Hannity twice referred to Obama as the "No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate"
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity twice called Sen. Barack Obama the "No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate," failing to note that the National Journal vote ranking to which he was referring -- which said nothing about Obama being "radical" -- was based on a subjective selection of Senate votes by the magazine's staff, or that a more comprehensive examination of Senate votes produced a different result.
On the June 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity said: "[H]ere we've got Barack Obama; No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate." Hannity later added, "No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate. Wants a trillion dollars in new spending. You know, raise taxes everywhere." Hannity previously cited the National Journal for the claim that Obama is "the number one liberal ... in the United States." However, Hannity did not note that the National Journal ranking was based on 99 votes selected by the magazine's staff -- a subjective process that Obama himself criticized. By contrast, a separate study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that was based on all 388 non-unanimous Senate votes during 2007 produced a different result, ranking Obama as tied for the 10th most liberal senator. In that same study, McCain was ranked the eighth most conservative senator in 2007. Additionally, the National Journal's 2007 vote ratings said nothing about Obama being "radical."
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, here, and here), among the votes Obama cast that contributed to National Journal's "most liberal senator" label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage. Obama himself, when asked by Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris about the National Journal's 2007 vote ratings during a February 11 Politico/WJLA-TV interview, criticized the National Journal's methodology by noting that it considered "liberal" his vote for "an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress."
Media Matters has also noted that the National Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication's previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as the "most liberal senator" in 2003.
Further, despite referencing the National Journal ratings during a discussion with Carly Fiorina, senior adviser to Sen. John McCain, Hannity did not note that McCain himself "did not vote frequently enough" to receive a rating, according to the National Journal.
Additionally, contrary to Hannity's assertion that Obama wants to "raise taxes everywhere," Obama has, in fact, pledged to establish a tax credit of up to $1,000 for families, offsetting payroll taxes, and to roll back the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
From the June 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Hey, Carly, it's Sean Hannity. Nice to have you on the program.
FIORINA: Hi, Sean. How you doing?
HANNITY: I read about you all the time. So it's nice to finally meet you. Welcome to the program. We're glad you could be with us.
FIORINA: Nice to finally meet you, too.
HANNITY: You know, I've got to tell you, you know, Alan -- here we've got Barack Obama, No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate.
COLMES: He's not radical.
HANNITY: Do you mind?
COLMES: Yes. Yes, I do.
HANNITY: No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate. Wants a trillion dollars in new spending. You know, raise taxes everywhere. And -- and I'll be honest. As a Reagan conservative, I've been frustrated at what he mentioned earlier: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman. So he -- this is -- this certainly shows a big distinction between the two candidates, doesn't it?
FIORINA: Absolutely.
Are you voting republican, Tommy? ;)
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/
Got 'im, coach! ;)
Tommy,
Hannity says it on the radio much more often. MMFA must just prefer video clips or something.
Of course Obama looks like a radical.
Everybody looks like a radical when you're a far-right whack-job like Insanity.
I believe in 'neo-con speak':
#1 radical liberal = politician the right fears most
It makes sense, then, that they would fear the one who's about to drink McCain's milkshake!
I've been frustrated at what he mentioned earlier: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman. So he -- this is -- this certainly shows a big distinction between the two candidates, doesn't it?
Let's see... how about Lugar-Obama, Coburn-Obama, Hagel-Obama...
And he's only been in the Senate for 4 years! McCain's been in the senate for 21 years, so he should have plenty more examples of 'reaching across party lines'... no?
He talks through anyone who argues that Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class and poor, and eliminate them for the elderly. All he does is interrupt when anyone tries to bring this up, especially Colmes. He comes back with "He wants to increase taxes." or "Taxes will go up." He never mentions the fact that the only people who will see an increase will be the top 2%, and if he acknowledges it at all, he calls it "redistribution" and tries to put a socialist spin on it. Does he not get the idea that taxation and socialism are not synonimous?
I think he does, it's just that he's desperately trying to pull all the stops out to make the current Republican warhawk of choice look better.
Because he can fake sincerity and lie with a straight face...
The primary job requirements at Faux News......
This is a great job for one of the summer interns...stand at the ready for Hannity to make his patented Obama is the most liberal senator...and then cut and paste the same old replies that mmfa uses over and over again.
