Sean Hannity hosted David Limbaugh (brother of you-know-who) and Democrat Steve Murphy as part of a presidential debate fact-checking show. But, not surprisingly, Hannity accepted without question Romney’s debate accusation that President Obama went on an “apology tour.” Never mind that this accusation has been widely discredited. But the segment soon turned into a shouting match as Democrat Steve Murphy refused to be interrupted and silenced by the two loud-mouths who seemed to think that spewing hate about America was some kind of badge of patriotism.
It’s laughable that either of these two should be whining about anyone else putting America down. Has Sean Hannity ever gone a full segment – much less an entire show – without smearing President Obama, Democrats, liberals and anyone else he disagrees with politically? All in the name of freedom of course. And Limbaugh is about as like-minded as they come.
But with a straight face, Hannity asked, “Why doesn’t he (Obama) talk about America’s greatness?” For further hypocrisy, Hannity whined, “He called our country arrogant!” This, from the guy who regularly suggests on national television that our President is a racist, anti-American and in office fraudulently.
I wish Murphy would have thrown Hannity’s hatriotism in his face but he did not allow himself to be bullied by the bullyboys. “You asked me a question here, Sean. Do I get to answer or do you want to go on your own personal jihad here?” Murphy shot back at one point.
Murphy got in a few more zingers such as, “By the way, if you were descended from slaves, you might not think the Founding Fathers got everything right, either.” And “Just say it! Just say it! You think Mubarek should still be in charge, right? Why don’t you both just say that! We should have had a Tiananmen Square in Cairo!”
Sadly, Murphy is exactly right about that. And it proves that democracy, that distinctly American institution, is yet one more thing that those two "America lovers" hate.
Video available at Mediaite.
Do you like this post?
Nayef Daher commented
2012-10-25 16:17:06 -0400
· Flag
@mj
Conservatives have bumper sticker slogans for both sides of any issue. “Cut & Run” changed to “fiscal responsibility” and may change back should Romney get elected. They have slogans for promoting democracy by force but if it happens peacefully they wet their pants.
Conservatives have bumper sticker slogans for both sides of any issue. “Cut & Run” changed to “fiscal responsibility” and may change back should Romney get elected. They have slogans for promoting democracy by force but if it happens peacefully they wet their pants.
mj - the same one commented
2012-10-25 16:11:04 -0400
· Flag
@Donna S.: “You are quick to debase Fox News and conservatives like Hannity â as if what viewers see is made up.”
That’s because for the most part — it is.
@Blind Sighted: “Anyone who reads all of Nobamaâs speeches abroad and who doesnât understand that it was an apology tour has lost the capacity for rational thought.”
You’re right, Blind — but only in the sense that President Obama wasn’t apologizing for America: he was apologizing for his PREDECESSOR.
“Our troops should all be brought home NOW not in 2014.”
Honestly, you teabagging rightwinguts have GOT to make up your minds how you feel about foreign deployment of US troops.
All during the Iraq War, the mere SUGGESTION that the troops should return was regarded as treasonous, and elicited cries of “cut an run” . . . even when Dumbya left office, the troops were making (RW-supported) videos “begging” President Obama to “let me finish my mission” . . .
And when it became clear that the wars were cost prohibitive — that is, when Obama actually put their cost on the nation’s budget sheet, unlike his predecessor — suddenly they were to be brought home NOW . . . and, when they actually left Iraq on 12/31/10, there was MORE criticism of “cutting and running” (even though that date had been agreed upon by the Iraqis and Dumbya himself) . . .
In any case, you’re gonna be disappointed about Afghanistan: as Romney made clear in the last debate, he agrees with the President about keeping troops there through 2014 . . . but why do I have the feeling that, if Willard somehow manages to buy/steal his way into the WH, Mr. Braille here will will be back in a few months (under a different sockpuppet name, of course), loudly trumpeting how much he agrees with the policy — since it’s coming from a white man, and all . . .
.
That’s because for the most part — it is.
@Blind Sighted: “Anyone who reads all of Nobamaâs speeches abroad and who doesnât understand that it was an apology tour has lost the capacity for rational thought.”
You’re right, Blind — but only in the sense that President Obama wasn’t apologizing for America: he was apologizing for his PREDECESSOR.
“Our troops should all be brought home NOW not in 2014.”
Honestly, you teabagging rightwinguts have GOT to make up your minds how you feel about foreign deployment of US troops.
