Michael Moore owned Hannity this hour!!!! (1 Viewer)

[Saint by the Bay]

I credit both of them for a calm reasonable discussion. I didn't expect that out of those two. It's sad when a Moore and Hannity discussion is better than 90% of the threads on the EE. When they become the image of good discourse we're truly doomed.

 

[Saint77]

I credit both of them for a calm reasonable discussion. I didn't expect that out of those two. It's sad when a Moore and Hannity discussion is better than 90% of the threads on the EE. When they become the image of good discourse we're truly doomed.

Agreed. In some ways I expect a "pinch your nose and deal with it" demeanor from both, kinda like picking up dog crap after your dog on a walk. but they actually were somewhat civil to each other.

 

[4saintspirit]

that was actually gonna be my next question: How is it possible that Fox gets more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, and yet Barry was able to get enough votes to win(?) Not doubting your claim, it's just that it seems to defy logic.

Ever see the Howard Stern movie -- there was a part where they were going over the polls of who listened -- dont remember the exact quote but in essence most of the people who listened hated him, thought he was disgusting but stayed on to :hear what he said next". Now this is not the same thing - but people who are radical liberals still listen to Fox News. And if its to be believed its the favorite station for independents who watch news talk. I think its because while they are definitely slanted -- they at least always have opposing speakers on -- something lots of the Left shows dont -- ever watch Rachel -- there is no opposing views whatsoever -- same with Rush -- only 1 view -- I think thats why Fox is popular

 

[KingBarkus]

If that is what some of you call ownage, then I don't know the meaning of the word. Hannity did bring up a couple of issues that leftists like Moore refuse to discuss and want to hide. Moore is a rich man that made a fortune in the capitalist system yet wants to portray himself as a common man, a man of the working class. Then he has the audacity to judge other successful people in business. He is a hypocrite.

With respect to the housing collapse, Hannity made valid points that Moore and other leftists, in their haste to crucify Wall Street, gloss over and outright ignore. I'm not here to defend the actions of Wall Street and the credit default swaps, derivatives, etc. but people who had no business buying houses provided the grist for the Wall Street shenanigans.

 

[Taurus]

And that's where me and you can most certainly agree on, Bronco. Now we're getting somewhere. It is that far too overt reliance on emotional displays that annoys me severely about him, and maybe that's my main problem in how I see him and how it could turn me and a lot of other people off.

He does it because, like any preacher out there, he's discovered that it works.

What's the basis of nearly all advertising? Emotion.
What put that obvious meatpuppet GW into office twice? Emotion.
What sells religion? Emotion.
What sells...period? Emotion.

Logic and reason only get a bare 'veto' sometimes. They almost never seal the deal.

 

[Rickboy]

IMO, Moore comes off a lot better than Hannity but at the same time, neither of them really said jack. Most of it was them talking past or over each other.

To say that Moore owned Hanitty is a overstatement. Hannity kept laying the blame of the crisis at the feet of folks that bought mortgages that they couldn't afford. He couldn't answer Moore's assertion that the FBI pointed towards white collar fraud as the main cause. Hannity kept going back to the Community Investment Act in the 70's but didn't use much of anything else to back up his argument. On the flip side, Moore didn't try to shoot down Hannity's assertions, he just kept pointing back to de-regulation and the FBI reports. Again, they just kept talking past and over each other. Nothing of real substance was said.

IMHO the problems we are looking at today were grown more from the Wall Street side of things than Main Street. I haven't seen Moore's movie yet but I'm betting I would side with him on many of the issues. De-regulation and cut backs on law enforcement allowed much of what is screwing us right now. Bush DID drastically cut back on the FBI's white collar crime division. The FTC was cut back as well. The repeal of Glass-Steagall certainly played a huge role. I'm not even getting into the derivatives horse manure because that would take a book..

 

[Dre]

I credit both of them for a calm reasonable discussion. I didn't expect that out of those two. It's sad when a Moore and Hannity discussion is better than 90% of the threads on the EE. When they become the image of good discourse we're truly doomed.

yup. That was the most I have ever watched Hannity (the 3 clips combined), and he was not as awful I expected (though, to be fair, Moore likely prevented him from spouting off too much BS). What I also find humorous is the vitriol of each sides' most ardent supporters (not necessarily here), when I would not be surprised if the 2 guys get along fine once the cameras are off... Anyway, neither side really "owned" the other. We can debate all day who won, but there was absolutely no ownage.

