Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

"Jeff Gannon," The Right's answer to the liberal media

VanillaGorilla said:
What is dishonest about what Hanity said. Bill Clinton at one point favored letting workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

Just yesterday Hannity claimed that Blacks and Hispanics like Bush's private accounts in "huge numbers." That's misleading because the vast majority of blacks and hispanics oppose Bush's plan according to the latest polls from Pew Research Center.

Hannity makes similarly misleading all the time to back Bush, and at times he will outright lie. You can verify this by visiting mediamatters.org - they monitor Hannity and record his offenses.

Here are some other examples:

1. WMD

HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)

FACT: Hannity's assertion comes more than six months after Bush Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified his inspection team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons. (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03)

2. Colin Powell on Iraq

HANNITY: "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." (9/19/03)

FACT: "Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world." (Colin Powell, 9/19/03)

3. Saddam/Al-Qaeda Connection

HANNITY: "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not." (12/9/02)

FACT: David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free." (Boston Globe, 6/16/04)

4. 9/11 Investigation

HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure...[Bush and his team] made it clear that determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission." (Let Freedom Ring, by Sean Hannity)

TRUTH: Bush Opposed the creation of a special commission to probe the causes of 9/11 for over a year. On 5/23/02 CBS New Reported "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." Bush didn't relent to pressure to create a commission, mostly from those Hannity would consider "liberal" until September 2002. (CBS News, 5/23/02; ABC News, 9/20/02)

[5. Recession - I'll skip this one as it's my understanding that technically there was no recession after the revised numbers came out.]

6. The Hispanic Vote

HANNITY: "The Hispanic community got to know him in Texas. They went almost overwhelming for him. He more than quadrupled the Hispanic vote that he got in that state." (9/16/03)

FACT: Exit polls varied in 1998 governors race, but under best scenario he increased his Hispanic vote from 24 to 49 percent – a doubling not a quadrupling. He lost Texas Hispanics to Gore in 2000, 54-43 percent. (Source: NCLR , NHCSL)

7. White House Vandalism

HANNITY: "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out." (1/26/01)

TRUTH: According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." (FAIR)

8. Patriotism

HANNITY: "I never questioned anyone's patriotism." (9/18/03)

FACT:

HANNITY: (to attorney Stanley Cohen) "Is it you hate this president or that you hate America?" (4/30/03)

HANNITY: "Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant of its greatness?" (6/12/03)

HANNITY: "You could explain something about your magazine, [the Nation]. Lisa Featherstone writing about the hate America march, the [anti-war] march that took place over the weekend..." (1/22/03)

HANNITY: "'I hate America.' This is the extreme left. There is a portion of the left -- not everybody who's left -- that does hate this country and blame this country for the ills of the world..." (1/23/02)

HANNITY: (speaking to Sara Flounders co-director of the International Action Center) "You don't like this country, do you? You don't -- you think this is an evil country. By your description of it right here, you think it's a bad country." (9/25/01)

9. Separation of Church and State

HANNITY: "It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state." (8/25/03)

FACT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment)

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI)

10. James Madison

HANNITY: "You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights [James Madison] hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do." (9/4/02)

TRUTH: The first congressional chaplains weren't hired by James Madison--they were appointed by a committee of the Senate and House in, respectively, April and May, 1789, before the First Amendment even existed. James Madison's view: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." (James Madison)

11. Alabama Constitution

HANNITY: "But the Alabama Constitution, which Chief Justice Roy Moore is sworn to uphold, clearly it says, as a matter of fact that the recognition of God is the foundation of that state's Constitution." (8/21/03)

FACT: While the preamble of the Alabama Constitution does reference "the Almighty," section three provides: "That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles." (Alabama Constitution, Section 3)

12. Rent for Public Housing

HANNITY: Betsy, they're not going to lose it [public housing], because if you work less than 30 hours a week -- if you work more than 30 hours a week, you don't have to do it. If you're between the ages of 18 and 62 and you're not legally disabled and you have free housing -- in other words...

BETSY MCCAUGHEY: No. Wait a second, Sean. Let me correct you. Most people in public housing are not receiving free housing. Many of them are paying almost market rates.

HANNITY: Betsy, that is so ridiculous and so false, it's hardly even worth spending the time. (10/23/03)

FACT: Residents of public housing pay rent scaled to their household's anticipated gross annual income, less deductions for dependents and disabilities. The basic formula for rent is 30 percent of this monthly adjusted income. There are exceptions for extremely low incomes, but the minimum rent is $25 per month. No one lives in public housing for free. (Department of Housing and Urban Development)

Details: Invalid Link Removed
 
VanillaGorilla said:
What is dishonest about what Hanity said. Bill Clinton at one point favored letting workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

VG, if Clinton had proposed a plan similar to Bush's plan, which the Republicans love, then don't you think they would have gone for it back then?

I looked for info on Clinton's quotes and SS plan and came across a Invalid Link Removed by Jonathan Chait of The New Republic. TNR is a reputable publication and the memo addresses exactly what we've been discussing:

What Bill Clinton proposed was that rather than having the Social Security Trust Fund invest all its assets in Treasury bonds that it invest a relatively small portion of those assets in private securities. Again, no point of interpretation here: that's not private accounts, period. The president also proposed so-called USA Accounts, a universal 401k available to all Americans, but not part of Social Security. Again, completely different from what the president is proposing.