Hannity is a dolt...and the same repetitive responses by mmfa are booorrriiinnnggg. If mmfa feels like they have to respond every time Hannity trots out his lame "Obama is the most liberal" line...then a two word link in rebuttal is all that's necessary...simply type "see previous".
And you can save your breath with the lecture that "as long as Hannity keeps spouting his lies mmfa has to respond"...Hannity is either oblivious to mmfa's criticism or laughing his tail off every time he pulls the strings that make mmfa dance.
Such righteous indignation at such buffoonery. Well done, Wes. When can we catch the next sermon? :-0)
You'd think that they don't understand the damage that was done to the nation because too often lies were left unchallenged.
You'd think that they don't understand the damage that was done to the nation because too often repetitive stupid comments were left dangling because they were the same stupid comments that had been made last night or last week or last year.
You'd think that they don't understand the damage that's being done to the Republican Party because of the repeated cheap shots and false memes that they push over and over again.
Wes (lol), I wonder when tallying up the conservative misinformation for cataloging purposes, do these same Hannityisms about Obama being liberal numero uno count as one each time he opens his mouth and says the same thing, or are they lumped in together as One?
Another good job for the intern.
That's fine. Just don't expect anyone else to bail you out of what you say makes perfect "sense". Find someone who shares your irresponsibility and ask them.
Incredible.
Is there some post where Roundhouse has called personal responsibility itself "nonsense"? The post you're responding to doesn't cut it. That's talking about your mindset regarding those concepts, not about the merits of the concepts themselves.
It would be like if someone consistently (and absurdly) said that you were violating MMfA's free speech rights with your WITH posts. Obviously you could dismiss "that free speech nonsense" without commenting on free speech itself. And it wouldn't be "parsing" to make that distinction clear.
I have to believe you're just lashing out emotionally since your sacred cows were disrespected. If you think it's unfair to label your commentary as propaganda, make a legitimate argument instead of spouting this childish and dishonest garbage.
Sorry, Brab, Tommy the Almighty has already declared that there is no parsing allowed. Everybody's words are restricted to the exact meaning that Tommy's bizarro interpretation gives them. Then , if he calls "tap tap, no take backs", the discussion is over.
For example, if Tommy were to post that electricity came from flying electric eels in the stratosphere, and you mentioned "his electricity nonsense", he would have the power to tell you that you consider the existence of electricity "nonsense", and take his ball and go home.
I think he has some sort of weird idea that he controls reality. It's entertaining, but a little bit of a cause for concern.
"...the income redistribution that they love more than life itself."---JamesB
...you mean to the military-industrial complex and their front men?
Jamesb wrote:
>>Oh, I have to jump in here.
Another rant. You see, the problem with rants is that they contain no argument. Let me just change a few words and show you how easy ranting is:
"So funny, roundhouse you have single handedly exposed the true tenets of conservatism for exactly what motivates it and its followers, you nailed these hiveminders to the wall. Look at how they rush to defend something as dense as personal responsibility nonsense, and try to explain tommy's comment. There is no context where personal responsibility is nonsense, that would be like saying kindness or generosity is nonsense and then try to worm you way around what you meant, only a conservative. And I have a good sense why. Conservatives never really want you to know what they think, it's all touchy feel good feeling, yes emotion arguments with their worn out lazy wrongheaded approach. So when one of them slips up and does tell you what they think, like tommy's nonsense comment, its important to rush to his defense for damage control. well, it's too late, HA! Because personal responsibility doesn't fit into conservatives' shared responsibility and taking from those who are personally responsible and giving it to those who are not, the irresponsible ones, the income redistribution that they love more than life itself. Life isn't fair they say, poor people are bad, punish, punish their responsibility and reward those who wallow in irresponsibility. So when roundhouse pounced on that statement and made them own it, they wiggle out of it by making stupid analogies that are planets away in relevancy. Luckily we have elected another big government conservative like Bush, and people have seen what conservatives really want, to share others responsibility for themselves so they can call it nonsense. Great job roundhouse."
Like I say, ranting is easy. Next time, try a real argument.
I prefer yours and Brab's factual/logical arguments to my up-close, common sense tussles with these guys. Sometimes though, I'll take a good rant if it contains the truth.
