Sean Hannity Quits the GOP

I find it quite odd and ironic that you are for the so called fairness doctrine and then with a straight face you wish everyone a safe and happy 4th of July. The fairness doctrine goes against everything this country was founded on. If liberals can't make it in talk radio, whose fault is that?

When people talk about the fairness doctrine, killfile, they are mainly talking about talk radio, and I contend that talk radio and the fact that it is controlled by conservative is all about the free market. Radio exists to make money, pure and simple, and if Sean Hannity and the rest were not making money they would have been long gone. Air America is a case in point. No one is controlling the air waves except the people. The people decide what they want to listen to, with their own ears. Now, the lack of liberal voices on the radio is due to either one of two things, either liberals don't listen to talk radio OR the vast majority of people in this nation are conservatives. Those are the only two possibilities for the utter failure of liberal talk radio. You can force liberal talk radio onto the radio spectrum with the fairness doctrine all you want, but that doesn't mean that anyone is gonna listen to. I suspect that even with the fairness doctrine, conservative talk radio will still have the most listeners.

protect from the "Tyranny of the majority," there is value in creating a government mandated niche for minority views on the air.

Well I'm glad you mentioned NPR, because I was just gonna point out that there are minority views on the radio. I get NPR on my XM radio in fact, although it is called XMPR, I think. I also love NPR and PBS and all the public stations, whether TV or radio. But the thing is that the public air waves, the radio spectrum does not have as it's sole purpose, public stations. The vast majority of the radio out there is commercial radio, there to make money. Now if by the fairness doctrine one means that the government should expand NPR coverage, or to have other public stations, then that is all fine and good. But if it means that Sean Hannity is gonna muzzled in what he is allowed to say or that he is gonna have to give equal time to Hillary Clinton's campaign, then this is just outright wrong, and once again, goes against free speech.

Really balanced, educational, informative, round the clock news programing without political spin.

Now the "without political spin" part, that is gonna be the most difficult part, because you can't tell me that NPR doesn't have it's ideological bent.

Sorry for the triple posts, but I wanted to give an example of an NPR program off the top of my head with a decidedly ideological bent. Democracy Now!

I contend that talk radio and the fact that it is controlled by conservative is all about the free market.

Hardly. It's about monopolization, and being willing to run at a loss for ideological reasons. Have you heard any of the crap ads that get run on Limbaugh's show? One of my co-workers listens, and every once in a while I get an earful of it.

So let's see, they are BOTH profiteers AND willing to run at a loss for ideological reasons. Do you even listen to yourself? If Rush wasn't making money, he wouldn't be on the radio, pure and simple.

He is confusing Rush with Air America.

You know the group that had to pay radio stations to put them on the air. The same group that "borrows" money intended for the Girls and Boys Club of America.

they are BOTH profiteers AND willing to run at a loss for ideological reasons.

Spend it one place to make it back somewhere else. Clear Channel makes enough profit off of being allowed to buy huge chunks of any radio market it wants to take a loss on Rush. Like I said, have you heard any of the crap ads they have on his show? There's no way that low-rent stuff is paying his bills. Hair replacement spray? Give me a break.

Clear Channel makes enough profit off of being allowed to buy huge chunks of any radio market it wants to take a loss on Rush

Ok - like him or not, Rush has the number 1 talk radio show in the nation. On average he has about 20 million listeners a week. There is a lot of programming on radio, television, and print that would love to have that type of audience.

He has been syndicated for about 20 years now. Somehow I have feeling that a for profit company isn't going to accept losing money on a guy just cause they like his point of view (which I'm not sure but I don't think they actually do, but could be wrong about that).

As for the advertising actually on the programming. Keep in mind not all of that is his. The advertisement is divided between the syndicator and the local market.

Think what you want of Rush - like him or don't, but don't full yourself into thinking he isn't making money for people.

Talk radio only feels like a monopoly because that is how the truth feels to liars.

I heard him say it.

Really? Go figure. Doesn't entirely surprise me, but I'm surprised at the relative quiet over it. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.

