Hannity bashes Free Republic (February 2005)

[EdReform]

Spot on analysis. You are right, it was an 'expensive shot.'

[Peach]

You're right about how freepers try to weed out the disruptors, prairie. It's a constant process.

There have been a few threads and posts in the last few days that did not serve FR well. Some of the posts were from trolls and some, unfortunately, were from long time freepers. They were the very sort of comments that show conservatives in a very bad light; I wouldn't be surprised if Sean read some of those threads.

[Servant of the 9]

Hannity wants to talk about extrreme people.
He is way farther out on the edge than all but a few % of FReepers.

SO9

[nopardons]

Not I.

[mugs99]

LOL!
Hannity wishes he had the likes of mhking on his forum.
If FR is the fringe, I'm proud to be a FRingy!
...

[Queen Jadis]

He only asks for four hours...I stopped giving him the time of day about 2 years ago.

I allways thought Hannity was a 911 star. HIs show was syndicated around that time. I agree with your comments about him being an intellectual lightweight.

I had thought he was a nice guy. After today, I see he is self serving and lacking in class.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

Whose opinion was solicited in coming to this conclusion?

A Freeper meteorologist. I will look for the post, but I asked him (or her) about global warming. He said that a majority of scientists accept its validity. The debate now was whether it is natural or manmade. He seemed to feel it was both, as did most of his fellows.

hard proof. And if there were any hard proof, a) we'd have seen it already,

There are plenty of accounts in the scientific literature of temperature variations, CO2 levels, abnormal animal movements, and so forth. Studies come from a spectrum of scientific disciplines. All these reports are difficult to ignore and the disbelievers in global warming have not addressed them.

it would be a lot more than a simple majority of scientists who agreed.

Non-scientists are not really qualified to make conclusions. I really don't put too much stock in what non-scientists say just like I don't put much stock into my optometrist's opinion about my tooth ache. I ask the dentist.

[musicman]

"Who would be a good independent conservative to replace Bill O'Reilly in the NO SPIN ZONE... if he ever quit???"

IMHO, Ann Coulter.......(and I know I am breaking a BIG FR rule by posting her name WITHOUT the obligatory pic, but I am still in pre-school in the FR HTML sandbox, and ask for forgiveness.....)

[AMDG]

Living in Atlanta I have heard him way back when - he always struck me as a lightweight.

His show is unlistenable because he is more interested in in producing heat instead of light. He is a horrible interivewer becasue he is unable to react to waht the interviewee says to sonstruct follow-up - instead he just forges ahead with his talking points that invariably get to the "yes or no" question or the momement when he can bring himslef into the issue (He says "I" almost as miuch as the Slickster). Add to that the constant self promotion and it is quite boring.

My suspician is that he resents the new media (blogs) becasue they pose a threat to him.

Instead of him I listen to Hugh Hewitt. Hugh is shameless in his pushing of Republican talking points but he is much brighter than Hannity has a great sense of humor and has much better guests.

Hewitt was the first radio guy to push "Christmas in Cambodia", "Rahtergate" and the Eason Jordan thing. He has become the first link between the new media and the MSM because when gets a hold of something he does not let go (Eason Jordan). All in all I think is show is the model for the future and I would look at him as a replacement for Rush in the future.

[don-o]

Rule #1

Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.

Taken over???

Dang, what did I miss?

[stopem]

WHAT?? What is up with that?

[wouldntbprudent]

Golly, your audio link should be edited into the top of the thread. This has to be heard. It's so much worse than I thought.

One thing that makes me sick: his talking about how no one would ever hear of these discussion forums if it weren't for him. Puh-leeze.

[restornu]

What did he say and are you taking it out of context???

Don't make sence.......

[mudblood]

"Michael Savage is the conscience of the conservative movement."

I like some of what he says, but he seemed to show more sympathy for Reagan's death than he did for 200+k tsunami victims. I actually felt for these folks, and at the time, I thought it was worthy of playing for a few weeks.

[G.Mason]

Here you go ...

[cyborg]

I stopped listening to the first hour in order to listen to Kevin McCullough. When it hits four, I listen to Sean. If he's talking about a topic I'm not interested in I turn it to Bob. I used to love BG.

[Nowhere Man]

The hit on Patriot Radio happened when OKC occurred. Mainstream folks started staying away in droves, since too many of those guys either had some sort of connection with the militias or were too sympathetic to McVey. McVey did more to hurt Patriot Radio than anything the MSM or Clinton could ever do.

True, I forgot about OKC although some did sputter on until the 2000 election it seemed. If you want my opinion, not only McVeigh did a lot of damage to Patriot Radio but to us as conservatives. Yes, we managed to hold on after that because of Bill Clinton but at times, it was by our fingernails. I think we could have won the Presidency in 1996, even with Dole, had OKC not happened, but McVeigh's actions pushed our efforts back for half a decade at least until we finally got it together in 2000.

[don-o]

I used to listen on the way home; but recently my local bluegrass station is what I prefer.