Russell Brand calls Fox News’ Sean Hannity a 'terrorist'

  • 142 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#52 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Nuck81 said:

@airshocker said:

@xeno_ghost said:

@airshocker: I just watched the the debate on the Fox website, nothing was edited out in Russell's video. That's just how Hannity really behaves.

I meant he edited the video of Hannity to interject himself into it. I never said he removed anything. It's cowardly. Either say something to someone's face or do so in a format that allows them to respond to you. Not this childish video.

You're a stupid dumbass.

Hannity did respond, with a 7 minute segment on his show where he had two other guests including himself trashing Brand.

Educate yourself

Come on man...did you really just try and call me a stupid dumbass and then tell me to educate myself? Do you not see how ridiculous that statement is?

So when you get called out and proven wrong, you stoop to insulting someone's insult rather than addressing the point they were making?

Anyway, now that Hannity responded to Brand's video (when, according to you, he couldn't respond to it), do you now also consider Hannity a coward since he didn't say it to his face or do so in a format that allowed Brand to respond (going by your logic)?

#53 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

@airshocker said:

I'm not the one that used stupid dumbass in a sentence. ROFL.

And then, to top it all off, told the person to get educated. LMFAO

You just did, dumbass

No, I simply repeated what you said.

#54 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -
@Sword-Demon said:

So when you get called out and proven wrong, you stoop to insulting someone's insult rather than addressing the point they were making?

Anyway, now that Hannity responded to Brand's video (when, according to you, he couldn't respond to it), do you now also consider Hannity a coward since he didn't say it to his face or do so in a format that allowed Brand to respond (going by your logic)?

Yes. If someone wants to make a point without trying to insult me, I'd be more than happy to respond without mockery.

But if someone wants to be an idiot and not only use an insult that doesn't make any sense, but then be audacious enough to tell that person to get educated, of course I'm going to let them have it.

#55 Posted by Nuck81 (5861 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@Sword-Demon said:

So when you get called out and proven wrong, you stoop to insulting someone's insult rather than addressing the point they were making?

Anyway, now that Hannity responded to Brand's video (when, according to you, he couldn't respond to it), do you now also consider Hannity a coward since he didn't say it to his face or do so in a format that allowed Brand to respond (going by your logic)?

Yes. If someone wants to make a point without trying to insult me, I'd be more than happy to respond without mockery.

But if someone wants to be an idiot and not only use an insult that doesn't make any sense, but then be audacious enough to tell that person to get educated, of course I'm going to let them have it.

You didn't let me have it dumbass. You just orchestrated yourself a very thin dodge by casting a pretty shitty straw man.

You were proven wrong, man up.

#56 Edited by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

You didn't let me have it dumbass. You just orchestrated yourself a very thin dodge by casting a pretty shitty straw man.

You were proven wrong, man up.

And you are proven to be an idiot.

#58 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

Man up bitch. Admit you were wrong

Use some punctuation in there, kiddo. This isn't kindergarten.

#60 Edited by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

Man up son

hiding behind a straw man like a bitch will get you nowhere

I don't expect to get anywhere talking to you.

Can't fix stupid. I am, however, getting satisfaction at watching you run your mouth like you were still in high school. Very lulzworthy.

#61 Posted by Nuck81 (5861 posts) -

Man up little man

You can't hide behind that straw man forever.

#62 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

Man up little man

You can't hide behind that straw man forever.

Man up to whom? You? LOL. When you want to have a real discussion without resorting to insults, you let me know.

Until then, keep digging that hole, sparky.

#63 Edited by wis3boi (31464 posts) -

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

#64 Edited by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully.

#65 Posted by wis3boi (31464 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@wis3boi said:

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully.

I know nothing about him and I refuse to watch the channel, but so often the hosts will label things terrorism or oppression its fun to see it turned around

#66 Edited by mattbbpl (10645 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@wis3boi said:

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully.

Yeah, I tend to agree with the old adage that if you resort to calling someone a terrorist/nazi/hun/etc. that you lost the argument. I've never seen that type of comparison actually assist the one who used it, and it's use here is as ridiculous as most other uses I've seen.

#67 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@airshocker said:

@wis3boi said:

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully.

