April 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Hertz | Main | A stretch for Edwards »

Jul 26, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


She's a ranter- and not just wrong about Israel.


Hannity in drag? The guys a powder puff between the ears perhaps but I've never heard anything remotely as inane as this come out of his gob. Since Rhodes made her name denouncing Bush as the Anti-Christ... quite literally, the comparison looks pretty unfair.

Ron Coleman

Can you explain why this would make her Sean Hannity in drag?

Bruce Burch

Ed, there is an alternative to AAR: Head On Radio Network

I'm on 5-7pm on that site.

Hannity I am not... :)


So you're saying she's NOT a guy in drag? Dag, yo.

Mark B

I don't get the Hannity in drag either. Hannity ain't a deep thinker, and I find the "you're a great American" greeting that he has with his guests to be very presumptuous as if the mere fact that you like or agree with him makes you a great American. However RR is totally unhinged, bile spewing, anti-intellectual gasbag. Not to mention Hannity is right, shes left, Hannity is pretty, she ain't, Hannity has over 10 million listeners, she has maybe 1 million, etc. Please explain.


Here's a clue, kidlings:

it's show business .... Hannity, Randi Rhodes, Rush, et.al. ....
if you put all their heads together you'd be lucky to come up
with one coherent thought.

Move on. Nothing to see here. Get a life.


Don't know her, never heard her. Don't know her schtick.

But the "genocide" comment sounds a lot like what I hear on the radio these days, especially from Neal Boortz and Michael Savage, not so much Sean Hannity. Of course it's totally ludicrous and indefensible. It's supposed to be entertainment by exaggeration. You're not supposed to huff and puff at the literal reading of it.

You take her to task as if she was serious and her statement must be disproven. Maybe she was. But if she wasn't, you let her push your button, and she won this round. You gave her some fantastic free publicity here.

I also happen to think that the language isn't altogether out of bounds in a serious discussion that's rife with the phrase "right to exist". The wildest dreams of some in this conflict do include the concept of extermination, or at the very least, disappearance. We have to talk about that. Rights to exist haven't been universally accepted on either side.

That's not to say there's a genocide going on, 'cause there's not. Yet.


amen, "chewie"

you know, folks, there's a funny little game going on lately:
everyone seems to see himself/herself as some well-schooled
linguist picking apart every statement ... and it's clever --
if we talk about how something is being talked about
then we never get to talking about the thing itself.

in this instance (the so-called "Middle" East)

Israel is wrong; Hezbollah is wrong; both sides should knock it off
or understand they will be seen for what they are: fanatics,
murderers, and fools.


I don't get the Rush/Randi equivalence either.
While talking to a lefty friend (Venceremos Brigade, he went to Cuba to work on tobacco plantations to support the Revolution) last year about Paul Ehrlich being pretty shaky, [e.g.
he commented "you sound like you listen to Rush Limbaugh".
I had never listened before in my life. A week later I did listen for the first time. I am not a regular but it's obvous to me that Rush has brains. I wonder why moderates feel compelled to throw in a dismissive comment about talk radio or Ann Coulter whenever they criticize someone on the wack-o Left? perhaps to pre-deflect the inevitable torrent of criticism the Left is sure to respond with. I mean, ya gotta prove you're a bien pensant, right?


This would seem to be a useful addition to Tim Blair's list of new definitions - http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/D9B0A0897E349849CA2571B4007303A5?open&ui=dom&template=domBulletin


Rush has brains? well, once upon a time , perhaps,
an average intellect pumped up with money, but,
drug-abuse ain't good for brain function.

Ann Coulter? all it takes is reading one of her "books,"
-- one doesn't even have to subject oneself to a
television or radio appearance -- to know she is
a person who is only fueled by her own bile.

Talk radio is filled with former disc-jockeys, second-rate
comedians, and worse


"Hannity in Drag" as in vitriolic hyperbole? Maybe. But maybe she really buys the Islamist PR that Israel is a genocidal apartheid state.

Or maybe she finds it convenient, like much of the Far Left, to align herself with medieval, fundamentalist head-choppers in order to battle the greatest Evil of them all... "American Capitalism"!!! (the horror)

P.S. I don't understand how Israel is wrong, I really don't. The civilian deaths can be laid entirely at the feet of guerrillas who refuse to wear uniform and hide their arsenals among civilians. They WANT Lebanese civilians dead, so they can point at Israel and say "Look! They're the terrorists!" And some people really believe them. That's almost as naive as believing that Hezbollah will abide by a cease-fire for longer than it takes to regroup and rearm.

Samuel Spagnola

Hannity is an exasperating idiot, and so is Randi Rhodes. RandY Rhodes, by contrast, was a great guitar player.

