Hannity's "Enemy of the State" now "Enemy of the Week"
This past week, a number of media outlets -- including Media Matters for America and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann -- took note of the inaugural edition of Fox News' Hannity's America and, in particular, its "Enemy of the State" segment. On the January 7 edition of the show, host Sean Hannity named actor Sean Penn his first "Enemy of the State" because, "besides calling little old me a 'whore' at a recent speech, Penn has called for the impeachment of just about everybody in the Bush administration and called them 'bastards.' " On the January 14 edition of the show, Hannity changed the name of the segment from "Enemy of the State" to "Enemy of the Week" and defined this "enemy" as "a person whose behavior threatens the very fabric of this country." Hannity offered no explanation of why he changed the name of the segment, nor even note that he did so.
From the January 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: And finally tonight, it's time for our "Enemy of the Week," a person whose behavior threatens the very fabric of this country.
Hannity went on to name Durham, N.C., district attorney Michael Nifong as his "Enemy of the Week."
you dudes are amazing. i can't fathom actually having to see this guy once on the tube...but you folks do it week after week! wow.
Sounds silly. Though Hannity is VERY serious about it. Which makes it even sillier.
BUT if he's looking for the [real] ENEMY of the state, world, for the week, or of all time...How about George W. Bush.
...although I love Hannity's casual look... Look, he's just one of the guys! What a boob.
To out-Tucker "Casual Tucker" Carlson. If these dudes were action figures they now have more outfits in their fight against progressives. Goooo Seannnie!
for the hard-charging Chicken Hawk.
"BUT if he's looking for the [real] ENEMY of the state, world, for the week, or of all time...How about George W. Bush"
Wow. And you're supposed to be one of the "conservative" posters? Who needs enemies with friends like that?
is probably the finest conservative poster on this site. He is an actual conservative who believes in small government, low taxes, strong military and personal responsibility.
None of said principles does Bush embody.
Bush hasn't cut taxes? I was pretty sure that he's cut taxes across the board over the last six years. Every single person who pays taxes in this country got a tax cut under Bush. Bush has been a strong advocate of tax cuts. He's been solidly conservative on that issue, as well as on national security.
.....
Why cut taxes when the national debt is at it's worse, Social security and medicaid is in shambles and we are in a war.
These bogus tax cuts are only a temporary distraction that only "truly benefit the most wealthy. The bill will come due for our children and grandchildren and you know it.
I'm gladly contribute my tax cut to the legal fund to impeach BUSHCO.
"Why cut taxes when the national debt is at it's worse, Social security and medicaid is in shambles and we are in a war."
Because the economy was in a recession and we needed the tax cuts to help stimulate the economy. The tax cuts have given us a booming economy, and the tax cuts have at least partly paid for themselves. However, what Bush should have done along with cutting taxes is cut spending. But instead, he INCREASED spending while cutting taxes at the same time. That's why we have the huge defecit and national debt we have today. Tax cut's aren't the problem. The HUGE INCREASE in spending is the problem.
The cuts haven't helped me at all, speaking for someone in the middle class.
We will just have to disagree on the "benefits" of the tax cuts.
Still, what is the point of cutting taxes without any intention on curbing spending?
I am of the opinion that our economy is artificially inflated. The economy current state does not reflect what percentage of people are benfiting the most. Trickle down economics are bogus. Also don't forget the imapact defense spending and war profiteering has had on this "boon to the economy".
When the economy was healthy and we had a surplus, as during the election, we need a tax cut when we are in a recession and have a huge national debt even though Bushs own economic advisor says tax cuts dont pay for themselves. We needed a tax cut while at peace also at war. Do you conservatives think tax cuts cure the common cold too?
We as conservatives believe that people deserve to spend more of THEIR OWN MONEY. It's as simple as that. We believe that individual Americans know how to spend their money better than the federal government does. Where Bush went wrong is that he didn't cut spending to go along with the tax cuts. He actually INCREASED spending. That's what has led to the huge deficits that we have today. I personally think that we need to cut taxes AND cut spending, not increase spending the way Bush has.
