Senator Chuck Hagel makes Sean Hannity MAD

[snipet19]

Chuck Hagel made solid points, but Hannity didn't get mad at all (at least not compared to his other "flip out" clips), so change the title!

[lufo530]

I know exactly what subliminal means. Let's see if your capable of putting 2 and 2 together. I dont think its hard to tell that fox news has its own political agenda. Several of chuck hagels political positions go against that agenda. hmmmmm now why would fox wana make him look bad? and by the way, "camera angles," dont happen by accident, the images dont just happen to be there. keep lying to yourself and thinking everythings ok and that youre too smart to be influenced by the like of fox!

[flyboymd82]

No you don't know what it means. Subliminal is something you cannot consciously see or realize is there. A subliminal message on T.V. is flashed on the screen for less than 1/100th of a second. It enters your mind but you don't realize it and never consciously know it was there.

Look it up.

[lufo530]

I do know what it means 100% more than you it would seem. Your definition is correct but it is not the only one. A subliminal message is something you cannot consciously realize but flashing it on a screen for less than 1/100th of a second is not the only way to accomplish this. The truth is there is no way for either of us to prove or disprove if this was a subliminal message. I was making an observation and you want to argue over something that cannot be definitively proven or dis-proven?

[lufo530]

notice how on hannity's side mccains picture is behind him and on hagels side hillary and obama are behind him.....typical subliminal messages from fox. fucking shameful

[lutheratx]

don't be silly the format on that show is a debate between a liberal (Colmes) and a conservative Sean Hannity. I imagine if you could find footage of Rove sitting in the middle you would find the same camera angle. I doubt there is some CONSPIRACY. So quit you cussing it is not necessary.

[lufo530]

first of all, sean hannity is NOT a conservative. Second of all, it's not a conspiracy, it's quite clear what they are doing. Are you trying to assert that those things are placed in the background on accident? I'll cuss all i want to, this is a free country, and i'll cuss whenever i feel the need to do so. I'm not going to PRETEND like everything is ok in this country. I love America, but things are messed up, and fox is part of the problem.

[lutheratx]

there are social conservatives if in some way you are emplying that his stance on abortion or something is government meddling.You say"I love America, but things are messed up"do you think a swing towards punishing those success story is the way to fix this.The thing is as soon as you punish people who make 250 and up you just gave the government a pay raise,for what,so they can regulate more things.You see your 50 a year is nothing to them,they can even lessen your taxes,then regulate the poor.

[lufo530]

what the hell are you talking about? How did taxes end up in this discussion. I dont support obama ok? so shut your trap about that shit. by the way learn what the hell it means to be a conservative.  finally sean hannity isnt successful he was placed in the position hes in, i dont wana punsh successful people, i wana punish those who poison the minds in the usa by turning off their mic!

[flyboymd82]

Thats "subliminal"???? LOL!

You have no fucking idea what "subliminal" means do you?

BTW, at 00:30, McCain is behind Hagel. Hagel is a republican, why would FOX want to make him look bad????

Its called "camera angles" Jackass.

[lutheratx]

It only took you 3 mths to answer back. Anyone who bashes Fox the way you did is probably more liberal than conservative, because it is one of the only outlets for conservatives. So your either a tax and spend liberal, or your tuned into Alex Jones. Which I suspect the later of those two now. Cause I said "would you rather swing to those who are not conservative," it should have ended w/ a question mark.Cause Sean is conservative,except for certain social issues like abortion.

[lutheratx]

Actually Sean takes the side of the conservative in most social issues. Gun control... no federal government oversight, Abortion no federal government oversight, Education no federal government oversight, etc. it is always up to the state in his world view. What you have to do is show prove Hannity is not conservative.

[lufo530]

well if that's your definition of conservatism than fine, but that's not a true conservative. I don't have to prove anything about sean hannity he says it all for me. I can take one issue though to prove he's not conservative, and thats the war on terror which he supports. true conservatives did not do not and never will support a war based on fabrications, has no exit strategy, and costs countless lives and money.

