No, I didn't. Thanks for the heads up.
Youtube suggested it, maybe because I've watched some videos Bob posted?
I actually looked up the show to be sure they were not just some internet flunkie making up bombastic bullshit, because this seemed like it might be...but had no way to know their reputation. Are they known for completely making up crazy inflammatory bullshit like Hannity?

Can you verify this is nonsense, or is this a real sexist Aussie airline policy now under review? If it's all bullshit, I'll gladly kill it. If it's true, but somewhat hyperbolic, I'll retitle to indicate that.

@newtboy, you do realise you're promoting the Aussie equivalent of Sean Hannity here, right?

Today Tonight is a fucking joke, and I wouldn't insult the concept of journalism by comparing it what to what they do.

I haven't looked into this particular issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it's typical right-wing scaremongering.

I try to not speak about things I don't know about.
I try to avoid "news" like this that's so clearly biased, on any 'side'. They tend to skew and ignore facts to make a political point. A good test is if they can't refrain from childlike name calling.

I can't speak for down under, here, we see "both" sides (and I still strongly deny that the antifa people are really on the left, because fascism is not a politically left philosophy, and they are fascists) acting outrageously.

EDIT:That said, only one group has actually killed so far, and only one group has fired guns into crowds of women and children so far, and that side stands firmly with the right, and the right has so far stood with them, calling them peaceful protesters that only defended themselves from antifa. I have yet to hear of a single democratic representative say antifa are good people, or peaceful protesters, the right however has made that a mantra about the alt right, Nazis and KKK.

Hmmmm...I had to look up Sargon....you've got to be kidding...he's slightly LEFT OF CENTER?!? You are absolutely bat shit nuts. He's clearly, firmly far right. It didn't take me 5 minutes to be sure.
HAHAHA!!!! You start by giving me credit for watching it, then berate me for not watching it. I gave it a total fair hearing, and it took no time at all for it to show it's colors as totally hyper biased far right Nazi apologist bullshit.

Again, only the right wing media is claiming that main stream media is hiding antifa criminality. It's clearly being shown here, and they are called out for the violent idiots they are constantly, but if the right acknowledged that, they might have to deal with the Nazis and KKK and alt right on their 'side' (and sadly, they can't denounce them as easily since they clearly courted them in the election, unlike the left and antifa)
I have absolutely zero need to watch such tripe to be informed. Here, coverage isn't one sided, no matter what Bob and Hannity tell you.

I have no doubt that my arguments fall on deaf ears with Bob, but I can give other readers another rational point of view, denounce debunked fabrications, point out information that's intentionally omitted, and point them towards verifiable sources rather than opinion pieces masquerading as news. They are the minds I hope to reach, Bob's is closed, as, I'm starting to think, is yours.

@newtboy

falling on deaf ears.
bob's comment is literally ripped from rush limbaugh,hugh hewitt and sean hannity.

they are his heroes.
you are not.

because we all know right wing demagogues not only use "alternative facts" but also reside in an "alternate reality".

Wow... See above comment...

Of course you just dismiss that as dishonest media, and proceed to swallow everything this imbecile says. For the love, listen to yourself. What are you insecure by proxy? This loser is holding campaign rallies to feel better about himself, and you and the people there seem to be sharing in it. Maybe if they wish for it hard enough they can suppress their cowardice and ignorance long enough to form a dissonance bubble where they can just hide from reality and never have to leave. They can have Limbaugh and Hannity pumped in from the speakers and they never have to think for themselves ever again.


@bobknight33

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

Hannity and all those at Fox, good example.
All white nationalists too, because they radicalized the terrorists in Canada to murder people in another church....and those that are connected with the white nationalists....like Bannon and Trump. We need to assassinate them now, because clearly they're fostering and creating terrorists or at the very least in league with them, right?
No due process needed, they live in a place where there's no chance of the law touching them, so assassination is the proper course, right?
I find the entire argument incredibly short sighted and myopic.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

I found one thing extremely interesting in *2* separate interviews with Assange when he was asked whether or not there was any Russian involvement -- including the one with Hannity shown early in the video here:

Hannity: Did Russia give you this information? Or anyone associated with Russia?
Assange: Our source is not a state party.

Very close to verbatim that exchange appeared in a print interview a week or two ago. The resulting headlines: "Assange denies Russian Involvement in the Leaks", etc.

But look at that answer. It is very carefully worded, but it doesn't directly answer the question. "Our source is not a state party" doesn't rule out that the source is Russian. It sort of rules out a source with known associations with the government (of Russia or anywhere else), but it could be an independent / private individual at face value that got the information from state parties.

I find it odd that nobody (as far as I've seen) has brought up that carefully worded answer, when it stuck out like a sore thumb to me the first time I saw it in print.


That being said, I 100% agree with Greenwald when he suggests that accusations are not proof. And the CIA and other agencies have a massive track record of shady dealings done in the name of "national security", as defined by whoever is in charge. Taking them at their word seems pretty hopelessly naive at this point.


But beyond all of that, I honestly don't care who did the hacking and what their motivations were. The government seems happy to record and analyze everything we say and do, and to claim that people like Edward Snowden are traitors for simply telling us about it. Well, get used to some of your own goddamn medicine. If you are running for public office, you should expect that your rights to privacy are going to be challenged much more strongly than those of Joe Average. You're a person of interest -- for pretty legitimate reasons.

Assume that absolutely everything you've ever said on the record (and lots OFF the record) is going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. If you've got any skeletons in your closet, expect that there is a good chance they will get exposed. And probably at the worst possible time.

What should both parties take away from this? Gee, it might be a good idea to choose candidates that can stand up to at least a basic level of scrutiny. Backing slimy weasels that look great and charismatic after a quick once-over might come back to bite you in the ass.

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity
And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity
If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks
And you're wrong about trickle down economics
If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers
If you kill for the thrill of the hunt
You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter
Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day
And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day
If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment
And you're wrong if you don't question your government
If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God
Your religions are all flawed,
You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse
I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow
A victim of Cointelpro
You're wrong and will probably never know

Love this song *promote

I didn't know Hannity could cringe...that was awesome.

Good retitling.

Your video, Fox Guest So Vile & Sexist Even Hannity Cringes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

To that end then all the American people can do is stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils and vote for the one who will truly start to make a difference., regardless of outcome.

I did not vote for McCain nor did I vote for Romney and of course Obviously not Obama.

Once the sheeple wake up then another party will rise and take form.

I like you statement
" find it interesting that the only real difference is who you feel are the "greater" of two evils.this is the exact same things democrats say about republicans...interesting yes?"


When I watch MSNBC it is funny that it is an opposite of FOX. Fox is more balanced for sure. I'm talking about news not pinheads like Hannity and O'Reilly that stir the pot like Maddow, Sharpton and Sholtz.

The best news of ALL news is Brett Baier and for commentary I like The Kelly file. Both from FOX.

Yeah pretty much. We're doing exactly what Jon Stewart does really, only Jon doesn't have to breathe life into Hannity or Fox for them to have watchers. We our the readers of the comments that hold obvious falsehoods and biases within them. We can choose to ignore them and their readership goes away, period.