Conservative Media on Clinton

[okie52]

What I don't like about the conservative talk show guys...and I'm conservative...is they don't allow discussion. They rarely (when I listen) allow anyone with a different view to be heard. I'm like let them speak..THEN disagree and show them the truth...but they just shout them down...ugh.

Let the facts do the talking.

Very true.

[Serenity Now]

What I don't like about the conservative talk show guys...and I'm conservative...is they don't allow discussion. They rarely (when I listen) allow anyone with a different view to be heard. I'm like let them speak..THEN disagree and show them the truth...but they just shout them down...ugh.

Let the facts do the talking.

Agree. I like to go back and forth. I've got about 5,000 on a horn board. OU boards are boring to me. I blended in at hornfans once my skin got thicker.

[champions77]

52 you used to post on Hornfans.com. You still over there shaking things up?

[okie52]

Haven't been over there in a long time since it got embarrassing to say I was from OU. I don't think I ever got on any board but the football board.

[SicEmBaylor]

Don't look now but you have a lot more in common with Hannity's brand of conservatism than you do with these socialists you find in today's Democratic Party. At least I hope you do. You seem to have a lot bigger problem with some conservatives than you do these leftists that would like the Federal government to be even more intrusive, more controlling, more involved, ultimately to have complete control of our lives, from the womb to the tomb. 90% tax rates, Cap and Tax, jack booted EPA thugs locking down farms over the rumor of the death of an endangered rat being killed, and illegals streaming across the border, notwithstanding the crime, diseases and additional costs to educate, imprison and provide health care to each and every one, driving cities and communities to the brink of bankruptcy.

What's funny about what you said is that conservatives, such as Hannity, believe in government power just as much as those socialists (and we need to be clear here -- this is such a broad term it easily applies to many on both sides of the aisle) do. The only difference is where that government power is applied and how that power is exercised. The difference between neoconservatives and liberals is not a question of underlying philosophy; the difference is one of policy not philosophy. Both progressives and neoconservatives fundamentally accept the supremacy of the Federal government, and both believe in wielding that power to achieve certain ends. I absolutely reject that from the inner-most core of my being.

Secondly, I don't like this "us vs. them" dynamic. I detest that way of thinking. I'm not on anyone's 'team', and I'm not going to accept the fact that my place is as a cheerleader for 'Team A' simply because I don't like 'Team B.' Do I have more problems with so-called conservatives than I do progressives? Absolutely! Adding my voice to the chorus of those bitching about the left isn't going to accomplish a damned thing so long as there are so many on our own side who are just as big a problem when it comes to bad policy, expanding the size and scope of government, limiting civil/individual liberties, and violating the Constitution. I can't blame a wolf for being a wolf, but I sure as hell blame a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. There need to be people willing to call out those on our own 'side', and we should all hold them accountable. I'm not a leftist, and I'm not a Democrat. Trying to change who they are or influence their side of the aisle is something of a waste of time.

Expanding the welfare state is job one of these statist that want to circumvent the Constitution at every opportunity.

Sort of like one of the cornerstones of the Bush legacy was the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the Great Society? Or creating an entirely new cabinet-level Federal agency? Do you see what I mean? This nonsense that liberals are the only people who grow government is absolute bull****.

So no, I am not going to beat up Sean Hannity like you. He has taken on these leftists enough that he receives death threats on a daily basis from them.

Hannity hasn't done a damned thing. His analysis is shallow, pedestrian, and obvious. His attacks amount to nothing more than bumper-sticker sloganeering. He absolutely positively is incapable of understanding nuanced positions; in fact, this is what drives me the most crazy about Hannity. There is nothing about Hannity that anyone should admire. He's on the air depriving some poor village of its idiot. I don't like Limbaugh either, but at least Limbaugh is original and coherent and, frankly, interesting. Hannity is a court jester, and I'm ashamed he fancies himself a conservative.

SicEm you have an odd manner in which if someone is not near 100% to your liking, then they are demonized as thrown out with the trash. And I can promise you, that your boogie man Sean Hannity has a lot more in common with Pat Buchanan, then 98% of those now residing in the Socialist Party, I mean the Democratic Party. Seems to me you should have a much bigger problem with the likes of Ed Shultz or that little Boy Rachel Madow.

That is 100% demonstrably false. As I stated in my Rand Paul thread, I have never expected someone to agree with me 100% of the time. Even candidates I've worked for have never come close to that percentage. In fact, what I expect is very simple -- I expect someone to demonstrate a commitment to truly reducing the size and scope of government and expanding individual/civil liberties. Lots of Republicans give lip service to both, but very few believe it and even fewer have put any real effort into faking it. Sean Hannity's beliefs come at the expense of civil liberties, state power, and the Constitution of the United States. But Hannity is really beside the point since Hannity isn't running for office. However, this is precisely the reason I refused to vote for McCain, the reason I refused to vote for Romney, and it's the reason I won't vote for someone like Bush or Rubio if they are nominated.