[flyboymd82]

Are you posting to the right person?? I have no idea what your talking about. I'm sure no liberal and I don't recall ever talking to you.

[lutheratx]

I'm sorry we are talking to the same guy over the supposed Subliminal messaging by fox and I replied to you instead of him. whoops.

[flyboymd82]

No problem.

[lufo530]

3 months because i have a life outside of "battling" on youtube. I dont even know why im responding to you. You reduce anyone who criticizes fox news down to two elementary political orientations you have prescribed. I hate taxes and i don't listen to that conspiracy nut alex jones. so you're wrong. attacking my political views because i bash fox is called an ad hominem and its the sign of someone who lacks substance and is terrible at argument. read up on political definitions by the way

[lutheratx]

Well I am sorry for my complete naivety. However some may think that you can strive for peace through strength and still be conservative, so please enlighten us on another example of Hannity's lack of conservatism. If you do not do it I, and many will assume you cannot, and your attack against Hannity will be perceived as an ad hominem.

[lufo530]

The issue of the war is enough to make him not a conservative. Another example, last month hannity said that Bush did a great job economically, but ignored the fact that Bush has ran the LEAST fiscally conservative government ever. I don't make the same mistake as you with ad hominem. By the way on your "peace through strength." We are more vulnerable now than ever, and there's no peace now is there? Our reputation of that has been obliterated around the world as well. Where have you been?

[lutheratx]

You need to google "The Myth of Bush the Spender" However I have also heard Sean say the republican brand is tarnished because we have spent like democrats. So there are area's were Bush was fiscally conservative, and that article explains it. Also there hasn't been another attack on this soil since 9/11, I believe much of that is Bush's resolve. The governments are actually turning on Al Qaeda, because of our possible victory in Iraq.

[lufo530]

Don't try to point me in the direction of an article that excuses bush. The facts are the facts, and bush has been the least fiscally conservative president in the history of the US. Every president has areas they are fiscally conservative on. That doesnt show that Bush is a conservative and neither is Hannity as I have shown. And 9/11? Are you kidding me? What you NEED to do is read some history. If you think Bush has made us safer, you're ignoring reality. Our own experts reject that claim!

[lutheratx]

you know I don't like talking to you, I have a reply but I don't want to talk to you, so have a good day.

[lufo530]

Is that because you're getting crushed?

[lutheratx]

You know what screw it, what did Bush overspend on since your such a scholar. I tell you what the article I provided shows what it was.

[lufo530]

"I tell you what the article I provided shows what it was. " You butchered this sentence so badly I honestly don't get it.

[lutheratx]

You know what scholar I did the research, when compared with the GDP lets see Bush's spending, and we will let the article I keep mentioning say the rest.

"But if we look at a more relevant figure, Federal Non-defence spending as a share of GDP Bush does not look as bad.

1. Nixon: +2.5%

2. LBJ: +1.4%

3. Bush: +0.6%

4. Reagan: -0.8%

5. Clinton: -0.9%"

[lufo530]

Of course you don't look at defense spending, because it would obliterate the pathetic argument you are now trying to make. I don't know where your figures & you didnt corrected for inflation which further destroys your argument. NO matter what you try to say, BUSH HAS DOUBLED OUR NATIONAL DEBT, THAT'S NOT FISCAL CONSERVATISM! He has spent 45% more (correcting for inflation) than the most wasteful democrat admins, this from chairman of the Blackstone Group & Nixon's commerce secretary.

[lutheratx]

9/11 or did you forget? Would Bush have spent so much on defense if four planes weren't hijacked with the cost of 3000 lives. Also of course there will be inflation, let me see if I can come up with a reason...... Oh yeah we have been at War for seven years. Wars aren't free. Hippy peace lover I know what you think, I know false pretenses blah, blah, blah. Tell someone who doesn't remember what brought us into the war.

