Extremist Battle Royale

[jjd]

SEAN HANNITY VS MICHAEL MOORE

 

WHO WOULD WIN?

[Dave_Schuldt]

So who the hell is Sean Hannity?

[johndavidjr]

Neither are extremists as you pose them. Moore distrusts wealthy people & is slightly demagogic and Hannity is something like Rush Limbaugh without ? drugs.

[j_b]

moore, an extremist? would he be american as apple pie only if he agreed with invading another country for bogus reasons? i think not.

[cracked]

Anybody who claims that Moore is not extreme needs to have their head checked. Dunno enough about Hannity to comment.

 

j_b, YOU....are a FUCKING....MORON...

 

Oh, yeah, *very* slightly dodgy site...might be un-work safe.

Edited September 30, 2004 by cracked

[Mark_Husbands]

Clearly Moore's enormous personal mass would be an asset in an unarmed confrontation. Armed, Hannity's superior speed and dexterity would se him to victory.

 

No what makes folks think the firarm abolitionist Moore could outshoot Hannity, who keeps a Sig under his pillow and spends his free time at the range? Something I don't know?

[j_b]

so apparently cracked thinks that invading another nation, laying waste to it (for the foreseeable future), and killing 10,000's of people for no acknowledged good reason amounts to being moderate whereas opposing such actions is extreme. it's an orwellian reality in cracked's head (pretty fucked up imo but it's not like i am surprised).

 

in fact, all of this tells us more about cracked arrested mental state than about michael moore, who is also a widely read author of many books in the u.s. (actually the most widely read non-fiction author of the last decade) and a movie director applauded throughout the world. eat your heart out.

[cracked]

[glacierdog]

You know what, jb? You're right. Saddam really was a nice guy, with no ill will towards the U.S. whatsoever, and everyone in that country loved his gentle handed rule.

[glacierdog]

And furthermore

[jjd]

So who the hell is Sean Hannity?

 

<start Hannity/Moore type rhetoric>He is a modern day Nazi.</end Hannity/Moore type rhetoric>

 

Neither are extremists as you pose them. Moore distrusts wealthy people & is slightly demagogic and Hannity is something like Rush Limbaugh without ? drugs.

 

moore, an extremist? would he be american as apple pie only if he agreed with invading another country for bogus reasons? i think not.

 

Jesus H Christ people, lighten up just a little. And by the way, they are both extremists (literal definition: "those who would advocate or resort to measures beyond the norm"). Sean Hannity equates "liberals" with Nazis and Michael Moore would have you believe that the people of Iraq were all rainbows and sunshine before the war.

 

Now, I think Sean Hannity runs his mouth a little too much to be much in a fist fight (overcompensating?). Hannity guts Moore like a fish in a knife fight (fat man just won't be able to move) and they kill each other in a gun fight (would we all be better off? ). Fat man wins the sumo hands down. I think the Nazi could win the hot dog eating contest (he does have a never-shuts-up big mouth). These guys are both full of shit up to their eyebrows - I think it might be a tie in the blather, drivel, and rheotric category.

[j_b]

sorry people, i know, it's laborious.

 

You know what, jb? You're right. Saddam really was a nice guy, with no ill will towards the U.S. whatsoever, and everyone in that country loved his gentle handed rule.

 

non sequitur. i did not say nor i have ever said any of these things. in fact, i have often said that saddam was a bloody dictator along with many other of our present/former allies.

[j_b]

And by the way, they are both extremists (literal definition: "those who would advocate or resort to measures beyond the norm").

 

since when is it in the norm to "preemptively" invade and lay waste to another country for reasons that have turned out to be pure fabrications?

 

edit: could you point out one thing mmoore advocates that is beyond the norm?

Edited September 30, 2004 by j_b

[Greg_W]

And by the way, they are both extremists (literal definition: "those who would advocate or resort to measures beyond the norm").

 

since when is it in the norm to "preemptively" invade and lay waste to another country for reasons that have turned out to be pure fabrications?

 

Neither Sean Hannity nor Michael Moore have invaded anywhere that I've heard of (although Moore looks like he's laid siege to his share of all-you-can-eat buffets). So, could you stay on topic please? Or simply shut the fuck up. See you this weekend...

[j_b]

And by the way, they are both extremists (literal definition: "those who would advocate or resort to measures beyond the norm").

 

since when is it in the norm to "preemptively" invade and lay waste to another country for reasons that have turned out to be pure fabrications?

 

Neither Sean Hannity nor Michael Moore have invaded anywhere that I've heard of (although Moore looks like he's laid siege to his share of all-you-can-eat buffets). So, could you stay on topic please? Or simply shut the fuck up. See you this weekend...