All during the Iraq War, the mere SUGGESTION that the troops should return was regarded as treasonous, and elicited cries of “cut an run” . . . even when Dumbya left office, the troops were making (RW-supported) videos “begging” President Obama to “let me finish my mission” . . .
And when it became clear that the wars were cost prohibitive — that is, when Obama actually put their cost on the nation’s budget sheet, unlike his predecessor — suddenly they were to be brought home NOW . . . and, when they actually left Iraq on 12/31/10, there was MORE criticism of “cutting and running” (even though that date had been agreed upon by the Iraqis and Dumbya himself) . . .
In any case, you’re gonna be disappointed about Afghanistan: as Romney made clear in the last debate, he agrees with the President about keeping troops there through 2014 . . . but why do I have the feeling that, if Willard somehow manages to buy/steal his way into the WH, Mr. Braille here will will be back in a few months (under a different sockpuppet name, of course), loudly trumpeting how much he agrees with the policy — since it’s coming from a white man, and all . . .
.
Nayef Daher commented
2012-10-25 14:13:11 -0400
· Flag
Blind Sighted
“The reality is that he is abiding by the treaty because it gets him $2 billion a year and he couldnât defeat Israel in a war and he knows it.”
Doesn’t that contradict your earlier, and recent, assertions he will cancel peace treaties?
“That will be the end of democracy because Islamic law is the antithesis of democracy. Under Islamic law, only Allah can make laws so that the very idea of man-made laws is antithetical to Islamic law and anathema.”
It’s not true because Islamic Law specifically requires that leaders are elected; additionally, Sunni and Shia differ on role of religion in government. Since the 7th century, Sunni scholars settled on secular societies with religious backbone (sort of like the US being a secular country but with Christian beliefs, culture, etc…) whereas Shia believe in theocracy. This also explains why ONLY Iran has the religious leader at the highest office (above the president) whereas in most Arab countries, the highest religious authority is at most a minister within the cabinet and reports to the prime minister. Additionally, Syria for one had Christians who held this post throughout their modern history (you can look that up since you pretend to be so knowledgeable).
You also claimed democracy cannot exist in that region. So explain to me: how come they toppled dictators and held free elections in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya (where secularists defeated MB). It’s clear this is what the people there want, and it’s creepy you are against their will. Who do you think you are to dictate your will on foreign people you never met?
“The reality is that he is abiding by the treaty because it gets him $2 billion a year and he couldnât defeat Israel in a war and he knows it.”
Doesn’t that contradict your earlier, and recent, assertions he will cancel peace treaties?
“That will be the end of democracy because Islamic law is the antithesis of democracy. Under Islamic law, only Allah can make laws so that the very idea of man-made laws is antithetical to Islamic law and anathema.”
It’s not true because Islamic Law specifically requires that leaders are elected; additionally, Sunni and Shia differ on role of religion in government. Since the 7th century, Sunni scholars settled on secular societies with religious backbone (sort of like the US being a secular country but with Christian beliefs, culture, etc…) whereas Shia believe in theocracy. This also explains why ONLY Iran has the religious leader at the highest office (above the president) whereas in most Arab countries, the highest religious authority is at most a minister within the cabinet and reports to the prime minister. Additionally, Syria for one had Christians who held this post throughout their modern history (you can look that up since you pretend to be so knowledgeable).
You also claimed democracy cannot exist in that region. So explain to me: how come they toppled dictators and held free elections in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya (where secularists defeated MB). It’s clear this is what the people there want, and it’s creepy you are against their will. Who do you think you are to dictate your will on foreign people you never met?
Nayef Daher commented
2012-10-25 11:49:13 -0400
· Flag
“Clear” sighted,
“Brutality of Mubarak vs. Mursi: If Mursi fully implements Shariâa, as he and his Salfist partners”
So, you are using a hypothetical. The Salafis are not his partners; they ran against each other in the election. So, I ask for a factual statement, you reply with “if” and the likes, and add an incorrect statement to it, then want to be taken seriously? I am asking for REALITY not fears held by paranoid fear-mongers such as yourself.
Hamas is MB too but they are NOT the same organization; every country has “Liberal Party” or “Conservative Party” but they operate independently and are not necessarily connected even if they have the same name. Your play on words and names is cute if you’re 5 years old; past that it’s lame. Also, to suggest that Mursi will abide by what Hamas Charter says is hilarious, and you have no proof for it. You are just speculating.
Regarding what Bukhari said, this is a PROPHECY regarding end-times, just as Christians hold similar ideas on what end-times are.
