Hannity exposes himself again

[1prophet]

In both cases (the 2010 leaks above and the new DNC ones) it has been about hacking and releasing.

Putin is a tyrant, the foreign hacks represent an attack on America sovereignty which must be responded to, and it seems quite possible that Assange has sold out to Russia in terms of even reporting, but none of that prevents me from enjoying these leaks. I hope the Trump admin gets hit even harder. When the government stops reaching further and further into its citizens' privacy, I'll start to feel sorry for them.

The Republican primary nominees, The Democrats and Hillary had the ability to hurt Trump where it counts early on with his stiffing the little guy of agreed payments.
One example.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...t-bill-lingers-trump-preps-presidency-n701201

but instead they let Trump turn the election into a reality show and like a bunch of idiots played along thinking that they were going to win a high school debate based on his gaffes and locker room talk, instead of showing how he stiffed many small business owners over the years, something main-street America can relate to easily

but then again Hillary and the Republicans never gave a damn about the little guy and Trump was able to exploit that to his advantage.

 

[ivwshane]

The Republican primary nominees, The Democrats and Hillary had the ability to hurt Trump where it counts early on with his stiffing the little guy of agreed payments.
One example.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...t-bill-lingers-trump-preps-presidency-n701201

but instead they let Trump turn the election into a reality show and like a bunch of idiots played along thinking that they were going to win a high school debate based on his gaffes and locker room talk, instead of showing how he stiffed many small business owners over the years, something main-street America can relate to easily

but then again Hillary and the Republicans never gave a damn about the little guy and Trump was able to exploit that to his advantage.

I think your analysis is close but your last paragraph is wrong. The Democrats, specifically Hillary, cared about the little guy but what she failed to realize was, how gullible people are. She assumed people would see her sincerity through her hundreds of pages of policies and plans that would help them. She was wrong. Most didn't even bother doing basic research into her and just believed all the lies and half truths that were thrown her way.

But you are right, she, along with the Republicans played trumps game instead of their own and lost.

 

[superstition]

Just do I understand you,

This is total nonsense.

Yeah, I'm going to bother.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, I'm going to bother.

Par for the course from you.

 

[superstition]

Par for the course from you.

characters: 23
words: 6
useful data: 0%

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?

characters: 1545
words: 318
useful data: let's compare, shall we?

 

[ivwshane]

characters: 23
words: 6
useful data: 0%


characters: 1545
words: 318
useful data: let's compare, shall we?

Hey twatwaffle, I'm still waiting for a response from you in the other thread where I did counter your bullshit with actual facts, you know, those things your posts lack.

As usual, instead of actually addressing peoples concerns you focus on the people themselves. Your shtick is old and unoriginal. You simply post to see your own posts. But prove me wrong, I dare you. I dare you to address other posters point of contentions.

 

[superstition]

yawn

 

[ivwshane]

yawn

Exactly. Like I said, it's par for the course for you.

 

[fskimospy]

characters: 23
words: 6
useful data: 0%

characters: 1545
words: 318
useful data: let's compare, shall we?

As far as I can see your post consisted of complaints that a TV host didn't address issues that are at best tangentially related to the story in a short TV segment and then made a demonstrably silly accusation impropriety about the ACA, a law that you clearly don't understand. That's not exactly useful data.

In case you feel like 'bothering', can you do me a favor and explain how you think the ACA could function without the individual mandate?

 

[superstition]

I don't feel like bothering. I will say, though, that the ACA functioning isn't the point and you should know it. The big picture is tangential. OK!

 

[Meghan54]

So, what you're saying is you have no clue how the ACA was supposed to function, right? Not. One. Fucking. Clue.

Gotcha.

I don't feel like bothering. I will say, though, that the ACA functioning isn't the point and you should know it. The big picture is tangential. OK!

 

[superstition]

So, what you're saying is you have no clue how the ACA was supposed to function, right? Not. One. Fucking. Clue.

Gotcha.

Thanks for the usual banal noise.

The point of "ACA" was to get the mandate from the Supreme Court. That was its primary function. Everything else is extra.

Certain things, like the public option 73% or so of the public wanted were off the table from the beginning, thanks to Obama's meeting with the industry. We can thank the NYT for letting us know that he and the Dems lied to us for such a long time about the public option while enabling the GOP to whittle down public support with their death panels propaganda.

We can thank Glenn Greenwald for letting us know that the Dems whipped against the twitching skeletal remains of the public option, too.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks for the usual banal noise.

The point of "ACA" was to get the mandate from the Supreme Court. That was its primary function. Everything else is extra.

Certain things, like the public option 73% or so of the public wanted were off the table from the beginning, thanks to Obama's meeting with the industry. We can thank the NYT for letting us know that he and the Dems lied to us for such a long time about the public option while enabling the GOP to whittle down public support with their death panels propaganda.

We can thank Glenn Greenwald for letting us know that the Dems whipped against the twitching skeletal remains of the public option, too.

The entire ACA was a Trojan horse to get the individual mandate and the Republicans suing to get the individual mandate ruled unconstitutional were in cahoots? Lol.

 

[ivwshane]

Thanks for the usual banal noise.

The point of "ACA" was to get the mandate from the Supreme Court. That was its primary function. Everything else is extra.

Certain things, like the public option 73% or so of the public wanted were off the table from the beginning, thanks to Obama's meeting with the industry. We can thank the NYT for letting us know that he and the Dems lied to us for such a long time about the public option while enabling the GOP to whittle down public support with their death panels propaganda.

