Sean Hannity pwned by Obama communications director Robert Gibbs

[NFS4]

Interesting that Fox News has been talking up the Ayers-Obama link, well, Gibbs turned the tables on Hannity with regards to his association with an anti-Semitic douchebag.

The backstory along with the Hannity meltdown can be seen here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...d/2008/10/08/fox_news/

Direct link to the smackdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c&NR=1

Hannity is reduced to yelling and repeating talking points in defense.

 

[351Cleveland]

I'll ignore the fact that you are linking to salon.com

I disagree. I will say Gibbs did an excellent job of diverting... but he didnt score any points. Jouranlists, commentators, even political hacks do interviews with both sides. It doesnt compare in the least. He interviewed Rev. Wright as well. It doesnt make him a proponent of Wright.

I would not have used Martin on the show. He has no credibility. That was Hannity's mistake. But the comparison between Hannity associating with Martin and Obama associating with Ayers isnt even valid.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

No one got "pwned" in that video. The guy is just a fucking idiot and playing the same BS guilt-by-association card he is denouncing.

 

[Wheezer]

owned?

hardly...there is a tremendous difference between interviewing a person of such stature on a TV program to let them air their views vs. associating with someone such as Ayers and calling him "friend".

By that guys logic Larry King is a terrorist sympathizer because he gave air time to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
I'll ignore the fact that you are linking to salon.com

Why? It's one of the top sites on the internet for good political info.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
No one got "pwned" in that video. The guy is just a fucking idiot and playing the same BS guilt-by-association card he is denouncing.

He's not calling Hannity anti-Semitic, he's showing that the guilt by association is stupid. Ayers wasn't an active "terrorist" when Obama knew him, he was trying to help the local schools. That's what Obama was working on at the time and that's why he knew Ayers.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
owned?

hardly...there is a tremendous difference between interviewing a person of such stature on a TV program to let them air their views vs. associating with someone such as Ayers and calling him "friend".

By that guys logic Larry King is a terrorist sympathizer because he gave air time to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

no its not. hannity brought him on the show to smear obama with. he did not question nor attack any of martin's statements. he was brought on to be the vehicle through which to send the hannity angle of things which was anti-obama. martin was hannity's friend on the show.

larry king doesnt bring on ahmadinejad to crow against the USA without taking any counter questions.

the comparison is flawed, and therefore, dismissed.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
owned?

hardly...there is a tremendous difference between interviewing a person of such stature on a TV program to let them air their views vs. associating with someone such as Ayers and calling him "friend".

By that guys logic Larry King is a terrorist sympathizer because he gave air time to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I was thinking the same thing but if you read the Salon article and see what Hannity aired I think guilt by association is more valid in this case than it is in Obama's. And by this he was demonstrating to Hannity his point.

 

[StageLeft]

Hannity is a total a-eating douche, but pwnage not found by 3:03 and I've no interest in going further.

 

[Hugh H]

Sean Hannity is a terrible human being, and I believe there is a place reserved for him in hell.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Hannity is a total a-eating douche, but pwnage not found by 3:03 and I've no interest in going further.

Yup, and A-Aaa-MEN!

-Robert

 

[dbk]

Anyone watching the Hannity interview with McCain and Palin? McCain keeps saying Obama lied. Funny thing was when Hannity went through his whole list of characters and McCain had this look of pure excitement. McCain is happy to dance along that line and let people like Hannity do the rest. Pretty sad. They haven't said anything yet about the economy.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
... The guy is just a fucking idiot and playing the same BS guilt-by-association card he is denouncing.

I think that's the point.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
... The guy is just a fucking idiot and playing the same BS guilt-by-association card he is denouncing.

I think that's the point.

Exactly.

 

[fallout man]

Hey guys, please tune into my fabulous news show later tonight (it's on the WB, after Shasta McNasty).

I will be hosting Butterbean on the show. He will be introduced and credited as real-time bona-fide "author & reporter," and I plan to have him expose the "real Obama" to my audience.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Topic Title: Sean Hannity pwned by Obama communications director Robert Gibbs

Interesting that Fox News has been talking up the Ayers-Obama link, well, Gibbs turned the tables on Hannity with regards to his association with an anti-Semitic douchebag.

The backstory along with the Hannity meltdown can be seen here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...d/2008/10/08/fox_news/

Direct link to the smackdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c&NR=1

Hannity is reduced to yelling and repeating talking points in defense.

Hannity should be in jail, period.

He basically said anyone that does not support Republicans is a Terrist today.

 

[cirrrocco]

awesome , loved how he started rambling and even took the piece of paper from Gibb's hand.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Sean Hannity scares me. He actually believes the shit that comes out of his mouth.