Next, you claim Egypt under Mubarak is better than some other country with some other leader. That is one idiotic statement because I asked you to compare Mursi with Mubarak on the SAME country. Apparently, that is too much to ask from a person who can’t string up one factual statement. Also, did you ever live in Egypt to know what life is like now and before?
Regarding Quran quotes, you took them out of context. The verses you selectively cherry picked are in the LARGER context of what Muslims should do if attacked (they are entitled to self-defense). In Sura 2, the command is: Fight those who fight you and do not aggress for God does not like aggressors.
Your entire rant is either hypothetical or paranoia so when you are ready to have a serious conversation based on FACTS ON THE GROUND, we will be here. I am not interested in “if” and “may” because, honestly, I am not your therapist.
“Brutality of Mubarak vs. Mursi: If Mursi fully implements Shariâa, as he and his Salfist partners”
So, you are using a hypothetical. The Salafis are not his partners; they ran against each other in the election. So, I ask for a factual statement, you reply with “if” and the likes, and add an incorrect statement to it, then want to be taken seriously? I am asking for REALITY not fears held by paranoid fear-mongers such as yourself.
Hamas is MB too but they are NOT the same organization; every country has “Liberal Party” or “Conservative Party” but they operate independently and are not necessarily connected even if they have the same name. Your play on words and names is cute if you’re 5 years old; past that it’s lame. Also, to suggest that Mursi will abide by what Hamas Charter says is hilarious, and you have no proof for it. You are just speculating.
Regarding what Bukhari said, this is a PROPHECY regarding end-times, just as Christians hold similar ideas on what end-times are.
Next, you claim Egypt under Mubarak is better than some other country with some other leader. That is one idiotic statement because I asked you to compare Mursi with Mubarak on the SAME country. Apparently, that is too much to ask from a person who can’t string up one factual statement. Also, did you ever live in Egypt to know what life is like now and before?
Regarding Quran quotes, you took them out of context. The verses you selectively cherry picked are in the LARGER context of what Muslims should do if attacked (they are entitled to self-defense). In Sura 2, the command is: Fight those who fight you and do not aggress for God does not like aggressors.
Your entire rant is either hypothetical or paranoia so when you are ready to have a serious conversation based on FACTS ON THE GROUND, we will be here. I am not interested in “if” and “may” because, honestly, I am not your therapist.
Ellen commented
2012-10-25 01:07:57 -0400
· Flag
Joe Marsh,
Average American Patriot is right. The ads are placed automatically on the page. It’s also based on text on the page and where you’re from. I see a lot of ads for a candidate in my state.
AAP is also right that it’s a useless proposition to ban all the right wing ads. However, I am very against concealed carry so if you see the ad again (I have not seen it at all), please get me the url of the ad if you click through, the name of the ad and tell me where it’s placed on the page because there are a few different ad networks. And i’ll block it.
Average American Patriot is right. The ads are placed automatically on the page. It’s also based on text on the page and where you’re from. I see a lot of ads for a candidate in my state.
AAP is also right that it’s a useless proposition to ban all the right wing ads. However, I am very against concealed carry so if you see the ad again (I have not seen it at all), please get me the url of the ad if you click through, the name of the ad and tell me where it’s placed on the page because there are a few different ad networks. And i’ll block it.
mlp ! commented
2012-10-24 20:08:48 -0400
· Flag
“Do you believe, Ellen â and fellow like-minded posters â that the American Public is unable to judge for themselves the words our President chooses to use when speaking overseas about America?”
Well, Donna (and fellow dead-minded Foxites), you have the right to judge any words by anyone any way you please. But, that ‘right’ doesn’t necessarily make your opinion (which is really just the Fox opinion) true, does it? However, it it makes you happy then we’re all happy for you! In fact, we’re some damn happy that we may appear to be laughing at you!
Well, Donna (and fellow dead-minded Foxites), you have the right to judge any words by anyone any way you please. But, that ‘right’ doesn’t necessarily make your opinion (which is really just the Fox opinion) true, does it? However, it it makes you happy then we’re all happy for you! In fact, we’re some damn happy that we may appear to be laughing at you!
Joseph West commented
2012-10-24 18:37:57 -0400
· Flag
@(Not so) Clearsighted: You wrote, “This liberal fantasy that you can have Jeffersonian democracy spring up in a country which has never known democracy and in which the predominant religion considers democracy anathema and an insult to their god is delusional.”
Well guess what, buddy? Guess where this “liberal fantasy” actually did happen IN SPITE of there not being any real democracy and in which the area’s “predominant religion considered democracy anathema and an insult to their go?”
