it, then you disappeared!
Here's the link to that nonsense. Once debunked, forever bitter, Jeter?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705230009?offset=20&show=1Baloney it WOULD effect YOUR credibility, IF you had any. There is no way you could KNOW if Notgeorge is Sue and I dont think his posting style is like hers at all. You are being petty and annoying.
Solon,
If someone was poking fun of say, RINO or Roger, I don't think you'd find it quite as "petty" or "annoying".
This is just one of those days here. As you know the posts sometimes get snarky.
George or whomever he/she is, brought a lot of this on by their personal attacks directed at posters a few weeks ago.
Sue/ellie Not that george attacked me weeks ago calling me a "right winger". To me that was a personal attack that was baseless. The name calling continues.
Notthatgeorge is Sue/ellie. I have been a target of the vicousness. I remember them very well. The smear machine continues. Stop enabling Sue.
You have no way of knowing that. I remember Sue and see no resemblance in their styles. Unless you can demostrate the amazing mind reading powers I dont believe in I dont buy it.
Not,
It is not derisive. It is common parlance similar to "heart attack" instead of "myocardial infarction".
It is only considered derisive by those who tried to hide the ugly reality.
Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother." And she adds two more risks: cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, and uterine rupture caused by rotating the fetus in the womb. Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), stated: "There is no literature that testifies to the safety of partial birth abortions. It’s a maverick procedure devised by maverick doctors who wish to deliver a dead fetus. Such abortions could lead to infection causing sterility." Also, "Drawing out the baby in breech position is a very dangerous procedure and could tear the uterus. Such a ruptured uterus could cause the mother to bleed to death in ten minutes.".."The puncturing of the child’s skull produces bone shards that could puncture the uterus." (Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), 7/23).
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_18.aspIf some doctor said that there was no medical reason to do an ID&E, then that doctor is lying.
There's a risk to any medical procedure. There are significantly fewer risks to a pregnant woman with a hyrdrocephalic fetus to have an ID&E done than to carry the fetus to term or to have a C-section or to give birth to a giant-headed fetus who would die outside the womb. In my sister's case, at about 26 weeks the fetus weighed a lot more than it should have, and the doc's said she could not deliver it vaginally, and there was no intra-uterine surgical fix for the fetus back 15 years ago.
If you read section 3b of the Supreme Court decision which upheld the partial birth abortion ban, you will find that the proponents (read Planned Parenthood) failed to prove their case that the procedure is medically necessary. If they had evidence that it was necessary, surely it would have been in the record because Planned Parenthood really is on top of these kinds of issues.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html
Also medical advances since the time of NTG's sister's abortion have, at least in some cases, been able to deal with hdrocephalus in the womb.
NTG, My condolences to your sister and her family.
There were and are other alternatives to the procedure, none of them as safe for the woman and/or her future fertility.
Can you back that up?
From the decision:
if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,”
This would seem to solve the problem. Really, the outrage from the left at banning this hideous procedure is why the term "pro-abortion" seems appropriate in some cases. My former senator Paul Wellstone, the most liberal member of the Senate in his day, agreed that the procedure should be banned if the exception for the health of the mother was included. You should all wise up and follow his lead.
"...agreed that the procedure should be banned if the exception for the health of the mother was included."
Hasn't that been the framework of the discussion all along? Arguing that it is medically necessary?
Yes, the argument went to the Supreme court and they ruled. That's my view.
So, because judges made a ruling on what's medically necessary, then everyone should accept that as a sound medical judgment? I don't see that. Besides, it seems like an assumption that because the SCOTUS didn't accept it as medically necessary then there must not have been any good evidence presented on that side.
Personally I think that the medical community has some idea of what's necessary and what's not. I don't think they're a bunch of monsters, generally speaking, doing this kind of thing for the hell of it. I suspect most people agree that it should be done only if medically necessary, but the ruling of people like Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas doesn't necessarily have any reflection on the reality of that situation.
Because of that, your "pro-abortion" comment seems just a little bit unfair.
Brabantio: This issue has been a political hot potato for ten years at least. You are telling me that the proponents of those who wish to keep this procedure legal didn't present their absolute best case to the court when they knew what was at stake here? I don't buy that at all.