Does Hannity have more in common with Buchanan than the left? Absolutely. I never suggested otherwise. But that's entirely beside the point. I don't dislike Hannity because he agrees or disagrees with the left; I dislike Hannity because the man is just dumber than a sack of nails. He is seen as a spokesman for conservatism, and I find that very troubling.

Of course after you made that ridiculous statement a few weeks back that we should respect Iran because they are a sovereign nation,

Yes...respecting sovereign nations....what a ridiculous statement. The ridiculous statement you just made is what's ridiculous, and statements like that are precisely the reason that I hate nationalists and neocons.

and should not be concerned with them until they begin firing nuclear missiles in our direction is one for the ages. That brand of thinking really discredits your ilk in the Paleo-Conservative movement.

Yes...not starting wars or conflicts with nations that aren't at war with us is just so insane. Frankly, I find your world view to be dangerous and scary as hell. It means never-ending wars, it means trillions in taxpayer funds, it means a national security state that threatens our liberty, it means needing a government large enough to support such ventures, it means being the policemen of the world for eternity.

Iran is a country with a GDP around that of Idaho. We're the f'n United States of America. This bull**** about convincing everyone that Iran is going to destroy the world is such hyperbole nonsense that it's a staggering divorce from all reality. It's nothing but fear mongering meant to perpetuate the national security state that the internationalists/globalists have been creating since 9/11.

[champions77]

What's funny about what you said is that conservatives, such as Hannity, believe in government power just as much as those socialists (and we need to be clear here -- this is such a broad term it easily applies to many on both sides of the aisle) do. The only difference is where that government power is applied and how that power is exercised. The difference between neoconservatives and liberals is not a question of underlying philosophy; the difference is one of policy not philosophy. Both progressives and neoconservatives fundamentally accept the supremacy of the Federal government, and both believe in wielding that power to achieve certain ends. I absolutely reject that from the inner-most core of my being.

Secondly, I don't like this "us vs. them" dynamic. I detest that way of thinking. I'm not on anyone's 'team', and I'm not going to accept the fact that my place is as a cheerleader for 'Team A' simply because I don't like 'Team B.' Do I have more problems with so-called conservatives than I do progressives? Absolutely! Adding my voice to the chorus of those bitching about the left isn't going to accomplish a damned thing so long as there are so many on our own side who are just as big a problem when it comes to bad policy, expanding the size and scope of government, limiting civil/individual liberties, and violating the Constitution. I can't blame a wolf for being a wolf, but I sure as hell blame a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. There need to be people willing to call out those on our own 'side', and we should all hold them accountable. I'm not a leftist, and I'm not a Democrat. Trying to change who they are or influence their side of the aisle is something of a waste of time.


Sort of like one of the cornerstones of the Bush legacy was the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the Great Society? Or creating an entirely new cabinet-level Federal agency? Do you see what I mean? This nonsense that liberals are the only people who grow government is absolute bull****.


Hannity hasn't done a damned thing. His analysis is shallow, pedestrian, and obvious. His attacks amount to nothing more than bumper-sticker sloganeering. He absolutely positively is incapable of understanding nuanced positions; in fact, this is what drives me the most crazy about Hannity. There is nothing about Hannity that anyone should admire. He's on the air depriving some poor village of its idiot. I don't like Limbaugh either, but at least Limbaugh is original and coherent and, frankly, interesting. Hannity is a court jester, and I'm ashamed he fancies himself a conservative.



That is 100% demonstrably false. As I stated in my Rand Paul thread, I have never expected someone to agree with me 100% of the time. Even candidates I've worked for have never come close to that percentage. In fact, what I expect is very simple -- I expect someone to demonstrate a commitment to truly reducing the size and scope of government and expanding individual/civil liberties. Lots of Republicans give lip service to both, but very few believe it and even fewer have put any real effort into faking it. Sean Hannity's beliefs come at the expense of civil liberties, state power, and the Constitution of the United States. But Hannity is really beside the point since Hannity isn't running for office. However, this is precisely the reason I refused to vote for McCain, the reason I refused to vote for Romney, and it's the reason I won't vote for someone like Bush or Rubio if they are nominated.

Does Hannity have more in common with Buchanan than the left? Absolutely. I never suggested otherwise. But that's entirely beside the point. I don't dislike Hannity because he agrees or disagrees with the left; I dislike Hannity because the man is just dumber than a sack of nails. He is seen as a spokesman for conservatism, and I find that very troubling.


Yes...respecting sovereign nations....what a ridiculous statement. The ridiculous statement you just made is what's ridiculous, and statements like that are precisely the reason that I hate nationalists and neocons.