When you say its their OWN money you dimiss the public outlays that were made to provide the context we all use to MAKE MONEY. Its like the town that had a park that had many delisious berries. Now the town invested to make those berries available. They planted them, they invested in an irrigation system, they guard and protect them from theft and predation. People are allowed to pick those berries and are obligated to give one basket in five they pick to pay for the ongoing investment and recoup the original investment. When you say its YOUR money you are like someone saying I shouldnt have to give any of MY berries to the town. Its selfish. We have highways, education, a world class communication system ALL of which were paid for by PUBLIC COST. Taxes are those berries and we all have an obligation to cough them up. Denying this obligation is asking for a free lunch.
Bush is the only president in the history of this country to take the country to war and cut taxes while doing so. He's put the war on a credit card, and the troops who come back will be paying the price of this war, not only physically and psychologically, but financially, for the rest of their lives. So will their kids, as will yours and mine, and our grandkids. Theat's not conservatism, that's idiocy. It's also immoral.
INCOME taxes got a tax cut under Bush its no coincidence that the only really progressive tax got the cuts so they were wieghted toward the wealthy but NOT everyone pays taxes everyone did NOT get a cut.
"NOT everyone pays taxes everyone did NOT get a cut."
Right. I said that everyone WHO PAYS TAXES got a tax cut. I never said that EVERYBODY got a tax cut. The top 50% of income earners in this country pay over 96% of the tax cuts to begin with, so it makes sense that they would end up getting the most money back. How can you have a tax cut and not include the people who actually pay the vast majority of the taxes to begin with? Also, Bush actually cut tax rates deeper for the lower and middle class than he did for the rich. Bush's tax cuts made the tax system more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts. That was from the CBO report.
Everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. That is technically false. Everyone pays taxes. Sales taxes, property taxes, FISA. So no everyone who pays taxes did NOT get a tax cut. It is arguable that Bush made the tax code more progressive, he cut taxes steeply on capital gains and dividends that money goes overwhelmingly to the wealthy. The richest 10% own about 85% of all stocks. The economy is complicated and we could throw stats at each other all day. The wealthy got by far the most benifits from the tax cut. Only about 15% of the benifits of Bushs first tax cut went to the bottom 60% of the people. We need to pay our bills, taxes are how we do that. Right now we are mortgaged to the hilt to China, that isnt a good thing in my book. There are very few things no matter how good they are that cannot be overdone. The tax cuts that benifit the wealthy most have been being given since Raygun. Its time for fiscal responsibility and paying our bills.
It's called being intellectually honest and having a conscience. Nobody here is surprised that partisanship makes those concepts so foreign to you.
I don't have any problem with being intellectually honest. I disagree with Bush on immigration and on spending issues. Bush has been fiscally liberal and an advocate of open borders. I just don't think calling Bush an "enemy of the state" is appropriate. In fact, I think it's ridiculous. You can disagree with Bush's policies if you want, but you should at least show some level of respect. Bush loves this country and wants to do what is best for it. You may think that he's misguided and wrong, but to imply that he is evil is absolutely ridiculous.
"I don't have any problem with being intellectually honest"
HA! Oh wow, that was a good one.
"You can disagree with Bush's policies if you want, but you should at least show some level of respect."
Why is that? He was never legitmately elected, he bases his foreign policy on God, he believes he can do whatever he wants without Congressional approval, he's never earned anything for himself or been successful at anything in his life. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who deserves less respect. I respect the office of the Presidency, but not the current holder.
"Bush loves this country and wants to do what is best for it."
So did Hitler with Germany. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. When the policies are that misguided and wrong, and have such severe and far-reaching effects, his intentions don't carry a whole lot of weight. I could blow up someone's house trying to get rid of a mouse inside, and I don't think "I meant well" is going to get me off the hook on that one.
Sorry to invoke Godwin's law, but it was the obvious response to your idiotic "loves his country" malarkey.
You can disagree with Bush's policies if you want, but you should at least show some level of respect.
Respect has to be earned. Bush has failed to earn any.
I AGREE TRUTH, BUSH IS NOT EVIL...