Went to see the captain
strangest I could find
Layed my proposition down
Layed it on the line;
I won't slave for beggar's pay
likewise gold and jewels
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Ship of fools
on a cruel sea
Ship of fools
sail away from me

It was later than I thought
when I first believed you
now I cannot share your laughter
Ship of Fools

Saw your first ship sink and drown
from rocking of the boat
and all that could not sink or swim
was just left there to float
I won't leave you drifting down
but woah it makes me wild
with thirty years upon my head
to have you call me child

Ship of fools
on a cruel sea
Ship of fools
sail away from me

It was later than I thought
when I first believed you
now I cannot share your laughter
Ship of Fools

The bottles stand as empty
as they were filled before
Time there was and plenty
but from that cup no more
Though I could not caution all I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag
atop no ship of fools

Ship of fools
on a cruel sea
Ship of fools
sail away from me

It was later than I thought
when I first believed you
now I cannot share your laughter
Ship of Fools
No I cannot share your laughter
Ship of Fools

Yeah!! What a perfect quote from some good ole friends.

Though I could not caution all I still may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag
atop no ship of fools

Another Grateful Dead fan :)

*kak-is-toc-ra-cy, (n.) Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Get the bumper sticker!

Wow, Tom.

Just wow :)

Sean Hannity did not do anything different then the majority of Americans won't do come 2008.

Democratic Congressional Majority of 1.

Question: How many votes do they need to override a presidential veto? Answer: Copied from the Constitution of the United States, Verbatim:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Question: Do the Democrats have the "Two Thirds Majority" needed in Both the House and the Senate to override a Presidential Veto?? NO! A simple majority does not a Law make people.
The House
232 Democrat
201 Republican
0 Independent
Total voting members: 433
5 Other
2 Vacant

Senate List.
49 Democrat
48 Republican
2 Independent
Total voting members: 99
1 Vacant

Last Question: So Why are we always blaming the Democrats?

I hope that in 12 years time we are not looking with regret at the Democratic Congressional Majority. I for one will be keeping an eye on them. I know Tom will too ;-)

Considering that Congress has a lower popularity rating than even the President...........some already are.

But as to Tom's points - he is right. Somewhere along the way the Republican lost the focus of the vision and message that brought them into power. If they don't somehow turn things around right now they are going to lose even more seats in 2008. To be honest I think the immigration bill was their last chance and they blew it.

It is a shame our political system doesn't really allow for more than 2 parties. Many conservatives no longer feel the Republicans represent us. Some of us will still vote for them because the alternative is worse but the majority are just going to stay home on election eve.

Tom-

That takes guts. Guts that I find myself developing as the Democrats seem to only preserving their little corner of the palace. I hope to always have the independent mind you have shown here. If we both look at our respective sides of the isle in this manner the country will be much better off.

Kudos

Nice, I agree to some extent but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

If you consider all of the problems with the Democratic Party, I would find it refreshing if some like Hannity or you Tom in the Dems, would stand up and say this is enough. The Socialists led by Soros are the minority running the Democratic Party and not a single Democrat has stood up and said, this is just too far left for me.

Regardless it is refreshing to see honesty from partisans.

For once, I completely agree with Tom.

My father had been a Republican all his life. He and I agreed on many points, though we didn't often vote the same way. There were many times that I supported local Republicans, though, because although I'm a staunch social liberal, I'm also a firm economic conservative and believer in small government. I kind of felt like if the Republican party hadn't been taken over by the Christian Coalition before I got old enough to vote, I might've been one. ...Well, as long as I didn't have to associate with Jesse Helms.

Then George W. Bush came along. I watched my father recoil in disgust from this man, shocked that anyone that flat-out stupid and incompetent could try to lead the country. The first time I ever saw my father vote for a Democrat for president was in the Bush/Gore election...because he was so horrified at where Bush might lead the country.

When Bush vetoed stem cell research the first time, my father left the Republican party and registered independent. He couldn't stand the fact that Bush was letting religion dictate the rule of law, and was fed up with the way his party had been ruined.

I go into this because this is why I sneer at Sean Hannity stomping away from the GOP. Hannity isn't leaving the GOP because the party has strayed so far from its foundation -- small government, tightened economic policies, reduced spending and taxing. Hannity isn't even leaving because Bush and his cabinet are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent, and have dragged the party so deep into the mud that it'll be years before it recovers. Hannity is leaving because the party isn't religious enough; it isn't controlling enough; it isn't enough able to force the country into homogenous conformity.

I would absolutely respect Hannity if he was leaving because of the hopeless corruption of the party, or the way it's strayed from its roots. But he's not.

Exactly Tom.

Though I'm not willing to give up my voter R at this point, I dislike the notion that I (we R's) are somehow supposed to defend the actions of those individuals who are NOT representing the core values of the party.

As someone else mentioned, 'it's better than the alternative.'

Thanks to each of you. I freely admit that I can be as partisan as anyone on Newsvine, but above partisanship - at least in my heart - I want what's good and right for this nation and the world around us.

