Michael Moore On ‘Hannity’
by Big HollywoodParts II , III, and discussion points after the jump:
Sean Hannity and Michael Moore had a discussion of sorts on ‘Hannity’ tonight. It was certainly an event to see Moore on a conservative’s show (much like Al Gore, Moore is notorious for not going toe to toe with prominent conservatives). The conversation itself seemed disjointed and a lot time was spent by both Hannity and Moore jockeying to set the agenda instead of clarifying and challenging differences. Moore came off as plenty appealing, a jovial and confidant representative for his side, but just as with Obama’s speeches, you would get a completely different perception of the man and his ideas if you read what he said instead of watched it. And by different, we mean nauseating.
More analysis from Big Hollywood contributors is likely to follow, but we’re turning you all loose now. Some discussion bullet points:
-“I’m not a multi-multi millionaire.” -Michael Moore
-Apparently our foes in the Middle East are perpetually on monkey bars….?
-Christians are in no position to judge the 9/11 terrorists.
-Is there a conservative on Earth who could get away with invoking God and religion as much as Moore does?
-Hannity was soft on Moore. Good or bad move?
Have at it.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
117 Comments
[...] is the original post: Michael Moore On ‘Hannity’ Tags: a-lot-time, after-the-jump, and-discussion, clarifying-and, disjointed-and, hannity, [...]
Hannity was too soft on Moore. Moore, like a typical liberal "talked over" Hannity to avoid confrontation. I'd grade it a soft "B". Moore should just move to Cuba. He will be so much happier there.
[...] Michael Moore On âHannityâ [...]
[...] the original post here: Michael Moore On ‘Hannity’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I watched about 5 minutes of it last night before I had to change the channel. Moore got Sean right away with the first answer. Sean thought he had the upper hand when it came to Christianity but Moore threw him off with his challenge about the last sermon he heard at church. Sean Hannity is not a very good liar. I didn't believe for a second that Hannity went to church on Sunday and when he admitted, finally, that it was actually Saturday night and he didn't remember what the sermon was about, I knew the man was lying. The fact that he couldn't even pretend to remember ANY sermon to get himself out of the hole Moore had let him dig himself into proved to me that he hasn't seen the inside of a Catholic church in awhile. Either that, or he wasn't willing to admit Moore was right about Jesus and his philosophy. Probably a little of both. It was a sorry sight.
I disagree with the comment about O'Reilly being harder on Moore. Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative and he only goes after people who are nobodies. Bill probably would have done better with Moore's Jesus crap, but he wouldn't have been any tougher on him. He would have been so thrilled that Moore came on his show that Moore would need a good long shower to wipe off the butt kisses.
You make some good points but ad hominem attacks on another poster make you sound like those other mean spirited people, you know- liberals!
O'Reilly is the King of Spin; says he saw O'blahblah's birth certificate and never did. Lets the wrong rev Sharpton on his show and never asks when he is going to pay the fine from his defeat in the Tawana Brawley case. O'reilly is a blowhard who occaisionally repeats something amusing.
Moore and Hannity both make millions from entertainment. Their is no difference other than the advertisement funds Hannity gets paid by or hollywood movie funding that Moore gets paid by. As long as they can cause controversy they make money, because we the idiots that listen to them generate it dor them. I used to think Hannity was on top of it all, but after listening to his radio show awhile he has become a redundant whiner, and I can honestly say I have never contributed to Moore's finances, I could care less what he says.
Debating the left is impossible. They operate in an entirely different universe of their own made up "reality". When they debate – they mix truth with lies or their own perception in order to further their agenda or make fun of their opposition. Now that we know that, the first step of the solution is to call them out when they make their first false assertion and not let go until they admit they made a mistake – when they make their second false assertion (which will be the next time they open their mouth) call them out again – by the third time, they will have lost credibility and you will be in control of the debate. This guy needs to debate Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. People with a clear understanding of the facts and of history. Moore wouldn't last a second. That is why he went on Hannity in the first place – he knew he had an easy target and Hannity, is not an a-hole to people.
Hi Superpower, just to clarify, I was only saying that there was no intelligence in NoMoBama's comment and not the entire thread. Obviously since you feel no guilt about being unkind I'll leave you alone on that front. At least you're not being hypocritical. But alas, your post shows no heart, and that is a sure tell sign of a lack of intelligence. So sadly you are the second person I have to call out. I'm going to give you a chance. Please tell me something proactive (meaning not just putting others down), that you actually do to support either the people around you, your community, or the world at large. You can talk about what others are destroying, but please tell me about the good things that you are building.
My subtle attacks against you are truly because I want to see what your better side has to offer. If you are willing to reply with something legit that will be great! Even if you want to fit in some small minded remarks that relate me to a "sewer-dweller" I won't mind, so long as you actually have something to say this time.
