jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (34 posts)

Fox, or is it Faux, does it again-Hannity racist comment over Trayvon

  1. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    The linked article below tells the story. The rightwinger ought to know when it is not time to open old wounds. This man Hannity is an insensitive clod, allowed to spout off on a major network. Is it any wonder so many opposed to the Zimmerman verdict continue to protest? The right always complain about Sharpton, J jackson as race hustlers, but ignore agitators like Hannity? Who says we are inundated with 'liberal media' when Fox is free to pollute the airwaves? These comments against Hannity come from Joe Scarborough, who is not exactly a liberal in the classic sense of the word ......

    Here is the link below, your thoughts?

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Scarbo … de=14402-1

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Eh........I think you and other liberals are just hawkishly looking for people like Hannity to slip up and/or to say something that you can twist around.
      His reference to Obama's words about being like Trayvon, and then "being" Trayvon were spot on------if Obama was gonna parallel himself to Trayvon, he might as well accept the whole package, marijuana-smoking, thieving, racist-remarking teenager.    Was Obama like that?   Well, we know his behavior was similar to some of that, by his own admission,  and seems his mindset is similar.
      And marijuana makes a person paranoid.   At least most people, from what I understand.   So that could very well have been a factor in the whole situation when Trayvon got killed.

      As far as "opening old wounds".........you should chide Obama for that, not Hannity.   Obama's the one who's been keeping old wounds open (and rubbing them to make 'em bleed!) ever since he got a public podium to speak from!

      And I'm getting tired of hearing Fox called "Faux"..............so I think I'll label CNN as "Sin".    If ya say it fast,  CNN is Sin.    Now maybe the balance scale will start to even out.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The hell's wrong with your hearing? Saying "CNN" really fast gets you "see in N," "seinen," or--shock and awe--"CNN."

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm.... okay,  not just "SIN",  but Sinnin',  then.   lol.
          CNN really sounds like Sinning (sinnin').

      2. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That 'whole package' is what is in your imagination. So I suppose all 17 year old white kids are angels wearing halos? But, of course, your can explain this as youthful exuberance, hardly worth being shot down like a dog for, I guess that they call it white privilege? It is so painful to realize just how sclerotic the thinking of rightwingers always seem to be. You people always are in such denial of the racial problems in this culture, and wishing the President to be silent on them is your desire, but the principles involved, as always, go right over your head. You would do well to listen sometimes. Hannity is just a rightwing edifice

        Lady, why is it ok to expect Martin not to be concerned about people following him without taking the time to identify him or herself, regardless of what you accuse him of smoking? You wouldn't want to be treated that way, but of course, you are not a black kid in a hoodie, right?

        You think that 'faux" is bad, I think that the new word formed by taking the 'o' out of Fox and replacing it with a 'u' is a much more appropriate description of Fox news.

        Fox News, recipient of the Ted Baxter award for excellence in Journalism!

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately many people in this country are addicted to the news entertainment facet of reporting that shows them what they want to hear and digest. Whatever the topic there is something provocative to express for a reaction that makes them keep coming back for more. Many times after listening to these buffoons I have to ask what happened, where did it happen and when it happened as they gloss over the facts to tell you the all important reason "WHY" it happened. The news all wrapped up into neat little package to further a theory of why things are the way they are according to the latest "news media buffoon".
      Rush Limbaugh pioneered this self professed type of entertainment and made a fortune for himself and his handlers. It feeds into the American lack of interest in the details and the quick fix of "facts" that the reporting source is feeding them. Hell, it sells advertising and isn't that really what matters in America?

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No doubt the press is often times guilty of sensationalism. But that is the stuff that sells papers.  The 'why' behind a story has to be discovered between the lines of the reports.

        Using the politics of resentment, Rush Limbaugh's was successful at persuading working class people that the interests of the wealthy are ultimately the same as theirs, and a bigger lie has never been told.  How else do you encourage people to vote consistently against their own best interests? This is why he has been bankrolled so handsomely by the wealthy and corporate interests.

        1. chipsball profile image60
          chipsballposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reily and other conservative talk rappers should have a picture of Prez O hanging over their beds at night and kiss it before they go to sleep!

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reily and other conservative talk rappers should have a picture of Prez O hanging over their beds at night and kiss it before they go to sleep!"
            They most certainly do! That is what keeps them in business..