 

[Moonbeam]

McCain's economic policies are a disaster. The Republicans need to be removed from office before they completely destroy the nation. They are hoping you are stupid enough to be afraid of some nobody from Chicago who did something a thousand years ago that Obama once met then you are of your own and your nation's financial ruin. But there aren't that many people that stupid are there?

 

[First]

Why do people keep saying Obama and Ayers were friends? I think the furthest the campaign went was that they were "friendly"? And while people can certainly change, there's no way I'd want to be associated with Ayers publicly. Obama (or any sane politician, for that matter), shouldn't let a guy like Ayers stop them from constructing education reform that could positively affect millions of lives. The alternative would have been to quit and do nothing on education. Ridiculous, utter nonsense.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Why do people keep saying Obama and Ayers were friends? I think the furthest the campaign went was that they were "friendly"? And while people can certainly change, there's no way I'd want to be associated with Ayers publicly. Obama (or any sane politician, for that matter), shouldn't let a guy like Ayers stop them from constructing education reform that could positively affect millions of lives. The alternative would have been to quit and do nothing on education. Ridiculous, utter nonsense.

What kind of nonsense are you spouting. . . personally I require background checks of all co-workers and associations, as well as of my mailman and cashier at the grocery store. If anything is out of order I demand they resign.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Why do people keep saying Obama and Ayers were friends? I think the furthest the campaign went was that they were "friendly"? And while people can certainly change, there's no way I'd want to be associated with Ayers publicly. Obama (or any sane politician, for that matter), shouldn't let a guy like Ayers stop them from constructing education reform that could positively affect millions of lives. The alternative would have been to quit and do nothing on education. Ridiculous, utter nonsense.

What kind of nonsense are you spouting. . . personally I require background checks of all co-workers and associations, as well as of my mailman and cashier at the grocery store. If anything is out of order I demand they resign.

You honestly expect politicians to perform background checks on every person they have a political relationship with? You do realize that the FBI itself takes 6-12 months to do background checks and they only employ about 40,000 people, yes? Which I suppose means you would honestly expect politicians to perform background checks on the millions of people they work and associate with over their lifetimes? Where do they get the funds? What's the incentive, to avoid politically inconvenient garbage like this, where people feign outrage over an association?

Sorry, the costs far outweigh the benefits. Sometimes you have to deal with slimy people in real life.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Why do people keep saying Obama and Ayers were friends? I think the furthest the campaign went was that they were "friendly"? And while people can certainly change, there's no way I'd want to be associated with Ayers publicly. Obama (or any sane politician, for that matter), shouldn't let a guy like Ayers stop them from constructing education reform that could positively affect millions of lives. The alternative would have been to quit and do nothing on education. Ridiculous, utter nonsense.

What kind of nonsense are you spouting. . . personally I require background checks of all co-workers and associations, as well as of my mailman and cashier at the grocery store. If anything is out of order I demand they resign.

You honestly expect politicians to perform background checks on every person they have a political relationship with? You do realize that the FBI itself takes 6-12 months to do background checks and they only employ about 40,000 people, yes? Which I suppose means you would honestly expect politicians to perform background checks on the millions of people they work and associate with over their lifetimes? Where do they get the funds? What's the incentive, to avoid politically inconvenient garbage like this, where people feign outrage over an association?

Sorry, the costs far outweigh the benefits. Sometimes you have to deal with slimy people in real life.

I'm able to do it. Just last week I got the report back on the cashier at the Safeway and she had been convicted of marijuana possession three years ago. I immediately called the manager and demanded her termination. He refused, so I broke into her car and planted a cash-filled cash register in the backseat of her car, and then lured the manager out there to "accidentally" stumble upon it. Needless to say she is no longer one of my associates. If Obama wasn't willing to do the same thing with Ayers then I'm just not sure he is fit to be our commander-in-chief in a time of war.

 

[Farang]

double post.. I should have let it be because what I said deserves repeating

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Why do people keep saying Obama and Ayers were friends? I think the furthest the campaign went was that they were "friendly"? And while people can certainly change, there's no way I'd want to be associated with Ayers publicly. Obama (or any sane politician, for that matter), shouldn't let a guy like Ayers stop them from constructing education reform that could positively affect millions of lives. The alternative would have been to quit and do nothing on education. Ridiculous, utter nonsense.

What kind of nonsense are you spouting. . . personally I require background checks of all co-workers and associations, as well as of my mailman and cashier at the grocery store. If anything is out of order I demand they resign.

You honestly expect politicians to perform background checks on every person they have a political relationship with? You do realize that the FBI itself takes 6-12 months to do background checks and they only employ about 40,000 people, yes? Which I suppose means you would honestly expect politicians to perform background checks on the millions of people they work and associate with over their lifetimes? Where do they get the funds? What's the incentive, to avoid politically inconvenient garbage like this, where people feign outrage over an association?

Sorry, the costs far outweigh the benefits. Sometimes you have to deal with slimy people in real life.

sarcasism meter broke?