I believe that we don't need the government. If people just show enough kindness and charity and personal responsibility, then there's no need for any form of structural oversight whatsoever. It's true! Think about it. People won't commit crimes, they'll stay in school and wait until marriage to have children, industry will pay livable wages to all their employees, people will build their own bridges and dams, form their own militias, and heal the sick for free.
But seriously, that's a load of nonsense. It's not realistic, even if theoretically true. So yes, kindness, charity, love, peace and understanding, any concept is nonsense if you try to use it as an all-encompassing cure-all philosophy. Peace is an especially good example, since there's a group of people named after this belief. If you believe that all wars are wrong, that there's no possible reason to raise arms, that's absurd. As a guiding principle it's wonderful, but it's not something that can be adhered to in all circumstances. Human nature just doesn't allow it.
I expect that if I frequently said that we should "compromise" with terrorists that Tommy would refer to "that compromise nonsense". Or if I said all we need to do was to try to "understand" them, I could brush off any criticism because those critics don't favor "understanding". And those would then be declared to be the grand underlying themes of conservatism, that the political philosophy doesn't believe in compromise and understanding. Brilliant!
Laughable. You two think you impress by repeating each other's rebuke of tommy and then me. You can think you discredit it, but the way you both rushed back here to defend it, failed again, and then compliment each other is all anyone needs to know. Do you honestly think that by getting other hiveminders here to agree with you that makes your case? Hardly, this is an ultra left website populated by ultra leftists, if you all think group agreement is unexpected, or solidifies your points, you are very mistaken. So pat yourselves on the back all day long, if tommy or myself were so off base or dishonest, or childish, or whatever else you want to say, you wouldn't bother responding, you don't fool anyone, either of you.
Now two points, first Brabantio, you accuse tommy and me of dishonesty yet you say that he said personal responsibility was a cure all. Show me here where he said that, so you are either stupid, or a liar, or both. Don't talk about somebody elses dishonesty when you have to lie about what they said to make your point. The rest of your dense analogies don't even deserve a dignified response, they are so off base. Read what tommy first wrote and what I said yesterday, if you can't figure it out, go back to lying since that is the best way you can argue, obviously.
Roundhouse, you say conservatives fight income equality, HA! Yeah, we do, and so do most Americans, we are not socialists here, as you obviously wish. So we don't believe in equalizing income, that is loony, and thankfully never going to happen, we are a capitalist economy that rewards hard work and yes, personal responsibility, we don't take from one class who works for it and give it to one who doesn't, at least not in the grand scale you hope for. Income equality, means income redistribution and leveling the playing field, shared responsibility. Which leads us all back to where we started, and the reason you think personal responsibility is nonsense. You both can reframe what Roundhouse originally said, anyway you want too, but socialist don't value personal responsibility, they want shared, and you do too. Whatever, it won't happen. Now both of you take each other to lunch or something to celebrate the points you make here, but know you both only made your case worse. It's more than laughable, it's revealing.
"So pat yourselves on the back all day long, if tommy or myself were so off base or dishonest, or childish, or whatever else you want to say, you wouldn't bother responding, you don't fool anyone, either of you."
That may well be the dumbest thing ever posted here. So you can't actually refute what was said, but the fact that there was a response proves that the response is somehow invalid. If we could actually show how Tommy and you were off-base, then we wouldn't say anything. So if you're ignored you'll take that as a total rebuttal, and you'll then amend your position, is that about right?
"Now two points, first Brabantio, you accuse tommy and me of dishonesty yet you say that he said personal responsibility was a cure all. Show me here where he said that, so you are either stupid, or a liar, or both. Don't talk about somebody elses dishonesty when you have to lie about what they said to make your point. The rest of your dense analogies don't even deserve a dignified response, they are so off base. Read what tommy first wrote and what I said yesterday, if you can't figure it out, go back to lying since that is the best way you can argue, obviously."
Tommy's attitude about personal responsibility has been a noted feature of his posts for years. If you're not familiar with his beliefs, then you jumped in on a topic on which you are ignorant. Whose fault is that?
I also said that if Tommy has a defense of his position that he should make it instead of pretending that anyone here doesn't believe in personal responsibility. If he thought he had something meaningful to say he could have said it. So that is dishonest. And while Tommy's never explicitly said that it's a "cure-all", his belief that it's the overriding concern in any number of situations has been well-established.