As I mentioned somewhere today, it's not always about "Left" or "Right" but it's about how we arrive at those conclusions. Sometimes, if we look at how we are reaching some of our decisions, we might find more common ground with our political adversaries, and we might even find some ways we can reach even better conclusions that serve us all.

I can't promise I won't be partisan or biased tomorrow - and I haven't decided to leave the GOP ... yet, anyway. But, thanks again everyone, and thanks for tracking this seed down, Killfile.

pev, I contend that Sean IS leaving the Republican Party because it has become corrupt, and the recent immigration scandal was the impetus for his leaving. The immigration deal had nothing to do with religion. Sean Hannity is not even your typical Christian conservative anyway, he is Catholic.

I have to link-whore here for a second - Tom, you should check out this piece by David Brinn. I seeded it over a year ago, and really wish it would have gotten more hits because I think it's an important piece, it summed up the frustrations I've had with the current Republican party for a while now.

There's a lot encompassed in it, he talks about the idea that we now have "conservatives" supporting ideas that run completely counter to original conservative thought merely because they feel they have to toe the line for their "team". He talks about how the acquisition of power seems to have become the central goal in the current Republican party. He also goes on to parallel the problems the Republican party is currently undergoing with a similar situation faced by liberals in the 1940s - basically being hijacked by a more extremist ideological faction that clung to the label for credibility but betrayed it's actual meaning, instead using it to suit their own personal agendas.

The question Brinn asks is this - can the Republicans of today learn from the Democrats of yesterday and rid themselves of those that have hijacked the party?

can the Republicans of today learn from the Democrats of yesterday and rid themselves of those that have hijacked the party?

Have the Democrats actually done this? There are those that argue that the Democratic Party is still run by the extreme left.

Here's the reason for all your complaints: if you believe government is the problem, then you are going to create a government that is a problem. If you believe government is innately corrupt, you are going to create a government that is corrupt. If you believe everyone is dishonest, then you won't feel bad about being dishonest yourself.

There are problems within the Democratic Party, and there are dishonest people within the Democratic Party. However, it is a party that believes the role of government is to serve the people, and therefore it will tend toward a government that serves the people, even if it is imperfectly (as are all things in this world) realized, and it will tend to self-correct rather than to self-corrupt.

Thanks, Stacy...that was some read.

There are a lot of people in the Democratic Party who Brin would feel right at home with. I wouldn't mind seeing an exodus of his type from the Republicans to the Democrats, and an exodus of the left wing of the Democrats into a new party...the Greens, for instance, if they can get their act together. Leave the Republican Party for the jingoistic hate-mongering 15% who are ruining America.

Brin's appeal to Gingrich is naive, though. Gingrich is just another power-monger, out for himself, and that's why he's in the Republican Party. Calling himself a futurist doesn't change his innate corruption.

Good, if you expect the best and don't settle for less, eventual you get what you ask for.
It is a axiom that, [if it's not it should be]

"A person can not see in others what he does not have within themselves to begin with." --D. A. Hallo:

Or, "A dishonest man will look around and see nothing but other dishonest men." Or, My favorite.

"The want or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

Stacy, thanks so much for the link - that's a great seed, very thought-provoking. Well done!

LOL, I have been accused of being a "link-whore," although I like that term better than the ones I was actually called.

As an aside, in the last election I was a registered Democrat. No way, not Phaedrus. Yep, I was, not because I'm a liberal or anything close, I'm actually quite conservative, but because I was fed up with Bush and company and I voted for John Kerry, one of the most liberal guys out there, not because I thought he would be a good president but because I thought anything was better than Bush. Over the years, I and apparently many others have come to realize that Bush, and much of the Republican party is anything but conservative. Recently while getting my doubles endorsement for my CDL driver's license I was asked if I wanted to renew my voter registration and what party I wanted to be affiliated with. I chose to be unaffiliated. I think everyone should be unaffiliated and only vote for the best candidate out there, based on conservative/liberal values, regardless of party. There are very consevative Democrats out there and Bush has shown that in some ways there are very liberal Republicans out there. Whenever you get Bush and Ted Kennedy to come together on a travesty of a bill such as this illegal immigration/amnesty bill, it says a lot I think.

Throwing away votes leads to a Republican victory. Hasn't Ralph Nader demonstrated that enough times?

I chose to be unaffiliated. I think everyone should be unaffiliated and only vote for the best candidate out there, based on conservative/liberal values, regardless of party.