Brabantio, I believe I misrepresented your argument in my last post. I apologize. As the ruling states, if the E&D is deemed necessary by the medical community (even though compelling evidence was not presented that it ever would be according to the SC, the fetus can be terminated by injection prior to the E&D being performed since that would not violate the law. Seems to me that should satisfy both sides here.
Yes, what I'm saying is that what you may consider compelling evidence may not be compelling for someone else.
That result is fine, as long as it doesn't put a woman's health at risk. That's the very factor that makes the "pro-abortion" comment unfair, in my opinion.
I have to genuinely applaud your argument. You have done a very good job, IMO. I still have one or two nagging concerns that I think is legitimate:
1. Should legislators really be telling doctors which medical procedures they should and shouldn't use on their patients? Why can't we trust the doctors to do what is best for their own patients?
2. Considering this legislation changes little - if anything at all, isn't the main objection merely cosmetic?
Because for one thing there are doctors out there who take matters into their own hands, like Dr Kevorkian just to name one notorious case. You really can't trust doctors to always do the right thing, there are good doctors and lousy doctors just like every other profession. As society evolves, the laws governing it evolve as well.
"You really can't trust doctors to always do the right thing"
So we can trust politicans?
I disagree, but I respect your opinion. Can you please address the second question?
Considering this legislation changes little - if anything at all, isn't the main objection merely cosmetic?
The main objection is coming from the pro-choice side because they lost this ruling. I think they view any move towards further abortion restrictions as an infringement on women's reproductive rights. I don't think they view it as merely cosmetic at all, although in reality that may be the case.
I'm sorry, the question wasn't clear enough. I meant, the only objection to the procedure is cosmetic in nature (i.e. the abortion must happen intra-uterine or extra-uterine assuming the fetus is already deceased beforehand.
The objection is the method of killing using the scissors into the skull as I understand it.
Is it viewed a gratuitous? Is there not a medical reason for it? Is it merely distasteful? Are we going to outlaw distasteful surgery?
It was not proved to the court that the procedure is medically necessary. There are alternatives that are more civilized, in the courts view.
Well I guess the court would seem to know medicine better than those stupid doctors do. Maybe people should get judges to perform their abortions for them from now on, since it is known that doctors can no longer be trusted?
On another note, most surgical procedures seem pretty barbaric to me, I am not a good judge of what is "civilized" and what isn't in that regard. Good to know the Supreme Court is able to make such distinctions.
Not really. The court simply weighed the expert testimony presented to it. Where were all the medical experts with this irrefutable evidence that this was a procedure that society couldn't do without?
I disagree that the Supreme Court is qualified even to weigh that information.
AA, are you a physician? Are you a woman? Will you ever be faced with the enormity of this in your personal life?
I'd like to know, because it surely makes a difference when it's YOUR life that is affected.
Having birthed three children (and experienced a spontaneous abortion) I am a little closer to what this might mean than any man.
And you should also be aware that physicians who have performed this procedure are not "mavericks" I could quote many other people with credentials that would state the opposite of the lady you quoted.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience. Congratulations on your three children. My condolences on the miscarriage.
No, I am not a doctor, nor am I a woman.
Are you saying that only doctors and women can opine on the subject?
I'd be interested in seeing the quotes from the doctors who expressed other views regarding partial birth abortions. Please do post them.
I think she is saying that only doctors and women can opine with any credibility. The rest could opine for their own amusement, as you appear ready to do.
AA, I am saying that women and obstetricians are more credible on this issue. It was so telling that the so-called partial birth abortion law was signed by Bush surrounded by....men. This issue will NEVER affect you in the same way it will affect a pregnant woman.
A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported:
"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."
The web site this was taken from is worth a look, I think. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm
Mary59, thanks for saying again what I have tried many times to explain to AA & Rino.
After debating with them and reading Bruce's "you really can't trust doctors to always so the right thing" I give up. For some reason we as woman don't have the mental ability to make our own health care choices. I surprised they let us go into the voting both alone.
For some reason some think that making difficult health care decisions are a walk in the park between hair and nail appointments. I would gladly pay for the first experiment allowing a man to get pregnant, hell I would pay for the first experiment letting a man have a period.