...BUT HE'S WRONG ABOUT:
*Invading Iraq - *Greeted as Liberators
*All those WMD's & al Qaida Connections
*Costs of Iraq War & Oil paying costs
*Levels of Sect. Violence & No Civil War
*All Previous War Strategies failed
*Co-alition - Even British going home * Katrina - *Great Job Brownie - *Cut Stem Cell Studies - *Harm Social Security - *Mission Accomplished - *Bring it On - *We'll kill You -
ETC. ETC. ETC. ......
Jim Lehrer of PBS News asked the President what he meant when he admitted the mistakes he's made. Bush answered by saying he should not have said "Bring it On."
[link to www.pbs.org]
Fine. You can say that Bush is wrong about everything if you want. I don't care. At least your post was full of substance that didn't include personal attacks. That's rare for the liberal posters at this site. I disagreed with Clinton on most issues as well, but I never said the guy was evil. I think that he's misguided and has a hard time telling the truth, but he's still a patriot who served this country the best he could. A President should never be attacked with the kind of vitriol that Bush is attacked with regularly.
Truth detector: You are asking us to respect the President just because he is the President. You state that you respected Clinton despite your disagreements with him, which is fine. However, it is ridiculous for conservatives to demand that we "respect" Bush regardless of his actions or words when they did not have any problem whatsoever dragging Clinton through the Kenneth Starr inquistion for 7 straight years. We respected Bush right after 9/11 and throughout the Afghanistan war, but we lost respect for him starting with the Iraq invasion. Maybe you were respectful of Clinton during his terms, but for anyone to say that Clinton was "respected" by Republicans is insane. Literally insane. And if your people could not bring themselves to respect Clinton, then why do you expect us to automatically respect Bush?
And Who Benefits from WarTime Tax Cuts.
The middle class volunteer's suffer the Sacrifices for the Iraq War. The Super-Rich are the primary people who benefit from the WarTime Tax Cuts. Here it is from the horses mouth:
MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you've just said - and you've said it many times - as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something? The people who are now sacrificing are, you know, the volunteer military - the Army and the U.S. Marines and their families. They're the only people who are actually sacrificing anything at this point.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.
Now, here in Washington when I say, "What do you mean by that?," they say, "Well, why don't you raise their taxes; that'll cause there to be a sacrifice." I strongly oppose that. If that's the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I'm not for it because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy. And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life's moving on, that they're able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table. And you know, I am interested and open-minded to the suggestion, but this is going to be -
MR. LEHRER: Well, for instance, Mr. President, some people have asked why -- and I would ask you about -- have you considered some kind of national service program, that would be civilian as well as military, that would involve more people in the effort to - not just militarily, but you talk about ideology, all this sort of stuff - in other words, to kind of muster the support of young Americans, and other Americans, in this struggle that you say is so monumental and so important.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah, I have considered whether it ought to be compulsory, non-military service, I guess is the best way to put it. I'm not for compulsory military service, by the way. I think the volunteer army is working and we got to keep it strong.
Having said that shouldnt the same be said about those who Hannity has deemed an enemy?
Ya probably. But Keith Olbermann does the exact same thing with his "Worst Person in the World" segment, and Media Matters praises Olbermann when he does this. Most liberal posters on this site don't seem to have a problem with it either. It seems pretty hypocritical to me for you guys to praise Olbermann and attack Hannity, when they are both doing pretty much the exact same thing. For the record, I think both Olbermann's segment and Hannity's segment are stupid. Nobody should get the title of "Worst Person in the World" or "Enemy of the Week." A title like that should go to the real villans like Osama Bin Laden and other dangerous terrorists and so forth.
That Hannity, The Enemy of Journalistic Integrity for the Year......Is presiding over such a Weekly Award Presentation.
On Hannity's new show he dishonored and disrespected the dead troops being shipped home from Iraq to grieving loved ones. He calls those poor brave souls "Resources"
RESOURCES!
He did it 3 times on the first show that I witnessed on Jan 7th 2007. He said that we've spent Time, Money, and RESOURCES on the Iraq War. Did he forget about the most shameful cost of the war? - HUMAN LIVES?