Yes...not starting wars or conflicts with nations that aren't at war with us is just so insane. Frankly, I find your world view to be dangerous and scary as hell. It means never-ending wars, it means trillions in taxpayer funds, it means a national security state that threatens our liberty, it means needing a government large enough to support such ventures, it means being the policemen of the world for eternity.

Iran is a country with a GDP around that of Idaho. We're the f'n United States of America. This bull**** about convincing everyone that Iran is going to destroy the world is such hyperbole nonsense that it's a staggering divorce from all reality. It's nothing but fear mongering meant to perpetuate the national security state that the internationalists/globalists have been creating since 9/11.

I'm scary? Someone that convinces himself that Iran can be trusted, and that they are not a risk to us, all the while they have been developing Long Range Ballistic missiles at the same time manufacturing components for a nuclear bomb, and have been the main perpetuators of terrorism around the globe for the last 20 plus years, and who we should not worry about Until the MISSILES are in the air destined for the US, and have for as long as I can remember advocated Death to Israel and the US? Why and how you have convinced yourself that if not for us, they would be peace loving folks, and can be trusted, despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension.

[SoonerProphet]

despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension.

That is news to me. Most intel I've heard about has stated they abandoned a weapons program in 2003. Our own NIE have stated as much.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm scary? Someone that convinces himself that Iran can be trusted, and that they are not a risk to us, all the while they have been developing Long Range Ballistic missiles at the same time manufacturing components for a nuclear bomb, and have been the main perpetuators of terrorism around the globe for the last 20 plus years, and who we should not worry about Until the MISSILES are in the air destined for the US, and have for as long as I can remember advocated Death to Israel and the US? Why and how you have convinced yourself that if not for us, they would be peace loving folks, and can be trusted, despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension.

More and more, day by day, poor Sicem is becoming as out there goofy as the Full-on Libz.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm scary? Someone that convinces himself that Iran can be trusted,

I never said Iran could be trusted. Trust is irrelevant. We don't trust many nations we routinely do business with. The fact that we may not trust Iran isn't an indictment with war as a punishment.

and that they are not a risk to us, all the while they have been developing Long Range Ballistic missiles at the same time manufacturing components for a nuclear bomb, and have been the main perpetuators of terrorism around the globe for the last 20 plus years,

Pakistan has nukes, and they're only slightly less crazy than Iran. Iran has not attacked the United States. Iran is not going to attack the United States. Attacking the United States would be the death of Iran. You may think their national leadership is ready to meet Allah, but I assure you they are as concerned for their own preservation as anyone else. Their bluster is for internal consumption.

and who we should not worry about Until the MISSILES are in the air destined for the US, and have for as long as I can remember advocated Death to Israel and the US?

This is the most paranoid crap I've ever read. Iran is not going to start launching ICBMs at the United States, and they don't even have the technology to send ICBMs to the United States. But, yes, I don't believe in starting a war with a sovereign nation unless we've been attacked. Your world view is built on the lunatic premise that everyone is to be feared and anyone who is feared should be eliminated. It's a scary proposition, and you are oblivious to the fact that such a robust policy abroad *requires* a robust and centralized government here at home. One begets the other; the two are linked.

Why and how you have convinced yourself that if not for us, they would be peace loving folks, and can be trusted, despite overwhelming intell that says just the opposite.....is really beyond comprehension.

I never said they would be peace loving folks. I said they aren't going to attack the United States, and this propaganda that has folks like you believing they're just chomping-at-the-bit to press the 'red button' and send the bombs flyin' is absolute and total nonsense. Iran is not going to nuke the United States of America.

Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium at the UN and vowed to 'bury' the United States. That was a much much larger threat than anything Iran has said or done. We still did business with the Soviet Union. We still had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. We never bombed the Soviet Union. We never went to war with the Soviet Union.

[Serenity Now]

That is news to me. Most intel I've heard about has stated they abandoned a weapons program in 2003. Our own NIE have stated as much.

You and your silly facts.

[Serenity Now]

Sicem. Very well stated.

You fear merchants buying into this should learn from history. Remember bibi's wise predictions from almost 20 years ago that they were just a year away.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Sicem. Very well stated.

You fear merchants buying into this should learn from history. Remember bibi's wise predictions from almost 20 years ago that they were just a year away.

You're a ****'n moran.

[Serenity Now]

I critique people who are touting war who were wrong 12 years ago and 20 years ago and I'm the ****ing moran? Me thinks the smeller's the feller.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I critique people who are touting war who were wrong 12 years ago and 20 years ago and I'm the ****ing moran? Me thinks the smeller's the feller.