I quit listening to Sean. He memorizes statements and gives them no matter the context….and never ends a sentence.
Rush gives the best interviews I've EVER heard. He ask every question I'd like to hear answered.
I don't know. I'd probably spring for the $49.95 on pay-per-view for that. And I'd make sure my DVR was working…
I think the point of having him on was to get his followers to turn on Fox News, so savaging him wouldn't have been productive. Hopefully they picked up 10,000 new people who want to know how far the rabbit hole goes.
You're right, Hannity was an easy target. Moore was allowed to skirt several issues. One of which was that individuals do have to take a some responsibility for the housing crisis. Though I agree with Moore that it is majorly a systematic issue, we also have to admit that many people where and still are living outside of their means. It's not just poor people that were doing this however, it was people all across the board. We all wanted to live the American dream, but it was just that, a dream. In the end we couldn't afford it. I don't know why Hannity couldn't counter on that? The financial institutions where culprits in the crime, but they had an accomplice in the American, keep up with the Jones', mentality.
As much as I detest and distrust Moore, the central premise of his latest documentary (as he has described it) seems largely correct. Democracy is more important than captialism to the long term survival of America. Wall Street ran amuck for decades, earning billions upon billions of dollars for a select few who were engaged in all kinds of irresponsible and reckless behavior that nearly melted down the entie world economy. Then, when it all crumbled, the Americna taxpayer was put on the hook to prop up these avaricious institutions and people, who, instead of being disgraced, shamed and humbled, are still up to their same old tricks. Obama's first order of business should have been new and sweeping market controls and regulations, not healthcare.
Moore may be a class A jackass, but this time, he appears to be on to something. Unchecked capitalism is not only sinful, but will always tend, because of the seemingly inate human urge to feel superior to one's fellows, toward abuse and corruption. While socialism is not a viable option, a more restrained form of capitalism would be better for the nation as a whole.
Moore played Hannity and Hannity fell for it. Instead of countering with real facts or not falling for Moore's traps, Hannity, an intellectual lightweight, could only rely on his 'it's all about me' response. "I wrote a book, maybe you read it? on this….." "I went to mass this weekend and no I don't remember what the mass was 2 days ago, I got there late or something". I'm surprised he didn't give the "Rev. Wright G D America, Bill Ayers…. blah, blah, blah" spiel. Unless he did but I turned the channel by then, It was too painful. Moore choose Hannity over Beck or even, gasp, O'Reilly, because he knew he could play Hannity.
Imagine that … Moore taking a bible verse out of context. It is difficult (read impossible) for a rich man (or any man) to get into heaven on their own accord, but fortunately with God anything is possible.
What is lost on Moore is that the Jesus of the Bible has many characteristics, including the fact that He is a warrior. A warrior that is jealous for our worship and praise. Yet as much as He desires the heart and soul of all people, He also is indignant of those who do wrong. Contrary to what Moore would have you believe, Jesus is NOT a pacifist. I can't speak to what Jesus would have done with the terrorists, but I do know when He comes back He will have blood on His robe to fight against those who stood against Him.
Michael Moore might be a Fat Pig Commie, but at least he has the stones to go on Fox and take some real questioions. Thiskeeps makes him one notch better then Obamo.
Many conservatives are going "soft", O'reilly went soft a long time ago. Take the Obama eligibility issue. We have a federal judge in California that has ordered a trial and nobody is reporting it.
Hannity sold himself out by going soft on Michael Moore. Just call Moore what he is: a self-aggrandizing, egotistical, manipulative capitalist pig, and then shut up and let him dig himself in a hole. After that piece of crap, "Roger and Me", which I thought was pretty clever at the time, I've never spent a dime on any of his propaganda.
Micheal Moore dancing….I bet that set off seismographs up and down the eastern seaboard.
MavRick, You might be the most unapologetic materialist I've ever seen. Kudos. Good luck with all that crap you accumulate. Whatever makes you happy. But just don't get mad at me if I rather be a bit more conservative and not spend everything I have on toys and a big house.
P.S. you had to say "rag heads" didn't you? You have a great post that spells out your point very clearly and you go and ruin it with "rag heads" I didn't even agree with most of what you said, but I had respect for your well though out opinion. I could even concede a few points, but all is lost because you said a stupid thing like "rag heads" that many people will think is funny, but lost you the chance to have a respectable debate with the opposition. But hey, there's always next time MavRick.
I don't believe Moore was heralding the benefits of religion, rather the way it is used by the unscrupulous; ie Hannity. How so many conservatives can tout religious beliefs as a reason for anti-liberal policies and yet many don't practice what they preach. That is what I gleaned from the debate. In my opinion, it looked as if Hannity not only wants to blame poor people for being poor, but that some wealthy financiers are not incredibly rich now because poor people are greedy.