Not a bad thought at all.

luckydog, I would have only been throwing away my vote if I had voted for a third party candidate. I voted for Kerry and I fail to see how that led to the election of Bush at all. Your comment makes no sense.

Heh. George Bush has well and truly farted in the elevator, and the Republicans are just choking to death in there. The next time the elevator door opens, they'll aaaalll get out. Run out. With both hands in front of them.

It's pathetic the way you lie to yourself. First, Perot voters were voting for a change. What are the chances they would have voted for Bush if Perot hadn't been there? Second, many analyses of the exit polls have shown that Perot drew fairly evenly from both camps, slightly more from Clinton than from Bush. But since reality has that well-known liberal bias, you've got to slip away into your own Conservipedia version.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

I voted for Perot. I would've voted Clinton had he not been running.

ultraconservative |ˌəltrəkənˈsərvətiv; -vəˌtiv|
adjective
extremely conservative in politics or in the observance of religion : an effort by an ultraconservative faction to limit believers' freedom to follow their consciences .:Oxford American Dictionary

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

Z,

My day would not be complete without reading something from you calling conservatives or Christians "fascists."

I can sleep well tonight, knowing that, regardless of whatever else in the universe may be off kilter, Zoilus is consistent.

;-)

Tom Bombadil

First of all, lying is not a very good tactic for debate.

Second, you sleep well because you are not a Christian, but only pretend to be, and have no conscience, so you feel free to lie, and deceive.

Finally, I have not called any Christians here a Fascist, ever. I quoted from one of the founders, before the term "Fascist" was even invented.

"Trickery and treachery are the practices of fools that have not the wits enought to be honest"
Benjamin Franklin

Yea, Tom, what gives? I'm usually with ya, but where did Zoilus call Christians fascists? And Zoilus aren't you being overly harsh on Tom, though?

Z was tagging onto a comment made by Krista at #25 saying that Christians were not fascists. She had posted right after Jimmy H had compared conservatives (and Hannity) to Hitler. Boons had posted in #19 that Sean should just join the fascists where he belonged.

Z, who delights in personally attacking me in all kinds of delightful names in many threads here on Newsvine was most certainly making the point that fascism is a fit definition for Christian conservatives (his "ultraconservatives).

Since you love quotes, Z, you might remember this one, "A rose by any other name ...." Except, in this case, what you are peddling stinks.

Please, Z, you are usually so blunt and forceful, why hide behind word games? You didn't specifically refer to Christians using the word fascists, you simply leapt into that argument and gave it your full-throated support.

Remember this parting shot from you to Krista?

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

You are construing that quote, in response to Krista, and in addition to your other comment, to mean that conservative Christians are fascists. Please don't be disingenuous here.

Killfile, you wrote:

When you have Christians who idolize the military...
When you have Christians who think the state is a better judge of morals than the individual...
When you have Christians who think that personal freedom is less important than security...
When you have Christians who seek to expand unchecked executive power because they trust the executive...
When you have Christians who draw political distinctions based on "otherness," be that racial, religious, or otherwise...

That's quite a string of pre-suppositions you have there. To be a Christo-fascist, does one have to fulfill all of those or just some? I know some athiests and secularists who might believe some of those things.

What you have above is cleverly worded, that is for sure.

1) A Christian cannot idolize anything without being untrue to their faith - that whole "no other gods" thingy. I don't know if you are confusing admiration for idolatry or if that's what you're accusing conservative Christians of doing. As for me, I admire the military greatly, and thank God for them. I see that the military has flaws, though, and that their behavior is not always as it should be. So, I guess, since I see them as fallible, I don't worship them. Whew! I'm safe there.

2)

the state is a better judge of morals than the individual

Uh-oh, a toughie. I suppose that depends upon the individual and the morals we are discussing. If Scott Peterson's morals allow him to slaughter his wife and unborn baby, and California says, "Nope, we think those are bad morals," then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with California, there. But, in general, I would want to see the rights of the individual upheld as much as possible. So, we're a little fuzzy here, Killfile. I don't want to be called a fascist or anything for believing in the rule of law, even though I have occasionally broken the law by speeding. Am I a fascist or a lead-footed scofflaw?

3)

personal freedom is less important than security

Since so many of my Christian brothers and sisters are in prison around the world, or dead, from practicing their faith, I think I'm going to have to say I value personal freedom very highly. But, we're sort of like the point above - if a terrorist (of any religion or ideology) wants to be free to blow up the Pizza Hut, then I value the security of the families in that restaurant more than his freedom.