Men having periods...hmm There is just no opening for that to happen :)
Unfortunately :-)
Mary,
It seems to me that you are arguing that only those who are participants can have credible arguments.
That is like saying only drunks and cops can opine about DUIs.
That is like saying only heterosexuals can opine about rearing children.
That is like saying only drug users can opine about narcotics.
Or the oft used argument that only those who served in the military can opine about war.
One does not have to actually engage in an activity to have credible arguments for or against that activity.
More from Dr. Pamela Smith of Feminists for Life;
..said Smith. "The Hippocratic oath is no longer considered relevant to our society because the law allows us to do things the oath does not."
and...
Oops- the fine print is;
"We are sure that most women physicians would lend their influence and their aid to shield their sex from the foulest wrong committed against it..."
found here.
Thanks HBL,
I think it telling that this doctor wants to revise the Hippocratic oath. The relevant part?
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.
Sad to see an oath used for thousands of years to be suddenly 'revised' in order to satisfy a political view.
Actually, and to be fair,I don't think she's advocating revising the oath.She's just twisting it to say that the Hippocratic oath forbids abortion, and arguing that the current law is forcing her to disobey the oath.
But, Barney, this does show a hint of independent thought on your part to actually criticize an anti-abortionist for being dishonest.
IKeep it up and we'll get you a 2nd bullet!
What do you think of the attendent organisation, Feminists for Life. A broading of the definition of the word, or an attempt to hijack it?
The original Hippocratic Oath also required the physician to swear by Apollo and spend his life in common with his teacher. The reality today is that there are many versions of the oath, all updated to a modern context.
Yeah CD, I think the original Hippocratic Oath, besides including pledges to several Pagan Gods, forbids performing surgery. (using the knife).
AnotherAmerican, to his credit as a recovering dittohead , I think was pointing out that many conservative groups, especially extreme anti-abortion ones, have cherry picked the original to argue against abortion.
Usually they use other translations that don't specify the pessary to give the impression of a general prohibition of abortion.
I think some interpretations of the Hippocratic Oath suggest that medical students put out for their teachers, but Ancient Greece was a few years ahead of todays Republicans on the Gay rights issue. ;0)
AnotherAmerican...was pointing out that many conservative groups..have cherry picked the original to argue against abortion.
I took him to be defending the classical version and misinterpreting it and the position of the doctor. My apologies to him if I'm mistaken.
Usually they use other translations that don't specify the pessary to give the impression of a general prohibition of abortion.
On a related note, other sections of the Corpus are inconsistant with the Oath with respect to abortion.
I think some interpretations of the Hippocratic Oath suggest that medical students put out for their teachers, but Ancient Greece was a few years ahead of todays Republicans on the Gay rights issue.
LOL. Yes, I've seen that...though they would seem to be misinterpretations of a translation by Edelstein using dated English. A literal translation of the relevant section - "and to share with him my livelihood, and to make a contribution of money to him at his need" - would seem to fit simply the idea of living in common and, therefore, more modern translations.
Tommy is correct...at least in the legal sense. "Partial-birth abortion" has had a specific legal meaning since 2003.
Of course, the term was made up in 1995 by a "pro-life" congressman. It's a non-medical term used by neither the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists nor the American Medical Association. Some medical experts have called it a misnomer.
Why do rightwingers insist on coming up with their own offensive names?
What would you call it? An upper GI?
No, I'd call it an "Intact Dilation and Extraction", the same thing my sister's doctor called it. Do you have trouble reading sometimes? I also called it this in the post you're replying to, numbskull!
I wouldn't change the name of it to try to demonize the necessary medical procedure!
But Sue, you demonize nearly everyone here eventually by calling them names, why is that?
And you know where that gets you? Back to the screenname dictionary thumbing for a new moniker. Aren't you tired of that?
Who is Sue? Do you mean me? What name-calling have I done? And where did "sockpuppet" come from?
Not you Susannah,
Sorry for any confusion. To clear it up, NotthatGeorge used to be Ellie something, but she started out as the infamous Sue.....eventually she gets banned and then another name is pulled from the hat. She decided to switch genders this time to be a little cagey, but it ain't working. "Sockpuppet" and "numbskull" are typical Sue-isms. She is resourceful, but not incredibly bright.