The fact that you label anyone who disagrees with you as "socialist" pretty much discredits you, along with the fact that you can't refute the arguments made. It's really very simple:you can believe in a concept but understand that carrying it too far is "nonsense". If you were familiar with the history here you'd have some clue what the hell you were babbling about.
I wonder why it is that Tommy's response to Roundhouse proves that Roundhouse wasn't off-base, by the way. Why did he bother responding, if such was the case? Why do you bother responding, since if I was really dishonest you just wouldn't respond?
Before they address your rebuttal, I want to comment on a few of your statements:
Do you honestly think that by getting other hiveminders here to agree with you that makes your case? Hardly, this is an ultra left website populated by ultra leftists…---JB
This debate strategy is emblematic of the GOP’s intellectual bankruptcy---taking what the opposition says and just reversing it. “I’m rubber your glue…” You even used a word common to this site to do so.
“…we are not socialists here, as you obviously wish.”---JB
What do think the military is? It’s a huge jobs program in addition to a feeding trough for the already super wealthy in the defense industry. And it vastly and disproportionately benefits red states. I could ask,” Why are you so against the troops?”
“…we are a capitalist economy that rewards hard work and yes, personal responsibility, we don't take from one class who works for it and give it to one who doesn't, at least not in the grand scale you hope for.”---JB
There are elements of fair capitalism but also “we” are an oligopolistic economy that rewards capital and yes, who you know.
And we due take huge amounts of hard earned taxes, current and future, and give it to the pigs in big business and government you’re shilling for.
Before they address your rebuttal, I want to comment on a few of your statements:
Do you honestly think that by getting other hiveminders here to agree with you that makes your case? Hardly, this is an ultra left website populated by ultra leftists…---JB
This debate strategy is emblematic of the GOP’s intellectual bankruptcy---taking what the opposition says and just reversing it. “I’m rubber your glue…” You even used a word common to this site to do so.
“…we are not socialists here, as you obviously wish.”---JB
What do think the military is? It’s a huge jobs program in addition to feeding trough for the already super wealthy in the defense industry. And it vastly and disproportionately benefits red states. I could ask,” Why are you so against the troops?”
“…we are a capitalist economy that rewards hard work and yes, personal responsibility, we don't take from one class who works for it and give it to one who doesn't, at least not in the grand scale you hope for.”---JB
There are elements of fair capitalism but also “we” are an oligopolistic economy that rewards capital and yes, who you know.
And we due take huge amounts of hard earned taxes, current and future, and give it to the pigs in big business and government you’re shilling for.
Not that we need your approval, but thanks, we will do exactly as we please.
I know the power of a unified left scares you, but we lefties are realizing that power resides in unity. Fading are the days of our isolation within our very narrow issues silos. We are out in the light of day, unifying in the liberal/progressive principles of effective government, mutual responsibility, broad prosperity, smarter defense and better future.
You've been spoiled by decades of playing against an unorganized opponent. It's done, son. Those days are gone. And gone are the days when thugs like you could wistfully indulge in ritual humiliation of liberals without being called out as the remnant of a vulgar society that you are.
Conservatism, as demonstrated by your stupid knee jerk socialism invocation, is vapid, bruised, lame. Devoid of ideas. I don't want your vision of personal responsibility. It's fake. Can't you see that? It's nothing more than romantic self-interest, it's practically onanistic in its vain stupor. It's gimme, gimme, gimme but I owe nothing. It's materialism and consumerism. It's sadism and sociopathy; conservative responsibility is wishing death on someone then saying, "I was just joking."
"Roundhouse, you say conservatives fight income equality, HA! Yeah, we do, and so do most Americans, we are not socialists here, as you obviously wish."
Ahh, yes here it comes, lay it on me brother. I just love that lazy minded accusation, that unsolicited concession that you just can't muster a rational counter to the concept of the public trust, the common good, people first. Tell me again your solution? Right. For profit, for profit, for profit. And why not? Just look how well for profit healthcare has provided care for those who need it but can't afford it. Tell us how private roads benefit all of us when those who can't afford the toll have to waste time driving an alternate route because gas is cheaper.