Give up? The US. You may not realize it, but before John Hancock and company set forth that little document called the “Declaration of Independence,” our country was a series of colonies controlled by England. We had NO representation in the British Parliament and all the colonial leaders took their orders from London, and King George. There’d been several years in which British troops were stationed in people’s homes—without their consent or approval; the King decreed it, and it was so.
As for the religious deal, you might want to read how—even AFTER the First Amendment declared the people had “freedom of religion”—the vast majority of American citizens were subject to religious beliefs to which they did not adhere (just because you were a “Christian” didn’t mean that your particular church believed all the same tenets that the STATE-approved church did; even your choice of Bibles was subject to what the State backed). But, prior to the Revolution, the simple fact is that “democracy” is TOTALLY anathema to “religion.” Plain and simple. The concepts on which democracy is founded rely on the inherent idea that (as the Declaration of Independence states) “all men are created equal.” Democracy mandates that leaders be selected from one’s peers—NOT “divinely selected.” Churches operate on the basis of hierarchy and failure to follow the rules results in shunning or expulsion from the community (even the Southern Baptists, which purport to believe that member churches are independent to follow the Bible as they see fit, actually demand loyalty of their members). Go back and read how the CHRISTIANS of the early New England colonies treated those who didn’t “conform” to the community’s standards. Why, those folks sound positively “savage” by today’s standards; you could almost confuse them with “Muslims.”
Well guess what, buddy? Guess where this “liberal fantasy” actually did happen IN SPITE of there not being any real democracy and in which the area’s “predominant religion considered democracy anathema and an insult to their go?”
Give up? The US. You may not realize it, but before John Hancock and company set forth that little document called the “Declaration of Independence,” our country was a series of colonies controlled by England. We had NO representation in the British Parliament and all the colonial leaders took their orders from London, and King George. There’d been several years in which British troops were stationed in people’s homes—without their consent or approval; the King decreed it, and it was so.
As for the religious deal, you might want to read how—even AFTER the First Amendment declared the people had “freedom of religion”—the vast majority of American citizens were subject to religious beliefs to which they did not adhere (just because you were a “Christian” didn’t mean that your particular church believed all the same tenets that the STATE-approved church did; even your choice of Bibles was subject to what the State backed). But, prior to the Revolution, the simple fact is that “democracy” is TOTALLY anathema to “religion.” Plain and simple. The concepts on which democracy is founded rely on the inherent idea that (as the Declaration of Independence states) “all men are created equal.” Democracy mandates that leaders be selected from one’s peers—NOT “divinely selected.” Churches operate on the basis of hierarchy and failure to follow the rules results in shunning or expulsion from the community (even the Southern Baptists, which purport to believe that member churches are independent to follow the Bible as they see fit, actually demand loyalty of their members). Go back and read how the CHRISTIANS of the early New England colonies treated those who didn’t “conform” to the community’s standards. Why, those folks sound positively “savage” by today’s standards; you could almost confuse them with “Muslims.”
Nayef Daher commented
2012-10-24 12:23:17 -0400
· Flag
Not-so Clear Sighted
Any proof you have that Mursi is more brutal than Mubarak? Also, any proof he is a dictator not a democratically elected president?
Any proof he swore to cancel the peace treaty?
Any proof he wants to exterminate anyone?
Any proof “they are commanded by religion” to hate the US? Last I checked, Islam pre-existed the US by like 1200 years, so would be hilarious if it did.
Any proof you have that Mursi is more brutal than Mubarak? Also, any proof he is a dictator not a democratically elected president?
Any proof he swore to cancel the peace treaty?
Any proof he wants to exterminate anyone?
Any proof “they are commanded by religion” to hate the US? Last I checked, Islam pre-existed the US by like 1200 years, so would be hilarious if it did.
Anne-claire Souza commented
2012-10-24 11:43:12 -0400
· Flag
KKKlannity,a no class black hole for brain,lying cowardly thug who has no credibility and should not only be taken off the air but, put in Federal prison for treason, the major felony being defiling the President of the USA and being a total embarressment to his country.“A great American?” I don’t think so.
Zirgar commented
2012-10-24 10:57:14 -0400
· Flag
And the right wingers are probably still discussing just how rude that Murphy guy was to those two classy saints, Hannity and Limbaugh. IOKIYAAR
Joe Marsh commented
2012-10-24 04:03:54 -0400
· Flag
Great comments Antoinette…
Minor correction: black holes are actually “small” in relation to surrounding space. Slanthead’s monster ego, and capacity for 24/7/365 nonstop lying, might be best compared to giant galaxies with billions of stars.
