Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hannity bashes Free Republic (February 2005)

Posted on 02/16/2005 12:12:54 PM PST by 1Old Pro

Edited on 02/16/2005 2:03:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

Just now on his radio show...says we taken over by fringe people

listen to the audio


TOPICS: US: New York; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 11thcommandment; 1disappointedfan; 3hrsdayisalot2ask; abc; abcradio; admoney; afraidofwife; airhead; allaboutthe; audiencedesertion; basher; blandity; blowhard; bobgrant; buddyboy; buymybooks; childishfreepers; colmes; cyawouldntwanttobeya; dummy; eatingourown; fliphasmoresense; flippersux; foxnews; fr; frankenwenttoiraq; freeper; freeperscanbemean; freeperseatown; freepersembarrassme; freerepublic; freerepublichistory; fringefreepers; fringeradiohost; frisshowprep; frothy; glennbeckrocks; goodbyesean; grateamerican; greatamerican; hairball; hannidate; hannitize; hannitizethisyoujerk; hannity; hannitybookclub; hannityfanclub; hannityhelpsleftists; hannityis4chix; hannityrepeatsrush; hannitysongclub; hanselandgreta; hastalavistababy; hero; his15minutes; hughhewittbest; iloveglennbeck; ingrateamerican; jealous; jimquinnrules; jimroblist; jumpedtheshark; kissesrangelass; letnotyerheadbeempty; letnotyourheartbe; limbaugh; lookatme; losingfansfast; lousydebater; marty; martysgettingtired; medvedmakesusmart; medvedrulez; medvedsbetter; money; mybookmybookmybook; mygoodfriendsean; nameseanspuppy; notasgoodasrush; numberone; opinion; overreaction; pigfarmer; prbucks; prettyboy; radio; rangelisasocialist; rangellover; rush; rushlite; rushscoattails; ruthschrissteaks; savageisrealradio; sean; seanhannity; seanhasanewbook; seanisfringe; seantouchedanerve; selfpromotion; shoesalesman; showprep; stud; sweetbabyjames; switchtobobgrant; switchtomedved; talkradio; toast; turass; uragr8americannour; usedcarsalesman; vannity; villageidiot; weeatourown; wheresdrlaura; whineyfreepers; whoisthisguy; yawn; yawnity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,961-2,9802,981-3,0003,001-3,020 ... 3,141-3,152 next last
To: MeekOneGOP
Limbaugh is a true broadcaster, most of the rest are wannnnaaaabeees.
2,981 posted on 02/17/2005 9:54:12 AM PST by keysguy (Time to get rid of the UN and the ACLU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2974 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Bookmarking for later.


2,982 posted on 02/17/2005 9:54:17 AM PST by TruthNtegrity (Talk about resurrecting FIC's makes me nuts. ASW, anyone? Where is the Intel processing now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
then you must challenge the person's credentials to avoid addressing the issue

THERE ARE NO CREDENTIALS!

Of course, you can always ask for credentials from the poster himself.

They weren't the one who made the assertion. YOU WERE.

I can spend some time digging up some links here

One would think you would have had those links before making your assertion.

Sounds like you are conceding that 17,000 scientists might NOT constitute a majority.

I ask AGAIN. Where did I say anything about majority?

The fact of the matter is that the 17,000 scientists are a lot more than the 2000 that signed the IPCC report. Also, in 1997, a Gallup poll of climatologists showed that 83% disagreed with the human-made global warming theory.

2,983 posted on 02/17/2005 9:54:33 AM PST by TomB ("The terrorist wraps himself in the world's grievances to cloak his true motives." - S. Rushdie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2973 | View Replies]

To: keysguy
Yep!


2,984 posted on 02/17/2005 9:57:08 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2981 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
As another poster linked to you earlier, there's a petition with 17,000 names of scientists on it that says global warming as man-made phenomenon is bunk. That's evidence against claims that "a majority of scientists" buy into it.

That's no evidence at all if 17,000 are a minority of scientists. We need to look at percentages, not absolute numbers.

think it's pretty clear why there are no such elements. First, any study by an invested entity (such as a vehicle manufacturer or an energy company) would be discarded out of hand.

Not if it goes against what people are experiencing. Not if it goes against what other disciplines (say biologists, or oceanographers who map ocean currents) are reporting.

How much time have I spent on this, when you haven't even presented a single piece of evidence in support of it?