Greta is just as ridiculous when it comes to credibility as all the other wrestling commentators on Faux News. How can a lawyer hold up a piece of legislation that is written in conceptual language and declare to her viewers that it is too long for her to explain to them? What a bunch of BS. The point being, she wanted everyone to think that it was too long for anyone to understand, thereby it must be full of liberal deception.
"Christians are in no position to judge the 9/11 terrorists."
He's got a point. Remember when those Jesuits flew planes into buildings in Mecca? Sad day for Christianity.
Seriously, though, this is pure sophistry. It's like saying Empricists or Stoics are equally damnable as Marxism because Marxism is a philosophical system, too.
That wasn't so much a debate as it was two people talking at each other for 20 minutes.
When the trickle down effect that was inspired by Ronald Reagan turned into loans instead of more pay, the only way to live the dream is to go into unsecured debt. This is the result of deregulation and greed from the money lenders, do not blame the poor for wanting more than just living paycheck to paycheck. I was enticed by the moneylenders to borrow more than I knew I could afford and resisted. There are many that would like to live in a nice home just once in their lives and waiting for the greedy bosses to improve our pay is not working out so well. The government is there to bail out the greedy lenders (who have money) and not to bail out the working poor (who now have even less).
I've been saying Hannity is a lightweight for years. I agree with him on most issues but I do not see that he is adept either of thinking on his feet or of spotting the basic flaws in the opposing argument. He is too easily swept along by the passions in the room. As Python (Monty) expresses it (paraphrased): Argument is not the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says." Hannity relies as much on feelings as the liberals do, it seems to me.
Of course, I'm not, either, but millions of people aren't relying on me to use such a one-shot opportunity to advance the convervative point of view.
You don't sound like a church goer. I've come home from church and been asked what the sermon was about and almost forgot. Most are rambling and platudinous dronings on that I can't wait to end. A truly memorable sermon is a rare thing. Sad but true. So Hannity not remembering on the spot from two days ago isn't something most church goers wouldn't identify with.
You don't sound like a church goer. I've come home from church and been asked what the sermon was about and almost forgot. Most sermons are rambling and platudinous dronings-on that I can't wait to end. A truly memorable sermon is a rare thing. Sad but true. So Hannity not remembering on the spot from two days ago isn't something most church goers wouldn't identify with.
I mean, I'm not good at thinking on my feet or spotting the basic flaw in the opposing argument (or at editing my posts before I submit them).
Hannity is the wrong guy for this. John Stossel or Michael Medved would have been far better at exposing Moore as the filthy liar that he is.
Hannity sticks too much with the queue cards and gets derailed too easily. Fox was dumb for giving to Hannity. Medved or Stossel would have been much more effective. IIMHO Fox blew it.
Moore's movie will tank anyway, but it would have been nice to see someone smarter than Hannity take apart that fat lying bastard.
"do not blame the poor for wanting more than just living paycheck to paycheck."
I don't blame anyone for wanting to better their lives at all. But when they want to do it a my expense without my consent, that's where I call BS.
Also, "nice home" is really vague. What do you consider to be a nice home? Yes, most of the poor in the country live in inner-city projects, but at least they have a roof over their head.
Finally, simple economics: If you improve pay, less people have work available. There's a reason why companies have to profit and why minimum wage increases very slowly.
Happens to the best of us. And although I've always liked Hannity, I think there are some logical inconsistencies in his thinking that he hasn't worked out, plus he occasionally tends towards demagoguery, which is something I dislike in any pundit. I watch Beck a lot more nowadays (partly because he just fits into my schedule better).
I stopped watching when Moore dismissed an example Hannity brought up of a family murdered by Castro by saying: "Well, that was 50 years ago." Didn't the Nazi war criminals say the same thing?…
Gah, ditch the talking points Sean!
Exactly. I can't listen to Hannity anymore; his simplicity is maddening. Half the time during his interviews I'm thinking up better questions and rebuttals than he is–he won't put down the talking points! It's irritating because when some lib is arguing with me about commentators, it's VERY hard to defend him. I usually just give them a point for that one…(yet they won't reciprocate when I bring up someone like Olbermann!).
"Christians are in no position to judge the 9/11 terrorists."
Yes, I am. One of the key tenets of my faith is "Thou Shalt Not Kill", 9/11 terrorists killed 3,000 people. I'll be nice and call them scum of the Earth.
Christopher – Your remarks are interesting to me because I have surveyed a lot of people with the question "What would Jesus be – a liberal or a conservative?" I suggest you try this. I found people who say they follow Jesus say that he would be whatever political belief they are -however, a few say that he would not be either.
Agree.
The key problem with Moore is that he cannot be trusted to present "event timelines" honestly. His movies are fiction.