"So we don't believe in equalizing income, that is loony, and thankfully never going to happen, we are a capitalist economy that rewards hard work and yes, personal responsibility, we don't take from one class who works for it and give it to one who doesn't, at least not in the grand scale you hope for."
Nice work. See I wasn't even going there. I was talking about equal pay for equal work. Too many women and too many minorities simply do not make equal pay for equal work.
I believe in merit. I believe in working hard. I work hard and every damn member of my liberal family works hard and if you don't believe that you can kiss my entire ass. Unlike you guys, we don't mind making the noble sacrifices of contributing to the greater good so that we can all have a stronger public education system or quality healthcare for all or public transit.
What I know is that the guy on the top floor is not physically or mentally able to work 250 times harder than me, the person on my left, or the person on my right. I believe that all men (and women) are created equal, that your CEO hero is fundamentally no better a human being than my truck driving hero or the fry cook superman. So why do they deserve better education and better healthcare?
All I'm asking for is due respect for the dignity the working people have earned. I'm talking about fairness. I'm talking about a living wage, because it is unacceptable that in our society a person can work a full-time job, or two, and still not be able to feed their family. It aint right.
Gnash your teeth at the pangs of injustice and call me a socialist for telling you about it, but I will not go away. This is my country too and I'll be damned if I'll let all you cons hand our democracy over to the for profit fundies.
How pathetic Tommy. You shoud be ashamed.
If personal responsibility is a "weapon" to you, then James was right on point.
Take it up with him.
You use this phiny notion of personal respnsibility as a bludgeon to shut down discussion of shared risk and shared reward (which is the essence of personal responsibility.) You then claim agreement with james but won't claim responsibility for the weaknesses of the argument.
Total spineless backpedal. Hell, I'm ashamed for you.
Your shameless mischaracterization of what I said? No thanks.
And spare me the grievance about name calling unless and until you're willing to take your boy, james, to task for name calling too.
James is responsible for his own words, as am I, as are you.
That whole personal responsibility thing sure has you confused.
"So funny, tommy you have single handedly exposed the true tenets of liberalism for exactly what motivates it and its followers, you nailed these hiveminders to the wall."
"Liberals never really want you to know what they think, it's all touchy feel good feeling, yes emotion arguments with their worn out lazy wrongheaded approach."
"its important to rush to his defense for damage control.
"Life isn't fair they say, rich people are bad, punish, punish their responsibility and reward those who wallow in irresponsibility."
You do realize your entire rant was the sort of emotional appeal you purport to disdain? Phony.
I'll tell you exactly what I think.
What I get from your post is that you guys are saying absolutely anything to divert attention from the fact that there is no such thing as a free market, that you employ propaganda like corporations employ cheap labor and that the phrase personal responsibility is nothing more than weapon you use to justify selfishness. You think if you romanticize selfishness and call it responsibility that you can just cruise blithely into eternity chastising us liberals for making the noble sacrifices of selfless contributions to the greater good through good government. But what I perceive to be most obvious in your protest is that you have no idea what personal responsibility is, for if you did understand personal responsibility you would beg our forgiveness for ever voting Republican, for ever elevating the cultural conservatives to power and for ever polluting our language with your us vs them worldview.
Thank God you cons are yesterdays news. Buh Bye, y'all had your chance to lead us to prosperity and you blew it. Conservatism is tired, boring, out of ideas and out of time. You fight clean energy, you fight education, you fight income equality, you fight universal healthcare, you fight political solutions to Iraq, you fight sensible alternatives to war on a tactic.
You people are truly stupid for ever letting yourselves be conned by the heartwrending flights of anger and resentment with which the Republicans manipulated you.
Take a step back Jack.
"I think he has some sort of weird idea that he controls reality."---Col. Sanders
Yes. And if you think hard enough you can change the traffic light to green and not have to stop.
I was taking Tommy's ideas of those concepts to task and he knows it.
No, no, wait, I got it...
It was just a friendly reminder.
And you can save your breath with the lecture that "as long as Hannity keeps spouting his lies mmfa has to respond"...Hannity is either oblivious to mmfa's criticism or laughing his tail off every time he pulls the strings that make mmfa dance. --- Wesley
The reason Media Matters continues to cover his repeated remarks is not because they think people like him will change.
