Hannity exposes himself again

[ivwshane]

I wasn't addressing you either as I said earlier.

Why do you have to call people names? Usually a resort of immaturity or someone with nothing intelligent to say.

No, I'm not a liberal.

Nothing but baiting and insults. Meh

Lol! Ahahahahahahaa!!

 

[superstition]

political partisan sh!t show constantly shouting at me trying to convince me of whatever they think I should be thinking.

My spouse put on Rachel Maddow again because there was absolutely nothing on satellite as usual. She has become so shrill over time. I remember when she was laid back when her show was first on the air. Now, the tension is hard to take.

But at least she's more truth-oriented than Hannity, even though she likes to leave out context that helps to establish the bigger picture (generally how the Dems are just as corrupt as the Republicans). Today's example is how she showed that Trump lied to the public about the Russian hacking report (what a shock) and how Putin torpedoed Hillary because he blamed her for protests against his phony election back in 2011. But what she didn't mention is:

a) The Dems' corruption didn't sit well with the public. If there hadn't been corruption to expose then the hack would have been less successful.

b) The Dems have thrown unions and blue collar workers under the bus for a long time now. Obama and his people literally mocked unions for funding a pro-union candidate instead of the anti-union corporatist candidate favored by the Washington Democratic establishment. Throwing these voters under the bus enabled Trump to get them.

c) The Dems' force-feeding of Hillary Clinton as the nominee, without even tossing blue collar voters a scrap by having her pick a populist veep, didn't sit well.

d) If Obama hadn't made a deal with the health industry to give them everything they want (the "mandate") then the GOP wouldn't be able to use "Obamacare" as a propaganda tool to get voter support. In reality, the GOP worked in cahoots with the Dems to get the mandate without the public option and the Dems played their role in the charade. Maddow, though, doesn't talk about that. Similarly, did she mention the Harvard/Northwestern study that found that Congress completely totally utterly ignores 90% of the American public?

 

[ivwshane]

My spouse put on Rachel Maddow again because there was absolutely nothing on satellite as usual. She has become so shrill over time. I remember when she was laid back when her show was first on the air. Now, the tension is hard to take.

But at least she's more truth-oriented than Hannity, even though she likes to leave out context that helps to establish the bigger picture (generally how the Dems are just as corrupt as the Republicans). Today's example is how she showed that Trump lied to the public about the Russian hacking report (what a shock) and how Putin torpedoed Hillary because he blamed her for protests against his phony election back in 2011. But what she didn't mention is:

a) The Dems' corruption didn't sit well with the public. If there hadn't been corruption to expose then the hack would have been less successful.

b) The Dems have thrown unions and blue collar workers under the bus for a long time now. Obama and his people literally mocked unions for funding a pro-union candidate instead of the anti-union corporatist candidate favored by the Washington Democratic establishment. Throwing these voters under the bus enabled Trump to get them.

c) The Dems' force-feeding of Hillary Clinton as the nominee, without even tossing blue collar voters a scrap by having her pick a populist veep, didn't sit well.

d) If Obama hadn't made a deal with the health industry to give them everything they want (the "mandate") then the GOP wouldn't be able to use "Obamacare" as a propaganda tool to get voter support. In reality, the GOP worked in cahoots with the Dems to get the mandate without the public option and the Dems played their role in the charade. Maddow, though, doesn't talk about that. Similarly, did she mention the Harvard/Northwestern study that found that Congress completely totally utterly ignores 90% of the American public?

Lol. So what you are saying is that your spouse married an idiot? Because you certainly are repeating idiotic right wing talking points.

 

[superstition]

Lol. So what you are saying is that your spouse married an idiot? Because you certainly are repeating idiotic right wing talking points.

Wake me when you have something to offer besides the most elementary trolling tactic (drive-by evidence-free one-liner ad hominem).

 

[ivwshane]

Wake me when you have something to offer besides the most elementary trolling tactic (drive-by evidence-free one-liner ad hominem).

I'm pretty sure there is nothing that will awake you from your ignorance
Sweet dreams idiot!

 

[superstition]

I'm pretty sure there is nothing that will awake you from your ignorance
Sweet dreams idiot!

I've seen nothing to justify your continued presence in this forum.

You should read what the mod posted in big capital letters:

PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

 

[fskimospy]

My spouse put on Rachel Maddow again because there was absolutely nothing on satellite as usual. She has become so shrill over time. I remember when she was laid back when her show was first on the air. Now, the tension is hard to take.