[lufo530]

You=ad homenim attacks because you're angry you cant make a concise argument. Wars arent free? Of course theres inflation? Remember WWII? Brought the US out of the great depression, so there goes your point there. Why are you STILL trying to correlate Iraq and 911? They were unrelated. That doesnt make me a hippy, just someone who knows the facts and adheres to logic. Any true warrior loves & wishes for peace. Bush and Hannity still aint conservative. Youve only proved you dont know how to argue

[lutheratx]

I can't post here so I started a new post.

[lufo530]

Corrections. * I dont know where you got your figures from.

* You didnt correct for inflation which further destroys your own argument.

[lutheratx]

let me take you back (cue the music) 9/11/01, we had just been attacked on a larger scale then pearl harbor, we then had experts try and determine what the next attack would be. So many decided it might be a chemical attack, I was in the military, we prepared for chemical attacks. So we decided we would try to police a nation that has had ties to Alqaeda, and has had chemical weapons. We told Iraq we would send inspectors and Saddam denied them, we tried diplomacy after we lost 3000 people.

[lufo530]

This conversation began on a subliminal message. Now you're talking about 9/11. Like Giuliani, who links 9/11 to things that have nothing to do with 9/11, I suggest you learn the history of it and Iraq. You think you can play the memory of 9/11 as a card that will trump any argument. You are wrong. Your version of history is horribly skewed. If you look at nearly every expert in this country and around the world at that time, there was no cause for the Iraq war. No Alqaeda, no wmds, no nothing.

[lutheratx]

You listen to those that have sided with the popularity contest.The Iraq war is an unpopular war,and yet you expect to get an equal amount of press for those that support the actions in Iraq.General Patraeus must not be an expert,I must remember my view of history is skewed.Oh,you are the one who said Bush not a conservative,and I said he would have been if he did not inherit an attack 9 months after his election,and you said there is no link to Iraq. Oh & You don't scare me with your tough talk

[lufo530]

Calm down. This isnt about scaring anyone. I think your on incompetence scares you. Im siding with indisputable facts. Iraq was not unpopular when it began. That's what we're talking about here. Bush had about an 80% approval rating before Iraq. What has General Petraeus (you spelled his name wrong, shows how much you know) said that makes any of the nonsense you stated right? Btw i checked again today still no wmds, no proof of alqaeda before the war, nothing to do with 911, you're still wrong.

[lutheratx]

450 tons of yellow cake was pulled out of Iraq, but no big deal huh? General Petraeus said Iraq was the front on the war on terror. So not only did we get Saddam out of power, make allies with Muslims, and show the Muslim world our resolve, we were fighting Al qaeda. We beat Al qaeda in Iraq and now there in a war in Afghanistan, because no one wants America to get involved, because we will not leave until it is done. Drop the "your so dumb" comments tough guy. Google Iraq links to Osama.

[lufo530]

I googled Iraq links to Osama AND I googled Iraq wmds, and guess what came up: countless stories about how the CIA found NO PREWAR LINKS TO ALQAEDA IN IRAQ & the CIA found NO WMDS IN IRAQ, but no big deal huh? What are you going to say? the CIA is wrong? We were already allies with Muslims before the war, if you studied your history you would know that. We havent beaten Alqaeda in Iraq. Why would you say something that absurd? Btw, Did I ever say "you're so dumb"? Self conscious about something?

[lutheratx]

#1 "Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information."

"The documents cited in the report do reveal that Hussein supported a number of terrorists and terrorist activities inside and outside Iraq."

#2 Google "al qaeda in Iraq" guess what there not there anymore.

#3 550 tons of Yellowcake

#4 I'm not dumb I am just not educated,OK I get it

Time will vindicate Bush

[lufo530]

1.)Analyze more information doesn't prove anything you're saying. The "support of terrorists," Saddam gave? He gave money to the widows of suicide bombers since they were mostly men, the bread winners of the now fatherless house hold. Is that cause for the USA to invade and spend 400 Million/day?

2)If al-qaeda is out of Iraq who is killing our troops?

3Youve changed the amount from your previous one, second the CIA said there were no wmds, and we sold that to him. Was that after this invasion?