NO! He didn't mention the servicemen because it would weaken his argument for sending even more RESOURCES to die in vain.
I hereby Award Fox News, Hannity and his new show, the following well earned Award:
The Most Despicable Example of Journalistic News Worthlessness on The Planet Earth.
Congratulations to Fox News and to Sean Hannity! America loves to be entertained so it wouldn't surprise me if the show attracts an audience.
Viewers who are not interested in Journalistic Integrity.
threatens the fabric of this nation how?
I can look into my tea cup and read the leaves. In the next few weeks it will be Keath and MSNBC. In the few months ahead it will be anyone running for presidend in the Dem Party. Yup, there you have it.
TV doesn't do justice to how amusing and awkward Hannitard can be in person. I've met him a couple of times, socially, and did my best in both cases to waste what little free time he had.
I cornered him at an event last year and forced him to bear with me through about ten minutes of questions based around whether or not he was a "former wrestler" due to the width of his neck. Then I speculated openly about a "wrestle-off" between him and Al Franken.
It wasn't until I started telling him that I had "totally f*cked Ann Coulter" and that it was "totally great" that he finally excused himself and made a hasty retreat.
Dave, baby, don't delete this!
are my new hero.
Hannity "cuts and runs" from the title of his show...
That makes him a flip-flopper of a "media" hack...
That makes him COWARD OF THE WEEK...
So cowardly, that after the backlash he must have gotten for calling Sean Penn what he called him (Sean Penn, who made his way to New Orleans while Katrina was still blowing, in order to physically help those desperate people)...
So cowardly is this chickencrap "media" hack hannity, just look at what a big fish he went after in his second show... look at his newly-named "enemy of the week".
Sorry, but I've never heard of him.
"Hannity went on to name Durham, N.C., district attorney Michael Nifong as his "Enemy of the Week."
Not sure if you are serious or not Dem, but Mike Nifong is the disgraced Democrat DA from Durham, NC, that tried to railroad three student athletes in a phony rape case to further his career.
Here is some outhouse reading to get you up to speed on the case:
[link to durhamwonderland.blogspot.com]
The shame of this is that who else has been on the receiving end of Nifong's wrath? If this wasn't a high profile case he may have gotten away with this. Thank God he didn't.
Not only has he ruined the three young men's reputations, the Duke Lacrosse coach lost his job over this. Four families ruined.
The beauty is the tables are slowly turning. Nifong had to recuse himself last month from the case. I'm sure civil lawsuits are on their way.
I was serious... I didn't have the slightest idea who the guy is... and now that I see who he is (and I appreciate the help), I know why I didn't know who the guy is.
I don't follow rape stories in the "media".
I appreciate the link too, I do... but I won't be clicking it just the same.
I'll leave such all-important stuff to the hack hannity... it's right up his alley anyway, I think...
...he having such a good standing in the hack "media"... staying on top of rape stories.
I usually tune this stuff out also, but it has been everywhere from ESPN to all the talking head shows and everything in between it seems. You must have been on a long cruise to miss it!
This case is different in the respect that it had all the earmarks of a tabloid free-for- all in the beginning; Rich white athletes from a prestigious university, A/A single mom stripper trying to pull herself up by the bootstraps, crusading DA out to right all wrongs.
Race, class envy, and a DA up for reelection. The perfect cocktail for the media feeding frenzy. Problem is, they got it all wrong. Now families are ruined (to include the troubled woman's) and the people most responsible (Duke president Richard H. Brodhead and Mike Nifong) will probably waltz out of this mess with nothing more than their egos bruised.
Nope, I wasn't on a long cruise, I simply said I never heard of the guy that the hack hannity chose as his target this week, not that I hadn't heard of the Duke story...
...which I summarize this way, personally, so as to illustrate just where it was I got off the "media" train, and therefore missed the stop named "flingflong" (or whatever is his name):
My weak recollection is one of hearing that some guys on the Duke lacrosse team (scholarship athletes, I'd assume) had been arrested, or were simply being questioned, with regard to a complaint of rape (and that word in a "media" story, the word "rape", doesn't attract me the way it must attract so many others I guess... because as I said, I generally tune out such all-important stuff as rape stories in the "media")...