But at least she's more truth-oriented than Hannity, even though she likes to leave out context that helps to establish the bigger picture (generally how the Dems are just as corrupt as the Republicans). Today's example is how she showed that Trump lied to the public about the Russian hacking report (what a shock) and how Putin torpedoed Hillary because he blamed her for protests against his phony election back in 2011. But what she didn't mention is:

a) The Dems' corruption didn't sit well with the public. If there hadn't been corruption to expose then the hack would have been less successful.

b) The Dems have thrown unions and blue collar workers under the bus for a long time now. Obama and his people literally mocked unions for funding a pro-union candidate instead of the anti-union corporatist candidate favored by the Washington Democratic establishment. Throwing these voters under the bus enabled Trump to get them.

c) The Dems' force-feeding of Hillary Clinton as the nominee, without even tossing blue collar voters a scrap by having her pick a populist veep, didn't sit well.

But why would she mention any of those things? They have nothing to do with the story about Trump lying about the contents of intelligence briefings.

d) If Obama hadn't made a deal with the health industry to give them everything they want (the "mandate") then the GOP wouldn't be able to use "Obamacare" as a propaganda tool to get voter support. In reality, the GOP worked in cahoots with the Dems to get the mandate without the public option and the Dems played their role in the charade. Maddow, though, doesn't talk about that. Similarly, did she mention the Harvard/Northwestern study that found that Congress completely totally utterly ignores 90% of the American public?

The individual mandate had nothing to do with any 'deal' with the insurance industry. You cannot have community rating without a mandate because if you do then people will only buy insurance when they get sick which means sky high premiums (many thousands of dollars a month for one person). It wasn't a charade, it was a literally irreplaceable requirement for covering pre existing conditions.

This really shows the problem with people complaining both parties are equally corrupt. What you saw as corruption was actually a public policy requirement.

 

[jackstar7]

I wasn't addressing you either as I said earlier.

Why do you have to call people names? Usually a resort of immaturity or someone with nothing intelligent to say.

You made a claim, dumbnuts. Your lack of desire to back it up when called on it and subsequent tacit admission that you couldn't let us all see who you are.

The insults are just putting it plainly for people to see. They are an earned reflection of your lack of character. They won't be the last you hear.

 

[pcgeek11]

Lol! Ahahahahahahaa!!

Exactly. Thanks for proving my point. You expose yourself with every response.

 

[pcgeek11]

Wake me when you have something to offer besides the most elementary trolling tactic (drive-by evidence-free one-liner ad hominem).

That is because all he has to offer is insults.

 

[pcgeek11]

You made a claim, dumbnuts. Your lack of desire to back it up when called on it and subsequent tacit admission that you couldn't let us all see who you are.

The insults are just putting it plainly for people to see. They are an earned reflection of your lack of character. They won't be the last you hear.

All that I "claimed" was pointed out specifically in the links that I posted. If you don't want to read them or cannot understand them it isn't my problem, it's yours.

Are you and ivwshane related? It seems you both share the same modus operandi with nothing but immature insults with nothing of substance. Do either of you think your insults bother me? It doesn't as they are meaningless.

 

[jackstar7]

All that I "claimed" was pointed out specifically in the links that I posted. If you don't want to read them or cannot understand them it isn't my problem, it's yours.

Are you and ivwshane related? It seems you both share the same modus operandi with nothing but immature insults with nothing of substance. Do either of you think your insults bother me? It doesn't as they are meaningless.

I'm just insults? Check my history, pal.

And my insults weren't even immature. You can't explain the distinct differences required to negate the analogy made. If you can, then you should do so -- in your own words.

But you're mostly bluster with an occasional thought that slips out. Your history reflects that as your reality. You don't like being called dumbnuts, then stop being dumbnuts.

 

[superstition]

But why would she mention any of those things? They have nothing to do with the story about Trump lying about the contents of intelligence briefings.

You should watch the segment. Telling the little picture while refusing to show how it fits into the big one is propagandistic.

Of course they have everything to do with it. They are larger context that it fits into, context that makes the news she's discussing relevant in the first place. It is not news to a lot of people that Trump is a liar or that Putin will retaliate against anyone who crosses him. However, how all that fits together in the bigger picture would be.

The individual mandate had nothing to do with any 'deal' with the insurance industry

Of course it does. It is the direct result of the deal made with the industry. Both parties were able to feast on the Trojan Horse while, inside it, was the mandate — a new Supreme Court precedent that government gets to force citizens to pay for the lobbyists, CEOs, and ads. Money on a loop. Very clever.

 

[superstition]

Corporation: Here's 5 bucks to have you, the politician, do what we want.

Politician: Okay!

GOP: Death panels! Kill grandma!

Dems: The GOP wants everyone to suffer and die!

GOP: Ha! The public's 73% demand for a public option is waning. They're worried for grandma!

Dems: We hate the public option anyway. Shhh... don't print that. We LOVE the public option.

GOP: Let's let it come up for a vote so it will pass right at Christmas!

Howard Dean: The bill needs to have a public option.