I know nothing about him and I refuse to watch the channel, but so often the hosts will label things terrorism or oppression its fun to see it turned around

Even if it's wildly inaccurate?

#68 Edited by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@Sword-Demon said:

So when you get called out and proven wrong, you stoop to insulting someone's insult rather than addressing the point they were making?

Anyway, now that Hannity responded to Brand's video (when, according to you, he couldn't respond to it), do you now also consider Hannity a coward since he didn't say it to his face or do so in a format that allowed Brand to respond (going by your logic)?

Yes. If someone wants to make a point without trying to insult me, I'd be more than happy to respond without mockery.

But if someone wants to be an idiot and not only use an insult that doesn't make any sense, but then be audacious enough to tell that person to get educated, of course I'm going to let them have it.

What I'm saying is that you focused solely on the insult, and completely ignored the main part of his post.

and you didn't answer my other question.

#69 Posted by sSubZerOo (43216 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@wis3boi said:

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully.

.. Pretty much this.. Trying to claim a news host is a terrorist is not just wildly inaccurate but it devalues what exactly a terrorist is..

#70 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

What I'm saying is that you focused solely on the insult, and completely ignored the main part of his post.

and you didn't answer my other question.

I agree, that's exactly what I did. Why should I answer the rest of someone's post when they go out of their way to insult me? And then continue to do so further in the thread?

This is how I see it: You basically supported Nuck. While you didn't act like a piece of shit like he did, you're guilty by association in my book. If you want to denounce what he said, I wont have a problem discussing other things with you. Until then, though, I don't owe you an answer for any of your questions.

#71 Posted by Aljosa23 (25121 posts) -

Hannity is a fucking idiot as is every absurd Conservative tv/radio host. Brand's articles and his writing suck.

#72 Edited by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Sword-Demon said:

What I'm saying is that you focused solely on the insult, and completely ignored the main part of his post.

and you didn't answer my other question.

I agree, that's exactly what I did. Why should I answer the rest of someone's post when they go out of their way to insult me? And then continue to do so further in the thread?

This is how I see it: You basically supported Nuck. While you didn't act like a piece of shit like he did, you're guilty by association in my book. If you want to denounce what he said, I wont have a problem discussing other things with you. Until then, though, I don't owe you an answer for any of your questions.

it's petty and prevents discussion of the topic. Sinking to their level doesn't help anyone.

I support Nuck's point, though the insults were uncalled for. Saying that I'm guilty of association because of that and refusing to hold an actual discussion is childish.

#73 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

it's petty and prevents discussion of the topic. Sinking to their level doesn't help anyone.

I support Nuck's point, though the insults were uncalled for. Saying that I'm guilty of association because of that and refusing to hold an actual discussion is childish.

I was not the one that was petty. If someone wants to discuss a topic with me they can do so in a manner befitting a forum.

You should have said that from the get-go. Instead you made it seem like you agree with everything he said. What is childish about standing up for how I think this forum should act?

#74 Edited by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

Anyway, now that Hannity responded to Brand's video (when, according to you, he couldn't respond to it), do you now also consider Hannity a coward since he didn't say it to his face or do so in a format that allowed Brand to respond (going by your logic)?

When I said he couldn't respond to it, I meant instantly. I do think Hannity is an idiot for responding to him in the same fashion that he was criticized. I think it would be better if they both debated each other. No reason they can't get a moderator and video tape it and then post it on Youtube.

#75 Edited by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@airshocker

But you aren't standing up for how this forum should act, you're doing the exact same thing as they are.

The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to be polite and intelligent yourself, not with counter-insults.

#76 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Sword-Demon said:

Anyway, now that Hannity responded to Brand's video (when, according to you, he couldn't respond to it), do you now also consider Hannity a coward since he didn't say it to his face or do so in a format that allowed Brand to respond (going by your logic)?

When I said he couldn't respond to it, I meant instantly. I do think Hannity is an idiot for responding to him in the same fashion that he was criticized. I think it would be better if they both debated each other. No reason they can't get a moderator and video tape it and then post it on Youtube.

I think that would be ideal, but somehow I doubt either would agree to that :/

but I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing via videos. On the contrary, I think it gives them time to gather their thoughts and give a full reply, rather than it dissolving into a senseless shouting match (this situation obviously isn't an ideal example of this).