...my recollection includes also that the one making the rape complaint was a stripper (my memory was more of some kind of "Adult Female Entertainment" at something that if it wasn't a bachelor party, then must have looked like one at least)...
...and that the rape complaint, by the stripper or entertainer at some kind of party, was against several guys, not just one (at which point I'm about off the "media" train on this one, waving bye-bye to it, and all those still on it... all those fascinated by the rape story... guys like the hack hannity).
So no, I never stuck around long enough with this all-important story to get even a single name remembered, least of all the name of the DA (or ADA) in the county of the complaint.
From my national "media", I'm more inclined toward stories of National Policy, and the administration of our Federal Government, and all the workings of Congress...
...unless the rape the question is one of the U.S. Treasury, or the electoral process, or that of the American People's faith in their government, I tend not to pay attention...
...it's the words "rape' and "stripper" and "party" and the thought of a bunch of guys on athletic scholarship on Duke's lacrosse team...
Heck, I'm off the train and waving bye-bye to it, again.
As for people's lives being ruined, and perhaps the malfeasance (or even incompetence) of elected officials being responsible for it:
Seventy of our Sons and Daughters killed in Iraq, are from the state of North Carolina.
I admit, it's not the same kind of "ruin" as being accused, falsely or not, of rape... not for the one so intimately affected, or even for their families and friends.
And I admit further that the malfeasance (or even incompetence) of the elected officials responsible for such things, is not the same either.
But different "media" stories for different folks, I guess...
...as for rape stories, and the "media" train that carries them (the hack hannity included), I say again:
BYE-BYE
The same thing happened to the McMartin family. A mentally ill woman made charges, no evidence, charges that were completely contradicted by factual evidence at hand but they completely destroyed that family just two years after their day care center had won an award for excellence. This happens to people far too often and either side of the political aisle can be victimized.
One thing when mentioning the Duke case though. The couch lost his job, more because of the fact that he was involved in hiring a stripper for a party, than the "cover up" and "rape".
Colleges usually have fairly tight ethics codes for employees, or at least the ones I've been to, do. Somewhere hiring a stripper for students is not in the employee handbook.
So don't paint him as a complete innocent in this entire sorry saga.
I searched and found nothing that linked the coach to hiring the strippers. I've also never heard that charge before. Not saying it isn't so, just want to get the facts.
Enemy of the Weak, considering that they're standing in the way of Hannity and his ilk.
lol- I love his reasoning for Penn...because he called me and Bush NAMES!! WHAAA!!! What a tool...
Sean Penn? Because he want to impeach the entire Bush administration? And he called Sean a Whore & the Bush Gang bastards? And that threatens the very fabric of this country how? I'd say impeachments a brilliant idea... I'd be more inclined to bestow HERO OF THE WEEK to Sean Penn.
Now Mr.Nifong I'd nominate as Enemy of Justice. He deserves to be disbarred.
I like that. It sings. How 'bout Hannitard for ENEMA of the week.
And not just right-wing.
Nifong is that grandstanding a$$h$$le of a prosecutor in North Carolina, who played up on racial fears, to persecute...errr...prosecute the three Duke University Lacrosse players.
Even though the accuser was drunk off her rear, (literally,) and had been screwing around with lots of guys before she even got to that party. He even tried to keep DNA tests away from the defense.
Nifong is facing disciplinary hearings now, and has "cut and run" from the case.
He deserves to be disbarred.
Let's see who is Hannity's "enemy" next week.
I must confess, I myself am an Enemy of The Week. Frankly, The Week must be destroyed, and I will bomboard it with artillery until it submits to my manly physique and grants me 30 hours in a day. That's right, I will not stop until the Earth slows it's rotation around it's axis! No one will stop me! BWAHAHAHA!
"...Earth slows it's rotation around it's axis!" [sic]
...THE AXIS OF EVIL! (GASP)
I was hoping someday, someway, to do something would get me declared an enemy of Hannity's America.