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that proves global warming ISN'T real. Unless you are a specialist, I don't attach much weight to your arguments. I don't mean this as an insult. I'm saying that only specialists are qualifed to judge. I'm no specialist either, and that is why I was posting the link to the specialist's explanation. I specifically asked a Freeper, knowing that his political agenda doesn't lean left.

2,985 posted on 02/17/2005 10:00:37 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2971 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
"Since it is his field of specialty, he would know far better than you or me."

He should, true. Although I pointed out that there are meteorologists and climate scientists who do not think that global warming is happening. I've talked to a couple of them, one at length. As for the published studies, we have to read them and draw our own conclusions, as best we can, just as we do with anything in life, as none of us can be experts in all fields, and as there is much disagreement, not to mention wrong conclusions, among experts.

A shame that "global warming" is more of a political than scientific issue.

2,986 posted on 02/17/2005 10:00:45 AM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2780 | View Replies]

To: atruelady

Hannity, you just got stuffed!


2,987 posted on 02/17/2005 10:01:29 AM PST by add925 (The Left = Xenophobes in Denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2968 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
A shame that "global warming" is more of a political than scientific issue.

Yes, this is sadly true.

2,988 posted on 02/17/2005 10:03:14 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2986 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Rush, great music and that little kid voice tickles me every time...


2,989 posted on 02/17/2005 10:03:58 AM PST by smiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2974 | View Replies]

To: JoJo Gunn
HENNESSY

True To The Game

-Tupac

2,990 posted on 02/17/2005 10:04:08 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham ("There is some sugar...It's harder in the case of fires. The tariffs are too high!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2293 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

Okay, we have a basic problem of logic here. When someone asserts something, it is up to that person to prove it; it is not automatically assumed true in the absence of such proof. In this case, the assertion of man-made global warming is the basic hypothesis. We've been hearing about it for two decades so far, and nothing even close to approaching proof has been discovered, despite many millions upon millions invested in trying to do so.

I don't need to be a specialist to follow Logic 101. The burden of proof is on the asserter. Negatives cannot be proven. No argument can change these facts.


2,991 posted on 02/17/2005 10:05:00 AM PST by thoughtomator (If Islam is a religion, so is Liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2985 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
I don't need to be a specialist to follow Logic 101. The burden of proof is on the asserter. Negatives cannot be proven. No argument can change these facts.

The burden exists on the other side to disprove the assertion rather than just ignore it, especially if they consider it important. That's the scientific method. Scientists have presented data on changing ocean currents, on CO2 levels, on changes in animal migrations and plankton levels, and so forth. Those who deny global warming aren't presenting data to rebut these claims, or aren't doing so in enough numbers to convincingly put the issue to rest. The least we can say is that the jury is still out.

2,992 posted on 02/17/2005 10:17:40 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2991 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

thanks, went over, registered and had a look around. The FR thread has been locked down.


2,993 posted on 02/17/2005 10:20:55 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2979 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

No, I agree that there's a small, but very "in-your-face" contingent on FR that fits in with his description of "they eat their own".


2,994 posted on 02/17/2005 10:23:27 AM PST by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2896 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

ping


2,995 posted on 02/17/2005 10:24:36 AM PST by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2994 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

ping


2,996 posted on 02/17/2005 10:25:10 AM PST by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2995 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

ping


2,997 posted on 02/17/2005 10:25:23 AM PST by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2996 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

ping


2,998 posted on 02/17/2005 10:25:35 AM PST by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2997 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

ping


2,999 posted on 02/17/2005 10:25:45 AM PST by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2998 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Sean just does not understand that the public has more options than to just listen to his ego trips, his sales promotions, his repetitive rhetoric, and his constant promotion of everything that promotes Sean. Give us something of interest - we are more intelligent than he gives us credit for.

Some of Sean's interviews have been quite painful to listen to. I've ended up even feeling a little sorry for some of the libs he has had on because he has misunderstood or misinterpreted what they had said. Sean then comes off as an wild hothead who isn't even listening to the person he is interviewing. The conservative point of view he purports to represent ends up looking ridiculous because his interviewing skills and polemics are weak.

3,000 posted on 02/17/2005 10:26:00 AM PST by Ziva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2961 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,961-2,9802,981-3,0003,001-3,020 ... 3,141-3,152 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson