Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSean Hannity lost control of himself and his show on Tuesday night, after co-host Alan Colmes compared John Edwards' infidelity to John McCain's affair. Usually, the two hosts of "Hannity & Colmes" take turns questioning guests and carefully avoid debating each other, but Hannity made a rare departure to repeatedly yell that McCain's affair was somehow acceptable because it occurred after he was tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam. This clip does not take off until about 2:55, but then it gets feisty and weird in a hurry:
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I actually called Hannity yesterday.
I heard the Boy Blunder railing against Edwards and talking about how "it shows lack of moral character that somebody would commit adultery"....
I got on with the call screener (who guards ol' Sean like a mother hen) and told her, I AGREED with Sean. We SHOULDN'T vote for an adulterer....and did he know how John and Cindy McCain originally "got together".
She told me to hold and then....(click).
Tried again today after seeing that video and go through....and "Sorry, we're full up with calls!" ...(click)
One guy slipped through though and asked Sean about Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani...."Well, I don't know the specifics of those cases. Nobody knows all the facts!"
Didn't stop The Con Ken Doll from bloviating on Edwards, did it?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:04pm
BTW, Fox pulled the video from their website. ONLY available on YouTube now.
hmmmmm?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:11pm
oooh,
i bet ol' karma's gonna bring down ol' sean, real soon......
the only question remains,
"gay or straight or zoo"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 10:18pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:11pm
Could Mr. Hannity see the writing on the wall?
Not handling it too well is he?
Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:19pm
I would have usually assumed this to be hyper-partisan choreography in order to gain attention and boost ratings......
however,
it appears Sean has finally come to grips with the fact that the GOP is in deep crap, and it really seems to bother him. How strange.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:30pm
I can't believe it but I actually agree with Sean Hannity on this one.----Posted by frankgrits at 08/13/2008 @ 10:29pm
I can.
ANYBODY else surprised that FRANK and Rush, Juinor in agreement? Anybody???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:36pm
It's a blessing for him to have found love after his ordeal.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/13/2008 @ 10:29pm
pretty BEER HEIRESS.
love...beer...money..
tomAto.....TOMaTO...
Lucky bastard.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:36pm
Not handling it too well is he?----Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:19pm
Mostly it was just STUPID. He goes into a tirade about Edwards (who isn't even running for anything) and how it shows "lack of moral character"....
and seemed to have forgotten that McCain (FIVE years later, FRANK) dumped his "fat" wife (who was injured in a terrible car accident) for an heiress 15 years his younger that he was already sleeping with before the divorce had even begun.
Or Newt...or Guiliani. Both guys Sean has gleefully sucked upto and would never question their "moral character".
Only his Auxilliary Ditto-heads (or a duplicitious Hillary cultist) wouldn't see that as pure hypocrisy.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:39pm
Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:36pm
You have ANY doubts at all, if it was Hillary vs. McCain this Fall...
FRANK would be calling Maverick John a bigger sleaze than Edwards ever could be?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:41pm
Carole Shepp McCain said it best, "John was 40 years old and wanted to be 25 again". His pow status should have made his commitment to family even stronger.
Posted by julien38 at 08/13/2008 @ 10:46pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:41pm
No sir, I have no doubt.
I believe his attacks on McCain would be ruthless.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:47pm
Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:47pm
Of course. FROSTY and I have posted some, including one where he "agreed with Rush, McCain may be mentally unstable".
Now of course with "the plan" being to get McCain in, so Hillary (the object of his infection) (deliberate mis-spell, heheh) can have her last shot at the Oval....FG is suddenly "Madly for Maverick" and will become a pal with guys like Sean Hannity?!!?!?!!?!...to achieve his ultimate goal.
Sick and twisted...but fun!
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:50pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:50pm
That's his story and he's sticking to it.
He is too stubborn to admit his reasons, and too prideful to admit he is being hypocritical.
But, he has set up a fallback position of win-win to cover his rear, as you already know.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:55pm
But, he has set up a fallback position of win-win to cover his rear, as you already know.---Posted by Benchrest at 08/13/2008 @ 10:55pm |
Oh YEAH, I LOVE that bit of bull-flop.
"It's a win-win for me...McCain or Obama". Yet, he's admitted that November is about "avenging" Hillary and that he thinks McCain will only serve one-term....
so where's the "win" for FRANK, if Obama wins? Obama will be the nominee in 2012 (even Hillary isn't stupid enough to take on an incumbent Prez, even if he SOMEHOW becomes worse than Dubya)...and in 2016, she'll be 69, with few remembering the "her" glory years of the 1990s and a Veep with all the cash and endorsements that SHE used to have.
Plus, how does FRANK "walk it back" if Obama wins and try to go back to "old FRANK" the progressive?
or if McCain wins, try to ...and try to be pals with us again? Claim McCain "fooled him with his centrist talk"?