Yes, because I'm sure you've lived in Israel the last twenty years and you have all the intel that Bibi has...

[Serenity Now]

Yes, because I'm sure you've lived in Israel the last twenty years and you have all the intel that Bibi has...

No. He said they were less than a year away when my 18 year old was still wearing diapers. He said it again a few months ago and you fear merchants are all a Flutter. Hindsight. Use it.

[dwarthog]

No. He said they were less than a year away when my 18 year old was still wearing diapers. He said it again a few months ago and you fear merchants are all a Flutter. Hindsight. Use it.

I think you mean. Hindsight. Selectively use it.

[Serenity Now]

I think you mean. Hindsight. Selectively use it.

I'm 48. Obama is the first dem president I ever voted for. I use hindsight to learn from my mistakes. You fear merchants don't.

[dwarthog]

I'm 48. Obama is the first dem president I ever voted for. I use hindsight to learn from my mistakes. You fear merchants don't.

You're kind of sensitive for some reason.

My "correction" was generic in nature with regards to folks in general having great hindsight when it suits their need or purpose, while conveniently avoiding the truth found in hindsight when it doesn't support their position or goal.

Lighten up Francis...

[champions77]

I never said Iran could be trusted. Trust is irrelevant. We don't trust many nations we routinely do business with. The fact that we may not trust Iran isn't an indictment with war as a punishment.

Pakistan has nukes, and they're only slightly less crazy than Iran. Iran has not attacked the United States. Iran is not going to attack the United States. Attacking the United States would be the death of Iran. You may think their national leadership is ready to meet Allah, but I assure you they are as concerned for their own preservation as anyone else. Their bluster is for internal consumption.

This is the most paranoid crap I've ever read. Iran is not going to start launching ICBMs at the United States, and they don't even have the technology to send ICBMs to the United States. But, yes, I don't believe in starting a war with a sovereign nation unless we've been attacked. Your world view is built on the lunatic premise that everyone is to be feared and anyone who is feared should be eliminated. It's a scary proposition, and you are oblivious to the fact that such a robust policy abroad *requires* a robust and centralized government here at home. One begets the other; the two are linked.


I never said they would be peace loving folks. I said they aren't going to attack the United States, and this propaganda that has folks like you believing they're just chomping-at-the-bit to press the 'red button' and send the bombs flyin' is absolute and total nonsense. Iran is not going to nuke the United States of America.

Khrushchev banged his shoe on the podium at the UN and vowed to 'bury' the United States. That was a much much larger threat than anything Iran has said or done. We still did business with the Soviet Union. We still had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. We never bombed the Soviet Union. We never went to war with the Soviet Union.

"Everyone should be feared?" Never stated that. But I do take notice of countries who are developing ways to make nuclear weapons while shouting death to America every other day. You continue to state that they wouldn't do that because it would lead to their death. Wow, so does strapping a bomb on your chest and walking into a school bus or flying airplanes into buildings. Lots of those lunatics can't wait to die. 72 virgins await.
You have a lot of confidence in this Administration for some reason. I think you have such a passion to avert war, which is not a bad thing, it overruns your common sense on how to get there. Showing weakness does not usually motivate despots to enter into binding agreements, at least binding agreements that they intend to honor. This Administration has shown weakness from the very start. Historically, regimes step up their aggressiveness during these times.

Iran has a track record on Agreements, and their past histories have to play a role in how we go about entering into any agreement with them. What were unacceptable and deal killers to this Administration in 2013 is now acceptable.
So yes, I am skeptical of it all, on both sides. If it was only so easy as you seem to think.

[FaninAma]

Fox News is a cesspool of idiocy; however, I want to make one thing clear -- there really aren't any true conservatives on Fox News. Fox News is full of right-wing nationalists, but they aren't actually conservatives. The problem is that conservatives and right-wing nationalists have so many points of commonality that it's often difficult or impossible to distinguish between the two. Make no mistake, the two trace their roots and origins from two different political and philosophical traditions.

I'm really tired of guys like Hannity being called 'conservative.' Hannity is not a conservative, and it's doubtful Hannity could even manage to spell 'conservative' if you held a gun to his head. Actually, holding a gun to his head wouldn't be much of a threat -- a bullet couldn't possibly do any noticeable damage.

I don't buy RLIMC's opinion you have to walk lock step with the GOP party but your position of criticizing every politician and media out let that doesn't espouse the libertarian philosophy in totality is a sure fire way to become and stay a mionority party in this nation. You criticize Hannity but he has been very critical of the GOP establishment and supportive of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Sometimes I think you like being a Lone Wolf contrarian because its part of your persona. That's cool but don't be such a purist that you allow idiots like Obama and Hillary to fill the void and win elections over somebody you agree with on 85% of the issues. I am not talking about Jeb or the establishment GOP.