Sean Hannity denounces Bundy's remarks as "despicable, ignorant"

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Your side keeps slamming its head against the wall claiming that these issues poverty, racism and socioeconomic status cause this violence and in doing so you continuously attempt to attack those causes. And all it has gotten you is more and more violence. Sooner or later you will realize that perhaps race and genetics does play a factor.

 

Bundy made the comments. Pointing them out is playing the race card?!?

 

Ok, you've made your views clear, but you haven't provided any solutions.

 

Lol! Liberal moral outrage? Not hardly! This has everything to do with a so called intelligent human being exposing himself as the true fool that he is. And it is hilarious. Hannity supports a guy who is breaking the law and now with Bundy's comments of racism hypocritically condemning blacks for welfare when he himself is getting free rent on government land for grazing his cattle for a profit at tax payer expense. And for a while Hannity supported this loser, now he is condemning Bundy. Go figure! And now you go and ask how this is reflective of Hannity or the right. If you can't see the reflection, you need help.

 

No matter where you fall on this issue, if you've got a sense of humor, you've got to appreciate the irony.

 

We have Democrat politicians openly hobnobbing with the Nation of Islam and then crying "white racism" as to why the party isn't more popular among white people.

We have Democrats trying to appoint ex-Nation of Islam ministers into high state party positions, only backing down when confronted by the other side of the aisle (Benjamin Chavis, having dropped the NOI-given surname Muhammad).

We have Democrat politicians referring to New York City as "Hymietown" and still being given the red carpet treatment. (Jackson)

We have Democrat politicians denying their past association with and public apologetics for the Nation of Islam with little opposition and only backs off when he's pressed on it by non-liberals, only then "realizing" that the NOI teaches racist, anti-Semitic things? (Ellison)

We have Democrat politicians attending Farrakhan speeches (Conyers), meeting with Farrakhan (Nagin), appearing on television with him (Clyburn), etc.

We have College Democrats inviting Farrakhan to speak on their campus.

We have Democrats hobnobbing with Hamas loons (Carter).

I'm sorry, who is the typical disgusting racist again, sir?

Furthermore, if you wish to promote the idea that an entire group is representative of a few bad apples, would you care to Google FBI crime data by race and repeat that statement?

 

This is nothing but predictable, rote-parroted Democrat Party strategy talking points and nothing more. See my previous post above. If you don't know how to separate an individual from the group they are in, YOU need help.

 

I never said it was. I could have told you Bundy was a racist the second I laid eyes on him. His racist views are a different story. At the end of the day, he owes the federal government a million dollars for grazing rights. The reason he doesn't pay, is because he doesn't recognize the fed govt. That's his problem. He lost his battle in court and it is time to pay up. That's the bottom line. All this other stuff is just a side show to the real issue.

 

Selectively flying off the handle in a political manner IS. Saying idiotic things like, "This is Republicans for you, it proves how racist they are," or, "Hannity just illegitimized himself" as if supporting someone on a political issue is an equivalent to supporting everything about him and agreeing with it, down to how he washes his bunghole and eats his bacon.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh??? Do tell. Because he's white, male, and over the age of 50, right?

Would you say you could tell a young black person was a criminal "the second I laid eyes on him"? I bet you wouldn't.

Please - tell us in detail.

 

Lol again! What does all that have to do with Bundy and Hannity? Nothing! The thread is about Hannity flip flopping about Bundy and exposing the hypocrite that he is. Changing the subject to talk about Democrat politicians is evidence that you are running away from the OP, because you have no real argument that addresses that. It just shows a weakness to be able to engage this particular issue.

 

You can't even respond. Would you likewise say, "I knew he was a criminal when I saw him!!" about Trayvon Martin?

I'm beyond "engaging" this issue - I'm pointing out and stating with evidence how Democrats/liberals selectively use such incidents as a liberal podium, ignoring racists and racist remarks in their own ranks. You're trying to restrict the boundaries of the discussion to conservatives and Hannity with no justification for doing so. You're politically-motivated just like the others are.

If you're against racist comments by TV personalities and political parties, then prove it by condemning ALL of it. Just not the side you dislike.

 

Because it's not simply about making my views clear. The problem is that there are only a few solutions. Unfortunately, if I can't get you (or more specifically your side) to acknowledge that race/genetics has something to do with the level of violence, then my choice of what solution we should undertake is going to appear to be *gasp* "racist".

 

Just so we are both clear. Him being a racist has zero effect on the argument about the Government's Fascist Actions regarding his grazing cattle.

