Sean Hannity linked to shell companies that spent $90M on property

[cytg111]

Who cares? Do you think Madcow and Insanity are reputable sources of information?

You are the one who wants to launch an investigation into Maddow for NO reason at all, besides "who knows what she has been up to".
And yea, I most certainly regard Maddow as a reputable source of information cause unlike, say, Hannity her show has journalistic integrity. Sure she conveys her own opinion to the camera although not in a full onset flamboyant fit like Hannity, still you are a big boy, you can filter that out... and then I invite you to refute ONE thing she puts forth as fact. You cant. And you wont. Cause then your reality comes crumbling down around you and my guess is you are too much of a chickenshit to face that head on.

 

[brandonbull]

You are the one who wants to launch an investigation into Maddow for NO reason at all, besides "who knows what she has been up to".
And yea, I most certainly regard Maddow as a reputable source of information cause unlike, say, Hannity her show has journalistic integrity. Sure she conveys her own opinion to the camera although not in a full onset flamboyant fit like Hannity, still you are a big boy, you can filter that out... and then I invite you to refute ONE thing she puts forth as fact. You cant. And you wont. Cause then your reality comes crumbling down around you and my guess is you are too much of a chickenshit to face that head on.

What are you talking about? I've never said Maddow should be investigated. Seems like troll central has pointed you in the wrong direction.

 

[Charmonium]

I watch Maddow pretty regularly and while she has her obvious biases, she does at try to be even handed in her presentation. She's very different from someone like John Oliver who doesn't care if their presentation is dramatically slanted. I would consider Hannity somewhere in between but skewing toward Oliver rather than Maddow.

 

[Darwin333]

Everyone buying a HUD home is getting a handout.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[pcgeek11]

Another strawman? Did not see that coming.

This is what YOU said:

" There you go with your emotions again. The article is calling Hannity out on his own standards. I dont think military veterans is welfare queens. CNN dont think veterans is welfare queens.... Hannity though, think they are. That. Is. The. Whole. Point. Hypocrisy."

Nope. You brought that up. I only responded to your stupidity. I should know better.

You are dismissed now.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yeah, I work with a ton of veterans and the way the play disability is insane. I have one co-worker whose wife got 25% for depression, even though she worked in an office in SoCal her whole time in the service (and depression tends to show up in your early twenties). Several other that were injured, but now completely fine that are over 75%. There needs to be some massive reform to the disability system.

I agree with that. It needs to be a verified disability and evaluated at regular intervals.

 

[UNCjigga]

I watch Maddow pretty regularly and while she has her obvious biases, she does at try to be even handed in her presentation. She's very different from someone like John Oliver who doesn't care if their presentation is dramatically slanted. I would consider Hannity somewhere in between but skewing toward Oliver rather than Maddow.

At least Oliver is honest about the purpose of his show: comedy and general entertainment--not news. Yes, he discusses newsworthy topics but he does not break news, and he would never call himself a journalist.

 

[interchange]

Well I won't comment on Hannity much. Legal use of multiple shell corporations is still shady, as it's purpose is to mitigate liability. Well, if you have to make multiple shell corporations to do so, it's pretty clear the law intends you to have the liability in the first place. But my objection more rests here with the law than Hannity. Unless of course he is trying to hide something illegal or an explicit conflict of interest.

As for the VA, well I do have experience working in that system. There is a minority of veterans but definite contingency whose goal is to obtain every benefit possible from the VA regardless of merit. These people typically have the mindset that their service to the country entitles them to lifetime provision. I have witness conversations between vets multiple times about how to game the system. Now, I kind of wish the VA would make up its mind between healthcare entity and service provider. They are extremely risk averse, at least when it comes to mental health. The public stories about them failing veterans and veteran suicides led to policies that wouldn't fly in the community. They implemented a ton of paperwork and made it essentially impossible to discharge anyone who claimed suicidality regardless of evidence of them malingering. Compounding that was a rumor in the community that a 3 week stay in the psych ward guarantees service connection, and no amount of instructing vets otherwise would undo it. It was amazing how many people got better magically after 3 weeks. Unfortunately, the side effects of these policies meant more paperwork was less time to provide quality care and inability to triage out malingerers led to a perpetually full hospital unit thus requiring us to send vets out to a local hospital that provided subpar care at increased cost. So the people who needed the help got worse care. The malingerers, though, loved the other hospital. They allowed smoking and had a buffet.

All this said, the disability evaluators were truly independent of care providers, and usually pretty good. Of course, the harder you try for just about anything the more likely you are to succeed. And the resources they have for vets in need is fantastic compared to the community. They truly have great therapeutic services and integrated care, too. In the outpatient setting, you get fewer people just using the system as they don't follow through with care so much and go through the ED and inpatient units more.

There is also another thought. It's hard for me to argue that military (especially combat) service didn't at least significantly reinforce many people's malignant personalities and push them to alcoholism. Maybe that is deserving of disability too.

 

[Charmonium]

At least Oliver is honest about the purpose of his show: comedy and general entertainment--not news. Yes, he discusses newsworthy topics but he does not break news, and he would never call himself a journalist.