Please give up the "Sue" thing. It's a bit beneath you, Tommy. Give it a rest,
Julia, You're wrong, not much is beneath me.
;)
I'll take your word for it. You know you better than I do. And quit flirting with that winky eye, you bad boy. Got it about Sue? Good. I'll hold you to it.
Julia,
Tommy is correct.
Last year I outed Sue who was posting here as Ellie717. This time another poster made the call.
We know her style...it's infamous :-O
She also got outed at Daily Kos by the posters there where she was posting as SLouise 217 [which just happen to be Sue's e-mail address --once you added AOL to it] and as Ellie717.
Oh it's too long a story to write.
I'd wait for the movie if I were you ;-)
Look, this "Sue" crap is tiresome. If you have a difference of opinion - state it. I'm not convinced about the poster being Sue. Stop boring the rest of us with the pettiness.
Julia,
Your talent notwithstanding, some would say that posting limericks on a political website is engaging in pettiness. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.
(flirtatious wink alert) ;)
Well each to his own. But you've already said you like my limericks :). And I've preempted you from using most of the words that rhyme with Jane as a rebuttal limerick. So there, mister.
Julia, I was mostly teasing, I love your limericks........I just complimented your talent in writing them. It was just an innocent jab I couldn't resist, hence the wink.
I was jabbing back, playfully.
- Look, this "Sue" crap is tiresome. - juliajayne
Funny you should say that. When the original sue was posting about the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo...she related a story about her own experience.
To prove to herself and others that the prisoners were being abused by withholding toilet privileges...sue related how she had crapped in her own pants and sat in it for hours to prove her point.
Old timers remember well her extremism.
Thanks for the visual dude. That was a crappy post.
C'mon Julia, I expected a limerick.
I'll start you out.
There once was a poster named Sue.
To prove a point she sat in her poo....
To be fair to sue, there is no evidence of any such statement on her part. Read the exchange for yourself here.
She said that parents who didn't change their baby's diapers have been charged with child abuse.
Pretty shameful of Wes to state it the way he did IMO.
BTW if you look in the conversation I linked to above, you can see Wesley's previous incarnation as "rocketman". Not that I care. Personally, I like the name "Wesley" better. Maybe it is the Methodist in me.
O-M,
Your inclination to openly pick personal little fights with posters who aren't even addressing you or involved in the conversation is quite curious indeed. Why do you do that? Because it smacks of some sort of tattling desperation and it's not very attractive to boot.
Mind your own business then.
: )
You have the most uncanny way of making my points better than I did, i.e. minding one's own business. I guess Latin isn't the only thing I can learn from you.
Irony is wasted on some people.
Well, since Sue and I go way, way back (she was the first poster to insult me with the names Leatherbrain and numbskull and deleted about 1000 of my posts)I will try to be nostalgic and give her the benefit of the doubt. Of course she did leave the board because she had a stroke according to Scott Johnson so I am glad she is able to post. I think her will to annoy people was the driving force in her recovery.
I remember the stroke story very well........I even felt a little sympathy for a moment as Sue and I had gone many rounds prior to that. But when the scam was exposed, I wasn't surprised.
And Scott Johnson, ohhh...shivers, what happened to him?
Leather--I think her will to annoy people was the driving force in her recovery.
!!!!Thanks for my laugh of the day!!!
That was funny Leatherhelmet, Cheers!
"Well, since Sue and I go way, way back (she was the first poster to insult me with the names Leatherbrain and numbskull"--leatherhelmet
That's cute. Everyone remembers their first time.
; )
There once was a poster named Sue.
To prove a point she sat in her poo....by leatherhelmet
=====
I nominate Leather's post as the funniest one I've ever read here. The fact that it's about Sue had nothing to do with my decision...much ;-)
We should find all of Sue's posts and make a compilation thread and title it:
The Beast Of Sue
Julia, take a poll of the posters here most now know this is Sue, the long timers remember hte venom Sue/Ellie spewed. It is Sue. The game is over, it has nothing to do with Sues poltiics, its the name calling.
NO, I'm not.
Solon, who has recorded posts going back to that time, denies I sound like her at all.
You, who have posts going back mere months, claim you know I'm Sue.
How can that be, unless you are yourself a sockpuppet?
