Hannity at it again(live thread 3/01/06)

3/1/06

[Dane]

Didn't see any live thread started to day for Hannity's show.

Hannity's "points" today. He agrees with Corzine's lawsuit, that got shot down today and also pushing the Israel angle, while he is silent that a official arm of the UK Govt. the Church of England synod, has also called for a boycott of Israel.

[LibLieSlayer]

Hi Dane,

He also personally insulted me with some of his remarks. I do not like to be asked to give him 3 hours a day, and be repaid by him calling me names (when all I have done is disagree with him on one issue). I am not alone. I know at least 8 people that told me today that they had to "turn him off".

LLS

[ishabibble]

Historically, the British might want to forget their behaviour during the founding of Israel. If you dare to forget the the British have always been, first and foremost, imperialists, then they get a "free pass" on Israel. Go back and study history. Sean Hannity is one or two generations removed from the "troubles". It might be a dim memory, but his intolerance for injustice carries him far.

The "narrowbacks" will always nitpick; that's what they do.

[LibLieSlayer]

I fear you are right. I think that he will learn a hard lesson after this. There is no way he is NOT damaging his ratings. I know too many customers that have told me that they had to "turn him off".

LLS

[Dog Gone]

Hannity has been out to lunch on this one. The Israeli angle is just so logically weak unless you're ready to extend that argument to all other governments on the planet.

[demlosers]

Saudi Arabia has pledged to give money to Hamas as well. So aren't we "indirectly funding" them by buying Saudi oil?

Hanity has expanded his argument against the port deal: since someone or institution(s) in the UAE has monetarily supported Hamas, and they do not recognize Israel, and they boycott Israeli goods and services, the United States therefore cannot support DPW running US port terminals.

Hannity does have a point, but he is not being consistent in his principled stance.

To take Hannity's logic further, we would have to look at EVERY foreign interest that does business in the United States. We have to take the process further than the UAE buying port logistic operations, we would have to examine national security for all countries that we do business with. To including the following countries, as you said Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, China, France, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Germany, Russia, etcetera...

As you see, if the United States inhibited foreign business in our country because foreigners or foreign organization/institution(s) have supported terrorists or terrorist nation(s), to include not recognizing Israel, it would smack up against the modern global economy.

The United States cannot disengage from the global economy and go to an isolationist policy. The economic upheaval would make it impractical -- to say the least.

Hannity is either blind to his argument's impracticality, or he is being disingenuous.

[demlosers]

We have to take the process further than the UAE buying port logistic operations, we would have to examine national security for all countries that we do business with.

Rephrase: ...We have to take the process further than the UAE buying port logistic operations, we would have to examine the issues of national security, of human rights violations, recognition of Isreal, and of the support terrorists, for all countries that we do business with....

[beyond the sea]

correctamundo! (jmo)............

as we say in Pittsburgh...... "younz is right!"

[CyberAnt]

But .. the statement was that the UAE was cooperating with the "boycott" of Israel. If they are part of the agreement for the destruction of Israel .. what documentation do you have to support that claim ..?? Is there a thread here on FR with that info ..??

[CyberAnt]

That's a good point.

[demlosers]

Hannity has been out to lunch on this one. The Israeli angle is just so logically weak unless you're ready to extend that argument to all other governments on the planet.

We agree. :)

I expanded on your thought in my post #365.

[Dog Gone]

And you did a fine job. I only listened to about 20 minutes of his show on the way home from work, but a caller was trying to make the point we don't make the same distinction for either China or Indonesia, but Sean was being incredibly rude to him, calling him an anti-semite and supporter of Hamas, both of which the caller denied. Then Hannity hung up on him.

It was pathetic.

[CWOJackson]

"Then Hannity hung up on him."

And several hundred more ex-fans turned him off.

[OldFriend]

Clearly Sean is pandering. The question is why?

[navynucmom]

Hey Aligncare...I know....it's like he is in co-hoots with them and they are all nicey to him.......I have took up for Sean for a long time but there is just something that is not right about the way he is acting...it did make me sick when he was being all buddy with them....wonder if something else is going on with him? I have been a fan...not an idolworshiper..but a fan of his because I think he works really hard...but this is turning me off.

[Dog Gone]

It's hard to tell. While Rush Limbaugh took a much more measured initial response, basically deferring judgment until he learned more facts, Hannity was quickly on record as against it.

Now he's painted himself into a corner by resorting to bogus arguments against the deal. If he's opposed to the deal based on reasons having nothing to do with the ports, there's no way to backtrack in 45 days because the bogus reasons won't be "investigated and resolved" in that period. He's left himself no "out."

I like Hannity in general, but he's no intellectual heavyweight. He tries to compensate with enthusiasm. That usually will work, but only when it's a fairly simple issue. This time it's backfiring on him, and I doubt he'll ever admit it.

[demlosers]

That's my sense of it Hannity boxed himself in.

...won't be "investigated and resolved" in that period. He's left himself no "out."

I see this deal going through upon further review by the Bush Administration...unless they find a show stopper that cannot be resolved, which I doubt will happen.

[stand4somethin]

Everyone of us has our favorite "conservative" talk show host. Hannity usually bores me because he seems like a Bush apologeticist all the time... same as Rush. Not me buddy. The show I usually listen to while Hannity is on is a local call in show... today they were talking about drying paint so I tuned into Hannity. He was on fire about the ports deal. If Hannity is off the Bush reservation on this... its over. I agree with Hannity and might even give him another chance now.

[oceanview]

if I were having all these alleged affairs with all these women you mention - would I have time to post here?

[claudiustg]

---"He needs to be chastised for this nonsense."
Chastised?

It's his radio program and he can express his opinions on this issue any way he sees fit.---

How do you chastize a radio talk host? You turn off the radio and send an email to his employer explaining why.

[Becki]

I think Hannity is a good guy, ...

Oh, he is. He is right on the borders, wrong on the ports.

I think what he is trying to do is prove his independence from the Republican Party in NY now that he has switched parties. The problem is, he is not taking any information that is coming from Republicans. He is using the misinformation put out by the Democrats, and running with it.

He has alienated several of his friends, and a large portion of his audience. I don't see Ollie, Gen Franks, or Tony going on his show any more. They have apparently written him off on this one.

I do hope this is not a trend for him. I usually enjoy his show, except when Charlie Rangel is on.

Becki