Billions in profit loaned to the working class, not dealt out in increased pay, I guess you don't get it at all do you. The wealthy get to keep their money and make interest by lending it to their employees instead of giving raises. Billions wasted in market schemes instead of creating new jobs and improved standards of living for the American people. The wealthy have been practicing greed and indifference to the working class for decades, it just took a while for them to figure out how to get every last dime from the working poor before the pyramid collapsed.
I am saddened when the defense of important ideas and ideals on a national stage is left to dull and meager intellects like Sean Hannity.
There isn't enough food in Cuba to feed this pig. But I agree with you. If America doesn't suit him, then he should take his cloven hoofed ass to his buddy Castro and live the lifestyle he desires.
Sean Hannity lost the debate, not just the argument mind you, when he allowed Michael Moore to use the moral high ground of religion to justify his points. Neither are very bright but Moore is a bit more clever. Alinsky, anyone?
Hannity doesn't have the requisite intellectual bandwidth to go toe to toe with Moore. I would have preferred to see someone like Limbaugh, Hewitt or even Palin take Moore on (or, even better, Dennis Miller!), someone who knows how to argue without resorting to ridiculous personal attacks and strawman arguments, which is unfortunately what Hannity does all the time.
Wouldn't "meager intellectual" be an oxymoron. But I think it would be true that there was an "ox" and a "moron" trying to debate.
What I consider a nice home is a 3 bedroom brick home on a corner lot, with a nice concrete drive and just maybe a swimming pool. This is what I was lured with, but settled for a 3 bedroom mobile home on 2 acres of land for 1/3 the price of the brick home (which is what I could really afford, not what the realtors and bankers tried to get me to commit to).
Do you realize that you just called someone an "unapologetic materialist" through the medium of an expensive, non-vital piece of machinery called a "computer?" I sincerely hope that you're using a computer at a library or campus, and that you arrived there on a bus, or else you're a hypocrite.
I can't believe people are still using the "Faux news" thing. Seriously, do you think it makes you sound cutting edge? It was passe 2 years ago. Why not just punctuate your sentences with, "Party on, dude"?
Moore pretending to be a Christian is like Rev Wright pretending to be a Christian. Neither one has a clue why Jesus died on that cross. It was not to help the poor. The poor we will always have with us, Jesus said. And of course we help them, even atheists give to the poor. But to think that Democrats or the far left have a clue what it means to be a Christian is just ludacris. Nearly everything they stand for is Anti Christian, and they don't even know it. They don't read the bible. Even Nancy thought she was a Christian until the Pope set her straight on abortion. Does she know God called homosexual acts an abomination? As for the Hollwood types talking about what Jesus would do! How would they know? .
Chris, your comment was sort of wall bangerish yourself.
'H makes' and Moore are so right. Poor people are just too stupid to be trusted with understanding a contract. Perhaps ACORN needs to not only show them how to vote but show where they should put their little x's one the contract.
Laura Ingalls should be given a chance at him. Or Michelle Malkin. Now that would be interesting. He needs someone who can scream him down because that is the only way you can interview a liberal. They do not reason or know how to have a conversation. Their tactics are to scream and go in for the kill like a wild animal. They have no grace or dignity. The sad thing is, most conservatives are polite and get ran over by these screaming liberals. And have you noticed they never answer the question you ask. They start talking about something completely off topic? It is like they are to stupid to hear what you actually ask and just go off on a tangent..
Even an animal knows how to reason something out. They don't seem to have that skill.
Jim Jones and Michael Moore both believe that Jesus was a socialist. Jim Jones, a lifetime democrat managed to talk 900 mostly democrat (definitely leftist) leaning individuals into drinking poison KoolAid. Jim Jones, much like Michael Moore, obviously abused what little knowledge he had of the true Jesus and the true gospel. Obama is pretty much in the same boat of scriptural and conceptual abuse. But for drooling idiot KoolAid drinkers like "GoMichael" these fellows all made sense. Up to and even beyond them being instructed to drink the poison KoolAid.
I guess you don't comprehend simple economics.
Also, on what planet do you live where standards of living are completely out of the hands of the people themselves? Jobs don't just come out of thin air by pumping money into the public and/or private sectors.
For the love of God, here's some Thomas Sowell for you. You're very welcome.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/inc...
Sean is not a heavyweight. This is not to say Moore is any smarter, but Moore certainly left himself open to being made a fool of in some of the rediculous 'points' he was attempting to make. Among the many stupid arguments, a more experienced person could have taken Moore's Taliban 'a couple of thousand guys on monkey bars' argument and wiped his butt with it.
Hannity knew he had to be nice with the communist . Probably had to feed "it" in the green room, with a large list of food demands – before "it" came on to be interviewed. I would have paid to see "the great one" Levin do this interview.
