Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/27/04 12:28 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 12/27/04 12:22 AM, drDAK wrote: that summary is not decent enough for "good" standards.
but then again, "good" is determined by the indivdual.

In other words, you had no idea what to respond with but enjoy trying to get the last word in anyway. It's okay, I understand.

??? Well, I was just stating how that was a horrible reason to hate him, but okay... make yourself look stupider than you already are.

Happy NewYears!
and Happy Talking to Yourself!

At 12/27/04 12:37 AM, drDAK wrote: that summary is not decent enough for "good" standards.
but then again, "good" is determined by the indivdual.

In other words, you had no idea what to respond with but enjoy trying to get the last word in anyway. It's okay, I understand.

It was a good way to end the discussion. Why are you getting mad at me for trying to end this pointless discussion??

The fucking guy had fat sucked from his ass and put into his cheeks. And then talked about it. Use him to fill some "liberal quota" on FNC, fine. But don't even think he's somehow representative of anyone, let alone "liberals."

I've never liked Hannity. He's always been way to far right for my tastes.

~Z~

At 12/26/04 11:15 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/26/04 02:14 AM, Damien3003 wrote: Hannity spends every day, debating on the air waves. Micheal moore, when he does work, only makes movies. The sheer linguistics of pitting a movie producer against a man who spends each and every day debating, for a living, means only one thing: Moore wouldn't stand a chance in a real debate with hannity.

I can't say I've ever watched Hannity and Colmes, but I'll have to side with you on this issue; it would be a highly uneven match. Mike Tyson versus Stephen Hawking, anybody?

Exactly. Even putting my political opinions aside, and assuming moore had fantastic points...there is an art to public debate, and hannity is more trained in said art.

At 12/27/04 01:34 AM, red_skunk wrote: The fucking guy had fat sucked from his ass and put into his cheeks.

And Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval office.

How do these things matter? They aren't pertinent.

Use him to fill some "liberal quota" on FNC, fine. But don't even think he's somehow representative of anyone, let alone "liberals."

Just because he does more than piss and moan about Bush, and the state of this country...that doesn't make him a non-liberal. He has an obvious liberal agenda. Have you ever heard hannity and colmes debate? Colmes gives him a run for his money...he makes good points.

And if it wasn't true, you know i wouldn't admit that.

At 12/27/04 10:55 PM, Damien3003 wrote: And Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval office.

Shazammm!!! You've just been hit by the irrelivant stick! :)

Just because he does more than piss and moan about Bush, and the state of this country...that doesn't make him a non-liberal. He has an obvious liberal agenda. Have you ever heard hannity and colmes debate? Colmes gives him a run for his money...he makes good points.

True. Colmes is a very calm, and good exaple of the democratic party. Had all the people in the DNC been like Colmes, the republican party would have been given a run for their money too.

Moore is not balanced either... He is sincere and tell many truths that upsets people, but at the same time, recognize that he is sort of out on the limb.

My view on this issue:
Report the news how it is, neutral verb uses, no strong language... have all the sides of the issue an equal chance to put their 2 cents in. Only editorials should have the opinions...

At 12/25/04 06:31 PM, drDAK wrote: Alan Colmes is a good, honest guy.

True, but he's Hannity's bitch.

I think you should make it "O'Reilly & Moore". That show could replace every news show, except the Daily Show, because NOTHING CAN TAKE DOWN JON STEWART!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 12/27/04 11:16 PM, -Gooie- wrote:

At 12/25/04 06:31 PM, drDAK wrote:

I think you should make it "O'Reilly & Moore". That show could replace every news show, except the Daily Show, because NOTHING CAN TAKE DOWN JON STEWART!!!!!!!!!!!!!

O'rielly is not as extreme as Moore but more than Sean Hannity. Michael Moore would be fair prey though for O'rielly. :P

You know, Doc, if you wash a new red shirt, a white undershirt, and new blue jeans, they do run together.

At 12/27/04 11:02 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 12/27/04 10:55 PM, Damien3003 wrote: And Clinton got a blowjob in the Oval office.

Shazammm!!! You've just been hit by the irrelivant stick! :)

Exactly my point. If you'd payd attention to context, you'd understand that.

redskunk had this to say about colmes:

At 12/27/04 01:34 AM, red_skunk wrote: The fucking guy had fat sucked from his ass and put into his cheeks.

I was comparing the relevance of that affecting colmes liberal status, to clinton's blowjob reflecting his competance as president.

Pay more fucking attention, brother.

Just because he does more than piss and moan about Bush, and the state of this country...that doesn't make him a non-liberal. He has an obvious liberal agenda. Have you ever heard hannity and colmes debate? Colmes gives him a run for his money...he makes good points.