That's very true. But the point is that there is a spectrum that runs from patently biased reporting that is presented purely as entertainment and purely objective journalism. The latter is a myth since a person's biases are going to inform what they regard as noteworthy. But it is still the ideal and some people come a lot closer to it than others. Regardless of how much someone may agree with and support Fox generally and Hannity in particular, people need to at least recognize where on that spectrum their choices fall.

If you (generally, not you in particular) recognize the type of reporting Hannity provides, cool. Go for it. The important thing is that you be aware of the implicit bias.

 

[HomerJS]

That's very true. But the point is that there is a spectrum that runs from patently biased reporting that is presented purely as entertainment and purely objective journalism. The latter is a myth since a person's biases are going to inform what they regard as noteworthy. But it is still the ideal and some people come a lot closer to it than others. Regardless of how much someone may agree with and support Fox generally and Hannity in particular, people need to at least recognize where on that spectrum their choices fall.

If you (generally, not you in particular) recognize the type of reporting Hannity provides, cool. Go for it. The important thing is that you be aware of the implicit bias.

We have a chart for that

 

[dainthomas]

Yeah, I work with a ton of veterans and the way the play disability is insane. I have one co-worker whose wife got 25% for depression, even though she worked in an office in SoCal her whole time in the service (and depression tends to show up in your early twenties). Several other that were injured, but now completely fine that are over 75%. There needs to be some massive reform to the disability system.

Geez, I'm doing it wrong. I developed type 1 diabetes while I was in and now my vision is getting messed up and I'm at 60.

The way they calculate it is kinda messed up. I got 40 percent for one and 30 percent for the other, but they only add 30 percent of the remaining 60 and round it, hence 60 instead of 70.

 

[ElFenix]

Well I won't comment on Hannity much. Legal use of multiple shell corporations is still shady, as it's purpose is to mitigate liability. Well, if you have to make multiple shell corporations to do so, it's pretty clear the law intends you to have the liability in the first place.

the whole purpose of corporations and other entities is to limit liability. as someone who does some of this for a living, there's nothing inherently shady about having multiple levels of LLC between dirt and ultimate ownership. that's exactly what you want to insulate what happens with one asset (apartment, retail center, facility, whatever) from not only ownership, but the other assets that ownership may own. it also makes it more clear as to who owns what - i don't know if hannity was doing this, but if you have multiple assets with different pools of investors for each asset, you want a new LLC for each. and so long as each maintains its own separate bank accounts and books, it can be very kosher.

that's a separate argument from whether society is receiving the benefit of its bargain for allowed limited liability entities to be formed in the first place.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I watch Maddow pretty regularly and while she has her obvious biases, she does at try to be even handed in her presentation. She's very different from someone like John Oliver who doesn't care if their presentation is dramatically slanted. I would consider Hannity somewhere in between but skewing toward Oliver rather than Maddow.

I know its been addressed, but it must be reinforced because this type of mentality is what led to Hannity and the Fox News situation (in response to stuff like the Daily Show).

One is a fucking comedian giving ridiculous over the top presentation of topics. One is just a mouth piece. And then one is an actual journalist. That you're even comparing the comedian as being close to legit to the journalist, or rather much more integrity than the mouth piece, says it all. Hannity's mouth and what comes out of it isn't fit to be used as bidet because it'll actually dirty up any asshole more than it already was. Oliver uses his comedic platform to highlight how fucking insane politics have gotten, and it largely focuses on conservatives because they are consistently the most fucked in the head pieces of shit there are (and they have a bad habit of being enamored with governance, this they provide a high number of politicians for ridicule). Oliver just uses the methods the journalist uses (research), which is why he has any legitimacy. That's a testament to actual journalistic methods, not an exposing of the inherent liberal bias of media or whatever moronic nonsense people keep trying to trot out.

Its the same reason why if you use the scientific method properly, you'll tend to end up with reasoned rational results. When done right, the evidence is overwhelming and it holds up to scrutiny. Unfortunately, when done wrong, or used falsely intentionally to mislead, we, as a people are not well versed enough to know well. Some of that is that we can't all become knowledgeable enough on a wide variety of subjects to be able to know immediately, so we rely on people being trustworthy to do that for us. That is why people like Hannity are more despicable, and trying to dismiss them as mere entertainment is bullshit and needs to be called out. I don't care if you think that they're as every bit as transparently over the top as comedians, the fact is, one expressly makes the point of reminding viewers as such (often going "I know we joke a lot, but this is actually serious, not hyperbole"). The other just lies or distorts the truth and never acknowledges such until it becomes a legal issue. They absolutely try to deceive people into believing they're as legitimate as real journalists, but they just use tricks to be able to go "nah, we're just giving opinions" when called out on it.

You can see it with the way that conservatives insist that they fully get that Hannity is full of shit, but well then so is Maddow (or various other "librul media" persons or organizations). It is abundantly clear that they don't view them on the same level even though they persist in claiming they do, because even when trying to claim that, they clearly believe Hannity but consider everything Maddow says are lies. Its just more of them trying to claim they're being logical when they are not at all.