4)

Christians who seek to expand unchecked executive power because they trust the executive...

I haven't heard Christians out there really lobbying to expand "unchecked executive power," and I think most of us are aware that we have an election every four years, so the thought of Madame Hillary having unchecked power gives me the willies. So, I think I fail to make the "fascist" grade on that one.

5)

Christians who draw political distinctions based on "otherness," be that racial, religious, or otherwise

I'm afraid that you are singling out Christians here, inasmuch as most groups draw distinctions based on "otherness." It's just that for some groups, "otherness" means "those wacky, yucky, Christo-fascists," which means it's OK to single them out because, hey, who cares what they think? Apparently, from reading Newsvine, I gather that there are racial groups that apparently it's OK to "make distinctions about" as well, as long as you are part of the anointed political group that is allowed to make judgements on everyone else. I don't know how to plead as to how I feel about singling others out. I know that as a conservative Christian on Newsvine, I often feel singled out myself.

So, on all of these points, I am not sure if I fit your definition of "Christo-fascist" or not. I don't know of any sincere Christian who does, but then again, I'm sure that if I'm wrong, some of my good friends here will correct me.

By the way, we wouldn't be going down this painful and unnecessary cul-de-sac had some in this thread not felt the need to inject more Christian bashing into it. But, as Johnny Cash said:

I will rock and roll with you
If I have to

Z was tagging onto a comment made by Krista at #25 saying that Christians were not fascists. She had posted right after Jimmy H had compared conservatives (and Hannity) to Hitler. Boons had posted in #19 that Sean should just join the fascists where he belonged.

Z, who delights in personally attacking me in all kinds of delightful names in many threads here on Newsvine was most certainly making the point that fascism is a fit definition for Christian conservatives (his "ultraconservatives).

What the f###! I have no time to write the Book I would need to cover all your twist and squirms you used to justify your slander of me. So this one word that you have so much trouble with will have to do, "ultraconservative"! It's what was used before the term "Neo-Con" And now that the Neo-Cons deny ever being one because of the shame it carries with it, in the Eyes of America, I went back to using the original term for them.

If you see Fascist in this word ultraconservative it is not because it is there, but because you have your own bent way to interpret words so they fit into your narrow view of the world. I gave the definition of the word "ultraconservative" because of Krista Lenore's definition of the word "Fascist". that I disagree with her use of here. Then show what I believe, by giving a Jefferson quote from 1813, 109 years before the word "Fascist" was even coined. There is no justification for calling Religious Fundamentalist Fascist! The far right yes. Some may be Buddhist, I don't care! For all I know you could be the only Religious Fundamentalist Fascist homosexual. I don't care! When I discuss Politics I don't want to confuse the issue anymore then it already can become, by throwing Religion into the mix. This also is why Religion and Politics don't mix, as the Founders knew all to well. Religion is not the subject of the Article. this is a political discussion. Here again is what i belive and would love to see more of it in this country.

"Our [America's] particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814.

I wish more people remembered that creed. How many pedophiles are there that claim to be Christians, How many Murderers? Rapist , Alcoholics? It is the same as with any demographic isn't it. The problem with some Christians is that they think that it is not, That God gives them a special immunity and protection from the temptations, of the beast. [the animal side in all of us]. and when it is found out that that is not the case and they are as susceptible to Human frailty as the rest of us , they go into extremes of reason to deny and justify that they not. Sorry. I am not an Atheist. But I will die defending their right to be one. True Fascist can go to church every sunday and pray, give tithings to the church and be baptized and take communion. True Christians can not be Fascist.
The only misconstruing being done here is by you. And the only Attacking here is YOU, attacking me. If I defend myself or my friends, then you claim It is me attacking you, you are not paranoid. Because I have done so in the past and will continue to in the future. I only glance through your inane posts to see if you are attack anything my friends or I say with your lies, beyond that I don't read them and have you on Ignore. When I give a quote it is because that is what I believe also, a quote as it was made, not as you would interpret it. Language is an exact and precise tool. Words have differing and specific meanings for a reason. That is for the verbal or written Communication of ideas. If you want to make up your own definition to words then you are talking gibberish and nonsense.

You have to really stretch to the twilight zone of reason to think that the word "ultraconservative" and the word "fascist" are related.

ultraconservative |ˌəltrəkənˈsərvətiv; -vəˌtiv|
adjective
extremely conservative in politics or in the observance of religion : an effort by an ultraconservative faction to limit believers' freedom to follow their consciences.
noun
a person who is extremely conservative in politics or religion : the literature of the well-organized ultraconservatives is more plentiful.
DERIVATIVES
ultraconservatism |-vəˌtizəm| noun

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

Both of these definitions where taken verbatim from my Oxford American Dictionary, CD. Your last post was at 11:18 I hope you are sleeping well and haven't lost any. have a nice 4th.