What a numbskull! ID'ing oneself as a violator of Media Matters rules!
nothing is beneath tommy-boy as long as he gets paid.
Nothatgeorge is Sue/Ellie who was a poster on here who was banned. Calls people "numbskulls' Attacks with such venom , it makes Sean Hannity look like a boy scout.
Sue refuses to read the MMFA Rules, anytime Sue calls someone a name I attempt to tell MMFA to take down the posts, they are name calling a clear violation of the rules. It is getting old.
DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned.
DON'T post here if your sole purpose is to start a flame war. Arguments and debates are fine; obscenity, name-calling, and trolling are not. Violators will be banned.
DON'T take another person's comments personally. Have a thick skin and ignore posters who insist on trolling, obscenities, and name-calling
When this false accusation was made last week, I posted a list of over 20 different posters who had used the words numbskull or numbskulls.
Sue used it once. There were numerous posters who post here now who used those words multiple times. It's a common insult.
The fact that you think it means that you can identify me because I use the insult "numbskull" is laughable and ridiculous!
If you are not Sue, why are you so upset?
Oh come on now. I don't know whether NTG is Sue or not (and with the main evidence presented are the use of the words "numbskull" and "sockpuppet", it seems like a stretch), but for the sake of argument let's say it's not her. Are you really arguing that continuous false accusations wouldn't bother you at all? Or even if they wouldn't, you don't understand how they might bother someone else? Really, now, give me a break.
I am still not Sue, despite your desperate attempts to distract others from your inability to debunk any point I have ever made, numbskull!
I have never been shy about calling numbskulls "numbskulls". I don't apologize for it, deny it, or try to cover it up. You, on the other hand, when confronted with an argument you cannot derail, make strawman arguments, or unfair smears, and think that makes you look like a he-man.
It really makes you look like a numbskull. If you cannot refute what I say, and you harp on your false allegation that I am Sue, you really do yourself no favors, Tommy! Keep up the good work at diminishing your power and influence here by acting the fool. You've started off well here by exposing your foolishness on three different sub-threads!
Never mind. I get it--it's between Tommy and Notthatgeorge. Geez, I leave the discussion for ten minutes and get totally disoriented!! :>)
Geez, I leave the discussion for ten minutes and get totally disoriented!! :>) ...by susannah
Lucky you. I just got here & I'm already disoriented ;-)
suzzana. You shouldn't watch faucks nooz and get on this site. That will disorient anyone BIG time
So you admit you violate the rules ?
DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned.
DON'T post here if your sole purpose is to start a flame war. Arguments and debates are fine; obscenity, name-calling, and trolling are not. Violators will be banned.
DON'T take another person's comments personally. Have a thick skin and ignore posters who insist on trolling, obscenities, and name-calling
I admit I call names, just like many others do.
I have never denied it, in fact. When I was told that I had "started calling names again" I said that it wasn't true, because I had never stopped calling names!
If all I did was call names, it 'd be one thing.
I don't. I call names after someone has been a numbskull.
You, on the other hand, can you point us to more than 5 valuable insights you have made in the past week on this site? How many unfair smears have you made in comparison?
That's right. If you are going to try to call me on my behavior, I'll call you on yours.
In normal circles, the job of policing this site is for the site. In normal circles, people try to contribute to the site if they support it, not derail conversations to unfairly smear a personality on the site, like you continually do.
The term dilation and extraction, or D&X, was coined by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell, MD in a monograph that was distributed by the National Abortion Federation in September of 1992.[4] Haskell's term was a variation on intact dilation and evacuation (shortened to intact D&E), the term preferred by Dr. James McMahon, who developed the procedure in 1983 as an alternative to dilation and evacuation or D&E.[5] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists later introduced a hybrid of the two terms, settling on Intact D&X. The medical term Intrauterine Cranial Decompression is also used in reference to the procedure.
Then, several years after that,
The non-medical term Partial-birth Abortion was coined in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles Canady (R-Fla)[6] and is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States. The term's first use may be from the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which circulated in discussion through the first half of 1995 and was formally introduced by the congressman on 14 June 1995.[7] Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, says the term developed in early 1995 in a meeting between her, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson.[8] "Partial-birth abortion" was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill.[9]So you would prefer IDE to partial birth abortion? IMO, they both do the same thing. The wording is better as IDE. Fair enough. You D's really love rewording scissors to the brain so it doesn't sound as bad. The name calling makes you look bad. To each his own.
