Sean Hannity and listeners, a confederacy of hypocrites.

The BBQ Pit
1

Now I know everyone has their sides on the issues, and I know when the arguments are presented in a decent, fair and balanced way, (not the Fox news version of fair and balanced of course…) that decent arguements can be made for both left and right viewpoints, but something I heard on that idiot’s show the other night, boiled my very blood. Sean Hannity and his idiot listener were prattling on about the Schaivo thing, and I happened to be passing the channel and lo an behold…
I didn’t transcribe it, but it went a little something like this…

Says troglodyte listener: Sean, I’m truly afraid for this country, I don’t understand how these judges could let this happen, and I don’t know why they’re allowed to work without congressional oversight.

Says troglodyte host: Listener (don’t remember his name) you’re right, I don’t know where these judges get off. Activist judges are all that’s wrong with the judicial system, they answer to no one, and do what ever they want, including legislate from the bench.
My issue is an obvious one. Sean, you LOUDMOUTH FUCKING HYPOCRITE!! Where were you when the 2000 election was ganked from ALGORE? HUH, FUCK STICK?
I’m happier than I can explain that Gore lost, hated that peckerhead, hated him, and he didn’t have the cojones for war, IMO, but all in all, he should have won the election if not for the ACTIVIST JUDGES, you stinking, lying, piece of human shit.

You and your minions can “hannitize” (what a frightening term THAT is) rhode island, or one of the Dakotas, but leave the rest of the country alone, shitbag.

Since this IS the pit…

FUCK YOU HANNITY, FUCK YOU IN YOUR BIG DUMB ASS WITH A FIREPLUG, BITCH.

2

As has been discussed several times in Great Debates, while the term “judicial activism” has a valid, and non-pejorative meaning, as the antonym to “judicial self-restraint,” in connection with the self-imposed code regarding how intensively a judge’s ruling should shape the final outcome of a case brought before him, it is most commonly used to mean “a judge who makes a ruling I disagree with.”

The ruling legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts is a clear example, as I’ve demonstrated in threads on it, of judical self-restraint. And you are precisely correct that Bush v. Gore II is a good example of judicial activism.

3

I’m a little more concerned that these people appear to be comppletely ignorant of how our government works.

That, and the other facts that are conveniently ignored, apparently.
I fear for the country, too–but for the above reasons…

4

Have these fucking idiots ever taken a civics course in High School?

5

The really funny thing is that if it were a Democratic Congress and President and the judiciary were standing up to THEIR interference, these same people would have the judges involved on bumper stickers and posters and praising them to the high heavens.

In short, no, none of these people apparently managed to stay awake through their high school civics courses. Or their elementary school ones, for that matter.

6

Hey, what did Rhode Island, North Dakota, and South Dakota ever do to you?

7

I’m not convinced any of these folks have ever seen a civics class, much less taken one.

8

“hannitize”…

<shudder>

9

“for your protection”

10

These people saw “Civics” in the course schedule and assumed it was a course about the care and feeding of one’s Honda. Since they’re good Americans who drive American cars, they skipped it.

Robin

11

Me, I’m just interested in the phenomenom of people who claim to never watch Fox News, always “passing by” on their way to something far more edifying, but are still capable of providing paraphrased transcriptions of portions of their most hated Fox News shows. Seems to happen a lot around here.

:wink:

12

I, for one, admit to watching Fox News all the damn time. I like a little outrage and indignation with my headlines.

That’s the real reason. When I’m feeling haughty, though, it’s because watching news presented with a conservative bias gives me a richer perspective on the issues of the day.

Right.

13

You are wrong. The independent recounts performed in the months following the election of Bush showed that even if the recounts had been allowed to take place, Bush would have still won Florida.