We can thank Glenn Greenwald for letting us know that the Dems whipped against the twitching skeletal remains of the public option, too.

So, despite providing evidence to the contrary, you are going to continue with your lie? Do you know why all your posts get responded with "banal noise"? Because you aren't worth the time because you don't acknowledge reality, you don't live in reality, and you refuse to live in reality. You are an idiot and are only worthy of such replies.

You are a troll and nothing more.

 

[Meghan54]

As I said (and I hate to repeat myself).....NO. FUCKING. CLUE.

Thanks for the usual banal noise.

The point of "ACA" was to get the mandate from the Supreme Court. That was its primary function. Everything else is extra.

Certain things, like the public option 73% or so of the public wanted were off the table from the beginning, thanks to Obama's meeting with the industry. We can thank the NYT for letting us know that he and the Dems lied to us for such a long time about the public option while enabling the GOP to whittle down public support with their death panels propaganda.

We can thank Glenn Greenwald for letting us know that the Dems whipped against the twitching skeletal remains of the public option, too.

 

[superstition]

The entire ACA was a Trojan horse to get the individual mandate

That was the heart of it. Obviously, it has also been very useful for both brands' messaging as well.

 

[ivwshane]

That was the heart of it. Obviously, it has also been very useful for both brands' messaging as well.

Exhibit A

 

[superstition]

Three words? Isn't that too much effort for you?

Exhibit A

Well done. Let's see a one word post next time. But, I have my own answer:

 

[ivwshane]

Well done. Let's see a one word post next time. But, I have my own answer:

Troll

 

[superstition]

Troll

I guess now the next thing is to go down to punctuation only. Be creative.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess now the next thing is to go down to punctuation only. Be creative.

 

[fskimospy]

That was the heart of it. Obviously, it has also been very useful for both brands' messaging as well.

I would appreciate it if you didn't selectively quote my posts to make it appear that I said insane nonsense like that as I was mocking your evidence-free conspiracy theory.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Why isn't this guy flipping burgers? What value does he add to our political discourse other than playing the obvious fool/tool and showing that Fox has no problem with insulting the intelligence of its audience.

He's an entertainer who does a good job of playing to his audience.

 

[superstition]

I would appreciate it if you didn't selectively quote my posts to make it appear that I said insane nonsense like that as I was mocking your evidence-free conspiracy theory.

Anyone who makes the effort to read the thread will see the context and might even be able to respond in a substantive manner to my post instead of whine or troll.

He's an entertainer who does a good job of playing to his audience.

Shakespeare's famous line said that's true for everyone. It doesn't get us very far.

Surgeon screwed up your operation massively? Eh... he's just an entertainer.
POTUS is a dufus? Eh... just an entertainer, too.
Scalia acting like a moron on the court? Meh. All entertainment

 

[superstition]

Chelsea Manning’s release puts Donald Trump and "conservative" media in a bind

For most of the past seven years, Chelsea Manning has been a tailor-made villain for the conservative media. Her disclosure of secret diplomatic and military documents to WikiLeaks allowed folks such as Sean Hannity to do two of their favorite things: remind everyone of how ferociously they support the military and to blame President Obama for something at or beyond the limits of his control.

On his Fox News show in 2010, Hannity declared that Manning “needs to be held accountable” for putting “our brave men and women in the military overseas in danger,” and he wondered: “Why can't Obama do something about the WikiLeaks?”

Now, though, things are more complicated. Obama commuted Manning's 35-year sentence Tuesday, which in an orderly universe would have triggered a fresh round of outrage at the president, WikiLeaks and the former Army private, who is transgender and served as Bradley Manning. To be sure, there has been some outrage on the right.

But the twist is that many in the conservative media have been singing a different tune about WikiLeaks ever since the site published hacked emails that reflected poorly on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party — and especially since WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Hannity in an interview this month that Russia did not supply the emails, bolstering President-elect Donald Trump's assertion that he did not receive any significant help from the Kremlin during the election.

Hannity, for one, already has had to try to come up with an explanation for his flip-flop on WikiLeaks. Can he really go back to a hard line against Manning after cozying up to Assange a few weeks ago? Apparently not. Hannity barely mentioned Manning's commutation on his program Tuesday night. When he did, it was in neutral terms. Ingraham has also declined to attack Manning or WikiLeaks.

Breitbart News played Obama's decision to release Manning about as straightforward as can be. The site has previously referred to Manning as a “traitorous transsexual,” but it used no such language this time.

And Trump, who has an opinion about everything, has remained silent on Manning's commutation. He once suggested Assange should be murdered for publishing the kind of information supplied by Manning but has eagerly embraced Assange's claim that Russia did not provide Democrats' emails to WikiLeaks — while questioning U.S. intelligence agencies that think Russia was involved.

On Fox News earlier this month, a candidly self-aware Greg Gutfeld joked about conservatives' inconsistencies.

“I have advice to Chelsea Manning: Start bashing Obama,” Gutfeld, a Fox News host, said. “The Republicans are going to love you. ... She should actually — she should say that she believes that Donald Trump is doing the right thing, and then all of a sudden we'll love Chelsea Manning just the way we now love Assange.”

Had Manning taken Gutfeld's tip to heart, perhaps she would not have had her prison sentence shortened. But Gutfeld's point about "conservative" hypocrisy still stands.

...