We liberals love rewording stuff?
This medical procedure had a name. The rewording was done by those on the right, numbskull!
I want the alive woman's health and future fertility to be more important than a deformed fetus which is doomed to die.
Why would you want to switch that equation,and make the fetus more important?
Why would you want to reword something to make it look more sinister than it truly is? The liberals didn't do the rewording!
Sue, The problem is your inability to call partial birth abortion, partial birth abortion. If an accurate, which you agreed it was, description is so offensive to you then perhaps you'd better rethink why.
As I understand it, one alternative to this procedure is a hysterectomy. This is when a fetus is hydrocephalic (sp?) and will die once delivered, in the so-called partial birth abortion the fetus will die before birth but the Mother's uterus will be saved.
If a woman has proper medical care throughout her pregnancy, both options could be avoided according to what I've read; but the facts are that many women do not have that care and are given those two options. Which in your view should only be one!
No, the problem is not that I won't call it the divisive term.
The problem is that you are trying to deny that it's a divisive term for a medical procedure that my sister had about 15 years ago that saved her fertility!
I identified it, correctly, as a divisive term.
IDE is more accurate, in that it is the term used by physicians--which you understand. "Partial birth" is the preferred term by those wishing to deliver an emotional punch. Of course it is a terrible procedure, and one not undertaken lightly by those involved. . . But, as I said, you well understand the semantics involved. We all do.
WTF?
Rewording?
Do the following phrase ring a bell:
Clear Skies Initiative.
Healthy Forest Initiative.
Death Tax.
Democrat Party.
Not to mention the scientific agencies who've had their press releases reworded by the current administration.
Or how about this rewording classic from Pelosi.
No more earmarks, it's now called legislative directed spending.
Gotta love that woman.
Yes, you're right. Hmmm, guess everybody is susceptible to massaging words to fit our own perspectives. I like earmarks better--more straightforward, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with earmarking money--if your project can stand up to scrutiny.
Open minded liberal?
King, you forgot the new one, Pro abortion in relation to any and all Hillary. Rudy is of course, pro-choice.
abortion is a big thing with hantywaste. He is an unsuccesful one. He has a unique version of the sole survivor syndrome
Someone asked, How can Hannity & ilk get away with such crap? Here's how: I have cousins who ONLY watch Fox News; it shapes and defines their reality. If they hear an opposing view? Must not be true, or IT WOULD BE ON FOX NEWS. My cousins are nice people--deluded and limited, but nice. Sadly, I fear my cousins are not the only people who are so plugged into the Fox fair-and-balanced-no-spin brainwashing machine.
Your fear is real. I acutally saw a person morph into a Fox parrot.
Fortunately for her I was around to deprogram her.
One word of caution. I am not a professional deprogammer because of that I was not aware of the impact it would have on a person.
Here is what it would be like to be deprogrammed: You believe in your guru. Your guru is perfect in every which way. Your guru tells you not to smoke, have sex and drink. One day you go to your guru's house and see him smoking and drinking and having sex. You feel very let down.
The above is what a deprogrammed Fox viewer goes through when he or she have their eyes opened to the fact that Fox is not fair and balanced.
correction: in the above where it says not smoke, it so continue on to read not have sex and not drink.
Practicing clinical pshycology is illegal. You could have performed a frontal lobotomy. It will only get you a couple more years and it is permanent. I will be happy to send you some of my do-it-yourself-frontal-lobotomy-kits. just go to www.gethannityalobotomy.com . There is a 2 week wait as it would seem they are popular in the red states
In order to lose the vermin status assigned by Savage I will begin defending O'Reilly, Hannity and Rush. ( Can defend Coulter, not sure what she is).
Okay, her is must first attempt to defend Seanny, it's a JOKE.
Got brain dead trying to defend anyone of these people. Sorry...but I am sure it is a joke because Seanny can't be that stoopid.
I think you mean depending... as in depends the kind you wear when you have the runs of the mouth. I would like to see a picture of hantywaste with a diaper over his pie hole. 5 minutes of listening to him and my ears bleed. Is this normal?