14

Do what I did - sign up for Dish Network’s “Top 60” (or whatever the cheapest programming is called). No Fox News available! I’ve never been happier. :slight_smile:

(now if I can somehow rig my radio to only pick up KRLD and Air America…)

15

Yeah, shame on those judges for following the LAW!!! :rolleyes:

I fear for this country because Fox News is making people dumber. What’s funny is that O’Rielly had on a neurologist who told him (and the millions of faithful watchers) that TS could not feel hunger, thirst, or pain. So hopefully some of the REAL information got to some of them. Oh who am I fooling? They will still find some way to make it seem like they killed her.

16

Well, not quite. Gore would have won Florida and the 2000 election if the statewide recount suggested by some Bush supporters as what Gore should have asked for had been done. In what has to be a masterpiece of irony, Bush would only have taken the state if the recounts Gore requested but not the statewide recount had been completed, and only with the maximum leniency towards hanging and pregnant chads and such – the very things the Bush supporters were criticizing.

Look, bottom line: the rule of law triumphed. The Supreme Court resolved the election problem in a decision alleged to be founded on Fourteenth Amendment equal protection grounds; if some of us are skeptical about their motivations, that’s our privilege. But the decision was reached, Bush took office in accord with the constitutional provisions for choosing a President, and “The horse is dead, Jim!”

If you do want to rake old coals, get the figures accurate. Bush won on the basis of the counts that were completed before the deadline. That there was likely some election fraud is quite probable, and on both sides. Gore would have won on the fairest of “what if” scenarios; Bush would have won on another “what if” scenario on the basis of what Gore supporters were advocating be done.

We have a President. I find a few of his ideas acceptable, more of them obnoxious. But he’s our President until Jan. 20, 2009, and I can live with that, so long as the 2008 elections are fair and not fraudulent nor the truth skewed by neocons to support their POV.

Now, grab a shovel, and help me bury this four-year-old horse carcass, willya?

17

Well, yeah, but…

Remember that statesmanlike speech Bush gave, the one where he talked about how he was elected on a fluke, by a deeply divided electorate? How he, in fact, actually lost the popular vote, how he promised to be mindful of his lack of mandate, how he promised to eschew any extreme positions and be mindful of his ambiguous position?

No, neither do I. Wish I did.

18

I’m confused. This cite appears to contradict you, stating that Bush would have won a statwide recount. Could you point me to your source so that I might learn more?

I’m not trying to rake old coals (I didn’t even start this thread) – I’m just trying to set the record straight.

19

Well, here’s the Tom Fiedler column that provided the overview for the NORC overcount, which the Miami Herald was partners with CNN and others on (links to more detailed accounts in right sidebar at that link). The book the Miami Herald put out about the recount, which I read several years ago, and from which this stuff is extracted, is what I based my comments on.

I suspect the point is that no matter who you supported, you (we) need to admit that argument is futile; either candidate could have won depending on what criteria you apply to the recount. And that was sort of my point: don’t tell me “Bush would have won anyway” – who wins depends on whose criteria get used, and it may not necessarily be the criteria his side espoused.

But I do feel that some of Mr. Bush’s supporters are making a production number out of “the peepul gave us a mandate” when the fact of the matter is that we’re sharply divided as a country four years and change later, and that progress and responsive change come from thoughtful people on both sides giving respectful ear to what people on the other side are saying, not claiming an exclusive moral superiority for their side. And I see far too little of that these days.

20

OTOH, if there had not been a “butterfly ballot” (the ultimate “butterfly effect”, dammit) in Palm Beach County, Gore certainly would have won. He would have likely won if the “vote on every page” instructions in Duval County had been accurate. And similarly if Jeb hadn’t blocked the fake felons from voting.

This has nothing to do with ‘judicial activism’, of course, since our legal system is weird with respect to elections: it can translate hanging or pregnant chads into the intent of a single voter, but it can’t deal with a statistical certainty involving several thousand ballots due to its inability to similarly discern voter intent on any individual one of them. But that’s still the real story, AFAIAC - not all the recount nonsense.