This is nothing more than a smoke screen attempt to cloud the topic that matters. Who really cares if this turd is racist. It effects us all how?

 

We rule out that explanation because there's an abundance of evidence of external influences that can adequately explain the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

This is meaningless banter.

 

Your posts are beginning to dilute into ridiculousness to change this whole narrative to race. My focus is that he broke the law and he owes a million dollars to this country. And the right wing is running away from the issue like a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*) roaches to address racism instead of the stealing that he is been doing for twenty years. You're hiding on the goof ball mistakes made by Hannity who was supporting this thief, then all of a sudden Hannity bails on Bundy by flip flopping because of his racial comments. Hannity was looking for a way out, so he used the race comments by Bundy to free himself of the rope he put around his own neck. It's hilarious. In the meantime, you are desperately trying to change the narrative to one topic; race. it's not going to work. The thread is about Bundy and Hannity. And Hannity pulled a hypocritical stunt by running from Bundy because he discovered that Bundy for all intensive purposes is toast. And being the coward that Hannity is, he invented a way out and he did. But he didn't fool a soul.

- - - Updated - - -

 

This commentary reveals the hypocrisy of Shawn Hannity;http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show It tells the whole story and reveals Hannity and Fox news for who and what they really are.

 

You're going to have to change the definition of racist for those views not to be defined as such. What do you think the word racist means?

 

Really? For YEARS we have followed the liberal diatribe that violence from minorities comes from the causes of poverty, racism and socioeconomic status. We have spent literally BILLIONS of dollars attempting to fight those causes. The only outcome has been more violence and the (hopefully) unintended consequence of making an entire race of people dependent upon the government.

When will you folks realize that you're fighting the wrong cause.

 

I don't know why one side or another has to be taken. In the case of Ruby Ridge, it's easy to see how both sides were wrong, Randy Weaver refusing to show up for court and the federal siege that was riddled with misinformation. Quite often these are cases of somebody doing something wrong and then the government overreacting. I have a real problem with the federal government owning 80% of the state of Nevada and then charging people millions of dollars to use it. It's redolent of the old European serf system where we work the land owned by the aristocracy for a price. And when people read that any American is $200 MILLION in arrears to the government for "grazing fees" that should set off alarms. But that injustices doesn't entitle somebody to thumb their nose and refuse to obey the law anymore than a person of the opinion that taxes are too high have the right to not pay taxes.

I'm just saying, there's no reason people have to pick a side here.

 

I don't deny it's racist. However, racism has an ugly connotation when in reality it's not inherently bad. It has an ugly connotation because the left uses it as a way to beat down their opposition. Once I (or specifically my side) can get people to acknowledge and recognize that race/genetics is a, if not the, primary cause of the absurdly high level of violence... then the connotation of racism is not something that's inherently bad.

Let me put it like this. An anthropologist can tell you the race of an individual simply by looking at their skull. There are inherent, biological, genetic differences in the skull shape of the races. Is that racism? Technically yes it is. Is it considered "evil"? No... and neither should acknowledging violent tendencies as being genetic.

 

you're deflective ways have become you

 

Is it more likely that a wealthy black person commits a crime or a poor white person?

 

You're off topic. Start yourself a new thread about Democrats/liberals. You are right. You are beyond engaging the issue of the OP. Your hatred towards the left prevents you from engaging the substance of the actual thread. Do yourself a favor and go back and read the OP. If I'm not mistaken, going off topic is against forum rules

 

Well without the statistics it would be difficult to tell. You're essentially asking is poverty more of a factor than genetics in committing crime.

This makes an argument that poverty is not nearly as much of a factor as genetics.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/racism/poverty_crime.htm

As far as the likelihood of whether a poor white person would be more likely to commit a crime than a rich black person... it probably depends on the crime. Stealing: You'll probably find the poor person more likely to do so. Murder: I think you'd still find genetics is a more relevant factor than poverty. Rape: I think you'd still find genetics is a more relevant factor than poverty.

But really you're comparing apples and oranges. I am not saying that poverty does not impact whether or not an individual commits crime. I am saying that genetics and race DO play a factor. If you really wanted to see why, you would look at the rate of violent crime by race in specific income brackets. Given the same income brackets I would bet the house black people commit more violent crime than their white counterparts.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess we'll see come November won't we. And I'm a female btw.

 

I normally don't like Ed but he absolutely destroyed Hannity in this video!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Best segment he's ever done imo. Anyone who defends this piece of trash Cliven Bundy is supporting someone who has threatened domestic terrorism. Period.