FG's credibility is shot. If contradicting everything he's said for year (pre-2008) didn't kill it...
schmoozing with HANNITY sure did....LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 11:11pm
But the fact that his top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann arranged a phone call between his longtime lobbying client, the Georgian president, and the Republican presidential candidate on the same day that Scheunemann's lobbying company Orion Strategies signed a $200,000 lobbying renewal contract with the country really takes the cake for conflict of interest.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:19pm
hannity's a hack:
The Drums of Change
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
On or about last Friday, the world changed. With two very different coming-out parties -- the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and the invasion of Georgia -- China and Russia put everyone on notice that the power relationships of the past have been reshuffled and that formidable new powers are challenging the established order.
http://www.washington ** post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081202826.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:28pm
A TEENAGE BEAUTY QUEEN, CINDY HENSLEY MET AND FELL IN LOVE WITH JOHN MCCAIN WHILE ON VACATION WITH HER PARENTS IN HAWAII. She was 24; he was 42 and still entangled in a broken marriage.
egad!
how exotic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:59am
Plus, how does FRANK "walk it back" if Obama wins and try to go back to "old FRANK" the progressive?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 11:11pm
Well, I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember where to look it up, but he basically said "if it makes you feel any better I predict Obama will win" and "if Obama wins, then my party and priorities win and so I win", and so he will claim he never compromised his principles.
As far as "avenging" Hillary goes....
It doesn't matter what you or any other idiot on this site thinks of me. You know nothing about me except what I've told you. You'll never in your wildest imagination guess who I really am.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 11:10pm
He's Batman.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/14/2008 @ 12:59am
eight houses!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 01:01am
Ahh playing the "but we were apart for five years" canard. If that were true, why didn't Grandpa do something at least semi-honorable and leave her when he knew he no longer had feelings for her? The timing just stinks the whole way round. The simple fact is you don't want anyone to get into the more unsavory details of Grandpa's past because, well, "war hero" only gets you so far.
CCC has you pegged even better than Mask does. All Grandpa must be positive, all Obama must be negative, there can be no middle ground. It makes you look like a mindless shill Frank. Get over it, you're going to end up with ulcers repressing yourself like this.
Posted by yutsano at 08/14/2008 @ 01:02am
You'll never in your wildest imagination guess who I really am.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 11:10pm
well, you used to be tony blair.
now, you've morphed into bill kristol.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 01:03am
egad!
how exotic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:59am
I was thinking more along the lines of poetic. Or ironic. Or maybe just entertaining.
Posted by yutsano at 08/14/2008 @ 01:04am
Nope, wrong.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 01:12am
Probably. Nothing new to me.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/14/2008 @ 01:17am
I asked you to explain to me why Hillary was superior to Obama, you refused to do so. You seem to have this innate, almost irrational hatred for Obama that you haven't sufficiently explained beyond simple Republican talking points. You would rather a 72 year old man who admits he knows very little about the economy, who several of his peers IN HIS OWN PARTY, in the Senate no less, claim is fundamentally unsuited for the office of POTUS, and who has demonstrated over and over again political expediency outweighs principle, is still better than the candidate whose expressed political philosophy more closely matches yours (or so you claim). What we are experiencing is simple cognitive dissonance, which you still insufficiently explain. Why, after a long held belief in progressive principles, do you now abandon them? Do you honestly think McCain will restore habeas corpus, enact a health care plan that addresses the huge inequities that exist now, or ensure job creation that will restore the middle class? And if so, how? Are you at least getting an inkling of why you are approaching what some regard as hypocrisy?
Posted by yutsano at 08/14/2008 @ 01:35am
"The rightwingers here can give you some profound insight on this character who calls himself Mask."
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 01:21am
I live by the sword, uncomplaining to die by it (as noted to EMILE BRANNIGAN on another thread).
And I think my status as "Archivist" serves a purpose. For instance...would LVLIBERTY be able to get away with his pronouncments of his "Christianity", if there wasn't a post I saved of him advocating the NUCLEAR BOMBARDMENT of China in order to secure a "win" for Doug MacArthur?
Would SLIVER be able to have any credibility on an abortion thread, if I hadn't saved him saying that he WOULD be willing to let 200-250 women a year DIE from illegal abortions?
Or how about MARKCANYON (Or MARKHIMMLER as I like to call him)...he might be able to pull the wool over a few folks' eyes, and seem a "strident, if hard-edged poster"....instead of a NAZI SYMPATHIZER as saved in his post where he called the Holocaust "one bright moment in history"?
Of course, a few on the Other Side, get theirs too.
And...if you go into a gunfight, you risk getting hit...which I am.
Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 1:00pm
Yeah Frank, I bet they can.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/14/2008 @ 01:39am
Proves Republicans are everything they claim Dem's to be. Our conservative posters have repeatedly said that the left is wiling to justify anything carried out by the left. Yet the right will rail against Edwards and then give McCain a pass. Plenty of people have come out of war situations, prisoner camps, losing limbs, almost losing lives and not cheated on their wives, why does McCain get a pass? McCain gets a pass for doing things that would easily be insulted if they were done by the left. If a person on the left had been captured and then capitulated to the enemy the right would be repeating the constantly that he had cracked under enemy pressure and that that person doesn't have a back bone. Yet the right will always excuse McCain.