 

[4saintspirit]

IMHO the problems we are looking at today were grown more from the Wall Street side of things than Main Street. I haven't seen Moore's movie yet but I'm betting I would side with him on many of the issues. De-regulation and cut backs on law enforcement allowed much of what is screwing us right now. Bush DID drastically cut back on the FBI's white collar crime division. The FTC was cut back as well. The repeal of Glass-Steagall certainly played a huge role. I'm not even getting into the derivatives horse manure because that would take a book..

I am not sure I can totally agree with you -- I see many problems -- some main street some not. Its like the chicken and the egg syndrome. Housing prices were rising so fast that no one thought they could ever lose money - therefore lenders were making it easier to buy homes cause they thought the risk was low -- then you have the people who bought houses using the ARMs buying houses that under normal interest rates they could never afford. They bought thinking that "I will just refinance or sell the house so who cares". Add all of the investors who thought this was easy money buying houses they had no intention of living in putting no money down making it easy to walk away from. When the economy started tanking the housing market crumbled cause all of a sudden the ARMs were being adjusted to higher rates that people could not afford -- No one and everyone should take the blame here -- the real loser though are the honest people who bought houses they could afford and now are getting screwed cause none of the bailouts help them

 

[sleepingbunch]

Major props to Michael Moore for this.

I don't always support his work (though I have seen all 4 of his major documentaries). I feel as though his films, while often making very salient points, make too many exaggerations in order to tug at the audience's heartstrings, hence leaving his arguments very flawed. Sicko was an excellent film, probably the most concise and truly affecting film that he's ever worked on. Farenheit was at times goofy and directionless.

With that being said, Moore performed very well on the spot. Hannity brought Moore over to his turf, attempted to attack Moore and was subsequently shredded.

As a previous poster stated, the problem with the right-wing painting Moore as a fat, uneducated, lying slob is that he's actually a very intelligent and driven individual. Hence, Hannity getting owned in a debate on his own talk show by such a "fat, undereducated slob" does not look very good for Sean Hannity or the other Fox nitwits.

 

[sleepingbunch]

yup. That was the most I have ever watched Hannity (the 3 clips combined), and he was not as awful I expected (though, to be fair, Moore likely prevented him from spouting off too much BS). What I also find humorous is the vitriol of each sides' most ardent supporters (not necessarily here), when I would not be surprised if the 2 guys get along fine once the cameras are off... Anyway, neither side really "owned" the other. We can debate all day who won, but there was absolutely no ownage.

While I agree that it was a reasonable discussion, and I credit Hannity for following through with the debate, Moore made Hannity eat his words on a number of occasions (on Hannity's own turf, with Hannity's own questions). Moore was far more impressive.

 

[98greenGT]

the jokes on Moore. He's still a fat out of shape slob who couldn't fight his way out of a box

 

[blackadder]

the jokes on Moore. He's still a fat out of shape slob who couldn't fight his way out of a box

And how does this impact the validity of what he has to say or the quality of his arguments?

 

[98greenGT]

And how does this impact the validity of what he has to say or the quality of his arguments?

it doesn't. but you have to wonder just how smart is he if he can't say no to a cookie for the sake of his well being. The guy won an argument lol... awesome.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

So I haven't seen the movie but i read somewhere that much is made about the fact that some companies take out life insurance on their employees and then don't "share" the proceeds with the family. Can someone explain to me why that is such a bad thing? I haven't put much thought into it but I really don't see what is so horrible. Losing employees (whether by death, retirement or resignation) is expensive for a company. If the company is paying the premiums, why should they give any of the insurance proceeds to anyone else.

I understand the optics look bad if it is a particularly hazardous job, so maybe that's the specific case he addressed in his movie. But, absent that, what's so horrible? Am I missing something here?

 

[St. Anger]

I credit both of them for a calm reasonable discussion. I didn't expect that out of those two. It's sad when a Moore and Hannity discussion is better than 90% of the threads on the EE. When they become the image of good discourse we're truly doomed.