Please, Tom, I said there were Republicans to the left of Hitler. Or is that what upset you?

Jimmy Havok post #25.11:

Please, Tom, I said there were Republicans to the left of Hitler. Or is that what upset you?

Jimmy Havok post #24:

Hannity has cut himself loose from those weak sisters of the Republican Party who stand to the left of Hitler.

Jimmy, man up and own what you wrote. You say that Hannity and his conservative friends believe that those Republicans who "stand to the left of Hitler" are "weak sisters," thereby clearly implying that Hannity and his conservative friends are either the ideological equals of Hitler or even further "to the right" than Hitler. Either admit it, or recant.

As for Zoilus, listening to you lecture me about "gibberish" is about as rich as it gets here on Newsvine. Your earlier Jefferson quote was meant as a stick in the eye of any person of faith reading your note, and you know it.

Krista was herself replying to numerous other posts in this thread - and elsewhere here on Newsvine - that imply that conservatives (and Christian conservatives) are fascists or worse. You jumped in and replied to her, inserting "ultraconservative" as a term that was clearly meant as an equivalency of the other terminology.

Your relatively brief but extensive writing career here on Newsvine reveals a very peculiar and extreme point of view. I appreciate your right to believe and say whatever you want to, but as you say, words have meaning. You use your words in such a way as to advance a particular point of view, while surrounding them in a fog of rhetoric that allows you to attempt to cover your backside when you get called out later.

You call me a liar, and you can do that since you are not doing it to my face. Others here on Newsvine reported that you posted physical threats against them.

I am content to let your posts function as Exhibit "A" into your mindset and modus operandi, and let folks judge for themselves. Your intent seems very clear to me in what you have said about conservatives and about people of faith. If anything, you just upped the ante in your extreme remarks in your last note, #25.10. It makes me sincerely wonder if you truly know much about either fascism, ultra conservatism, or the Christian faith.

I clearly said not every Republican is as bad as Hannity is, and you began weeping crocodile tears.

I see you've immediately jumped into your favored mode, ad hominem. You can't address the point, so you rush off into stupidity about "your brief but extensive writing career."

By the way, I got a big old laugh from how you fancy yourself a martyr to the faith.

Jimmy Havok, you said:

By the way, I got a big old laugh from how you fancy yourself a martyr to the faith.

Since I have friends who have been seriously persecuted for their faith and nearly killed, I find your remark grossly offensive. And, I am curious as to where you get the evidence to make such a strong claim.

In the meantime, since you can't be a man and own your insults and statements, there's nothing further I can do here with you. Keep on playing your word games; keep on telling yourself you don't deliberately insult people. And, make sure you try that when you're around actual people and not just on the internet.

Back to your discourse:

I see you've immediately jumped into your favored mode, ad hominem. You can't address the point, so you rush off into stupidity about "your brief but extensive writing career."

Unlike you, Jimmy, I can take responsibility for what I've said here. I did say:

Your relatively brief but extensive writing career here on Newsvine reveals a very peculiar and extreme point of view.

You will also note, Inspector Clouseau, that this particular remark was directed at Zoilus!

So, we have a problem here: either Zoilus is just another Newsvine identity for you, or maybe you are channeling him now. I don't know, but I expect to see old Z trotting into this discussion soon to take up your cause.

Your move, Comrade Fisher.

Since I have friends who have been seriously persecuted for their faith and nearly killed, I find your remark grossly offensive.

Thanks for the laugh, once again. I wonder how your friends feel about you wrapping yourself in their courage?

keep on telling yourself you don't deliberately insult people

You really aren't very smart, are you?

You will also note, Inspector Clouseau, that this particular remark was directed at Zoilus!

It's still ad hominemno matter who it was directed at. You don't adress his point, you just call him names.

You, however, make no points at all besides your posturing and fallacies.

either Zoilus is just another Newsvine identity for you, or maybe you are channeling him now.

That's an interesting point. You and Bartleby share a common style, and often play soggy biscuit. Until you mentioned it, I hadn't considered the possibility that you two are sock puppets.

Keep on thinking that, James, or should I say Jacques, as in Chief Inspector.

Say goodnight to Zoilus for me.