This race isn't about who is better, it's not about who did the right thing and who did the wrong thing, This race is about painting the other person to be a demon. Painting the other part to be a demon. People buy into this stupid party politics which is exactly what our Founding Fathers warned us about. People are getting to the point where they would excuse murder as long as it was by someone of their party.
Once again Frank proves my point. He will NEVER say anything disparaging about McCain. He is willing to justify everything McCain does. If Obama had commited some sort of infidelity against Michelle, well A. that wouldn't happen because Barack wouldn't be alive today to run for President if he had done that to her, but also Obama would be getting railed against by the right AND by Frank. But then if you brought up that McCain had done it Frank would find a way to justify it while leaving Obama open to be attacked.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 05:13am
My central point is many many soldiers have come back from horrible situations in wars. After having been in POW camps for years. After having not seen their wives for years. After having been tortured much worse than McCain ever was. Losing limbs. Seeing their friends tortured and killed. Yet they didn't cheat on their wives. So why should McCain have? Let's just admit that McCain just wanted a younger, prettier, richer wife. Also if he was willing to cheat on his wife after she had just had a terrible car accident I wonder what he did in all his time in Vietnam when he wasn't able to see his wife and prostitution was widespread?
Edwards act is deplorable. I in no way justify what he did. It is a despicable thing that he cheated on his wife. DO NOT try to justify McCain doing it. To the right who are supposed to believe marriage to be a sacred thing and that divorce shouldn't even be on the table and that when you make the pledge it is meant to last through EVERYTHING, they should not even begin to try to justify this action. Those on the right who claim that marriage is so sacred that homosexuals can't participate in it will expose their true colors when they try to argue that McCain was justified in his adultery.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 05:19am
One thing about all these "right wing" mouthpieces that they all have in common,especially when the get caught in the "BS" they remind me of they kid rolling on the floor in a store,after they can't get what they want.Yelling and screaming.
Posted by eniobob at 08/14/2008 @ 07:15am
Why doesn't the "Defense of Marriage Act" work? That piece of legislation should have put an end to affairs and such.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2008 @ 07:32am
Both Carol and John McCain were different people after mccain's lengthly stay at the Hanoi Hilton. Their marriage was over for all intents and purposes before John met Cindy. It's a blessing for him to have found love after his ordeal. Posted by frankgrits at 08/13/2008 @ 10:29pm
When you say that 'their marriage was over for all intents and purposes', what you mean is that it WASN'T over. John was fucking Cindy while he was married to Carol. That's what I call character.
And when John calls his wife Cindy a 'cunt', I can certainly feel the love. What a blessing to have found that love, huh?
Really, you're too much.
Posted by sagibson at 08/14/2008 @ 07:56am
The moral relativism of the right is amazing to behold.
If you sift some of the arguments presented in defense of John McCain (here and elsewhere), one could come away with the conclusion that
1) because Johnny Mack wasn't the same man that he had been before Viet Nam and neither was his wife, it was ugly but ok to cheat on her and then toss her aside for a Stepford wife
2) the passage of 3o years indemnifies him against all criticism
3) emotional immaturity is excused if you are for McCain, but anathema if you are not (never mind that the guy you are hammering isn't even running anymore)
The piece that bothers me most is actually the last; McCain remains, in my opinion, an emotionally immature human being.
We have had nearly 8 years of not one, but two emotionally immature persons running the Executive, to the lasting detriment of our nation.
While Barack Obama has his faults, emotional immaturity is not one of them, at least that I can tell.
Challenges early in life tend to divest a person of emotional immaturity and to produce a well-rounded person (or if of not stern enough stuff, incapacitate that individual). Clearly Barry O falls into the former category.
Children of privilege - which comes in many forms - into which class Boosh and Johnny Mack can reasonably be said to fall, often do not experience such trials in the formative years and thus fail to become whole human beings.
In Georgie's alcoholism and the substitution of religion as his drug of choice, he remains an adolescent angry at Dad.
Johnny Mack had his path chosen for him from the moment he was crowning in the Canal Zone. The experience of being a POW does not seem to have engendered any degree of emotional maturity.
Say what you like about BO, but at least he is a whole person.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 08:13am
Why doesn't the "Defense of Marriage Act" work?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2008 @ 07:32am
Is that the real name of it?
I thought it was the Defensive Marriage Act.
At any rate, it doesn't work because the penalties aren't severe enough.
String 'em up by the short and curlies, I say.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 08:34am
One thing about all these "right wing" mouthpieces that they all have in common,especially when the get caught in the "BS" they remind me of they kid rolling on the floor in a store,after they can't get what they want.Yelling and screaming.
Posted by eniobob at 08/14/2008 @ 07:15am
You are giving screaming children a bad name.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 08:36am
Wow, that's strange....FRANK decides to attack me as having a "problem you have with women and why. It's really not normal."...
why? Not because I actually attacked Hillary Clinton (which I didn't...go back and check)...
but because I attacked FRANK!!!!! for being obsessed and selling his soul to get Hillary Clinton her last shot at the Presidency in 2012.