True. Colmes is a very calm, and good exaple of the democratic party. Had all the people in the DNC been like Colmes, the republican party would have been given a run for their money too.

Exactly. Thing is, a large portion of the democratic party won't TOUCH the issues that Colmes brings up. They won't focus on anything that isn't petty, and degrading. Hence: The liberals hate and disdain for Colmes. He represents what the democratic party SHOULD be, but not what it actually is.

At 12/27/04 11:17 PM, drDAK wrote: O'rielly is not as extreme as Moore but more than Sean Hannity. Michael Moore would be fair prey though for O'rielly.

Still, i say o'rielly, who's career, literally, is to debate the nations issues, would stomp all over moore, who's only job was making movies.
Not because o'rielly's points are somehow 'better', but because he's honed his skill of debating far past what moore will ever posses.

At 12/27/04 11:16 PM, -Gooie- wrote:

Alan Colmes is a good, honest guy.

True, but he's Hannity's bitch.

How? True, outside the politcal arena, the two are friends and co-workers...but when it comes on this country's issue's, they are deeply and seriously devided.

At 12/27/04 11:13 PM, fli wrote: My view on this issue:
Report the news how it is, neutral verb uses, no strong language... have all the sides of the issue an equal chance to put their 2 cents in.

That goes for a 'news broadcast', sure. But Hannity is not a news caster. Nor is o'rielly. Nor is Franken. They are talk show hosts...their very definition, and nich, is set with bias. It's their purpose. There would be no talk show if they were perfectly open to every idea, and every political party. Especially on a show like hannity's, where debate of the issues is the biggest part of the show.

Only editorials should have the opinions...

Hannity, Colmes, Franken, Boortz, and everyone else with the same job description...look at them like editorial columns for your radio, and television.

At 12/25/04 06:16 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: Michael Moore would actually put up an argument and maybe teach Sean Hannity how to shut the fuck up.

I'm terribly sorry, but I beleive Hannity could give Michael Moore an ass smacking in a debate. Moore knows this too.

A couple months back, Hannity asked Moore to have a debate, and the winner of the debate was gonna' donate to a childrens charity or something like that. Moore felt that the children didn't need his money, so he refused.

Besides "Hannity and Moore" doesn't sound as sexy as "Hannity and Colmes"

At 12/27/04 10:55 PM, Damien3003 wrote: How do these things matter? They aren't pertinent.

They are pertinent in judging character. When someone feels the need to have liposuction, I tend to lose respect for them. Not that I've ever had respect for Geraldo.

Geraldo.

Just because he does more than piss and moan about Bush, and the state of this country...that doesn't make him a non-liberal. He has an obvious liberal agenda. Have you ever heard hannity and colmes debate? Colmes gives him a run for his money...he makes good points.

Geraldo. i was talking about Geraldo.

Oh, but. Colmes isn't "liberal," he's a fucking moderate. And that still doesn't make him representative for all "moderates" (or if you insist on continuing to call him "liberal" - he's not representative of all "liberals.") That was my point. It fucking incenses me when people start making lists of "liberals" and "conservatives" on different tv stations. Like a simple # comparison means shit.

At 12/27/04 11:59 PM, Damien3003 wrote: Exactly my point. If you'd payd attention to context, you'd understand that.

Oh, the irony. ;-)

Geraldo.

At 12/28/04 12:46 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 12/27/04 10:55 PM, Damien3003 wrote: How do these things matter? They aren't pertinent.

They are pertinent in judging character. When someone feels the need to have liposuction, I tend to lose respect for them. Not that I've ever had respect for Geraldo.

oh, well, i don't like Geraldo, either. Or maury povich (spelling? like a muhfcucker). My bad.

Geraldo. i was talking about Geraldo.

Really, i'm sorry.

Oh, but. Colmes isn't "liberal," he's a fucking moderate.

Well, semantics, then. For you, though, red. I'll resay it 'colmes argues very many liberal stances, and agrees with many things that come from the democratic party).
Happy?

And that still doesn't make him representative for all "moderates" (or if you insist on continuing to call him "liberal" - he's not representative of all "liberals.")

I, of course, never said he stood for all of them. Just like Hannity doesn't stand for all republicans. I'm more of a neil boortz man, myself.

At 10/24/03 10:18 PM, Damien3003 wrote: Happy?

Orgasmic.

At 12/27/04 11:20 PM, -Gooie- wrote: You know, Doc, if you wash a new red shirt, a white undershirt, and new blue jeans, they do run together.

*rolls eyes*
interesting.
:P