[lutheratx]

While I am seeing that you are right, that the link to Al qaeda can't be proven, there is the proof that Saddam was dealing with terrorist. If you read the 9/11 commission reports you do find the commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq." So I put out a little bad info. from memory but I'm still above water, because when you look at these two together it doesn't look so good for your argument and Its a war on terror not just Al qaeda.

[lufo530]

You are not above water. The justification of war was that they WERE working together not that they spoke. Do you know the source of the information on the "talks," between Saddam and Osama? It was ONE guy who was a cab driver in Iraq, and later he came out and admitted he lied! Finally you dont know history very well huh? Saddam was a dictator who wanted no rivals that's why he kicked terrorists out of Iraq and kept them out. It does look good for my argument. I've bothered to study the history

[lutheratx]

I never said Osama and Saddam talked,but you are lying about how Saddam funded terror.Google"Pentagon Iraq Al Qaeda" He used hired guns to punish Iraqis in and out of Iraq.You have to consider why we didn't want Al Qaeda to work with Iraq.We didn't want a dirty bomb detonated here,Osama may have dealt with Saddam for those types of weapons,and Saddam has a tendency to work with terrorgroups.Bush acted because the UNinspectors were held up long enough to hide WMD's&we fought Al qaeda in Iraq too

[lufo530]

When i said saddam and osama i was refering to their regimes. I'm lying? So what I said never happened? You know, the claims you are making simply go against history. I'm done lookin at what you tell me to google and look at. I've gone to three of you sources and THEY ALL GO AGAINST WHAT YOU SAY! You're the one who needs to read the history of the region. Start from WWI. A Good book is called The Modern Middle East by William Cleveland.

[lufo530]

Think about this with the facts aside, since you never look at facts anyways! Just think of it logically. Why would Saddam Hussien, the greedy military dictator of a country, hire people to punish people when he controls the whole country? GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD. 1)THERE WERE NO WMD'S 2.)THERE WAS NO ALQAEDA THERE UNIL AFTER WE INVADED 3.)BUSH DID NOT WORK WITH THE UN 4)WE HAVE NOT DEFEATED AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ 5)SADDAM DID NOT HAVE A TENDENCY TO WORK WITH TERRORISTS 6)YOU NEED TO STUDY HISTORY

[lutheratx]

"However, the (9/11) commission also found that bin Laden did "explore possible cooperation with Iraq." Google word for word except what is in parenthesis. "The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq" this is the info. I tried to direct you too.I am no scholar its just a few others and myself see justification 4 Iraq

[lutheratx]

This arrogant fella just told me in my private email "You want to ask me questions or learn with me, fine." He can't tell I don't agree with him, why would I seek his counsel? The guy is also rude. I will let this apparent highly, educate scholar have the last word, because I can't stand when people are like this.

[lufo530]

Tell me, how is learning together arrogant? I never EVER said anything about my education. YOU'RE the one who accused me of calling you "stupid," which i never did, and pinned me with the label "scholar," which I never once brought up. You're CLEARLY self conscious about your lack of knowledge surrounding the most elementary aspects of all these issues. Thats why you keep changing the topic of our debate. Because you want to be "right" about something, anything. The only way for that is to learn

[lufo530]

I'm not going to debate with you about Osama and his links to Iraq which didn't exist. The CIA and every expert out there says you're wrong. You keep living in a dream world if you want. But keep it to yourself. The "terror," that Iraq was engaged in was state sponsored, not the same sort as Osama. There are plenty of state sponsors of terror that are way more dangerous than Saddam. All you do is tune into fox and make your mind narrower and narrower, your kind is on the decline though. ThankGod

[overmind25]

Our government under his beloved Reagan helped him use those weapons on the Kurds.

[merasheru]

Good Job

[Phillipdmind]

Maybe GWB simply mis-spoke. Seems to be quite a bit of mis-speaking happening in the world of politics.

[StarNbuckwild]

on 3:02 The guy on the left picks his nose hahahaha lmfao

[Mestiz081]

You mean the guy on the right...

[obaidkarki]

Mestiz081

you are wrong. thats my head.

[Mestiz081]

Relax obaid! I love you.

[StarNbuckwild]

yes lol