Attack FRANK, you're attacking Hillary??? (and by defense mechinism rationale "women" in general?!??!?)
Any psych majors out there, what does it indicate when a person starts identifying themselves with the object of their obsession, conflating themselves with that other person and making THEIR personal grievances those of their cultish worship?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 08:44am
I'm more baffled by the beginning part of the segment, where Hannity tries to point out Democrat hypocrisy because they think what Edwards did was not a big deal, but the situation with Mark Foley became a huge ordeal.
I think that an affair between two adults is a little different than a House member sending inappropriate e-mails to underaged boys for ten years. I'm not saying adultery is okay, but I would think that an elected official who shows signs of pedophilia and expresses that desire to young men through instant messaging and e-mail for a decade should be brought to the public's attention. Democrat or Republican, if a Congressman does something like that, he should be scrutinized beyond repair.
Posted by dutches at 08/14/2008 @ 10:23am
Frankgrits has written the biggest load of crap I have ever read with his pathetic attempts to make it sound like he knows ol' Cindy and John and his excuses for McCain are too ludicrous for words.McCain showed complete lack of character when he committed serial adultery before settling on the rich young one who could advance his career and he was in his 40s when he did it.He was not a young guy.He was a full grown adult.His actions as an adult define who he is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/14/2008 @ 10:37am
Posted by dutches at 08/14/2008 @ 10:23am
Hannity's a hypocrite and partisan hack. He plays down Foley (or tries equivalency)...or Larry Craig.
Bemoans Edwards' "lack of character" for his adultery...but excuses McCain and (later on radio, as I noted) plays down Gingrich's and Giuliani's adultery.
Plus he's just not that bright. His knee jerks and he says things that he has to walk back.
When Keith Ellison wanted to be sworn in on a Qu'ran (since Ellison is a Muslim), Hannity said it was similar to a neo-Nazi wanting to be sworn in on a copy of "Mein Kampf".
He wants to be Limbaugh, but doesn't get the joke.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 10:45am
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/14/2008 @ 10:38am
Read all of what I said, ding dong. In summary, in the event that you are too lazy to go back and look, I said that early challenges tend to bring out the best in a person, or incapacitate a person.
To further amplify, the degree to which a person is supported by parents (in particular) and adult role models (in general) have a great deal to do with the outcome. Moreover, adults in the lives of children so beset can actively detract from whatever potential a child might have.
Asshats like Boosh and his wingman Johnny Mack have no freaking clue what it is like working without a safety net (that being said, I have only marginally greater familiarity with this myself). For different reasons, each one was set from the moment of his birth - look at the primrose path walked by each and you will see what I mean.
Johnny Mack's POW experience was a branch point, as was Boosh's alcohol and drug abuse. Each could have found greater humanity and a fuller understanding of themselves, the world, and their relationship to it; it certainly appears that neither did.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 11:42am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 08:44am
Frank is attacking someone for having a problem with women, but defends Boosh's wingman Johnny Mack, a guy who publicly called his wife a trollop and a c*nt?
Tie my face to the side of a pig and roll me in the mud.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 11:45am
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 11:45am
The entire implication of FRANK's attack shows how weird HE has gotten. First it was... I mock him for HIS cultish devotion to Hillary (the sole reason behind his support of McCain), ergo in FG's mind "MASK is obsessed with Hillary".
NOW it's "MASK has a problem with women"...not because I said anything about women in general...or even much about Hillary...but because I go after FRANK for HIS obsession with ONE woman.
BTW, he's also jumping on the Limbaugh/Hannity bandwagon on the "Big Lie" Theory (keep telling the same lie over and over until people believe it) with this "MASK blows with the wind"...when I have said CONSISTANTLY that I would vote for WHOEVER the Dems put up...even Hillary.
But like Rush and Sean, FG hopes if he keeps saying it, somebody will believe him.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 11:59am
Colmes is generally a useless piece of sack cheese, but raised two points that the bloviating hack Hannity cannot spin his way out of, volume and rudeness notwithstanding.
1. McCain and Edwards have both been guilty of marital infidelity. They have both lied, and that raises natural questions about their respective trustworthiness.
2. McCain is running for president; Edwards is not.
Obviously, Sean sees no utility in comparing McCain to the guy he's actually running against.
Go figure...
Posted by drhammer at 08/14/2008 @ 12:29pm
But like Rush and Sean, FG hopes if he keeps saying it, somebody will believe him.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 11:59am
the problem is that people actually believe these morons.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:49pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:49pm
Millions...but only 28% of the country, FROSTY. Neither Limbaugh or Hannity do much more now than try to convince the tiny minority who still believe in Dubya (and Sean and Rush of course) that...
they're still the majority.
And, despite having no choice but oppose Obama (not so much support McCain), they know that they'd probably be MORE irrelevant under a McCain Presidency than under Obama, where they could rail against him and the Dem Congress ad nauseum and dream of a "real conservative" running in '12.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 1:09pm
Someone needs to remind (if they already haven't) poor VD brained Sean Hannity that St. Ronald Reagan ran around on Jane Wyman while he was married to her (in other words, RR committed adultery).