#77 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

But you aren't standing up for how this forum should act, you're doing the exact same thing as they are.

The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to be polite and intelligent yourself, not with counter-insults.

Disagree. The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to refuse to discuss anything with people who insult you.

#78 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -
@Sword-Demon said:

@airshocker said:

@Sword-Demon said:

Anyway, now that Hannity responded to Brand's video (when, according to you, he couldn't respond to it), do you now also consider Hannity a coward since he didn't say it to his face or do so in a format that allowed Brand to respond (going by your logic)?

When I said he couldn't respond to it, I meant instantly. I do think Hannity is an idiot for responding to him in the same fashion that he was criticized. I think it would be better if they both debated each other. No reason they can't get a moderator and video tape it and then post it on Youtube.

I think that would be ideal, but somehow I doubt either would agree to that :/

but I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing via videos. On the contrary, I think it gives them time to gather their thoughts and give a full reply, rather than it dissolving into a senseless shouting match (this situation obviously isn't an ideal example of this).


I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing via recorded videos in principle either but the way Brand did it rubs me the wrong way. Maybe cowardly was the wrong word to use, but it seemed petty in the way that he interjected himself and was making his points.

#79 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Sword-Demon said:

But you aren't standing up for how this forum should act, you're doing the exact same thing as they are.

The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to be polite and intelligent yourself, not with counter-insults.

Disagree. The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to refuse to discuss anything with people who insult you.

but refusing to discuss anything doesn't promote any kind of discussion.

hatred breeds hatred and whatnot.

#80 Edited by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

@airshocker said:

@Sword-Demon said:

But you aren't standing up for how this forum should act, you're doing the exact same thing as they are.

The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to be polite and intelligent yourself, not with counter-insults.

Disagree. The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to refuse to discuss anything with people who insult you.

but refusing to discuss anything doesn't promote any kind of discussion.

hatred breeds hatred and whatnot.

No discussion is better than vile discussion. Especially when the only thing the other person seems to care about is insulting you.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

#81 Edited by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@Sword-Demon said:

I think that would be ideal, but somehow I doubt either would agree to that :/

but I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing via videos. On the contrary, I think it gives them time to gather their thoughts and give a full reply, rather than it dissolving into a senseless shouting match (this situation obviously isn't an ideal example of this).

I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing via recorded videos in principle either but the way Brand did it rubs me the wrong way. Maybe cowardly was the wrong word to use, but it seemed petty in the way that he interjected himself and was making his points.

interjecting yourself into the video allows you to reply to each point as it's made, which is fine imo; Though a lot of Brand's interjections were just mocking Hannity rather than addressing his points, so I can see where you're coming from there.

#82 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@airshocker: : @sSubZerOo: he didn't call Hannity a terrorist outright, maybe try watching the video before commenting.

#83 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@airshocker: "Man up to whom? You? LOL. When you want to have a real discussion without resorting to insults, you let me know"

Yet you resort to insults at the drop of a hat. With toast burner you said he was trying to get a rise out of you but all he did was challenge your argument, he never insulted you but you insulted him.

"Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully"

Yet you have defended Hannity, up until now you haven't said a bad word about him. Again Brand never said Hannity is a terrorist, watch the video. Also a bully uses terror intimidation on its victims, bullies terrorise as do terrorist. It is a characteristic of both. That is the point Brand made about Hannity, that he was using the same behavioural characteristics that a terrorist might use.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing via recorded videos in principle either but the way Brand did it rubs me the wrong way. Maybe cowardly was the wrong word to use, but it seemed petty in the way that he interjected himself and was making his points"

Ridiculous you had nothing to say about Hannitys outrageous behavior throughout this whole thread, yet you frown apon Brand who made a video pointing out Hannitys appalling conduct a video made public for all to see including Hannity and you call that cowardly, a video which you complained Hannity would not be able to respond to yet he was able to respond to it.

"No discussion is better than vile discussion. Especially when the only thing the other person seems to care about is insulting you"

So you don't wish to have a discussion with someone who is quick to insult, yet you expect Brand to engage with such a person.