          2. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Anderson Cooper, Rachel Madcow, and other liberal double-talkers should keep a picture of Anthony Weiner over their beds and kiss it before they go to sleep.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Lol Maddow is three times the journalist of anyone on Fox News.....

  2. Superkev profile image85
    Superkevposted 3 years ago

    So, ummm, where exactly is the racism??? They don't even give direct quote of this supposed 'racist' slur Hannity supposedly said. What precisely did he say that was racist?

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Superkev, i suggest that you digest this.......

      "Really, is that the new standard? Would we like to go across college campuses and tell white boys that if they have marijuana in their system then they're fair game? Or that if they're walking through a neighborhood and they react in an untoward way toward someone who is chasing them through a neighborhood?"

      1. Superkev profile image85
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sad and pathetic attempt at more race baiting. Tired. Old. Busted.

        Digest that.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But Credence is right.....so, what's your reply to that?

        2. HowardBThiname profile image91
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree - that's race-baiting. Sadly, this case that should have stayed on a local level has become extremely divisive in our country. Saying that someone had pot in their system doesn't equate racism. In fact, it's common to release blood content reports after a person dies unexpectedly. That happens whether a person is black or white. It's fair game, people. Drugs affect behavior, and I didn't hear anyone actually justifying the young man's death because he had pot in his system.

          People try to make sense of things that appear not to make sense. That's it. That's all. People want to analyze why Zimmerman got out of his car - so they come up with theories. Likewise, they want to figure out what could have prompted Trayvon to assault Zimmerman so they look here, there and everywhere for clues.

          At this point- we all need to put his story behind us. It's over. The jury rendered the verdict.

          All this blathering and ranting serves only to divide this nation racially.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Hannity's not the only racist at Fox.
    Bill O'Reilly went on a super 7+ minute rant.
    I can't link (don't ask).
    But Google it.
    It's disgusting.
    It's disgusting that these guys play to the basest elements of a base that is a small (but shrilly vocal) minority of our country.

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, MM, I know, O'Reilly is worse, he has an even bigger mouth!

    2. 85
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Let's see some quotes.  There are serious issues that need to be addressed.  Was he racist for saying there are issues that leave an entire population at a disadvantage?

      Is it racist to say that 1 in 3 black men are in prison at some time in their life?

      Is it racist to say that 72% of black children are born to mothers who are not married?

      Is it racist to say that almost 10 percent of black people drop out of high school?  Is it further racist to say that approximately 50% of these dropouts are unemployed?

      Is it racist to say that black males are nearly eight times more likely than whites to suffer from AIDS?

      Is it racist to say that over 90% of the 8,000-9,000 black people who are murdered annually are killed by another black person?  Is if further racist to point out that this is roughly half of all of the murders that take place in America even though black people comprise only 13% of America's population?

      I know some will dispute these statistics, both mine and O'Reilly's.  The fact is that each of these statistics are alarming even if you cut them in half.  Something must be done; when politicians avoid dealing with these problems, all it does is put an entire population at a disadvantage.  The black community is in trouble.  It's racist to do nothing, to allow this to continue.  O'Reilly simply did what few people are willing to do, say there is a problem.  Was it racist when Bill Cosby said the same thing?  Let's see some of those quotes, the racist ones.

    3. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      First - I can't bear to watch or listen to Hannity - this response is about O'Reilly

      Yes, I did google "Bill O'Reilly went on a super 7+ minute rant." and the only relevant result was a Daily Kos link that linked to a Medimatters.com video

      MM, obviously you take  MSNBC's Chris Hayes at his word because he is saying what you want to hear.

      Just as obviously, what I'm about to say is racist and wrong because I am, generally, a Bill O'Rielly  fan.

      (ps. here is the link you did not want to post: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/2 … P-audience )
      First, Hayes starts off with a context issue - as in he misrepresents the context of this "talking Points" monologue. It was about "Black-on-Black" crime and the deterioration of black families.
      Hayes never mentions this, he merely says it's a 7 minute 35 second racist O'Rielly rant, and then uses selected video cuts

      Taking Hayes advice that O'Rielly could be debunked with 20 minutes of Google research - I did the same for Hayes' comments.