I'm going to have to recluse myself from adressering normal.
Whats its zip code?
90210
Has Hannity or even O'Reilly responded to Keith's critquets?
Another summer re-run? Gads. We just discussed this a few days ago.
It is obvious Hannity was setting up the question from his perspective. From what I read each of those two questions were only asked of two candidates out of the crowd.
So lets forget about today's version of the Hannity hate-fest and move on shall we?
It is obvious Hannity was setting up the question from his perspective.- anotheramerican
What would that perspective be? The lying one? I guess that's one of the first steps to becoming a good Republican- Accepting that being completely wrong is just a different perspective.Har!
Now Andy, be nice to little ol' Barney. If he says Sean is a brain surgeon, let him down easy. Sing him a ditty on your gitar.
AnotherAm..
You are right. Seanny is always right. I don't ever remember him being wrong. so he said that the Dems weren't asked about abortion. Okay, so they were, big deal. It is a joke
HBL,
As I mentioned the first time, it is hyperbole on Hannity's part.
It is obvious that he is not making the argument that the questions have 'never' been asked, he is just expressing via his partisan view that it isn't asked enough.
As we all have seen, technically he is incorrect. It is similar to someone here making an all inclusive comment about conservatives or liberals. They aren't technically the truth but rather a general feeling toward that group.
No need to get all hot and bothered AGAIN by Hannity setting up his question is simply MMFA continuing its KO summer reruns when it already brought up this discussion a few days ago.
Hannity:"The Democrats don't get the questions on partial-birth abortion or asked if they've read the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE]."
Maybe that's just too subtle for me.
And BTW, Deputy Fife, what's with you adopting the Rush Limbaugh "We all know..." phrasing lately?
I've heard Rush use this false- premise- establishing move quite a bit, and it obviously works on you guys.
My question is, are you deliberately using it, thinking that it will fool others here, or did you involuntarily absorb it from Rush?
When posting something debatable, unproven, or just factually wrong, better to begin with "I think" or "I believe".It will at least make your comment true, unless you're lying about believing it. ;0)
Gomer,
Can you point out the relevant post?
What reminded me was actually my mis-reading of your above post (you said Hannity was technically incorrect, and I read correct, my apologies, I wasn't accustomed to seeing you label right wing stuff incorrect ;0)).
I was referring to earlier posts, pointed out by others.I don't want to go digging, but I believe on a Libby thread, something to the effect of "we all know there was no crime".
Just noticed a trend, wondered if it was calculated or reflex.
Gomer,
Golllly! I just read your apology.
Thank you for your magnanimous and thoughtful gesture! I hope you get as much traction out of it as I did. :-)
AA
I'm sorry, but what Hannity said was hardly hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration for affect. That certainly does NOT apply to this situation.
Hannity didn't exaggerate. He flat out lied. He said something that he reasonably HAD to know was false, in order to deceive his audience into accepting the presumed righteousness of his cherished neocon agenda. If he hadn't had a LONG history of lying at the drop of a hat, he might have been entitled to the benefit of the doubt. However, history tells us that, rather than being a case of hyperbole or a simple error, this can only honestly be explained as deliberate disinformation.
In other words, the man... much like his black shirted compatriot O'Lielly... is a pathalogical liar.
Wrong, Mescal, it's just a "different perspective". :0D
Another summer re-run? Gads. We just discussed this a few days ago.
Well AA you know the drill by now.
MMFA covers it, Keith gives it an Award, MMFA pats their sidekick on the head by giving him his very own thread.
Personally I don't think Hannity pays close attention to anything he doesn't want to hear. He just makes it up as he goes along.
Since I didn't see this show, and didn't post on this topic when it was featured here just days ago...did Colmes correct him?
These Hannity Hate Fests are fun to read...not as entertaining as the O'Reilly or Coulter Hate Fests, but still ok.
Mmmmmm no Coulter threads in awhile now. Wonder why? I've been reading her columns. They have been right on target. Maybe that's why???
J,
If I recall, Colmes did toss out a one liner rebuttal while Hannity was speaking but I am not motivated to go find it.
It is odd that MMFA has sort of forgotten about Coulter. I think they must be short handed and decided to plug Olbermann instead.