"Hezbollah!" (said like Beavis from Beavis and Butthead)

Ed Cone

I was listening to Hannity on the radio the other day, too (work required me to drive a lot in the NY region this week, and I could only take so much about A-Rod and the Mets' trade possibilities) and he was ranting about "liberals" being the enemy as if Chuck Schumer had flown a plane into the WTC, and so the parallel is between one say-anything partisan ranter and another.

Why bother? One, I think that particularly offensive and egregiously incorrect statements by people with megaphones should be countered by someone, somewhere. And two, liberals who want to play the talk radio game should understand how "our" side is making us sound to the rest of the country. Standards of decency and accuracy don't exist to embarass the other guy, they apply to us all.

Chewie, you have some flexible post-modern views of the importance of language; I'm stuck in a boring old universe where words have meanings, and meanings are important. I'm unaware of Israel challenging Lebanon's right to exist, or that of Arabs in general. As for saying there's no genocide, "yet", that implies that the Israelis might contemplate one, a contention for which I'd like to see some evidence.


Tune into AAR's Mike Maloy show sometime. He make RR and Michael Savage sound as offensive as Bill Nye the Science Guy.

sean coon

randi rhodes provides a bunch of solid information (usually with links to facts on her web site), but she is, as you pointed out, a frequent passenger on the hyperbole train.

according to wikipedia, her katrina statement of "thousands dead" is accurate (they list a body count of more than 1,800 people, with more than 1,500 still missing 11 months later).

how was her statement wrong?


Mike Malloy --

the exception to the talk-radio rule.

Yes, he can get going like a Southern preacher,
but he not only knows what he's talking about,
he does the important thing: he makes no
excuses for murder ...

and I swear to whatever, if I hear one more
arm-chair warrior say "collateral damage" ...

uncultured barbarian

She's a nut right along with many others. Anyway sean, take Katrina death statistics with a huge grain of salt. what is not factored in are the number of deaths that occur daily in the region, from whatever cause. Sometimes people just die no matter what is going on. As for the missing, wiki doesn't mention anything about the number of "missing" that are beginning to turn up in jails in n. la., tx, ok, and ark or a few who would likely prefer not to be "accounted for".


Funny, I don't ever recall Neal Boortz ever mentioning "genocide" except in the context of actual genocide such as in Rawanda, Darfur, Serbia/Kosovo, etc. etc.....

I've only been a regular listener for 6 yrs. so I could have missed something, but I doubt it.

Try harder next time.


a regular listener to Neil Boortz?

well, that's all I need to know


Nice ad hominem there.....

So, I suppose that I should state that I support the Fair Tax Act, like the idea of school vouchers, think that Bush has a disaterous domestic spending policy, and support the War on Terror. I also happen to think that airplanes are cool.

Well, I guess that's "what you need to know". Don't want you rushing to any sort of judgement or something.....



nice but incorrect use of "ad hominem"

and it's "disastrous," but as mama used to say:
we are judged by the company we keep


Not really a Hannity fan (although his book Let Freedom Ring was surprisingly readable), but that seems unfair to him.

Michael Savage in drag, maybe? Fred Phelps in drag?


Me: "Rights to exist haven't been universally accepted on either side. That's not to say there's a genocide going on, 'cause there's not. Yet."

Ed: "As for saying there's no genocide, "yet", that implies that the Israelis might contemplate one, a contention for which I'd like to see some evidence."

Did ya bang your knee on the desk?

Genocide is nothing if not a denial of the right to exist. Whose right to exist do we most frequently talk about?

That's right. You're backwards and upside down. Slow down and go easy on the coffee.


right now, as we type, some self-appointed pundit
is declaring 1.3 billion Muslims to be "savages,"
"barbarians," ... calling them "a death cult" ...
and exhorting us to band together in "the West"
and destroy them all.

but it's not like it's genocidal chat

it's just good old-fashioned American war-monger propaganda


xavier reads Ann Coulter books and listens to Neil Boortz, yet criticizes others that do the same. not to mention pointing out spellign errors made in commentz sectionz? lame


and Mr Hannity is merrily wRinging Freedom's neck,
squeezing every nickel out of it

updated truism: Patriotism is the last-refuge of a talk-show host

(and if all else fails, they head for the Religious sub-basement)


you are profoundly confused. Brush up on those reading skills.

I couldn't listen to a man like Boortz if I was being held at Guantanamo
and it was part of my "rehabilitation regime"

(hmmm, maybe they use right-wing talk shows for that)

we've all read bits and pieces of Coulter.... she's impossible to avoid

but no, never bought one of His books

as to pedantically pointing out the spelling error, it was to teach a larger lesson
to the gentleman who thought he was being fancy with the Latin/Logic 101 term

which he misused

have a nice day, sweetie


The only question at this point is how insane the left will actually become.