 

i am on topic. conservatives call mmoore an extremist because he opposes the war openly. i am asking: since when is an unjustifyable, optional war that was started under false pretense not extreme?

 

as for your threats/innuendos (in pm's or not) you can shove them where the sun don't shine, loser.

Edited September 30, 2004 by snoboy

[Greg_W]

Bring it on, fuck-o. Bring it on.

[j_b]

Bring it on, fuck-o. Bring it on.

 

i think it's obvious to everyone that threatening individuals for holding differing views is what extremists do.

[scott_harpell]

edit: could you point out one thing mmoore advocates that is beyond the norm?

 

I would say being a conspiracy theorist would do it... The whole bin laden family story... conspiracy lie...owner getting shot by his onw dog... lie... Missile factory in Columbine... lie... Gun death numbers in teh U.S.... lie shall I go on? I can... If you have to make some many lies to enforce your opinion, I think there is a good chance you are extremist

[Greg_W]

Bring it on, fuck-o. Bring it on.

 

i think it's obvious to everyone that threatening individuals for holding differing views is what extremists do.

 

It's obvious to ME that your invocation of "everyone" proves that you lack the confidence in your self and your belief system to stand on your own. Instead you rely on an ethereal "everyone" to lend some amount of credence to your statement and to bolster your anemic view of your self. Since you have decided to violate the standard rule of this "society", namely publicizing private messages, I will respond. I understand that, since you couldn't obtain a consensus among several other of your peers, you didn't really understand the metaphor I employed in my private message. I in no way threatened you, bodily or otherwise. To use small words, I was communicating to you that I look forward to having a face-to-face discussion with you at Rope Up this weekend. I enjoy spirited debate, especially with those who's views are so opposed to mine. You seem to get very emotional and irrational when you debate on-line and I was looking forward to spinning you into a dither at the Rope Up. I know, as a knee-jerk liberal, that you consider any seeming allusion to violence or violation as a threat of violence and immediately seek the cover of your collective. Worry not, scared little socialist, no harm will come to you that you do not bring on yourself.

 

Greg_W, a peaceful man really.

[j_b]

Since you have decided to violate the standard rule of this "society", namely publicizing private messages, I will respond.

 

here is the rule i have always used: any threatening private message is put out for everyone to evaluate. i have already done so and will continue to do so. i also encourage everyone to do the same.

 

you didn't really understand the metaphor I employed in my private message.

 

standard tactics for exposed abusers on this site and in the real world: "no, no, really it was a metaphor, a joke, i did not mean it literally, etc ..." in the end, even if the recipient of abuse is not cowed into submission it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. disgusting.

 

Greg_W, a peaceful man really.

 

what you are really is of no importance (until you break the law, of course). what matters right now is how your words and actions affect this forum.

[scott_harpell]

J_B... grow a fucking pair. Of course it was a metaphor. He didn't say he was gonna shove a boot up your as or soemthing... he said he was gonna squamsh you with reality.... Be a man and take care of it. If you had a question about it, buck up and ask greg. Don't do this whistle blower shit when you don't even know what you are talking about. Pathetic

[j_b]

I would say being a conspiracy theorist would do it... The whole bin laden family story... conspiracy lie...owner getting shot by his onw dog... lie... Missile factory in Columbine... lie... Gun death numbers in teh U.S.... lie shall I go on? I can... If you have to make some many lies to enforce your opinion, I think there is a good chance you are extremist

 

scott: nobody has ever provided convincing evidence that mmoore lied on any of these topics (which includes those cooky websites you link to whenever we have this debate). perhaps mmoore does not get everything 100% right, like most mortals, or uses comedy to poke at his opponent but his material is usually very well researched.

[scott_harpell]

J_B... he admitted the Bin Laden farce on national T.V!!! What more do you want? Sheesh!!!

[scott_harpell]

perhaps mmoore does not get everything 100% right,

 

Well if you are a doc film maker, that is your job. You have to get everything right.

[j_b]

J_B... grow a fucking pair. Of course it was a metaphor. He didn't say he was gonna shove a boot up your as or soemthing... he said he was gonna squamsh you with reality.... Be a man and take care of it. If you had a question about it, buck up and ask greg. Don't do this whistle blower shit when you don't even know what you are talking about. Pathetic

 

another standard technique used by abusers on this site and the real world: "be a man, grow a pair". as if being a man meant not taking offense at anti-free speech behavior.

 

let's assume for a moment that in your simple frame of thinking, i am a 'coward', or let's say that i am reserved and timid. more than likely i would not respond or reveal greg_w's tactics and make sure to move along as far away from the dude as possible. how can it be reasonable that the bully be left standing in control of the "discussion" while mister coward/timid sees his freedom of expression curtailed? are you saying that might/intimidation is right?