Is that a word?
Anyway, this clown is acting as if he were Tricky Dick himself. Who is he to be compiling an "enemies list"?
He should start looking for enemies of the constitution. But then, he'd be on the top of his own enemies list.
a safe target for Hannity. Even he can't screw this one up.
continue to fall on the mouthpieces of the Republic Party. They are now stealing bits from other shows. Before long, the only real voice of the Republic Party will be Ann Coulter. Fair and balanced as she is, she is a bright light for the Republics(of Slovenia and any of those other Stans). Sean Hannity, you are the ENEMY FOR THE WEAK.
evoked visions of fascist regimes of the past. I'm sure some Republican think-tanker told him that he didn't want to sound fascist, even though he is a fascist.
He;s simply too stupid to be one.
There were some pretty dim fascists. Julius Streicher would be a good example.
As for Hannity, I'd guess that the recent derision of his "Enemy of the State" title as having more than a whiff of communist or fascist totalitarianism to it is what prompted the change. Many American conservatives, remember, like to fashion themselves as opponents of the state.
Ah well, at least Hannity was able to keep the word "enemy" in his segment.
Where, in Hannity's America, a person who exercises their right of free speech and criticizes the Bush administration is an ' enemy'. He has claimed that free speech should be denied to anyone who disagrees with the president. And Nifong? Well, if prosecutors go around dropping charges against people for lack of evidence in high profile cases instead of railroading them for cheap publicity, what kind of nation would we have here?!
A nation that lives up to the goals of its founders, who put themselves at great personal risk to bring into being a country where individual liberty, justice and equality are the birth right of all men everywhere.
What is the difference between KO's "worst" person and SH's "enemy" -O- the week?
Seems Keith is cheered on this forum quite a bit. I understand why SH is hammered but isn't this the same sort of stuff?
Olbermann doesn't believe in silencing those with whom he disagrees; he just exposes their stupidity, which is an indictment in itself.
Hanniturd, on the other hand, thinks liberals should just shut up or move to France. Well, the wine's better there at least!
is the fact that "worst person" invokes action verbs such as reject or scorn. "Enemy" invokes verbs such as "fight, imprison, or kill".
I cannot substantiate it with data, but as generalizations go, when far rightists get really riled, they seem to much more rapidly jump to calls for personal violence against their detractors. It is a broad generalization I know (but true to my experience).
There's usually an element of humor in Olberman's presentation... even the outrageously exaggerated title of the segment "Worst Person in the World". Hannity, on the other hand, comes across as a fascist and the title "Enemy of the State", along with Hannity's delivery, suggested no jest. I agree with the writer above who said that Hannity changed the title to "Enemy of the Week" because he was probably warned that the original was too fascist sounding. I also agree with whoever suggested that there is a difference in the use of words pr phrases such as "worst person" and "enemy". "Worst person" suggests the person is deserving of ridicule and scorn. "Enemy", however, ia more aggressive term suggesting the person is threatening and should be eliminated. The titles of the segments simply point out the differing styles of Olberman and Hannity. Olberman injects intelligence and humor into his presentations. Hannity is just a small-minded little fascist with tiny intelligence.
Irony 101 posted:
"There's usually an element of humor in Olberman's presentation... even the outrageously exaggerated title of the segment "Worst Person in the World"."
Isn't this how all these guys crouch for cover? It's entertainment. I was saying that with an element of humor, etc...
In a political world where every word is scrutinized (look at one of the other lead threads here and even in this thread) aren't both of these lists hit lists?
The difference between Worst Person and Enemy is that KO names someone the WP because in the past couple of days that person has specifically done or said something stupid. Like yesterday's WP was the Army Surplus Auction House, which had just accidentally auctioned off missile components, fighter jet parts, etc. when they weren't supposed to. Or Bill Kristol criticizing Bush's speech by saying, "I wish there were a little more about winning the war and a little less about helping the Iraqis." It is usually a "D'Oh" moment. KO calls someone out for being hypocritical or dumb. Hannity calls someone out (like Penn) for simply saying he disagrees with the President. So I guess Hannity was an Enemy of the State during Clinton's Presidency since he called for Clinton's impeachment? Isn't that the crime he is accusing Penn of? What's the diff? BTW, isn't Sean Penn an ACTOR? How dangerous can he really be?