Hannity was "soft" on Moore because Moore blasted him away with FACTS. Hannity can't continue on with his biased fear mongoring when he has someone who knows the facts on his show. Better (for Hannity) to get Moore off the stage and bring in the blonde bimbos to agree with him……
You're just too stupid to understand and it's not worth the time to explain it to you…..
Real intelligent. Did you even bother to listen to Moore or were you just too turned off by his appearance? Maybe if you could see past his looks, and listen to the facts that he passes along to your ears, you would begin to learn somethings.
Hannity is a frothy lightweight who has increasingly become more and more egocentric. I'm the big talk show host. Yet if you analyse any of his typical segments on FNC all he does is ENDLESSLY puke up the same old bumper sticker slogans and talking points on the requisite topics of the day, like an energiser parrot. There is very little evidence of any depth of thinking with Hannity, its all essentially sloganised confrontation or blatant pandering to the GOP base. Obviously 6-7 mins on TV isn't sufficient to develop a serious argument.
But Hannity's pathetic attempt to explicitly "nail" down the liberal root causes of the financial meltdown last night were quite pathetic. It was the pardon selling perjurer from AR – funny how the investigation into all of that just silently fizzled out – who instigated race spoils pandering, primarily to poor blacks, at the point of federal threats to the banks, if they didn't seriously relax the standards for lending. Hannity completely glossed over this fact. And then once this new environment for lending became entrenched the greedy banks etc all piled on – until it steadily and inevitably spiralled out of control. BUT WHO STARTED IT … and who steadfastly refused to curtail Fannie and Freddie et al is beyond dispute – pandering lefties like Bwarney Fwank who screeched racism. And Hannity yet again missed the details.
Hannity had NO specific, awkward, hard left quotes of Moore's to throw in his fat face. NO awkward reminders of past outrages.
Beck has spent months digging extensively into the Hussein Obama crime family, with factual, reasoned, irrefutable research into how/why etc what the lefties are doing. Hannity is merely a vacuous mouthpiece, more concerned with his ratings and his image than any serious attempt to commit intellectual and ideological GBH on liberals.
O'Reilly is not a conservative.
Bingo,but unfortunately Obama is on the same gravy train and is as equally beholding to Wall Street.I wonder what would have happened if D.C. did nothing to help the banks and only covered savings and saved the trillion dollars to put out fires.BTW. I know nothing about economics but wonder none the less.
Liberals don't know how to reason?
It sounded to me like Moore had some very powerful facts right on hand, and Hannity had only a blubbering response.
(45 seconds into the third clip is one example.)
Did you even listen to what he said?
When did Moore scream during that interview?
Please point out the part of the interview where Moore went in for the kill like a wild animal.
I mean seriously, this is hilarious.
You say screaming someone down is the only way to interview a liberal, but then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you say liberals don't know how to have a conversation.
Since when is screaming down at someone having a conversation?
I'm not defending liberals over conservatives, I think both sides of the political debate need to be treated with respect.
When liberals or conservatives don't act respectfully, I think it's wrong.
I listen to both liberal and conservative media, and conservative media (especially talk radio) is by far more prone to use ad hominem attacks and offensive, even violent rhetoric.
See for example, this: http://mediamatters.org/research/200909300003
Your comment, sadly, is an example of this sort of rhetoric too.
You sound completely full of hate.
Attitudes like that will never help the country or yourself.
Yes, heaven forbid we actually engage in debate in this country.
I agree with you, we should just insulate ourselves by excluding outside opinions and beliefs.
That's what the American marketplace of ideas is about: intellectual stagnation.
Possibly the one thing that irritates me the most about people who identify strongly with conservatism or liberalism is their inability or hostility to listening and considering the perspectives of others.
Instead, most people seem to consume only the media that conforms to their existing political biases.
That's why conservatives paint all liberals as stupid communists, and why many liberals stereotype conservatives as stupid fascists.
Both are wrong.
And you're wrong too, CliffD… you should listen to the people you disagree with, if only because it will give you a more realistic concept of the world.
What specifically did Moore say in this interview that was "filth"?
Jervis, you're saying that owning a computer makes you a materialist?
Because that's really dumb.
You can certainly own things and not be a materialist, and a computer is one of the most useful things you can own.
It would be just as dumb if Peter was arguing that you shouldn't own anything (which he is not).
You sound like you're dwelling in extremes, Jervis.
A black-and-white worldview is absurd.
You "had to change the channel" after only 5 minutes of it, but you took the time to read and respond to the comments on this thread?
I think it's a sign of a very weak person that they can't stomach an opinion that they disagree with, especially when that opinion is presented in the civil format of a mainstream television news broadcast.
Couldn't do it. Just could not do it. I can't watch Michael Moore. I have no desire to ruin my day.