I sat with her in church one Sunday in Palm Springs some years ago and afterward went to lunch with her and Loretta Young. Jane wouldn't describe the Reagan adultery but she acknowledged that it happened on many occasions over a period of years and was the real cause of their divorce. I wonder if Sean will justify that behavior on the part of the Patron Saint of the Republican party. Of course, hypocrites like Sean Hannity find it very easy to justify anything they want to justify because we all know that Republican sins are OK with God and Democratic sins can never be forgiven.
Posted by hjs at 08/14/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by hjs at 08/14/2008 @ 1:27pm
Sean would blame it on the trauma Reagan had suffered during World War-II...
making movies on the backlot of MGM!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 1:42pm
It's not the same!
(Everyone knows that making movies with monkeys is torture.)
Posted by drhammer at 08/14/2008 @ 1:47pm
"Finally, as I've said before, I don't give a fiddlers fart what anyone here thinks of my opinions. That's the beauty of these blogs."
A sure sign that you actually do care. Why would you even state such a thing if you did not care?
Posted by onthehelm at 08/14/2008 @ 2:50pm
Sean would blame it on the trauma Reagan had suffered during World War-II...
making movies on the backlot of MGM!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 1:42pm
Hey, hey, hey, hey now.
St. Ronald had mild hearing loss from the discharge of a blank pistol too near his ear.
You can't understand the suffering unless you've been there.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 2:52pm
I saw that somebody said
<<Bush lied, kids died>>
then
<<Edwards lied, kids were born>>
Posted by Mistral at 08/14/2008 @ 2:54pm
It's O.K. folks Hannity is a throw back to an earlier geological time. i'm not an expert but it's either cro magnon or Neantherdal. No insult meant to either one of those groups
Posted by julien38 at 08/14/2008 @ 2:55pm
It's O.K. folks Hannity is a throw back to an earlier geological time. i'm not an expert but it's either cro magnon or Neantherdal. No insult meant to either one of those groups
Posted by julien38 at 08/14/2008 @ 2:55pm
Neanderthal. You can tell by the "bossing" in the area of the eye brows.
(though in SH's instance, the more accurate term would be unibrow)
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by Mistral at 08/14/2008 @ 2:54pm
There's an interesting point. Usual right-wing charge is "Liberals just want to keep abortion free and easy so they can have lots of irresponsible sex!"
yet they now claim Edwards is the father of the child.
So...why didn't John tell Rielle to get an abortion???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 3:20pm
a true American icon
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:32pm
are you talking about john mccain?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:42pm
but even I know that in the Bible, Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Let's talk about Obama's rampant drug use instead.---Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:32pm
So talking about McCain committing adultery violates John 8:7 and incurs your indignant outrage...
but then two lines later you want to bring up Obama's "rampant drug use"????
Tell me FRANK, what did Jesus say about...
hypocrites?
Ask your new buddy LVLIB or try "Matthew".
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 3:45pm
Let's talk about Obama's rampant drug use instead...
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:32pm
Sheesh Frankie, you are becoming absurd.
How do we know that Shrub doesn't have Korsakoff's Syndrome or hepatic encephalopathy from all of the booze he drank?
Or that Dickie Darth hasn't had a hypoxic brain injury from one of more of his heart attacks (he's had more than the Swirski brothers combined afterall)?
Or that getting bashed in the head by a bunch of NVA guards didn't cause a traumatic brain injury to Johnny Mack (Boosh's Wingman) and that his bouts of temper aren't frontal release signs?
The answer is that we don't. Are any/all of these things possible? Probable? Harder question.
Do you have evidence that BO's brain is toast? No, you don't.
You are essentially insinuating that the Democratic nominee was a rock head; why not finish the job and call his wife a crack 'ho and be done with it?
Ask yourself this question: Am I really the same person that wrote the "Fireside Chat?"
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 3:49pm
No, let's just disparage a true American icon....Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:32pm
BTW, is saying you agree with Rush Limbaugh and "McCain might be mentally unstable" "disparaging a true American icon"???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 3:52pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:55pm
Uh, FRANK.....YOU said that, remember?
Or was that in the Before Time, in the Long, Long Away (to quote a little "Thunderdome")?
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 3:58pm
No, let's just disparage a true American icon...
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:32pm
What, exactly, makes John McCain an American icon, Frankie?
That he served his country in uniform.
Millions have done that.
That he was a POW?
Thousands (and I would venture to say tens of thousands) have so endured; you can even have a license plate to that effect.
That he is a Senator?
Not sure how many have done so in the history of the Republic, but again, would estimate the number to be in the thousands. His opponent in the general is one also. BFD.
I will agree that the combination is unusual, but by your standards, Daniel Inouye is at least as much of an icon as Johnny Mack - he's the Japanese American from Hawaii who served with distinction in WW II and lost an arm (in Italy, if memory serves).
How does being an icon qualify you for the presidency?