There is little, if any, difference between KO's WPITW and SH's EOTS/W - they find people who are either universally despicable (Nifong is a very good example) or people who are despised by the host's particular political bent (Sean Penn is a good example of that, Dixie Chicks would be good, too) to show off on TV.
Thank God Hannity got his own TV show, though. Surely he wasn't getting enough exposure to spread his disinformation otherwise.
You guys really disgust me! Why do you guys feel that you have the right to attack anybody who disagrees with you and the right to say that a particular person shouldn't be on TV because they don't follow the same political beliefs as you? Free speech, yes but hatred towards Conservatives, no!
Perhaps democrats or liberals express their opinion about who should or should not be on TV based on a long history of watching Republicans do the same things for years now. Since when is a democrat's free speech called "hatred towards conservatives" yet when republicans do it, it is fine and dandy? The double standard some of you display is beyond belief. I watch CNN during the day, and not CNNHN, and Fox for 2 hours in the evening for my daily dose of how some people can watch that drivel and totally believe it. The discourse levels on O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes is slipping weekly and nothing is more evident that the name calling and hatred displayed in those two hours of TV viewing. O'Reilly calls people all kinds of name and it is offensive and worsening. Hannity is just so engrossed with his "republicanism" and his own importance, he wouldn't know reality if it hit him. And what is more a showing of "hatred to others" than boycotts of the Dixie Chicks, Whoopie Goldberg, Danny Glover, french products, just to name a few.
Your ignorance disgusts me so we are even. Hannity is an idiot. Anyone can see that. His segment is calling people enemies for doing the quintessentially American thing. Disagreeing with policy and HIM. Since only the congenitally feeble minded think Hannity has a firm grasp of ANYTHING not a part of his anatomy he must be talking about a majority of Americans. Teddy Roosevelt once said, to say we must support the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but also morally treasonous to the American public. I think both YOU and Hannity ought to STOP being unpatriotic, servile and morally treasonable.
Free speech, yes but hatred towards Conservatives, no!
Why not? Some of them deserve it.
Hurryduck,
Go to a right wing blogsite and tell me if they are treating lefties with respect. If they aren't, then retype your post on their site and see how far that gets you.
Play this video backwards. You can hear Hanity clearly say "Arafat" and "Zarqawi". I'm pretty sure he drops an F-bomb too. How shameless and hypocritical does one man have to be to go through so much trouble to encode messages to our enemies and to use foul and vulgar language in front of millions of well meaning Americans! Send him to Gitmo!
and we all know how Weak sean hannity is. I'd actually be proud to earn that title. Congrats goin' out to Sean Penn, tonight
would hopefully be because even Fox recognizes that this type of totalitarian rhetoric is harmful to civil discourse.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm guessing someone pointed out there was a film title out there that might be copyrighted.
Hey, you little warmongering chicken-hawk, why not put a mirror on the screen and stare into it: YOU are the enemy of the state. What a schmuck
Sure "Enemy of the State" captures the right's McCarthyist leanings perfectly but "Enemy of the Week" shows plenty of idealogical zealotry as well.
Hallowpoint If you run into Hannity again, ask him how much money he had to dish out to the Houston SPCA for his business venture "Goats and Beyond LLC". Ask him why it was sealed,and if there's any truth that he was molesting the goats!
that Hannity changed the name of his segment because someone told him the origin of the phrase "enemy of the state" I'm sure he doesn't know this himself but it has it dates back to ancient Rome's persecution of Christians and saw a revival later in communist Russia under Stalin. The history can be found on Wikipedia free encyclopedia site under the key phrase "enemy of the state" My favorite part was where it cited an example of "an authoritarian regime who in the name of preserving national security might cite any dissidents as being "an enemy of the state."".. Now who do we know that fits that description??