Ah, so you DO read Ms. Coulter. Your smoking defense and hers were almost identical.
Were they? I honestly don't remember her stance on the subject.
But like I wrote on the other thread...great minds think alike. Well at least on the smoking topic ;-)
AC a grerat mind? Okay.
Or maybe AC a great mind!. Doh. Maybe she is a gerat mind, I don't know.
AC a grerat mind? Okay.
As I wrote at least on the Smoking issue.
If she & I agree on that... then at least this time she has shown a great mind :-)
Cough...cough....on two counts, AC and the smoking.
a poet named JuiliaJayne
posted limericks, to voice her distain
While most cheered her on
a few wished her gone
But on issues her rhymes were germane
Not bad for a tyro. Work on it, and perhaps you and JJ can have a limerick-fest (to the fans' raucous applause).
Ref calls a repeat!!!! I at least deserve a new one, eh? C'mon. You, my man,,are bruising for a limerick yourself.
Sorry :-/
I'd written 3 limericks and couldn't remember which one I'd posted before. So to make it up to you & in honor of today's thread...here's a new one:
Sue & Ellie were one in the same
Got banned & needed a name
She tried George on for size
But we saw though her disguise
And that was the end of the game
Jeter, good one. I was tempted to write one on the Sue/Tommy thing myself.
Thank you Julia,
Coming from MMFA's poet laureate that is the ultimate compliment :-)
Now if I can only get you to understand why I prefer SOME or MANY in front of Conservatives so it's not ALL big bad Conservatives folks here mean when they write "Conservatives blah blah blah", we might get to be cyber-buddies
Of course you'll have to accept I have a stubborn streak ;-)
Nope, you are not telling the truth.
I'm still not Sue, and apparently you're still nursing your bruised ego from the pounding I gave you on the Malkin thread!
[link to mediamatters.org]
Coulter . . .
I'd almost forgotten her. I thought maybe she'd just nastied away into oblivion, but Jeter2 reports that he's read recent columns. Oh, well. I'm sure she will distinguish herself again soon.
I forgot about Coulter also, I am sure FAUX will have her appear as the campaign continues, there she is given free reign to smear Democratic Candidates.
ann coulter is really hantywaste in DRAG. I should have my eyes checked, it's been awhile
Would it be un-Christian of me to wish that instead of her dis-tinguishing herself, that she EX-tinguished herself instead?
And everyone thinks the only good comedy comes from the right.
wow, all these posts, and many of them about Sue, Ellie, and who is who!
I guess there is really no defense for Sean Hannity just lying again; hence not much discussion about that.
I do think this whole chipping away at Roe v. Wade is so dishonest. Where is this going? I actually know that there are "religious" people who think that birth control is wrong, too, and would love to make that illegal for everybody.
Good point, we all agree Sean Hannity lies. I have committed myself to stay out of the Sue/Ellie discussions from now on. My advice is we should stick to the topics. Good honest respectful debate is more exciting.
Excellent point, nerzog. Hannity famously lied about FOX's deal-making policy or no policy, depending on which day you ask him about it. He claimed Alec Baldwin backed out of a 'deal' to be on his program, then told columnist/editorial cartoonist Ted Rall they had in fact not made any deals to bring up an unrelated topic because FOX doesn't make deals. Huh?? Yeah, this guy is a complete fake, charlatan and a liar.
Kudos to White House Spokesman Tony Snow for telling Sean on his radio show Tuesday, June 19 that he was spreading "missinformation" on his radio show. That remark stunned Sean. He is still smarting from that remark.
I hope Trent Lott, George Bush and others bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The look on Sean's face would be priceless. He would pass out on the Fox News studio floor, and I would just leave him there.
Hannity has a nast track record:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b91585.html
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/sean_hannity/
and some of my favoirtes:
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reason why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one. And then we go back to Harry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?" - Sean Hannity March 24 1999
"Sure Milosevic's a bad guy...but that doesn't mean we should go to war...He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Are you saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2000 - and I'm not minimizing death. Its horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers - 2000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?" - Hannity on the O'Reilly factor April 5, 1999
Monknj80, thanks for posting that.
Your welcome. Hannity isn't the biggest tool of the bunch, but he trying really hard to be.