Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your attempt to re-characterize Hannity et al, is transparent, shallow, hollow, vacuous and, above all else, an epic FAIL.
Sean, Mark and Rush are, collectively, the Voice of America, and the mentors of American freedom.
Perhaps you are thinking of Letterman as the entertainer, although, that aspect of his show dried up years ago, just as he has.
Yeah, I wasn't asking for your approval of what is considered an entertainer and what isn't....oh and that is all entertainers, even if they are political.
Obviously you disagree and consider them a valid form of news which is why your source of news might be flawed....but that is to be expected when you think entertainers are real new sources.
Shouldn't it be Hannity is more stupid than stupid. When did stupider become a word. Sticking with a fox theme, you can't say Meghan Kelly is beautifuler than beautiful.
Shouldn't it be Hannity is more stupid than stupid. When did stupider become a word. Sticking with a fox theme, you can't say Meghan Kelly is beautifuler than beautiful.
It has always been a word, it is called an adjective.
Yeah, I wasn't asking for your approval of what is considered an entertainer and what isn't....oh and that is all entertainers, even if they are political.
Obviously you disagree and consider them a valid form of news which is why your source of news might be flawed....but that is to be expected when you think entertainers are real new sources.
Your spin is ineffectual and transparent.
Your attempt to triviialize Hannity et al, was nothing more than that, and your post-spin even less substantive.
A singer is an entertainer, a juggler, standup comedian, but people like Sean provide news and analysis far deeper than mere entertainment. They are informational, not entertaining.
Do you call the weather forecast "entertainment" as well?
However, to be able to "get it", one has to be able to think a bit more-deeply than is necessary to consume trivial entertainment such as Idol or Dancing with Stars, which are purely entertainment. They have their place, but don't rise to the level of an Information and Analysis outlet such as Hannity.
Hannity is just stating the obvious. Nobody is arguing it, not even the Philly press. The dopes at the polls saw nobody was there to watch( they barred the GOP poll watchers) so they voted their little hearts out. 90% turnout verus city wide turn out of 60%.
You want to watch stupid, MSNBC is where you go.
Your attempt to triviialize Hannity et al, was nothing more than that, and your post-spin even less substantive.
A singer is an entertainer, a juggler, standup comedian, but people like Sean provide news and analysis far deeper than mere entertainment. They are informational, not entertaining.
Do you call the weather forecast "entertainment" as well?
However, to be able to "get it", one has to be able to think a bit more-deeply than is necessary to consume trivial entertainment such as Idol or Dancing with Stars, which are purely entertainment. They have their place, but don't rise to the level of an Information and Analysis outlet such as Hannity.
So does Hannity provide you with analysis you disagree with ever? I think you are just wishing he was more than an entertainer who is entertaining you with political commentary. Hannity is as much of an entertainer as Bill Maher, but I know you will never agree with me because Hannity is your source for news, which explains a lot about you and your political knowledge.
As for trivializing Hannity, I think the man makes a lot of money providing you with entertainment, so I can understand why he does what he does......though I do still think he is the Fox News lapdog.
Hannity is just stating the obvious. Nobody is arguing it, not even the Philly press. The dopes at the polls saw nobody was there to watch( they barred the GOP poll watchers) so they voted their little hearts out. 90% turnout verus city wide turn out of 60%.
You want to watch stupid, MSNBC is where you go.
So who did Hannity tell you would win the election? So who did the polls tell you who would win the election? And you want to get your news from these sources still? If I were you, I would be demanding accuracy and accountability from the polls and news sources you take in.
So does Hannity provide you with analysis you disagree with ever? I think you are just wishing he was more than an entertainer who is entertaining you with political commentary. Hannity is as much of an entertainer as Bill Maher, but I know you will never agree with me because Hannity is your source for news, which explains a lot about you and your political knowledge.
As for trivializing Hannity, I think the man makes a lot of money providing you with entertainment, so I can understand why he does what he does......though I do still think he is the Fox News lapdog.
I don't always agree with Sean's analysis, but he and I are usually about 90% in agreement.
As far is BM, I find that people who take him seriously, aren't to be (taken seriously).
If Sean Hannity is making money entertaining people, he must have a side-gig at the Comedy Shop, because his News shows are Informational, not Entertainment. Perhaps you are thinking of Jay Leno.
In any case, your posts are utterly boring in their vacuousness, so I bid you good day. Hopefully, you can catch a really-enteraining weather report,
He's insisting that Romney getting zero votes in those precints is voter fraud. The stupid part is that that's happened before. There are places where Obama got zero votes, but I guess when there's a black guy involved that's different. The stupider than stupid part comes in because even if there was some funny business going on there it wouldn't have been voter fraud. It would have been election fraud. Huge difference. See what's gonna happen here, what is already happening, is that everytime anything like this happens, any kind of irregularity at all, the cons are going to call it voter fraud, with the unspoken insinuation that it wouldn't have happened if we had had voter ID laws. Except that it would have. Voter ID does not and can not prevent election fraud. The voter showing an ID isn't going to prevent somebody from, after the polls close, throwing out ballots, or just not counting them.
It's not that Hannity is stupid, because he rakes in big money to mislead people. The people who believe his garbage are the stupid ones, and I have seen many right here who come in to open threads sayign the same things they just heard in FOX, and they end up looking like fools when their error is pointed out to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