Read this about how liberals are the unhappiest people around.


it is interesting as well that to make elementary-school spelling errors
is not "lame," but trying, in the spirit of helping one's fellow man,
to correct them is to be considered "lame"

anti-intellectualism and disdain for education in America
runs deep

Richard Cook


A plausible argument with facts could be made that a large segment of the Muslim work (Wahhabist) are barbarian. It doesn't take a self appointed pundit to do it either. Even a cursory search would be a basis from which to construct an argument. Facts as in "independently verifiable". Maybe the language is hyperbolic but the sentiment is true.


you bypassed the first question: why do you characterize "the Left" as
insane? or is it the Right's new semantic game of calling anyone "insane"
who disagrees with their reactionary point of view?

in the old Soviet Union it was common practice upon the arrest of
a dissident to immediately turn them over for psychiatric examination
on the faulty logic that

the State was the best of all possible worlds

whoever disagreed with that was obviously insane

Today, the American Right has a similar formula:

George Bush is a great man, appointed by "God" to his office

whoever would disagree with this must be insane,
or at least traitorous, godless, and just plain


I would be prepared to argue that all three so-called Abrahamic religions
(Judaism and her two bastard children, Xtianity and Islam) are all
"barbaric" systems of belief.


Xave: You absolutely made an ad hominem argument. You said that if your opponent listened to Neil Boortz (whoever he is), "that's all I need to know." Your implication was "anyone who listens to Boortz is an idiot; my opponent listens to Boortz; therefore, my opponent is an idiot; therefore, his argument must be idiotic; therefore, I don't need to address it on its merits."

Kind of an indirect ad hominem fallacy, but fallacious just the same.


by the way, a "sentiment" can be neither true nor false

it is merely a sort of "emotional opinion"


do you also read tea leaves, Thomas?

I am amazed at how much you think I packed in to the simple statement
"that's all I need to know," by which I was merely expressing that,
knowing myself, I would be unable to find much common ground with
a Boortz acolyte



idiotes (sorry, don't have Greek font handy) was used by the Greeks
to refer to the common citizen with no pejorative connotation

interesting that it became the insulting English "idiot"


The left cannot explain their beliefs logically. Normal people, on the other hand, can. That is the key difference.

Here is an article that easily proves that Bush voters are smarter than Kerry voters, despite what Kerry voters try to believe.


so, people on the Right are "normal" and
people on the Left are "not" ?

and every human being with a Leftist view
cannot explain anything logically?

sheesh... and I'm accused of ad hominem arguments

just for amusement, do you have any more sweeping generalizations?

by the way, the election of 2004 is over. Kerry isn't running against Bush
this morning. Time to move on, honeybunny.


but you are right, accidentally about one thing:


that's all the Right usually has.... Belief, not founded
on fact and reality.

The Left prefers to deal with the Facts of this World,
not pie in the sky in the hereafter, beware of god
or he'll getcha, and all that

and Logic and Belief aren't even kissin' cousins


Xave: There you go again. If your opponent listens to Boortz, he is Boortz's "acolyte" and therefore you're unable to "find common ground" with him.

Interesting interpretation of "that's all I need to know." The more reasonable meaning of that phrase seems to be that you're dismissing your opponent out of hand -- not just that you're likely to disagree with your opponent (we already know that), but that his arguments aren't worthy of being taken seriously. Because he's a Boortz "acolyte." That's absolutely an ad hominem.

No tea leaf readings here -- just basic English and reasonable inferences from language.


Wow Xavier, You really need to work on that self esteem problem. But I guess you are too busy showing everyone else how small and dumb they are. Keep up the good work you are going places bic boy.


ah, but I don't need to "interpret" my own statements
... that's for others to wallow in. I know what I meant
and i told you what I meant. If you choose to believe
you know my mind better than I do, I bow to you,
doubting Thomas.

and I hardly think an anonymouse commenter on this
contraption deserves the lofty title of "opponent".


That was supposed to read "big" boy. I wouldn't want Xavier to give me a failing grade for typing too fast.


self-esteem problem? oh my, we have an armchair, on-line
psychologist in our midst.

I have no intention of making anyone feel "small and dumb
but if you feel that way, get help.


and I think "bic boy" was much more intriguing

The Monster

X, If you never listen to Boortz, how are you capable of forming opinions of what he says?


Richard Cook, many incomprehensible comments ago, you directed something at me that I think was meant for Xavier.

Since that time, we descended a few more levels in Hell, but I just wanted to clear my name.

Samuel Spagnola

"The Left prefers to deal with the Facts of this World". That's hilarious. Methinks Xavier is confusing excessive clever word play for intelligence. As a result, this thread has spiraled into nothing but a pissing contest about who is dumb and who is smart, and how clever I am and how idiotic you are, etc. The actual issue (whether Hannity and Rhodes are morons or not) got lost somewhere.. Move on

The comments to this entry are closed.