Sean Hannity Banner from hannity.com
Banner modified by author
Neocon Propagandist Award Recipient for March 2006
by David Sadler
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Neocon Propagandist Introduction here
9/11 Inside Job Discussion on Sean Hannity Forum
This Sean Hannity Forum discussion regards actor Charlie Sheen's belief that the government's official 911 conspiracy theory remains unproven, defies common sense and can not withstand an objective scrutiny of the facts. Sheen has been viciously attacked personally while the points he has made have been ignored. His points have been ignored because they can not be countered by fact, and this inability to factually prove the official 9-11 conspiracy theory calls the entire theory into doubt.
Sheen has repeatedly challenged the mainstream media to meet his points regarding two 9-11 events:
(1) the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, and
(2) the Pentagon attack.
When the destroyers of truth can not meet the facts, they attack the messenger. Sheen's 'credentials' were attacked to imply he was not qualified to even ask such questions. Sheen's response ... "The only real validation that I needed was being a tax paying citizen that loves my country."
I couldn't agree more with Sheen. So I went to the Sean Hannity forum, for the very first time, to ask on this forum topic devoted to 9-11 why Sheen is attacked personally while his two points are totally ignored.
Hannity pre-bans forum visitors
I registered for the Hannity forum to read the 9-11 topic.
Right after I entered user/password, this message appeared.
"You have been banned for the following reason:
wacko conspiracy troll
Date the ban will be lifted: Never"
I find it interesting that I was PRE-BANNED. Sean Hannity, that 'great American,' pre-censored me based on what? The message labels me as a, "wacko conspiracy troll." What's that? How does a person become listed on such a list? Is this similar to a 'no fly list' or a 'black list.' Is this similar to the Zionists' Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening List of enemies? Is it similar to Red China's list of dissidents to be censored, arrested and imprisoned?
We simply disagree with a political agenda that has demonstrated negative consequences for our own personal lives and those of our loved ones? Does Hannity ban from his discussion forum all those who disagree with him? What kind of America does Hannity really want?
Finally, on this pre-ban issue, the irony of ironies... At the same time Sean Hannity is pre-banning me from a discussion board, he is hawking a book on censorship. This is an absolute perfect example of how conflicted Sean Hannity's message is and why he needs competition for the hearts and minds of America's conservatives. God willing, we'll be on the air soon.
Hannity appeals to extreme and unthinking partisans who have drank the neocon coolaid
Hannity and Limbaugh appeal to a dumbed-down segment of partisans who blindly react to partisan appeals and language just as one group of 'partisan' fans reacts to a touch down, goal or home run by their team. The 'right' or 'conservative' or 'Republican' team plays the same game as the 'left' or 'liberal' or 'Democratic' team.
Each team is comprised of paid professionals, paid fans and unpaid fans. The professionals are the party officials and employees paid to run the business of the party. The paid fans are those holding government jobs or contracts obtained by supporting the party. The unpaid fans are those supporters of a party who are satisfied to simply state, "I'm a Democrat," or , "I'm a Republican."
Hannity's attacks are partisan at best and propaganda at worst
Hannity attacks people and policies. His guests attack people and policies. There's only one thing missing -- the people being attacked or advocates for the policies being attacked.
Hannity bashes the 'left' and the 'liberals' as a part of his show's formula for appealing to the 'Republican' team. We know these attacks and this bashing is propaganda by noticing that Hannity does not allow those he and his guests are attacking to defend themselves. Nor does he allow advocates of the policies being attacked to defend those policies.
It's easy to win an argument if no one is allowed to present the other side. This show formula creates a 'spin zone' and exposes the hosts as light-weight debaters unable to meet the intellectual challenge of an actual debate. Even callers disagreeing with a single issue, the Iraq war II for instance, are called 'liberals' by Hannity, talked over by Hannity and ridiculed by Hannity with his famous, "Get off the phone you dope."
It is not a compliment to the fans of Hannity that they should think this is the way superior minds with superior principles and superior arguments go about winning their arguments. Listening to this spin day after day rots the objective and critical thinking capabilities of the audience. The audience is reduced to consumers of spin, discourteous behavior and dangerous levels of subjectivity regarding vital issues of personal, local, national and international importance.
Our position on free speech when we go on the air
Let me state right here and right now to Hannity and Limbaugh listeners and forum members. Once my radio show is on the air, and once my forum is up, you will be able to make your points both on the air and in the forum. Callers will not be demeaned or talked over as long as the callers are making their points in a courteous and professional manner. Forum posters will not be pre-banned under any circumstance, and will only be banned after disregarding a warning for breaking forum rules prohibiting discourteous behavior and vulgar language.
In other words, we will welcome those who disagree with our agenda, because we can only learn from your objections. Well formed arguments against elements of our agenda will be considered. This can only strengthen our reasoning, and if the arguments are persuasive, will actually be used to modify our positions so we can be effective in bringing the American Ideal back on track.
Unlike Hannity and Limbaugh, we value and respect the First Amendment. We are confident of our positions but always recognize that learning never stops and positions must be modified to remain consistent with principles once it can be shown that any specific policy or action is inconsistent with a principle. Under such a circumstance, it is our duty to modify the position to remain consistent to the principle. This is a lesson that both the left and the right have not yet learned.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit."
-- Ayn Rand --
David Sadler ran for Congress in the 12th Congressional District of Illinois in 2002 as a Republican. He advocates debates commence immediately between neoconservatives and traditional conservatives. He maintains the neocons have hijacked the GOP, but that the neocons do not speak for traditional, liberty-minded conservatives. Energy independence through a Manhattan class national effort to develop New Energy sources is a corner stone of his plan to diminish the threat of terrorism against Americans and reform American imperialist foreign policies.
"Last night at Book Revue in Huntington, Sean Hannity's program director Phil Boyce (he of Promise Keepers, the wives submit or get hit group of the early 1990s) tried to have me arrested because he didn't like the question he thought I was going to ask Sean Hannity."
-- davefromqueens --
• Article: Hannity's PD Tries Arresting Me Over A Question
This cartoon perfectly reflects Hannity's "Bush Hater" position considering the context of his callers' concerns about America's foreign policies and embrace of all war in the name of the "War On Terror."
• The president's favorite sandwich!