      1. O'Rielly states; "Young black men commit homicides at a rate 10 times greater than whites and Hispanics combined.  This appears to be a correct statement: here is a blog post that has the graphs from a Bureau of Justice Statistics report
      Hayes includes this video statement as an illustration of O'Rielly's racist rant - but does not address that this point is factual

      2. O'Reilly states: " Right now, about 73 percent of all black babies are born out of wedlock"
      This also appears to be factually correct, As illustrated in this CDC report
      Once again, Hayes includes this video statement as an illustration of O'Rielly's racist rant - but does not address that this point is factual

      3. O'Rielly states: "White people don’t force black people to have babies out of wedlock. (video cut) But the entertainment industry encourages the irresponsibility by marketing a “gangsta culture.” (video cut) When was the last time you heard The Congressional Black Caucus say that? How about Jackson and Sharpton?
      Once again, Hayes includes this video statement as an illustration of O'Rielly's racist rant - but if you do a little movie googling of your own - it seems to be a valid criticism - yet Hayes does not respond to it.

      Where are Jackson and Sharpton on this issue - other prominent black voices, (Bill Cosby, among others) dare to say it. Are they racist too?

      4. Bill states: "Go to Detroit and ask anyone living on the south side of the 8 mile road what destroyed their city. They will tell you narcotics. They know addiction leads to crime and debasement. Once more, this seems to be a true statement. I don't know if that's what the people actually said, but Detroit's crime statistics do: Detroit most dangerous U.S. city *you have to dig a little but the drug crime stats are linked.
      Once again, Hayes includes this video statement as an illustration of O'Rielly's racist rant - but instead of refuting the point - he redirects it to the black incarceration rate. So he doesn't address Bill's statement, just uses it to segway to one that's convenient for him.

      Those were the "O'Rielly facts" that Hayes uses to show the racist ranting of O'Rielly - yet he can't debunk a single one - because they are facts.

      Then Hayes says this:
      "The real reason Bill O’Reilly peddles this stuff is because it gives a cheap, crack-like high to the old fearful white audience that watches Bill O’Reilly and gives Fox News its power—also known as the Republican base. These are the folks Bill O’Reilly is feeding when he laments not being able to criticize black culture.

      Followed by this statement from Bill: "That’s because race-hustlers and the grievance industry have intimidated the so-called “conversation,” turning any valid criticism of African-American culture into charges of racial bias.

      Isn't that exactly what Chris Hayes just did? O'Rielly's facts were documented. They were spoken in the context of a monologue about Black-on-Black" crime - not some off the wall racist rant as Hayes portrays it. (and edits the monologue video to illustrate.)

      That's what you should have seen as disgusting, but instead you swallow his dog and pony show as gospel.

      Yep, all it took was 20 minutes of Googling.

      Come on MM, Look behind the curtain before you try to use clap like this for validation. You will probably sputter, but... but... he is racist - nope, it's MSNBC hogwash!


      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        While that rant wasn't racist to me (I'm white so I don't know if that influences anything), the stuff he said after he went to dinner with Al Sharpton clearly was.

        http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20979043/ns/u … l-comment/

        This has been pretty well documented though.

        And has O'Reilly ever gone on such a rant about the waste by the rich, how Romney and others like him life in luxury while 8 million people a day (worldwide) die from poverty?  How McCain couldn't even remember how many houses he owns?  No.

        While a lot of his criticism is legit, it's selective.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are right - those remarks are old news.  But do you really think those were offensive racial remarks?

          Sharpton did not think so.

          I don't think so.

          The fact that you bring it up when another O'Rielly critic was debunked speaks to your own bias.

          But, since this is a subjective issue...

          edited by author... segment removed was too harsh to post, but I'm still thinking it.

          Of course that's only my opinion. I'm sure there are other PC sycophants that now think, (or always have), I'm an ignorant ass.

          I try not to respond this harshly, but on this topic your bias is so obviously showing, I couldn't help stepping on it. In your PC world, where even the truth of casual observations need to be cleared first, credibility is the first casualty.


          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sharpton didn't say it wasn't racial.  Sharpton said none of his remarks at dinner were racist.  Those remarks were made afterwards.

            "Sharpton said he was taken aback that anyone would be surprised at how blacks acted at Sylvia’s and will ask O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor” Wednesday to explain what he meant. Nothing O’Reilly said at the dinner was offensive, said Sharpton spokeswoman Rachel Noerdlinger.

            Taken aback...Hmm.

            In any event, you provided no argument to counter mine.  You simply just said, "You're wrong."  Imagine if Obama had grown up in a black neighborhood, and when he got to Harvard he had said, "Wow,  No one tried to lynch me or anything.  It was really quite good and surprising."