The White House and the "progressive" press : HOWARD DEAN IS INSANE!

Howard Dean: I was wrong! Sorry!

Kucinich: Is this the BEST WE CAN DO? IS IT? IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DOOOOOO????

White House: Hi Dennis, how about a nice filming of Zapruder on Air Force One?

Kucinich: It is a bad bill but I like it. No questions. No... no comment.

Supreme Court: You, the public, have to pay that 5 bucks.

Corporation. Well, now that we didn't really have to spend that 5 bucks here's another 5 bucks to get you to do our bidding again.

Politician. Great!

Public: We're annoyed at you. We're going to pick that other guy.

Corporation. How would you like a nice job as our spokesperson?

Politician: Awesome.

Corporation (via their spokesperson): Hi new politician. Here's 5 bucks to do our bidding.

Politician: Cool.

Supreme Court: You're still paying right? No? Here's a nice fine.

GOP: We always opposed Obamacare!

Dems: We fought so hard for a public option but, like Harry Reid said, we needed to suck it. How would you like to meet the new DNC head, Howard Dean, healthcare company lobbyist?

Sanders: This is change we can believe in.

Warren: Senator Sanders is absolutely correct. We need to support our president on this.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm just insults? Check my history, pal.

And my insults weren't even immature. You can't explain the distinct differences required to negate the analogy made. If you can, then you should do so -- in your own words.

But you're mostly bluster with an occasional thought that slips out. Your history reflects that as your reality. You don't like being called dumbnuts, then stop being dumbnuts.

I have seen your history and it isn't pretty.

Yes, once again nothing but immature insults and bluster.

Everything I wanted to point to was in the links.

 

[greatnoob]

I have seen your history and it isn't pretty.

Yes, once again nothing but immature insults and bluster.

Everything I wanted to point to was in the links.

Well when you come up with an argument only 10 year olds use ("Fox news is popular therefore they are credible"), you can see why he's calling you out. It's definitely not an insult, he's just making it apparent to you that you're a blithering idiot.

 

[pcgeek11]

Well when you come up with an argument only 10 year olds use ("Fox news is popular therefore they are credible"), you can see why he's calling you out. It's definitely not an insult, he's just making it apparent to you that you're a blithering idiot.

There were several links in my postings. I made no arguments, only stated facts.

You're coming to the rescue with more immature insults speaks volumes.

Can you show where I said the word Credible or said that they were Without Fault?

I didn't. What I did say is they must be doing something right and pointed out their ratings. Then the insults began from you and your brothers. I have thick skin go ahead.

 

[greatnoob]

There were several links in my postings. I made no arguments, only stated facts.

Perhaps that's because you're too much of an idiot to come up with a proper argument? Besides... I made no insults, only stated facts.

 

[pcgeek11]

Perhaps that's because you're too much of an idiot to come up with a proper argument? Besides... I made no insults, only stated facts.

You are not worth the effort or time.

 

[jackstar7]

I have seen your history and it isn't pretty.

Ha. So you haven't then.

My history is rather poetic and thoughtful, you sad victim.

 

[pcgeek11]

Ha. So you haven't then.

My history is rather poetic and thoughtful, you sad victim.

And a comedian too I see!

LOL

 

[fskimospy]

You should watch the segment. Telling the little picture while refusing to show how it fits into the big one is propagandistic.

Of course they have everything to do with it. They are larger context that it fits into, context that makes the news she's discussing relevant in the first place. It is not news to a lot of people that Trump is a liar or that Putin will retaliate against anyone who crosses him. However, how all that fits together in the bigger picture would be.

Just do I understand you, you think it's propagandistic to not talk about the relationship between unions and Democratic Party policy when your segment is about the intelligence agencies reporting on whether or not the Russians hacked a server?

Wut.

Of course it does. It is the direct result of the deal made with the industry. Both parties were able to feast on the Trojan Horse while, inside it, was the mandate — a new Supreme Court precedent that government gets to force citizens to pay for the lobbyists, CEOs, and ads. Money on a loop. Very clever.

This is total nonsense. The legislation literally could not function without the individual mandate. Just look at New York State prior to the ACA as an example of community rating with no mandate. This has been well established by decades of research that predate the ACA.

It is 'clever' insofar as they were clever enough not to make broken laws. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[jackstar7]

And a comedian too I see!

LOL

And so you confirm that you hadn't checked it.

You'll be able to stop blaming externalities one day.

Take care.

 

[raildogg]

Hannity is a stooge put in there to serve a role.

He is there to play the part of a right wing hate spreader. He has been playing his part well for many years now.

Remember, the media is here to spread government propaganda and Hannity is one of their chosen stooges.

 

[pcgeek11]

And so you confirm that you hadn't checked it.

You'll be able to stop blaming externalities one day.

Take care.

I will, absolutely.