I am close to certain that this is exactly what Sen. Reid endorsed or proposed as well. My only reason for the slight qualification is that I cannot say that I am familiar with every quotation or press release that the senator put out in the 90s, though the ones I've seen purporting to show his support for private accounts are just what I described above in the case of Clinton. I can't say it in his case, but I can say it in Clinton's.

I also took a closer look at your Clinton quotes and they do not contradict the above plan. All he says is that he'd like to invest some of the SS money into the stock market - that would be the SS trustfund money. He does not mention workers investing their payroll taxes into private accounts. I've seen no evidence that he ever supported such a scheme, but I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.

-5
 
VG, if Clinton had proposed a plan similar to Bush's plan, which the Republicans love, then don't you think they would have gone for it back then?
No because just like the dems are doing republicans don't want them to get any points politically. Also, when Clinton propsed it he was dead politically and nothing was going to become of it.

also took a closer look at your Clinton quotes and they do not contradict the above plan. All he says is that he'd like to invest some of the SS money into the stock market - that would be the SS trustfund money. He does not mention workers investing their payroll taxes into private accounts. I've seen no evidence that he ever supported such a scheme, but I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.
He proposed Individuals investing thier own money in 1998 and I guess changed his mind later.
 
He does not mention workers investing their payroll taxes into private accounts.
He wanted at one point, people to invest on thier own a small portion of SS. If they cash that in at some point where is that money going to go? Seeing they invested it in thier name it's going to back to them isn't it? That would be a private account. The money wouldn't go back to the government.
I looked for info on Clinton's quotes and SS plan and came across a talking points memo by Jonathan Chait of The New Republic. TNR is a reputable publication and the memo addresses exactly what we've been discussing:
That is an op-ed that you posted. I bet I could find a republic op-ed that says the opposite. Would you consider that credible? I'll go ahead and answer that for you .......the answer is no!!!!!!!!!!!
Now seeing that I have written a book on this thread and wasted time can you answer a question for me? Why is it ok for you to post op-ed piece after op-ed piece, liberal website with .org at the end of it after liberal web site do you think that's ok but if I posted something from evilrepublican.org you would be the first to discount it?
The reason you can't find it is because you only go to liberal sites and they don't want liberals to be hypocrites. Again........... I posted a story from one of your left wing web sites that was critical of him because he supported a small amount ss privatizing. That was in 1998. I also remember Clinton saying that in a speech around the same time.
TNR is a reputable publication and the memo addresses exactly what we've been discussing:
Which way does the new rep. lean politically 5? Which way does americanprog.com lean politically? Here is a hint any web site with .org probably isn't the best place to get your information from.
You also proved my point for me with out realizing it. Democrats were saying there was a problem with SS way back in 98. Yet, now there is no problem that can be put off.
 
HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)

FACT: Hannity's assertion comes more than six months after Bush Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified his inspection team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons. (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03)
5 just because your liberal web sites say something is a fact doesn't make it one. There was a story in the NYT of all places yesterday or the day before saying Sadam had various chemical weapons. There has also been a debate that the WMDs found it's way to Syria. I am not going to go threw every single one of the problem with the "facts". They might have a point on some of them. As I have said before Hanity is a republican cheerleader. Now if there are republican cheerleader who might distort things would that also mean there are liberal cheerleaders who distort things as well?
 
Just yesterday Hannity claimed that Blacks and Hispanics like Bush's private accounts in "huge numbers." That's misleading because the vast majority of blacks and hispanics oppose Bush's plan according to the latest polls from Pew Research Center.
So you like pew research if it supports your claims but don't like it or ignore it when it doesn't?
 
VanillaGorilla said:
So you like pew research if it supports your claims but don't like it or ignore it when it doesn't?

Pew Reasearch polls are fine and I've never called them inaccurate or questioned their integrity. I have disagreed with the conclusions that some people have drawn from them - big difference.

-5
 
size said:
In all seriousness, why is it different? Why in some circumstances it is acceptable to use nigger and others it is unacceptable?

I don't think it's acceptable - though personally I'm not upset when someone fails to act PC - but it's different because if a non-black person calls a black person a "nigger" then the non-black is implying that blacks are of inferior race and thus insulting the whole race.

When Byrd called some people "white niggers," he was obviously not talking about blacks. He was also not trying to insult the white race. Still, his expression was racially charged and should be condemned, but to my knowledge, black leaders did not make a big deal about it - no protests or such - so I don't see why the media should have taken it upon themselves to make it a big deal. Had they done that it would have shown bias imo.

As for Democrats and Repubilcans on racial matters, the truth is that Dems usually get bigger breaks on it because almost no one believes that a Dem would be a racist. On the other hand, many people believe that part of the Republican base and maybe some of their leaders are racists. I don't want to argue whether this belief is justified, but it's undeniable that it exists and because of it Republicans suffer more when they do something that could be construed as racist.

The same thing applies to Dems on other matters. For example, they are viewed as weaker on national defense, and thus suffer more than Republicans when they do something that seems to confirm such a belief whether justified or not. For example, had Clinton cut veterans benefits then I'm sure it would have gotten much more airtime than when Bush did it.

-5
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
I'm too busy to present him with evidence proving my point (spending needless time on Google) especially since he'll probably just toss all evidence contradictory to his agenda aside.

That quote pretty much sums you up.

If you don't have time to prove your points when called out then maybe you shouldn't make them in the first place.

-5
 
Back
Top