Question for Ellen: Why is newshounds carrying ads for concealed handgun suppliers? Does this have something to do with the fact that Hannity is always crowing about his own concealed permits, how he never goes anywhere without his Glocks (maybe even to the toilet in his North Shore bunker… so he’s always ready to repel “them” when “they” come to attack him?)?
Minor correction: black holes are actually “small” in relation to surrounding space. Slanthead’s monster ego, and capacity for 24/7/365 nonstop lying, might be best compared to giant galaxies with billions of stars.
Question for Ellen: Why is newshounds carrying ads for concealed handgun suppliers? Does this have something to do with the fact that Hannity is always crowing about his own concealed permits, how he never goes anywhere without his Glocks (maybe even to the toilet in his North Shore bunker… so he’s always ready to repel “them” when “they” come to attack him?)?
Antoinette commented
2012-10-24 03:06:07 -0400
· Flag
Handout Hannocchio was born a man-caused disaster. A coward who is too scared to waterboard himself for our troops, who have come backed maimed or dead to give this fraud the freedom to lie to the American people.
Hannocchio has his own personal jihad against President Obama. Hannocchio’s obsession with Obama is troubling and not normal. On the other hand, Hannocchio has never been normal, given his dark history.
Hannocchio is in no position to call other people liars. If he wants to call out liars, his name should be on the top of the list. Arrogant? Hannocchio knows a thing or two about arrogance. This short-tempered, thin-skinned man has an ego larger than the Black Hole in space. Torture? Being married to him would be torture.
Embarrassment to the nation? Hannocchio is a embarrassment to journalism. This college drop-out is not qualified to host a news program. His only qualifications is to paint homes during the day and pour drinks at night.
We don’t know who’s worse-Rusty the Radio Clown or his foolish brother David. Whatever they have must runs in the family.
NOTE TO STEVE
Hannity is not worth your time. You’re better off debating a drunk on the corner.
NOTE TO LIMBAUGH
Big Bird is more exciting than you.
NOTE TO HANNITY
Your ancestors should go on a apology tour.
Hannocchio has his own personal jihad against President Obama. Hannocchio’s obsession with Obama is troubling and not normal. On the other hand, Hannocchio has never been normal, given his dark history.
Hannocchio is in no position to call other people liars. If he wants to call out liars, his name should be on the top of the list. Arrogant? Hannocchio knows a thing or two about arrogance. This short-tempered, thin-skinned man has an ego larger than the Black Hole in space. Torture? Being married to him would be torture.
Embarrassment to the nation? Hannocchio is a embarrassment to journalism. This college drop-out is not qualified to host a news program. His only qualifications is to paint homes during the day and pour drinks at night.
We don’t know who’s worse-Rusty the Radio Clown or his foolish brother David. Whatever they have must runs in the family.
NOTE TO STEVE
Hannity is not worth your time. You’re better off debating a drunk on the corner.
NOTE TO LIMBAUGH
Big Bird is more exciting than you.
NOTE TO HANNITY
Your ancestors should go on a apology tour.
Bemused commented
2012-10-24 02:14:26 -0400
· Flag
What caught my ear in that part of the debate was the reason Governor Romney gave for calling it “an apology tour” …. get this …
“President Obama went everywhere except to Israel.”
And the foxies on yesterday’s F&F kept on saying that the Governor made no gaffes during the debate, hoping nobody’d notice.
But I did because I can watch AND listen at the same time.
What really got my goat, however, was the reason that Bill O’Reilly, Peter Johnson Jr. and Brett O’Donnell proffered for the Governor not having attacked on Libya: he did that deliberately because he wanted to win over more women. Opportunism.
By appearing less warlike he hoped to sucker women into voting for him. Romney didn’t go so far as to say that but the tools of his handlers did and that’s one message that should go viral.
“President Obama went everywhere except to Israel.”
And the foxies on yesterday’s F&F kept on saying that the Governor made no gaffes during the debate, hoping nobody’d notice.
But I did because I can watch AND listen at the same time.
What really got my goat, however, was the reason that Bill O’Reilly, Peter Johnson Jr. and Brett O’Donnell proffered for the Governor not having attacked on Libya: he did that deliberately because he wanted to win over more women. Opportunism.
By appearing less warlike he hoped to sucker women into voting for him. Romney didn’t go so far as to say that but the tools of his handlers did and that’s one message that should go viral.