#84 Posted by Nuck81 (5861 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Sword-Demon said:

@airshocker said:

@Sword-Demon said:

But you aren't standing up for how this forum should act, you're doing the exact same thing as they are.

The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to be polite and intelligent yourself, not with counter-insults.

Disagree. The way to promote polite, intelligent discussion is to refuse to discuss anything with people who insult you.

but refusing to discuss anything doesn't promote any kind of discussion.

hatred breeds hatred and whatnot.

No discussion is better than vile discussion. Especially when the only thing the other person seems to care about is insulting you.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

I rustled your jimmies and controlled the back and forth to the point it was equivalent to taking my dog to take a crap. I was leading you little man. You were doing exactly what I expected of you.

#85 Posted by wis3boi (31464 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@wis3boi said:

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully.

.. Pretty much this.. Trying to claim a news host is a terrorist is not just wildly inaccurate but it devalues what exactly a terrorist is..

just like the media and the government already did. Yay!

#86 Edited by hoosier7 (3844 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

@airshocker said:

@wis3boi said:

I wonder how someone on Fox feels being on the other end of the 'terrorist' spectrum for once

Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully.

.. Pretty much this.. Trying to claim a news host is a terrorist is not just wildly inaccurate but it devalues what exactly a terrorist is..

Using fear to push people to conform to a political ideal certainly sounds quite like terrorism to me.

I don't agree with what you said about devaluing the word as it has little value as it stands. There's no international legal definition of terrorism and it's too broad in it's possible meanings, it's often used to discredit legitimate opposition and the fact that many now revered political individuals could just as easily be branded as terrorists shows just how flawed it is.

Makes for a great buzzword for Fox though and that's exactly why Russell's used it.

#87 Posted by jointed (16719 posts) -

American right wingers who defend Hannity should know this:
You are insane. Really. You are the most extremist fanatics in the entire western world. There exists no industrialized country where the right wing is as far right as it is in the US. Thus, you are on the fringe not only in American politics but in global politics also. If you'd expressed ANY of you political opinions in any western nation other than the US you'd be shunned and called either a nazi or "fucking crazy". You're not "ordinary" or moderate by any meassures.

This is what you need to realize when you initiate arguments with your arrogant "duh"-mentality. There is not other political faction in the WORLD that shares your opinions and your arrogant attitudes are therefore not justifiable. You should approach political issues with the humility that is warranted.

#88 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@jointed: @hoosier7: agreed.

#89 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

I rustled your jimmies and controlled the back and forth to the point it was equivalent to taking my dog to take a crap. I was leading you little man. You were doing exactly what I expected of you.

ROFL. Gets proven to be an idiot and then goes into complete damage control. Tell me more, Nuck.

#90 Edited by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@airshocker: "Man up to whom? You? LOL. When you want to have a real discussion without resorting to insults, you let me know"

Yet you resort to insults at the drop of a hat. With toast burner you said he was trying to get a rise out of you but all he did was challenge your argument, he never insulted you but you insulted him.

"Oh come on. I get it, people hate Hannity. He's definitely a dick and that's part of the reason I haven't watched him in a few years. But calling him a terrorist? That's a little ridiculous. If anything, he's a bully"

Yet you have defended Hannity, up until now you haven't said a bad word about him. Again Brand never said Hannity is a terrorist, watch the video. Also a bully uses terror intimidation on its victims, bullies terrorise as do terrorist. It is a characteristic of both. That is the point Brand made about Hannity, that he was using the same behavioural characteristics that a terrorist might use.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing via recorded videos in principle either but the way Brand did it rubs me the wrong way. Maybe cowardly was the wrong word to use, but it seemed petty in the way that he interjected himself and was making his points"

Ridiculous you had nothing to say about Hannitys outrageous behavior throughout this whole thread, yet you frown apon Brand who made a video pointing out Hannitys appalling conduct a video made public for all to see including Hannity and you call that cowardly, a video which you complained Hannity would not be able to respond to yet he was able to respond to it.

"No discussion is better than vile discussion. Especially when the only thing the other person seems to care about is insulting you"

So you don't wish to have a discussion with someone who is quick to insult, yet you expect Brand to engage with such a person.