As long as Hannity keeps spouting his lies Media Matters has to respond because that's their mission. When there's conservative misinformation that forwards the conservative agenda, they cover it. Sometimes it may sway an advertiser. Other times it may give another liberal some ammo to use. Still other times it may simply be another brick in the wall. Not every posting by Media Matters is of great import. The overall site is of great import, and scares the Republicans to death. That's why they come here to disrupt this site and distort reality. They complain about how Media Matters is a smear site when all they do is quote commentary and provide the context for that commentary. They try to distract us from discussing the issues that are raised by the postings by Media Matters.
This is just another distraction by someone who cannot even begin to defend the slimeball Hannity, so he attacks Media Matters and this posting as irrelevant. If it was irrelevant, then he wouldn't be posting here. And don't believe for a minute that Hannity likes having his lies and distortions pointed out here. It's not true that any publicity is good publicity.
Oh, and Carly?
Fiorina out, HP stock soars
CEO who engineered Compaq merger leaving after fight with board; will walk away with $21 million.
Thanks for almost dragging one of the most inovative American companies down with you.
I used to buy truck loads of HP products for my clients, after she gutted the R&D though I switched.
Hey, she got what she came for. Why should she care about the future of the company as a result of her actions? In addition, she won't be held accountable when applying for new jobs because A) she's a good righty and they have an excellent internal welfare program, and B) she's in the musical chairs system of CEO's and executive boards and they could care less how bad you are at actually running a company.
Where's that idiot (James-something?) from further up in the comments with his personal responsibility rant for this issue?
The guy is a horribly overpaid pontificating self-righteous putz. Market Forces? Don't think so.
Try starting a new paragraph once in a while, EC. You'll still look like an idiot, but not a complete pants-pissing crazy idiot.
I hope this doesn't cause me to end up in my local "er", tough guy.
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you original post said something about us lunatics on the left.
How did you expect to be treated after a comment like that?
If you come looking for a fight and acting like an ass, people are going to fight back and treat you like an ass.
He is an artist.
Surely you libs don't object to the liberal label. And surely it's not the #1 that is objectionable. So I must assume radical is the word that has your underwear in a knot. You libs of the far left {yes ,the radical left,although I prefer lunatic left} must have come to the realization that to the majority of your fellow citizens you are way way waaaay on the fringe. ecmarauder / Friday June 13, 2008 5:58:16 PM EDT
§ But of course we all know how easy it is to be so unpleasant and insulting anonymously. Really takes no courage at all, and it's so much easier than articulating a viewpoint- ecmarauder / Friday June 13, 2008 8:03:53 PM EDTHey, he’s so stoopid, he can even beat himself! Nothing further...
.OK, I lied about "nothing further", there's just too much red meat there
I was simply saying that I doubted that you people who engage in such rude, insulting, combative language on this site would do so in person, because human nature being what it is, you would be spending a lot of downtime for repairs if you did. (EC)
I live in a very Republican county, and have to bite my tongue for business and social purposes at times, but never out of fear of "downtime".The rude insulting remarks are thrown out freely by the rightys.In the situations where I'm able to respond, the only physical danger I'm in is to my eardrums, from the whining that happens when Repoops are confronted with facts. Republicans are, almost across the board, pussies.
Yeah, I don't recall ever holding back out of fear of my own personal safety. I think conservatives often do have an inflated view of their own toughness. It seems to sprout from the same place that often makes conservatives often bullies and loudmouths.
Must be frustrating for them - trying to intimidate anonymous posters on the internet.
Just what the world needs another bedwetting badass.
Just exactly what is the problem with being labled the #1 radical liberal in the senate?
Because he's not. I would put him somewhere between seventh and tenth.
Could it be that the term liberal is associated with the failed social and foreign policies of the pastforty years...
And in those past 40 years we've had 28 years of a Republican presidency.
Could it be that the term liberal is associated with the failed social and foreign policies of the pastforty years...
And in those past 40 years we've had 28 years of a Republican presidency.
"Just exactly what is the problem with being labled the #1 radical liberal in the senate? Surely you libs don't object to the liberal label. And surely it's not the #1 that is objectionable. So I must assume radical is the word that has your underwear in a knot."