It doesn't, that's how. Shit, if that were the case then Mark Twain and Will Rogers would have been vying for the title of greatest president ever.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 3:59pm
Dillweed. There you go again. If McCain shows a little anger from time to time, one can't really blame him. There do you feel important now?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:55pm
The consequences if I show "a little anger" are probably that my wife won't have sex with me for a week or two.
The consequences if the occupant of the Oval Office shows "a little anger" are potentially more severe.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 4:03pm
More disparaging of an icon....
"McCain hitched his wagon to a losing policy proffered by people who really don't know what they're doing. His shortsightedness in this major blunder shows his courage of his convictions but also his lack of vision for the bigger picture. Someone with his military background should know better."---Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/10/2007 @ 5:35pm
"At least John Kerry and John Edwards had the balls to admit it was a mistake. What the hell is holding someone as intelligent as McCain back. He's the last person who should be selling his soul and condemning more kids to die just because of his political ambitions."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/17/2006 @ 6:31pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 4:10pm
Dilweed, Dilweed, Dillweed. of course you fail to see that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the rest of you. Went right over your hesd, didn't it?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:02pm
Perhaps in your mind this was what you were doing, but it's not what came through your fingers.
Now if someone were to take an actual, Jesus-inspired position on this, then s/he might say,
'you know what, John Edwards failed himself, his wife, his family. What we know about this tells us that he is human, just like the rest of us. If we are going to look to Scripture, then the Scripture that best informs his situation - and of those like him - would teach us, to "Judge not, that you not be judged," and "Let those among you who have not sinned cast the first stone." '
The follow up to the story of the woman condemned for adultery is even more instructive:
After everyone had set down their stones and left, Jesus is alone with the woman. He asks her 'is there no one here to condemn you?' Jesus then says 'neither do I condemn you.'
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 4:13pm
BTW, FRANK of course missed the entire point.
The topic was on Hannity's hypocrisy over attacking Edwards and saying that it tarred him as a person with a lack of moral character and somebody you could never trust, and then trying to rationalize away McCain's adultery when Colmes (in a moment of lucidity) threw it in.
If you look (Posted by frankgrits at 08/13/2008 @ 10:29pm) FRANK took up with Sean and his hypocrisy in an attempt to defend McCain (which of course is simply the ends to the means of getting 2012 freed for You-Know-Who)....
when Colmes' point was that BY HANNITY'S STANDARD, McCain should be untrustworthy too. Colmes wasn't saying "Don't trust McCain because he had an affair with Cindy while married"...it was in response to Hannity's attack on Edwards.
Sean was the stone-thrower....and when hoisted on his own petard, he blabbered like an idiot about "five years after being in the Hanoi Hilton".
FRANK just cares that it might hurt McCain and that means the end of Somebody's Presidential hopes.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:05pm |
Frank, these are military awards. For doing his damn duty.
The problem with Johnny Mack's service is that it was all at the tactical level, not the strategic level. That is the realm of Generals and Admirals.
Tactically, he could have been brilliant for all I know; I see no evidence from his public statements that he has any capacity for strategic thinking.
It is the difference between tactics and strategy that render his service admirable but not a qualification for office.
Now you can say what you like about BO and his lack of experience, but the fact that he took down Hillary demonstrates that he has the ability to think both tactically and strategically.
Might think about that a little there, boy-o.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 4:20pm
Yeah ok, so you know your Bible better than I do so what's your point. I'm not that crazy about fiction anyway.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:15pm
I don't know about that, actually; I never said that it wasn't fiction, either.
Read Joseph Campbell on the Power of Myth and you will see why that whether It is truth or fiction, It is a transcendental work.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:21pm
Actually, I rather think that BO is going to make McCain look like a doddering old fool. And a mean one at that.
See my previous post regarding tactics and strategy; simply put, McCain is not a "big picture" guy whereas Obama is.
As far as being a "maverick" goes, McCain has pretty much tossed that in his pining for the presidency. He's more pathetic that Kerry ever was.
Off to daycare for my son.
Have fun, all.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 4:27pm
See it? I'm going to quote it FRANK-
"I'm just like all of you. I was critisizing the opposition at the time, although not in the same way. now, McCain is not the enemy. Neither is Obama."----Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:14pm
No, McCain is your ticket for Hillary to be "avenged" and give her her last shot at it 2012.
Obama IS the enemy, as far as that goal goes.
FRANK you've ADMITTED it...several times. You think McCain will step down after one term (thus relieving you of re-contradicting yourself and attacking him if Hillary ran against him)....and you have said Hillary will win the nomination in 2012 and easily the election.
Everything you say or do, is focused through that lens. When you get scared or backed in a corner, you try your "Either way I win" or "Obama's not the bad guy"...quickly followed by endless RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS attacking Obama.
If you have to start sounding like Limbaugh or Hannity or Fox News or Bill Kristol or...LVLIBERTY...or PONTIFICUS...or HAPPY....or MARYBRET/Darin....you'll do it.
Months and months ago, you ALMOST could have gotten away with it. But after endless "Hillary's going to win" and "Hillary's unstoppable"....you let your fingers type too fast, and came up with gems like "We will bide our time util November when we will avenge her."---Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Without that, and some others, you MIGHT have pulled off this con job of "I was a fan of McCain's all the time. It's about who's most qualified!"