As I already said to toast_burner, if he wants to be ornery with me, I'll be just as combative with him. Unless you have some proof to the contrary, all his post was trying to do was get a rise out of me. Also, have I resorted to insults with you in this thread? No. So please stop talking out of your ass. Focus on my interactions with you because you don't seem to understand what's actually been going on this thread.

I'll defend anybody if I think the attack is unwarranted. Calling him a terrorist is ridiculous. He's certainly a bully and he's certainly out there at times. But he's not a terrorist.

That isn't true. I called Hannity an idiot quite a few posts ago.

Yes, I do expect a celebrity, who has the capability, to go toe to toe with someone they disagree with.

#91 Posted by yixingtpot (1405 posts) -

Bush himself, the moron... admitted on TV that Iraq and Afghanistan had NOTHING TO DO WITH 911, so there you have it. America/UN/England are the terrorists. Less than 1/1000 of Iraq or any other middle eastern country is Christian, yet we disregard the remaining 99.9999% and genocidally murder them endlessly to 'protect' the ZIONISTS... hence my term Nazionism. It's basically Nazionism in action. There is no difference between Nazi 'master race' and Jewish 'chosen people' since the Nazionist Zionists have been infinitely more successful in committing genocide for thousands of years of conning people to worship a dead Jewkabob. It's basically witchcraft, a bunch of morons walking around with a dead Jew necklace, imagine a firefighter dying saving a child... then you get people wearing a dead firefighter effigy around their necks for the next 2000 years? really imagine wearing a charred dead firefighters body as a necklace, sick, insane nonsense. Yet people die for Jews, sacrifice themselves to a dead Jew, murder billions of people over the last 2000 years for some stupid Jewish myth. Witchcraft, Nazionism... Nazi Zionists.

#92 Edited by PS2fweak (146 posts) -

"Yes, I do expect a celebrity, who has the capability, to go toe to toe with someone they disagree with."

Brand is using a forum which gives him the opportunity to go toe to toe with Hannity. it has about 2.8 million views. Do you think Hannity hasn't seen that video? This is how things work now. Xeno_ghost started this topic and gave you the opportunity to reply. Now if Hannity wants it to be more face to face, he has the ability to have him on the show.

#93 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@PS2fweak said:

"Yes, I do expect a celebrity, who has the capability, to go toe to toe with someone they disagree with."

Brand is using a forum which gives him the opportunity to go toe to toe with Hannity. it has about 2.8 million views. Do you think Hannity hasn't seen that video? This is how things work now. Xeno_ghost started this topic and gave you the opportunity to reply. Now if Hannity wants it to be be more face to face, he has the ability to have him on the show.

No it doesn't. It gives him the ability to get his video widely seen. There is a difference.

I said nothing about them having to do it on Hannity's show. In fact, I mentioned they get could get a moderator, record it and post it on Youtube. That would be pretty big of each of them.

#94 Edited by PS2fweak (146 posts) -

^ Exactly, but if you consider how these things work, now it's something worth setting up. You talk about his video being widely seen, like it's of little to no significance. Saying it gives him the opportunity to go toe to toe, isn't saying it is going toe to toe. Now it will be pretty big for each of them, if they decided to do a debate. I guess Brand could've requested to go on Hannity, but it wouldn't mean anything, and definitely nothing on the level it would be now that people have seen Brand's video.

#95 Posted by Treflis (11573 posts) -

To perfectly explain my opinion on this.

I have no negative or positive opinions about Brand and I think Hannity is a cunt. People will disagree no doubt and that's fine.

Regardless I'm sure Hannity can comment back on that if he wants to, as for Brand, he like many others are free to voice their opinion.

#96 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@airshocker: "As I already said to toast_burner, if he wants to be ornery with me I'll be just as combative with him"

You are kidding right? He merely used an example of your argument against you and you didn't like it, He did not personally insult you but you resorted to insults, if anyone was being ornery it was you, are you really so easily wound up? You said toast burner was trying to get a rise out of you(which I doubt)so what do you do? You rise, are you really that weak?

"I'll defend anybody if I think the attack is unwarranted. Calling him a terrorist is ridiculous. He's certainly a bully and he's certainly out there at times. But he's not a terrorist"

You tell me to stop talking out my ass.

Of course Hannity is not a terrorist, Brand simply likened Hannitys' aggressive oppressive behaviour to that of terrorist.