            You conservatives would latch onto it the way you did with the "Gods, guns, and religion" comment.

            Why would he be SURPRISED by the fact that the African Americans were not "yelling mfer I want more iced tea," or that they were "well behaved."  Only a man with racial stereotypes of African Americans would be surprised by such actions.

            If you think O"Reilly's comments are racially neutral, or somehow "positive," then you should explain WHY.

            You also didn't respond to my argument about hoarding wealth.  Again, I don't know why.  If I am so wrong, then you should probably explain it.  It should be easy since I am so "biased."

            You can't assert without evidence.  Assertion by decree is not an argument, sorry.

            1. GA Anderson profile image87
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So, "taken aback," means offended? Coming from Sharpton, I am doubtful. He has never been shy or mixed words when it comes to race issues. But perhaps I haven't seen that softer, more diplomatic side of him yet.

              As I said - the O'Rielly issue is a subjective issue. There is no factual right or wrong - just opinions.

              Mine is as I stated. I stand by it. Every word of it. Your response, to me, is proof of what I said. It's PC poppycock.

              Well, if I were voicing an opinion on something objective, like the price of eggs, I would be more than glad to offer evidence. But, since I noted that my response was my opinion of a subjective issue - the evidence I need to provide is that it is my opinion. So, yes, it was a decree, not an argument. Were you expecting something else?

              Ok, the "wealth hoarding" issue. Are you referring to your statement about O'Reilly and Romney being wealthy? I will assume so, and offer this...

              What does that have to do with the topic being discussed? ie. Racism and racial rants
              (oops is that your bias showing again?)


              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I explained what it meant with the Obama example, which you didn't respond to at all, except to say everything is subjective.

                Anyway, if everything is subjective, what isn't?  Money isn't objective at all.  Money is a human creation.  Human "subjective" preferences are what determines prices, at least according to capitalist dogma.   Nice try though.  A society different than the United States could conceivably have different prices for different items, because their "subjective preferences" would be different.

                I also explained what the wealth meant back in a previous response.  I'm not going to keep repeating myself.  If you don't want to answer it, that's on you.

                The larger implications though, for your view, is there is no such thing as racism, because there is no effective way to determine it objectively (until you give me some criteria at least).  It's like me saying pizza tastes better than pie, and you disagreeing.  There are no objective reasons either one of us can bring to bear on the discussion.

                So we might as well stop talking to each other, because everything is subjective.

                1. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this



                  1. 0
                    Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks for your intellectual honesty.  Public forums are great for allowing it to come out.

  4. Seth Winter profile image83
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    I think your on a witch hunt here...just like the entire Zimmerman case was a big witch hunt. No racism here, but you liberals are bound and determined to find (or makeup) racism.

    Saying 17-year-old Martin was responsible for his own death because he had "signs of marijuana in his system."

    Isn't saying he was deserving of death just that pot/alcohol/insert drug here usually impairs your decision making ability. Trayvon was a kid with a dark past, Mary Jane lead to the poor decision of (after escaping Zimmerman) confronting a man with a concealed weapon and attempting to brain him.

    Scarborough and various other liberals really suck using the "armed with skittles defense" if James Holmes had a stick of gum in his pocket when he was arrested should it be reported that he was armed with a stick of gum?

  5. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    I can respect people more who are principled, such as conservatives not blindly following the Republican party, rather than hacks like Hannity and Limbaugh, who are there to be Republican demagogues. 

    Do you expect anything less from Hannity?

    1. chipsball profile image60
      chipsballposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      FOX & Conservative talk rappers have a significant following that react on impulse. These domestic terrorist are dangerous in this respect and should be closely monitored because the hateful language put out there by Conservative talk is in over-drive. Chicken George wanted to be a hero for their cause and there are many more of like mind... organizing in America today.

  6. GA Anderson profile image87
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    I knew I should have just gone to bed without checking back in.
    Sooner28, you are being obstinate, confusing, and putting words in my mouth.

    But, on the chance that I misspoke, or misunderstood what I thought I read in your responses, I will try to address the issues you mentioned.


    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You know a sophist like me will always twist your words wink.

      I appreciate it though, in all seriousness.

      I come across as pretty aggressive in debates, but it's all about the argument for me.  That's why I try to avoid talking about personal characteristics of people.