Legit Reviews

Here is a 5 minute video clip froma Fox News broadcast that is worth watching if you havea few minutes to spare. I won't say anything and look forward to your reactions!

This all started after he called US military troops scum bags.


Copy/paste the following URL into your browser!

thepoliticalteen.com/video/seanh5.wmv

link wont work

Copy/Paste the following URL into your browser!

*sigh* good old faux news....

first, i'd like to start by calling sean hannity a grade-a assbag who comes in at a level above bill o'reilly on the dickometer. hannity is one of the biggest boner-clowns in syndication and i don't see how colmes can work along-side him. if you watch the clip, you can see that all hannity does is disuage any kind of civil discussion and decides to ask the guest completely loaded questions like "why are you so thoughtless, so mean, and so cruel," etc. not only that, but the asshole changes his ENTIRE argument against that turd, michael crook... he starts off trying to tell michael that his freedom of speech is a GIFT from our soldiers and that there is no freedom of speech unless the soldiers protect it for us (an argument with which i completely disagree). however, moments later, he starts arguing with michael with the point michael was trying to make (that freedom of speech isn't a gift... it's a right)!!! to see what i'm talking about, follow along with the exchange between dipshit #1 and dipshit #2 between 00:00:45 to 00:01:40. hopefully, you guys will hear hannity and think "wait... wtf?? you're doing the bugs bunny and daffy 'duck season, rabbit season, rabbit season, duck season' thing."

i have mixed feelings about our military partly for the same reason of what that uglier version of napoleon dynamite said... some people don't really have much of a choice about joining the military when they practically bribe them with the false hopes of big paychecks and college tuition. i feel like it's somewhat a disservice to the heroic men and women who actually DO join out of the love for their country. in a way, it reduced the military to being, in a sense, a mercinary camp (for lack of a better terminology).

now, i like colmes... and i think his line of questioning was WAY more intellectual and intriguing. however, i think he was wrong when he asked michael whether it was the troops "fault" that they died. i think "fault" was a loaded/badgering term to have used. i think a better argument would have been made had he asked if it was their "choice."

finally, michael crook. what can i say... this guy's a complete idiot. but, then again, of course he's an idiot. fox news searches high and low to find the most negative representative for their opposition to present on their networks. they show footage of middle easterners always running around like uncivilized jihadist looters who dance in the street whenever a jew or infidel is killed. they show liberals as either black or female radical aclu members or just as scary as howard dean's march to washington speech whenever it comes to debating. they even try to find people with names easy of ridicule and easily stereotypically associated with their political views..... for example, a liberal named jessica whiner or something. well, they hit the jackpot on this michael crook turd. 1, his views are SO radical and disrespectfully presented that even colmes couldn't help defend him. 2, look at the guy. he's misfortunately ugly and has a terrible sense of style. 3, he's a terrible debater and a terrible speaker. 4, his last name is crook and his first name is michael (automatically makes conservatives think of michael moore).

this guy automatically becomes MORE of a reason for conservatives to hate liberals.

this clip showed me something i've already come to realize.... fox news is more agenda-driven than cnn or msnbc and it's shows like this which polarize our country and will eventually contribute to a future president standing on the white house lawn playing his fiddle while d.c. burns to the ground.

these shows dont help bring about public discourse and accpetance of various views. they only aim to hate each other and call each other names just because of what we believe.... and, sadly enough, i'm a victim (whenever i drive around and see a bush bumpersticker, still roll my eyes and mutter the words "f*cking fascist.").

in conclusion, michael crook is a dumbass.

Sorry Audio, I couldn't disagree with you more.......however, the two quickest ways to lose friends or cause bitterness is to talk religion or politics, two things I'd love to see disapear from a computer forum.

i had a feeling you would disagree. i was anxious to read your opinion.

i want to clarify that i do respect our military. just because i dont believe that our right to free speech is granted through our military doesn't mean i disrespect it. i just feel that they defend the belief in the right... they fight overseas (so may say) because of freedom (along with freedom of speech). that doesn't grant US the freedom... that grants the freed country's freedom.

i believe that our military defends us from harm... both foreign and domestic. i believe that rights and liberties are granted to us through our "democracy." although it sounds disturbing, our freedoms come through our branches of government... legislative, judicial, and executive. the role of the military, in my opinion, defends those branches and the people for whom it works (the public). they deserve utmost respect for that.

if this was 1776, i'd be singing a different tune.... because that's the only time, i believe, that the "military" actually GAVE us our rights... they fought for freedom and rights as well as independence.

anyways, i have many republican friends it doesn't mean i think any less of them in any way... they just feel differently about things than i do. it's kinda like me liking bacon on my pizza and them liking anchovies

Audio, being from a military background is only a small part of it. Actually seeing first hand things that are reported on the news gives you a different impression of their reporting. I actually think Fox does an outstanding job being "fair and balanced", and for the most part applaud them just reporting the news and letting you form your own opinion. I like Sean Hannity, and would take him over Bill O'Reilly in a heartbeat. He is a pretty even minded sort. I feel the opposite about Skeletor (Colmbes), Here is a guy who has no nuts and probably has someone else have his sex for him, as he has no nerve to do anything but whine himself.
As to journalism, calling CNN, MSNBC or most other fair and unbiased cracks me up....how many times have they been flat wroong or retracted stories....almost as bad as the NY Times. I find journalistic integrity to be non exisitent on the whole anymore, it isn't about reporting the news, its about making the news or backing people. Al Franken, bill O'Reilly, etc have never and will never get in the mud, or make a stand, but they will monday morning QB it to death. If people want to make an honest difference, to stand up for what they believe in, thats fine, but they need to be educated about it first. don't just take a lib college professors word, don't just take my word, investigate things for yourself....Too many people in this country are far too lazy to research or gain experience firsthand, they want all the answers given to them, all the work done for them

nice post

i think that the only way fox news can be called "fair and balanced" is by virtue of being so right wing that it balances out the leftness of modern society and news. also, fox news holds the record for most apologies and retracted stories for any news network. there were 3 retracted stories and apologies during the 2004 election campaign... not to mention the 3 or 4 geraldo screw ups (especially that big one in iraq where he "found the stockpile of wmd"... or the one where he gave away the military's position... jeez... the list goes on).