This is the best post I've read on this thread so far.
Your post is an example of how it can be valuable to listen to those with whom we would normally disagree.
I am disturbed by the tendency among both liberals and conservatives to simply shut out the other side and only listen to those whom they agree with.
How will people ever find common ground with that attitude?
And if people never find common ground, how can we really take back control of the country?
Right versus left is a false debate in many respects that only serves to divide and conquer the populace to the benefit of those who are already powerful in this country.
This is the best post I've read on this thread so far.
Your post is an example of how it can be valuable to listen to those with whom we would normally disagree.
I am disturbed by the tendency among both liberals and conservatives to simply shut out the other side and only listen to those whom they agree with.
How will people ever find common ground with that attitude?
And if people never find common ground, how can we really take back control of the country?
Right versus left is a false debate in many respects that only serves to divide and conquer the populace to the benefit of those who are already powerful in this country.
What facts would you counter Moore's responses with?
For example, please tell me what facts you would use to counter Moore's statistics at 45 seconds into the third clip.
Did you watch the interview?
Moore didn't say that Christians are in no position to judge the 9/11 terrorists.
"Big Hollywood" said that as a talking point to this article, and it's a disingenuous talking point (as are the other ones) because that's not what Moore was saying at all.
Why don't you ditch the talking points and think for yourself?
In fact, 10 minutes into the first clip, Moore said 911 was a "horrible crime" and indicated it was the right thing that they were put in jail, which is clearly a judgment.
Or maybe you weren't watching…
Sorry, I made a typo when I said "it was the right thing that they were put in jail."
Replace "was" with "would be."
(Moore was, of course, referring to the first attacks on the trade center.)
Sorry, I made a typo when I said "it was the right thing that they were put in jail."
Replace "was" with "would be" and "that" with "if".
(Moore was, of course, referring to the first attacks on the trade center.)
I changed the channel because I was embarrassed for Sean Hannity. I happen to like Sean a lot. To see him in so far over his head was painful. He made the same two mistakes O'Reilly makes: treating a liberal as if they are reasonable, and being star struck.
You must not have a clue as to what is going on in the real world. You haven't noticed that the cost of living has increased and yet the average pay remains the same. In order to acquire the things needed to work for someone, a worker has to go into debt. The main example being a car that takes up a large portion of finances through loan payments and insurance. Instead of prices being in the reasonable range, everyone is expected to borrow large sums of money. It did not used to be this way before Ronald Reagan. I remember when my parents used to pay cash for the cars they purchased. My parents were not rich or even upper middle class. The only loan they had to pay was the mortgage and it in no way consumed as much of their income as mortgages these days.
Well, even a dog has a good day now and then and Moore had a good day and Sean had an average day. This may be good for Fox news as it will attract more moderates, but I don't think it did Hannity any great favors. A Levin or Savage or Rush would have been too much for Moore to handle and the interview would have been argumentative as opposed to cordial in nature and Fox was smart to lean more toward the middle. In the end, whether you thought Hannity was too soft on Moore or not, the ideas he presented were superior to Moore's and not apologetic, angry, berating or overly aggressive and he handled the interview with class. Hopefully this will encourage more leftists to do interviews on Fox.
For some reason, I suddenly feel the desire to watch American Carol again.
All liberals are unreasonable?
Isn't that a very unreasonable statement for you to make?
I dunno, Jaynie.
I watched the whole interview and although I don't agree with everything Moore said, he sounded pretty reasonable.
Can you tell me where in the interview is he unreasonable?
I still think it's a sign of a weak person when they "have to" change the channel because they feel sad when a pundit they like is losing a debate…
What idea did Hannity present that was superior to Moore's?
The fact that the community reinvestment act caused the housing bubble and that democrats blocked all attempts at regulation over Fannie and Freddie. Moore looked stupified as he blabbered on about greedy bankers and bewildered home buyers.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tina Kubala and Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: Michael Moore On ‘Hannity’ http://bit.ly/BojzA [...]
Woah……….
So, banks are in the business of…….
raising the pay of the working class!?!?!? Really…………..
Oh, I'm sorry. Should I have said Proletariat?
Apologies, comrade.
Agreed Hanity also came across as not being prepared for the interview while Jabba the Moore seemed to have a slimey answer for all of Hannity's questions. Mark Levin or AB would have put Jabba in his place
I don't see how what Hannity said was superior.
At the beginning of clip 3, Moore quotes a figure from the FBI which states that 80% of mortgage fraud was caused by banks and lending institutions.
Do you disagree with the FBI on this?
As for the Community Re-Investment Act, I would direct you to the last third of clip 2.
You'll see that Moore criticizes democrats (including ones in the current administration) in his movie, and also states that the problem is less with the law than it is with de-regulation.
