Jon Stewart: Hannity on Occupy Wall Street

[Opteron]

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5-2011/parks-and-demonstration?xrs=share_copy[/video]

Not sure if its been posted before, but fast forward to 3:00 minutes. Funny lol.

 

[whysoserious]

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5-2011/parks-and-demonstration?xrs=share_copy[/video]

Not sure if its been posted before, but fast forward to 3:00 minutes. Funny lol.

Not many anchors on a 24-hour news cycle can keep belief. It takes loads of mental gymnastics to form the opinions they are forced to have.

 

[Boo Radley]

Not many anchors on a 24-hour news cycle can keep belief. It takes loads of mental gymnastics to form the opinions they are forced to have.

Very true. I'd only add that it is more Hannity knowing his audience. He knows who is watching him, and he knows to affirm their beliefs.

 

[buck]

Maybe I missed it, but did the Tea Party camp out for a month in tents, wallow in their own filth, face mass arrests and refuse to leave private property when asked?

Both sides have the right to protest. However, the way the OWS has chosen to conduct their protest is not comparable to the way TP chose to conduct theirs. The way OWS chose, is a big turnof to a lot of people, even some that I know that would normally be receptive to their message.

 

[Tucker Case]

Maybe I missed it, but did the Tea Party camp out for a month in tents, wallow in their own filth, face mass arrests and refuse to leave private property when asked?

I don't know. Maybe the Tea party wasn't as committed to their cause. :shrug:

The way OWS chose, is a big turnof to a lot of people, even some that I know that would normally be receptive to their message.

Ironically, this was just as true for the Tea Party. For example, the way they conducted themselves was exactly what turned me off, despite the fact that I am generally receptive to their main message. I spoke at length about how their victim-mentality BS was what turned me off.

 

[Thorgasm]

Maybe I missed it, but did the Tea Party camp out for a month in tents, wallow in their own filth, face mass arrests and refuse to leave private property when asked?

Both sides have the right to protest. However, the way the OWS has chosen to conduct their protest is not comparable to the way TP chose to conduct theirs. The way OWS chose, is a big turnof to a lot of people, even some that I know that would normally be receptive to their message.

Maybe the tax party had to cease their disingenuous outrage over unemployment because they had to go back to work. :lol:

 

[VanceMack]

Nothing more funny than a man that makes 15 million a year pretending to give a **** about 'the little people' and his mindless viewers actually believing it. Its as pricesless as a president that has been the primary recipient of millions and millions of dollars of campaign donations by banks and Wall Street pretending he is on the side of the protesters. Comical.

 

[Thorgasm]

Nothing more funny than a man that makes 15 million a year pretending to give a **** about 'the little people' and his mindless viewers actually believing it. Its as pricesless as a president that has been the primary recipient of millions and millions of dollars of campaign donations by banks and Wall Street pretending he is on the side of the protesters. Comical.

So you agree that Corporations should not be viewed as people and money is not free speech? Otherwise, whomever the next President is will have the same affliction. That goes for Congress too.

 

[Tucker Case]

Nothing more funny than a man that makes 15 million a year pretending to give a **** about 'the little people' and his mindless viewers actually believing it.

Do you say the same about the conservative pundits who pretend to give a **** about the 'little people'?

Its as pricesless as a president that has been the primary recipient of millions and millions of dollars of campaign donations by banks and Wall Street pretending he is on the side of the protesters. Comical.

You know what's truly priceless? The fact that the Tea Party and the OWS people think they are each other's enemies while they blindly and rabidly support their preferred side of the rich, douchebags who are the true enemies of both groups.

 

[Reg]

Why should my free speech be taken away because I have one more dollar than you do?

 

[Tucker Case]

Why should my free speech be taken away because I have one more dollar than you do?

Put who in the what now?

 

[Thorgasm]

Why should my free speech be taken away because I have one more dollar than you do?

Are you a corporation?

Is bribery protected under the First Amendment?

 

[Boo Radley]

Why should my free speech be taken away because I have one more dollar than you do?

I'm begining to wonder, is this some weird diversionary tactic you use?


:coffeepap

 

[What if...?]

Why should my free speech be taken away because I have one more dollar than you do?

So you support the OWS protesters right to protest wherever and however they please?

Trick question, be careful.

Has to do with reasonable limitations on speech.

 

[Reg]

If my brother Larry and I open up a hot dog stand and put our agreement in writing, why should we lose our free speech rights?

 

[Reg]

So you support the OWS protesters right to protest wherever and however they please?

Trick question, be careful.

Has to do with reasonable limitations on speech.

I'd fight for their right to poop in a public park, sure, if that's what floats their boat.

Where does the Constitution place "reasonable limitations" on speech?

 

[Boo Radley]

If my brother Larry and I open up a hot dog stand and put our agreement in writing, why should we lose our free speech rights?

I ask again: Where do you get all your misinformation?

 

[Thorgasm]

If my brother Larry and I open up a hot dog stand and put our agreement in writing, why should we lose our free speech rights?

Why should you and Larry get a third voice to express your free speech? You both still have your individual rights.

 

[Tucker Case]

If my brother Larry and I open up a hot dog stand and put our agreement in writing, why should we lose our free speech rights?

You shouldn't, but your hot dog stand shouldn't be given a right to free speech either.

 

[What if...?]

I'd fight for their right to poop in a public park, sure, if that's what floats their boat.

Where does the Constitution place "reasonable limitations" on speech?

Just making sure you aren't indulging in hypocracy.

Carry on.

 

[buck]

I don't know. Maybe the Tea party wasn't as committed to their cause. :shrug:

I don't think that was it. They ushred in huge political change in the country, which does show quite a bit of commitment. I think it has more to do with maturity and sense of responsbiility of the participants more than anything. However, based on the stylistic things I mentioned, it is very possible for Hannity to have a positive outlook on the TP protests and a negative outlook on the OWS protests - despite what Stewart did in his liittle comedy skit.

 

[buck]

Maybe the tax party had to cease their disingenuous outrage over unemployment because they had to go back to work. :lol:

TP wasn't much about unemplyoment, that I was aware of. However, are you sugegsting that only people without a job can be upset about a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate? The people that have a job shouldn't say anything?

 

[whysoserious]

I don't think that was it. They ushred in huge political change in the country, which does show quite a bit of commitment. I think it has more to do with maturity and sense of responsbiility of the participants more than anything. However, based on the stylistic things I mentioned, it is very possible for Hannity to have a positive outlook on the TP protests and a negative outlook on the OWS protests - despite what Stewart did in his liittle comedy skit.

Yeah, they were so amazing, the way they happened to get angry just as Obama was elected. The first protests began in January '09. Obama took office in January '09. Let's be honest, the Tea Party Movement was little more than an "oh **** we just lost the White House to liberals so we are going to go ahead and start bitching now" movement.

 

[Thorgasm]

TP wasn't much about unemplyoment, that I was aware of. However, are you sugegsting that only people without a job can be upset about a nearly 10 percent unemployment rate? The people that have a job shouldn't say anything?

Maybe you missed all the rhetoric from the tax party about the poor "job creators".

They can complain, but it doesn't carry much weight with me. A good portion of them blame the jobless for being unemployed.

 

[buck]

Yeah, they were so amazing, the way they happened to get angry just as Obama was elected. The first protests began in January '09. Obama took office in January '09. Let's be honest, the Tea Party Movement was little more than an "oh **** we just lost the White House to liberals so we are going to go ahead and start bitching now" movement.

So? I am not defending nor criticizing the tea party. Simply indicating that it is possible, based on the way the two different protest movements were handled, that one person can think more highly of one then the other, which was the point of the op.