i cracked up when you called colmes skeletor. i never noticed that now, everytime i see him, that's what i'll picture. anyways, i think that his loss of testicular fortitude for going out and saying what he really wants to say comes from a) he is being paid by fox news... b) he's civilized enough not to go off the handle and call his guests names.

i do agree about what you said about media being bad altogether and that reporting the news has gone down the tubes. it's because companies like disney, westinghouse, time-warner, etc have a stake in the political future and work to sway public opinions. the shadows of their tenticles befall us all. they're the modern-day robber barrons.

i am all for personal investigation. i've been saying it ever since senior year in high school. most of why i believe what it is i believe in respects to 9/11 (not gonna talk about it here) came about through research. and then michael moore's fat ass had to go and make a movie talking about a lot of the stuff i'd already known ever since the fall of 2001 (because of the research) and, suddenly, people are like "omg!!! bush this and bush that?!?!" (by the way, michael moore was wrong about a couple things in fahrenheit... when i watched the movie, i felt awesome because i was able to point out the flawed facts while everyone else just swallowed it).

Michael moore is a cancer and embarrassment of our society. He should be drawn and quartered in public.
I honestly have never seen someone put more blatant lies then Moore, send him to France, along with Skeletor.

I appreciate and respect anyones and everyones point of view as long as they show that they have done at least a little personal research and don't base their whole point of view on what someone tells them.

agreed (about the respecting opinions part)

i think michael moore raises valid QUESTIONS.... how he goes about answering the questions, however, i don't know if i exactly trust. he's an interesting creature in the fact that he introduces a valid argument and a valid question, however his methodology in answering the question makes him invalid. it's as if he starts people thinking and then makes people stop thinking by virtue of his own undoing.

there are only 2 things i have against france...

1, they support democracy and freedom, but then revoke the religious right of muslim's being able to wear headscarves.

2, the whole iraq scandal

however, ironically, i applaud them for hating americanism in france and trying to keep out american influence. i believe that france has a very long and rich cultural history and i think that american influences, like mcdonalds and whatnot, somewhat rapes the cultural landscape of frenchness. it's kinda hard to put things in that kind of perspective for most americans souly because we already embrace many different cultures.... so, if there was a boom in mexican-owned businesses or something in america, it wouldn't exactly rob us of our culture. to put it more boldly, i dont believe we as americans truly have culture, by virtue of the fact that we have never truly been a homogenous society with a long history. we only have american subcultures (ironically enough), american lifestyle, and americanism.... but no american culture.

i think michael moore raises valid QUESTIONS.... how he goes about answering the questions, however, i don't know if i exactly trust. he's an interesting creature in the fact that he introduces a valid argument and a valid question, however his methodology in answering the question makes him invalid. it's as if he starts people thinking and then makes people stop thinking by virtue of his own undoing.

Other than the fact that Moore's 9/11 was guilty of manipulating actual newspaper headlines (which got him sued), lying to people who appeared in the movie (as to what his purpose was, and how the footage would be used), then there was the fact that 57 points in the movie were proven to be embellished or outright lies.....the guy is a serious piece of ****, who put personal gain ahead of the truth.


the only history France has is surrendering at the first sign of trouble, smelly people, and hairy women. I love hearing people talk about France and democracy, they obviously don't understand that France is responsible for a majority of the problems in Africa. France, russia, China, and to a lesser extent Germany are all jockeying for a leadership position in this world, and doing it the wrong way by aiding Saddam and others in their fight against us, getting sweet oil deals, supplying military equipment, training and intelligence. don't be foooled into thinking we are the bad guys, we aren't
\I also believe we are going to be paying for Bill Clinton's lack of balls for decades. Bill never wanted to do the right thing, just the popular thing and it has cost us dearly in respect and power.I respect George Bush in that he tries to do the right thing, which won't always be the popular thing. I do however hate some of the people the President has surrounded himself with, Cheney and Rumsfeldt are both scumbags who have no clue what they are doing.
We have culture in America, we just have a generation wjho thinks the hip thing is to embrace beinbg a mexican, an african, or an irishman....people need to take pride in and embrace being americans.

everyone's a bad guy when it comes to iraq. no one is doing anything just for the good of the country. every country is pretty much has their own agenda and are just using iraq to get it. it's much like the saying goes: "nothing in life is free"... except in this case, it'd be: "no country in the world ever does anything unless they get more out of the deal than they put in."

doing the right thing and doing the popular thing carries a double-edge. on one hand, you could do the right thing and completely undermine your presidency/people..... on the other hand, you could do the popular thing and do the best job you can do. after all, the populus is the boss of the president. what we say the president should do, the president should do.

this ties closely in with mill and bentham's leadership philosophy of utilitarianism. this also goes back to the question of what various great leaders of the past have very reluctantly done.... sacrifice the lives of a few thousand people in the short-term in order to ensure "the win" (whatever it may be) in the end and/or in the long-term.