But now EVERYBODY (ask around, if you don't think so) knows it's about getting McCain elected, so that either way (McCain running for re-election or his Veep) Hillary Clinton gets her last chance shot at the Presidency.
All else is just to facilitate THAT.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 4:36pm
Inouye also won the Medal Of Honor. Don't forget to mention that.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:21pm
THAT is a medal!
It is a rare thing to see a general snap to attention and salute first those who wear it, because they are usually KIA.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/14/2008 @ 4:38pm
"Americans don't like it when heroes like McCain are called to task and compared to people who simply cannot measure up."----Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:29pm
"Listen, any comments that were made in a derogotory sense towards John McCain in the past should be put in the proper context. I'm just like all of you. I was critisizing the opposition at the time."
Why were you so unconcerned with what "Americans like" BEFORE, FRANK???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 4:39pm
One candidate was proudly serving his country while the other at the same age was snorting coke.---Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:40pm
Obama was snorting coke...at 12?!??!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 4:43pm
If McCain gets elected then FrankG. will start to criticize McCain and the GOP and pushing Hillary a half an hour after McCain is sworn in.His all consuming love and adoration for a politician is bizarre and makes Elvis fanatics and impersonators seem saner by comparison.Maybe Frank will become a Hillary impersonator. I've noticed that the two Rush listeners,Happy and FrankG,constantly remind everyone that Obama is black or half black,in FrankGs case.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/14/2008 @ 5:07pm
It is a rare thing to see a general snap to attention and salute first those who wear it, because they are usually KIA.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/14/2008 @ 4:38pm
Indeed it is.
Patton once said that he would have given his immortal soul for the award.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 5:39pm
Never attacked mcCain's character or heroism like I see otherwise intelligent people doing here. Is electing a black (well half black anyway) President really that important?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:45pm
What sort of garbage is that last statement?
I don't give a crap what color a person is, what gender a person is, how old or young a person is, just that we elect the right person.
I see not just Frank, but many others trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
If you are going to make a big whup out of his 'Nam service, doesn't it stand to reason that ALL of his past, warts and all, becomes fair game - otherwise you are cherry picking.
If private behavior is off limits, then why was Ken Starr allowed to expand beyond the scope of the original Whitewater mandate?
If private behavior is off limits, why is it ok to talk about John Edwards but exclude McCain?
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 5:45pm
If McCain cheated on his wife, then he cannot be trusted! That being said, I find it absolutely pathetic and very naive of the left to continually call adultery by their own,"human", "a mistake", or my favorite " bad judgement". It is very telling of the morality and values of those losers on the left that justify betrayal. I believe the left does this because they themselves are so very un-trustworthy and flawed that if society would just justify these flaws they won't be forced to feel like the scum they truly are!!!! How can any rational person believe that a man or woman who would betray those closest to them ( wife, children, family, supporters' etc. ) could be trusted in ANY other capacity, let alone the highest positions of power in this nation. I'm truly embarrassed that this once great country is producing so many immoral, empty, self-absorbed losers, and by this I mean, today's LIBERAL! Flat out SHAMEFUL!
Posted by barry25 at 08/14/2008 @ 5:48pm
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 5:39pm
Yes sir. And that is basically what it costs to get one.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/14/2008 @ 5:49pm
Oh, and by the way, if , according to the left, betraying your wife or husband is " human ", does that mean that being "faithful" is not? I hear constantly from the left that " all men do this". Does that mean the men who don't cheat are not " human" or not " men "? Oh, and i thought the left was against sterotyping and generalizing people? Hypocrites of the " lowest" order!!!!!!
Posted by barry25 at 08/14/2008 @ 5:55pm
Why argue Frank? His mind is addled. All he cares about insulting Obama. He doens't give a damn about who is better. Frank is one of the most cultist individuals on this site. Don't bother with him. He's a joke.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 6:06pm
Posted by barry25 at 08/14/2008 @ 5:48pm
Where do Larry Craig, Mark Foley and that dickfor US Rep from Louisiana (whose name I can't remember) or some place in the south fall in your schema?
How 'bout Sean Hannity, for talking out of both sides of his mouth, engaging in the very same moral relativism of which you accuse the left?
Now that you have had your spanking, you may retire to your underground bunker.
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 6:07pm
I also like something here. Frank says that private lives don't matter. Yet frank brings up Ayres and Wright. That's apart of Obama's private life. Yet Frank is fine holding that against Obama. Private life doesn't matter only if it's McCain's.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 6:51pm
Tactically, he could have been brilliant for all I know
Posted by skeletonman at 08/14/2008 @ 4:20pm
actually, he crashed quite a few jets.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 7:44pm
5 in fact Frosty. Not to mention the rather ugly incident on the USS Forrestal (which was never investigated fully).
And notice how Frank chose to completely ignore my challenge? What makes John McCain superior to Barack Obama Frank?