Moore also explicitly states that Clinton de-regulated the mortgage rules, but that it began with Reagan and accelerated under Bush W.
So he addressed the Community Reinvestment Act directly and stated that democrats took part in the de-regulation that lead to the bubble.
I don't see any stupification or blabbering.
Are you and I talking about the same interview?
Where did Moore lie during this interview?
What Real American question did Moore not answer during this interview?
Hey 98ZJUSMC, have you ever gotten really, really sick?
As Moore says, the single most common cause of bankruptcies are medical bills.
So are all those people being irresponsible when they get sick?
Moore also quoted an FBI statistic: most mortgage fraud is perpetrated by the banks and lending companies.
Are homeowners being irresponsible when their more powerful and more wealthy bank commits fraud?
Was it community activists and do-gooder politicians that somehow manipulated powerful & wealthy banks and lending institutions into committing fraud?
Oh, awesome, your name goes right to a Media Matters link.
Which means you have nothing of substance to say.
I don't give a flying fuck if Moore said it or not, Mr. Blovating MediaMatters creep.
I actually never attributed the quote to Moore, and I did watch the interview you moron. I was making a comment on something that hippy-dippy libidiots like to make.
Someone actually gave you a thumbs down? All you did was commend quality. You didn't even say that you agreed. oh well, please keep fighting the good fight for depth and quality debate. We NEED people like you!
[...] it necessary to expand my personal boycott of anything liberal. Probably my first target was Michael Moore. I wanted to see his first documentary Bowling For Columbine before I knew of his political [...]
80% huh,.. Well where else would the fraud come from except for de-regulated entities like Fannie and Freddie, who also hold around 80% of the mortgages that are going belly up? I get a kick out of Moore citing Reagan and Bush as culpable in the deregulation of fannie and freddie when it was Dodd, Frank and the other libs saying all along that these entities didn't need regulating and motions to regulate them were shot down by lib majorities both in the house and senate. An FBI statistic (dubious) is a bit like the libs citing CIA reports concerning drilable oil in the U.S. saying basically that there is no oil worth drilling here. Is it just me or does anyone think it might be better to ask the USGS or just MAYBE the oil companies themselves where drillable oil is and isn't?
Do I trust the FBI? Hah! I don't even trust the Post Office..
I tried to get through the videos before Moore would make an ass of himself. Couldn't get through the first video.
What an idiot. How can he not see how capitalism got him where it is today? Does he even know what capitalism is? He must have been eating twinkies during Civics class.
And of course Moore can't stand torturing terrorists. Last time I ever give this so-called "man" a chance.
"Moore, like a typical liberal "talked over" Hannity to avoid confrontation."
What? Talking over discenting guests is the trademark of the right. Period. I don't watch news shows from the left (only jon stewart and he certainly does not talk over the guests) so I'm sure they might do it, but on the right they do it constantly (billO, beck, hannity, etc). If you can't see it then you're blindfolded by your bias.
PS: When this people say that hannity should've been more strong on moore they're referring to him talking over moore. You people don't even want to listen…
How grown up of you. It's hard to listen to the facts eh? It's hard to see that your empty talking heads just recite and recite patriotic sentences about american exceptionalism but they have no idea of WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Yes, facts are fiction in neocons-land! FBI figures, all lies! No WMDs? you have to be kidding me we just haven't found them!
There are a bunch of facts out there, you might want to check some.
Uh, moore has debated oreilly before. I considered to be a tie.
What did you just say? Wow, you'll have to repeat it to me because I can't believe it.
Shock and Awe, my friend! The redundancy, however, could nauseate the senses. I'll just mention it once and add no further to the pain and shock you are suffering. I figure that's Moore's department. He's made a career of it.
heh heh heh……yeah, all Reagan's fault. I guess you missed all that double digit inflation and increased regulation under Peanut Lad. Payed cash for all their cars. Perhaps, that is because they were responsible. Nobody puts a gun to anybody's head or drives around the poor neighborhoods Shanghaiing people into loans they can not afford. This happens when banks are pressured by, community activists and do-gooder financially incompetent politicians, to loan to bad credit risks. Your screed must mean that I had to take out 5 credit cards, an endless succession of payday loans and hock my drivers license at the pawn shop to survive. Nope.
Pt. 1
Thomas Sowell is one of the most common sense individuals I have EVER read. I wish he would run for office. Samey same Victor Davis Hanson.
I own and rent out a mobile home (to the same couple for the past 14 years because I never raise the rent). I bought a lake front home (Lake of Egypt, Southern Illinois) on a 10 year note and payed that off, too. I owe nothing but property taxes and monthly bills. I have no credit cards, never have, only a debit card for online purchases when the deals are unbeatable. I have purchased 3 vehicles on loans, the rest are fix 'em up used. Payed em all off, no sweat. I have never earned more than $45,000.00 in my life. Under your scenario, that just shouldn't be possible should it? It's called RESPONSIBILITY.