First off, I don't have a problem with "liberal" if it's used appropriately. People like Hannity make it sound like a disease, it's a term that's been strategically denigrated for over thirty years. And why is it "surely" not the *1 part that is objectionable? You yourself talk about the "fringe", so you should give yourself a clue as to why the #1 part is objectionable. There's a spectrum of political beliefs, and the fringes are at the opposite ends of that spectrum. If you're #1 then you're an extremist by relative measure. If someone said McCain was the most conservative Senator, that would turn off independents whether they thought "conservative" was a negative in itself or not. So "radical" is pretty much redundant in nature.
"You libs of the far left {yes ,the radical left,although I prefer lunatic left} must have come to the realization that to the majority of your fellow citizens you are way way waaaay on the fringe. I'm sure this came as a shock to you since you apparently spend most of your time reassuring each other here in this and probably other chat rooms of this same ilk. Do any of you regulars here ever deign to engage in discourse with conservatives outside of this pathetic website? I doubt you do, because if you did in the same tone you do here you would spend most of your time in your local er."
The same could be said of conservatives. Most people disagree with them as well. So what? Bush support is down to the bare bones of conservatives, clearly a fringe element. As for the supposed echo chamber of identical thought, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Go to any number of right-wing sites that don't even allow dissenting voices and then try to make that criticism. Do you ever make an effort to engage liberals in discourse? It sure doesn't sound like it, and you're not one to be talking about anyone else's "tone". Again, go to right-wing blogs and then talk about the tone of people here. I love the tough-guy shtick, by the way, as if righties are so physically dominant. I'm just shaking in my Birkenstocks.
If a conservative says something stupid, false or illogical, I'll point it out without any consideration of "tone" whatsoever. That's here or face-to-face. If someone doesn't like it, then they can refute my arguments or try to make better ones themselves. Considering the fact that the last guy who tried to physically hurt me got thrown overhead through a glass door, I'm not going to worry too much about being sent to the emergency room over a political discussion.
The War on Poverty and the Vietnam War,courtesy of LBJ. LBJ's "Great Society" programs squandered over a trillion dollars and did more to destroy the black family than anything else, Vietnam was a tragedy. Carter presided over double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, gas lines, the humiliation of the Iranian hostage taking, and who can forget the "misery index" and the Olympics fiasco. Dems railed against Reagan's USSR policy, hysterically accusing him of endangering the world's survival, fought against his pursuing Star Wars,and the result was the disintegration of the USSR. The Dems have successfully blocked developement of nuclear energy, domestic oil production, and refinerys. Enjoying the pain at the pump??? We should all be thankful we've only had 4 terms. of Dems in the White House since Kennedy.
You say: "The War on Poverty and the Vietnam War,courtesy of LBJ. LBJ's "Great Society" programs squandered over a trillion dollars and did more to destroy the black family than anything else"
I think the drug culture is responsible for that. Mexicans lately have started to complain that the American drug addiction has generated serious problems on their border. Ironic, eh? The war in Viet Nam was, in some ways, a relic of McCarthyism ... fear of red. The republican pundits still play the "red is scary" card, and now, with the twists of time being what they are, red is scary (blue is not).
You say: "Carter presided over double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, gas lines, the humiliation of the Iranian hostage taking, and who can forget the "misery index" and the Olympics fiasco."
That is painting with a very broad brush. You blame Carter for the ills generated by the Nixon-Ford years ... some of us remember what Carter inherited and do not blame Carter. We do blame Reagan, however, for taking such blatant advantage of the hostage situation. I still do, anyway. Double-digit inflation is back, under Bush2, btw, and you'd know that if you followed any of the financial web sites. The way inflation is calculated was jiggied down. When Carter-era metrics are applied to Bush2's economy, Bush's double-digit inflation is revealed. Why you would want to open the "pain-at-the-pump" argument is beyond me, the metrics being what they are. Carter compared with Bush2 the ruiner and great decider? Makes no sense ...
You say: "Dems railed against Reagan's USSR policy, hysterically accusing him of endangering the world's survival, fought against his pursuing Star Wars,and the result was the disintegration of the USSR."
I appreciated how Reagan ended the cold war, but the end of that story is not yet written. It did no good for the US to be the sole-surviving superpower. It generated too many neocons who want to nuke everyone else, either for oil, or to set them straight about democracy, or oil. We Americans weren't that kind of people, back in the day, intent on stealing other people's oil and insisting they take up our form of democracy, at the point of a gun. But you couldn't remember any of that ....