Posted by yutsano at 08/14/2008 @ 7:52pm
Show's a lack of character to not be able to keep a promise to you spouse to love and honor. If you can't keep a promise to the person you supposedly love how are you supposed to keep a promise to the American people?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 8:05pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 4:05pm "The Associated Press recently obtained the military records of Sen. John McCain." --- Oh my...
"The Navy may claim that it already released McCain's record to the Associated Press on May 7, 2008 in response to the AP's Freedom of Information Act request. But the McCain file the Navy released contained 19 pages -- a two-page overview and 17 pages detailing Awards and Decorations. Each of these 17 pages is stamped with a number. These numbers range from 0069 to 0636. When arranged in ascending order, they precisely track the chronology of McCain's career. It seems reasonable to ask the Navy whether there are at least 636 pages in McCain's file, of which 617 weren't released to the Associated Press." J. Klein - Huffpost
Posted by FLaim at 08/14/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/14/2008 @ 5:07pm
Absolutely. And he'll claim it's "no contradiction" to attack "President McCain" within 6 months (probably sooner) after Inauguration.
He'll flip to "Old FRANK"...and maybe, if his ego allows, claim that "McCain fooled me...I thought he was more centrist. We need to work hard to stop him and come 2012 Hillary will fix all the damage he's doing!"
And pretend the pro-McCain FRANK never existed.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 8:16pm
Larry Craig, Mark Foley ( is he still serving? Did anyone defend his actions like the left defends adultery?)and any man or woman, Repubican or democrat who betrays those closest to them cannot be trusted in positions of power. Sean Hannity is ABSOLUTELY WRONG in defending McCain's actions because of PTSD! That's called "keepin' it real" MORON! If you'd read the very first sentence on my first post, you'd have understood this, but you're nothing more than a namby-pamby knee-jerk off liberal! Losers like Franktits call adultery a " mistake" and acts of betrayal " human "! What does franktits call honest loving people that honor the commitments they make to others ( especially those closest to them )and value and nurture those commitments? "Evil conservatives"! Since monogamy is " un-natural" ( according to the immoral left), does that mean monagamous people are flawed? You leftists are truly , truly shallow, selfish, sick people that in the end add up to nothing more than "oxygen-thieving useless eaters"! You're all an embarrassment to your mothers' vaginas!
Posted by barry25 at 08/14/2008 @ 8:27pm
Barry, breathe slowly...let the oxygen re-enter your brain...now try and think with just a touch of logic please. Defining all of us by the actions of one is hardly a clear thought process. You wanna re-think your post or should I just save myself some grief and ignore you now?
Posted by yutsano at 08/14/2008 @ 8:50pm
uh, barry
may i most humbly suggest reducing your sugar intake.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 10:15pm
yutsicko, ignore me in the same way you ignore reality!
Posted by barry25 at 08/14/2008 @ 10:45pm
Frosty, you're sooooo clever!
Posted by barry25 at 08/14/2008 @ 10:49pm
thanks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 10:57pm
Wow...that pretty much settled it huh.
So...how bout that Michael Phelps?
Posted by yutsano at 08/14/2008 @ 11:53pm
I think he's just determined to get that Spitz record. Oh and something to think about as you're digesting that dinner Happ: Phelps eats 12,000 calories A DAY. You wanna talk scary diets? My good bud in Iraq was amazed at that one and he's not a caloric slouch either! (He's also a very impressive physical specimen like Phelps is, but I think even at that caloric intake he'd balloon!)
Posted by yutsano at 08/15/2008 @ 02:39am
Bottom line, they need to be competing, like in a swim or track meet, to be worth my full attention. Sorry, my honest take! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/15/2008 @ 12:02a
Should have watched women's gymnastics individuals. It was damn close.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 04:17am
phelps has got the nasa suit.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by yutsano at 08/15/2008 @ 02:39am
Lance Armstrong used to eat that much too when he raced. You have to when you have 0% body fat to burn and you are training and racing all day.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 12:05pm
if Phelps turns down Obama VP slot, then BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN
Posted by winyahn at 08/15/2008 @ 10:54pm
Only the pants Frosty, though the other Americans have the slickskins on.
I have a good friend who has a near zero body fat percentage. Other than extreme jealousy, he also has to eat more or less constantly just to stay functional. Of course he's a Marine so getting chow is not a huge issue for him.
Posted by yutsano at 08/16/2008 @ 01:19am
"Let's talk about Obama's rampant drug use instead. How do we know his brain hasn't been damaged from all those years of snorting coke. Do we know for sure that he didn't SELL drugs?" Posted by frankgrits at 08/14/2008 @ 3:32pm
Hey, this is a fun game! Can anyone play?
"How do we know that John McCain didn't intentionally kill babies in Vietnam? How do we know he didn't collaborate? Hell, how do we know he wasn't a traitor, and that he didn't intentionally crash his plane to deliver it to the North Vietnamese? How do we know that for sure? Huh?"
Frankgrits, it has to be said that there are a lot of stupid people out there, but, in fairness, most of them don't go out of their way to publicly display it. Perhaps you could learn something from them...?
Posted by sagibson at 08/18/2008 @ 1:47pm