Thread for Cleon to Provide Evidence That Sean Hannity is Evil or Insane

[Brainster]

On the other hand, he's guilty of the usual liberal trope of ascribing of bad motives to conservatives. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity cannot believe what they say, so they must be in it to make money.

Well, given that the alternatives are that they're evil or insane, I would say claiming that they're in it to make money gives them the benefit of the doubt.

False dilemma. The other option is that they believe what they are saying. Oh, sure they may exaggerate their case, and Coulter in particular likes to be outrageous as in the case Dr A cites. But liberal pundits can exaggerate their case and Molly Ivins also liked to be outrageous. That doesn't mean that they don't believe what they are saying.

No....What I'm saying is that if they really believe what they are saying, then they are either evil or insane. Ergo, the claim that they're only in it for the money gives them the benefit of the doubt, as it would not require them to be evil or insane, merely greedy.

I understand that is your assertion, now stated twice. However, as this is a skeptics' forum, I expect assertions to be back by evidence. Do you have, say, three examples of things that Sean Hannity has said that indicate he's either evil or insane?

You clearly did not, as you incorrectly contrasted it with "believing what they say."

But I suggest you take up your haughty defense of Sean Hannity's idiocy in another thread, rather than derail this one.

I understand that is what you believe, but as I indicated I would like to see some evidence, some quotes from Sean Hannity that clearly indicate he is evil or insane. As requested, I have provided this new thread for that evidence. Given that you have made this assertion twice I am confident it will be forthcoming.

 

[kosai]

You seem to have left out the other option in your title from my thread where this discussion began (also, I'd like to thank you for starting a new thread.) Cleon said "Well, given that the alternatives are that they're evil or insane"...the full list of options were Evil, Insane or a Liar/For Money. I was in the liar camp as Hannity consistently uses half-truths to make points on his television and radio programs, though I do think Hannity is simply irrational at times. I don't think you should take my word or Cleon's as authority on the matter, just check the many complaints against him filed by media watchdog groups such as Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/sean_hannity

Now those speak to the "liar" part, however if you want evil just look into his connections to neo-nazi Hal Turner:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal

Turner established a friendship with his replacement, Sean Hannity, on whose program he was a frequent presence. Turner then became a talk radio host himself, joining fellow regular callers Frank from Queens and John from Staten Island to start the program The Right Perspective.[4] Turner left the program in 2002, citing artistic differences. In 2002, Turner became a solo host, purchasing a time slot on shortwave radio station WBCQ, over which he broadcast for approximately four years. He gave up this show after seeing Mel Gibson's film Passion of the Christ, stated that he was opposed to the owner of the station's Jewish religion.[5]

[edit] Viewpoints

Turner promotes anti-Semitism (including rounding up and killing Jews); and opposes the existence of the State of Israel.[6] He also writes and promotes Holocaust denial materials.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner

Or is that ok with you? As in it was only Hitler that was evil, was his supporters who gave him a platform generally good sane rational people?