Annes wrote:
>>I appreciated how Reagan ended the cold war, but the end of that story is not yet written.
Nice thoughtful post, especially about inflation. I will disagree with you on Reagan. I believe most experts think that the cold war would have ended with or without Reagan. The Soviet Union was simply a failed economic state and came apart from within. Not to mention Saint Ronnie's illegal wars in Central America that killed 100,000.
I can't disagree, FMP, I've heard that too, that the USSR collapsed under a rot caused by excessive insider theft. Myself, I don't mind giving Reagan the credit (and the stars, of course, Ronnie and Nancy would like that), so long as I get to blame him too.
What most Reagan-philes will never get their minds around, though, is that the result of the collapse of the USSR was instantaneous nukular proliferation. And the end of that story is also not yet told.
ecmadauder wrote:
>>The War on Poverty and the Vietnam War,courtesy of LBJ. LBJ's "Great Society" programs squandered over a trillion dollars and did more to destroy the black family than anything else, Vietnam was a tragedy
Wow! Archie Bunker lives again. You do realize you are ranting, right? Let me just change the words:
"The War on drugs and the Iraqi War,courtesy of Reagan and Bush 2. Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and his tax cuts and military buildup did more to increase our debt than any other president and his policies did more to destroy the black family than anything else, Nicaragua was a tragedy. Reagan presided over double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, gas lines, the humiliation of the Iran-Contra scandal, Beiruit, and who can forget the impeachment of Nixon and the space shuttle fiasco? Repubs railed against Clintons policy, hysterically accusing him of sleeping with an intern, fought against his tax policies and his Kosovo war,and the result was the liberation of a people and a posperous economy. The Repubs have successfully blocked developement of alternative energy. Enjoying the pain at the pump??? We should all curse the dominance of Repubs in the presidency."
Wow! That was easy! It didn't take me more than five minutes to just think of every cliche, or every bad thing the Repubs have done in the past 40 years and paste it all together in an Archie Bunker like rant.
Next time, want to stick to the topic and argue specifically? Or did you just come on to act like an ass?
FMP wrote:
>>Repubs railed against Clintons policy, hysterically accusing him of sleeping with an intern, fought against his tax policies and his Kosovo war,and the result was the liberation of a people and a posperous economy.
By the way, for the record, I don't think the Kosovo war was so great, and the prosperity under Clinton never made it to the lower classes. But since we are just throwing around cliches and generalities, I thought I'd join in dumbass's game of mindless bumper sticker slogans linked together.
Hannity is just a moron.
I"m surprised anyone even pays attention to that blowhard.
He loves to throw around words like Radical and much worse.
WHY anyone pays attention him is beyond me. He only appeals to people who have no ability to think for themselves and are desperately seeking someone to validate their worldview of hate for anyone who is slightly to the left of Rush Osamabimlimbaugh.
I listen to Hannity every day on the drive home from work (it is a mercifully short drive), and picked up on his oh-so-sly insertion of the "radical" term to describe Obama...the "Stop the Radical/Stop Obama Express" and find it simultaneously humorous and disgusting. Humorous in that "Is this all they've got?" way, and disgusting in the "they are just repeating this over and over and driving it deeper and deeper into the reptilian brains of his listeners" way. I also find it odd that he keeps hammering on Obama's associations like they make him some kind of America hating monster, in particular the relationship with Ayers (who was not convicted of anything, though I could be wrong) and routinely fawns over the like of Tom Delay (under indictment--though not convicted of anything) and Ollie North (admitted to selling weapons to our current #1 pseudo enemy/potential target, Iran, back in the day)... as well as verbally fellating Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan who are of questionable moral fiber and an apparent racist and bigot.
And yeah, the fake laugh is pretty grating, as is the voice he uses when he says "let's go to our busy phones".
It has actually become more comical this time around, since Kerry is STILL in the Senate. I would love for Hannity to point out the votes Kerry has made lately that took him out of the #1 spot just in time for the '08 election season.
But how are we to know what we're talking about and what to counter if we don't at least acknowledge the opposing frame?
HANNITY: As a Reagan conservative...
Does that mean that Hannity's wife changes HIS diapers, too???