"Yes, I do expect a celebrity, who has the capability, to go toe to toe with someone they disagree with"

C'mon man use some logic please! who in their right mind would enter a debate with that man? You wouldn't continue debating with someone who insulted you, is that because you lack the capability to debate with such a person? Why do you feel a "celebrity" with "capability" should debate with a difficult person? And what is this "capability" you speak of? Is it the capability to make someone shut the fuck up and listen when they are trying to talk over you? Even the most patient articulate convosationalist would just give up on debating with that guy or resort to screaming insults back.

You are the one who needs to stop talking out your ass buddy.

#97 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@airshocker:

You are kidding right? He merely used an example of your argument against you and you didn't like it, He did not personally insult you but you resorted to insults, if anyone was being ornery it was you, are you really so easily wound up? You said toast burner was trying to get a rise out of you(which I doubt)so what do you do? You rise, are you really that weak?

You tell me to stop talking out my ass.

Of course Hannity is not a terrorist, Brand simply likened Hannitys' aggressive oppressive behaviour to that of terrorist.

C'mon man use some logic please! who in their right mind would enter a debate with that man? You wouldn't continue debating with someone who insulted you, is that because you lack the capability to debate with such a person, I think not. Why do you feel a "celebrity" with "capability" should debate with a difficult person? And what is this "capability" you speak of? Is it the capability to make someone shut the fuck up and listen when they are trying to talk over you? Even the most patient articulate convosationalist would just give up on debating with that guy or resort to screaming insults back.

You are the one who needs to stop talking out your ass buddy.

You can doubt whatever you want. Your opinion is irrelevant because you don't know how I came to the conclusion he was trying to get a rise out of me. Not only has he done so in previous threads(tried to get a rise out of me), he has yet to actually repudiate my last point. Until he does so, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

You are talking out of your ass. When you stop trying to make an argument based off something you can't possibly prove(see the above paragraph), then you might not be.

If that's all Brand did then why do you have the thread titled worded like it is? "Russell Brand calls Fox News’ Sean Hannity a 'terrorist'". Your own thread title is proving you wrong.

I would enter a debate with Hannity if I thought I was right. I already explained what I meant by capability. Read one of my responses to toast_burner.

Yeah I think I've shown(once again) that it's actually you who is talking out of your ass.

#98 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@airshocker: it doesn't matter what the title says, you can't get the whole story from the title can you? I actually copy/pasted the title from the article where saw the video and I put a link to the video, there's no point in commenting on a thread if you are just going to answer it based on the title and not read more into it.he did not call Hannity a terrorist.

The fact is you personally insulted him when he did not insult you it's that simple.

So toast burner has done this to you in previous threads but you have still not learned not to rise to it. Winning!!! *thumbs up*

Again you would not debate with a poster that insulted you yet you want a celebrity with special abilities to debate with such a person.

#99 Posted by airshocker (29876 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@airshocker: it doesn't matter what the title says, you can't get the whole story from the title can you? I actually copy/pasted the title from the article where saw the video and I put a link to the video, there's no point in commenting on a thread if you are just going to answer it based on the title and not read more into it.he did not call Hannity a terrorist.

The fact is you personally insulted him when he did not insult you it's that simple.

So toast burner has done this to you in previous threads but you have still not learned not to rise to it. Winning!!! *thumbs up*

Again you would not debate with a poster that insulted you yet you want a celebrity with special abilities to debate with such a person.

It does matter what the thread title is. Am I not supposed to take you at your word when you make thread titles? Don't get pissy at me for your own mistake.

And I will continue to do so if provoked.

These aren't debates. These are exercises in masochism.

#100 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@airshocker: you can't accurately answer a thread just by reading the title, it helps if you dig a little deeper if there is a link read/watch it check out the opening post, but you even watched the video and you still get it wrong.

"And I will continue to do so if provoked"

You really think your winning by reacting like you think he wants you to react? Hmmmm

Anyway thinking about it, all Russell did was review Hannitys debate and post his review on you tube, you wierdly was annoyed by this, are you equally annoyed when a games reviewer post a review on you tube should the reviewer go and debate with the developers first, anyone who post an opinion on you tube in your world is a coward or is petty I guess.