Pt 2
Michael Moore is not the only one who would be happy if Moore moved to Cuba.
I am a huge Hannity fan and republican, Moore put up weak arguments, bu Hannity dropped the ball. He was horrible, I mean horrible in this debate. Then Hannity's loony religion came in and made it even worse..
Sorry i'm replying to this way late but anyways…….the price of a car is reflected in the amount of money that went in to making it !!! Also back in your day the unions weren't as corrupt and as powerfull as they are today, thats also reflected in the price too. One last thing, there are cheaper alternatives out there such as used cars and appartments, basically people should work with what they got. If you can't afford it don't buy it ; don't live beyond your means and if thats a problem find a way to better your means. I know its not easy but thats life
I didn't know retarded was a bad word, if someone is retarded thats what they are: a retard. They just happen to be liberals that seem do have demented thinking like a retard- LIBTARD.
And yet no one replies to my comment about the realtors and banks trying to convince me that I could afford to take out a loan 3 times what I knew I could. This is a fact. I know from personal experience that this kind of behavior was rampant in the financial industry. Along with that my mortgage was sold to other institutions 3 times, dealings going on with vast amounts of money that had nothing to do with more jobs or growing the economy, just speculation and bulging financial CEO wallets. Did the "libtards" force those banks to fill my mailbox with unwanted credit cards? I used to get 3-5 offers a day, each promising the world of opportunities to me. Thanks to Obama, my mailman is taking a breath of relief, and I don't have to fill my garbage can up with those stupid offers.
You proffer that $45,000 a year is not very much; where I live, that is 2 times the average income. This makes you wealthy in my neighborhood. Your egotistical offering of insightful purchasing is insincere. You just come off as another slum lord, only on a small scale.
Believe what the auto makers want us to. As for me, smoke and mirrors is what large corporations have been using to draw attention away from the fact that we are needlessly reliant on them. Instead of investing money in public transportation, like the Europeans, we keep shoveling billions into a bottomless pit. The poor cannot buy a car, which is needed for most jobs, and therefore often cannot get to work. It happens all the time where I live.
Back in my day? Back in my day I was in elementary school, before the economy turned from cash to credit. The point being, there was a sense of well being, and people devoted a lot of time to their families, now its all about working more to pay for the babysitter, the car notes, the mortgage, the whatever and not spending valuable time with family. My mother used to take all seven of us children out west every year to see this great country. We would spend 4 fabulous weeks exploring everything from the Anastazi ruins to Yosemite to Yellowstone. How could she afford this? Not because we were wealthy, but because the country was cash and carry, not credit based. Credit financing is a ponzi scheme.
To quote Sowell "In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities." What is not in Sowells theory is that the average American devotes 40-70 hours a week earning their incomes, while Europeans generally work 25-50% fewer hours, with fewer hours to enjoy our earnings, I'd say our standard of living is not as high as Sowell would have us believe.
One last post……, it is very, very obvious, the core of the Republican or should I say "Conservative" Party, are Sociopaths. They exhibit no remorse or compassion towards others and hide their callous beliefs behind the Bible and the American flag (another form of "Not my fault"). I will go on trying to live comfortably, while having time left out of the day to enjoy my family and earnings, without exploiting my neighbors.
"Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative and he only goes after people who are nobodies."
You're kidding right? O'Reilly went after Obama & Hillary when he interviewed them on his show.
Well, I guess some people consider those two nobodies.
"He would have been so thrilled that Moore came on his show that Moore would need a good long shower to wipe off the butt kisses."
O'Reilly did go after Moore when he had him on his show and that is probably the reason Moore will nver go back.
"it is very, very obvious, the core of the Republican or should I say "Conservative" Party, are Sociopaths. They exhibit no remorse or compassion towards others and hide their callous beliefs behind the Bible and the American flag (another form of "Not my fault")."
Generalize much? Remorse and compassion towards others are not defined by one's allegiance to a political party. Remember, "others" include those in a different political party.
"Talking over discenting guests is the trademark of the right. "
The problem with the left shows is they normally do not have on those with opposing views, so they just parrot each other. To watch a liberal talk over someone, just watch Bob Beckel whenever he is on Hannity's show.
If you do watch hannity then you must know that he does it. OReilly does it and Beck is the most annoying doing it (it's funny because he is supposedly looking for "answers"). I don't watch shows from the left so I can't tell you if they do it too (my guess is they do).
Hannity was dishonest, presenting misleading information. He, clearly, did not take the take to read through the articles. Instead just the rat he is, stripped the titles that sounded interesting and jotted them down. Yes, we brits ARE laughing at Hannity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.