What pundit is the most annoying?

[cinch]

I should note that I'm not even a Moore fan, really. I mean, he doesn't piss me off as much as he seems to for other people, but I don't care that much for him.

Franken, though... That guy's aces.

[Odin]

Satire is streching the truth to make a point. It the thing he lied about wasn't the purpose of that, What Moore was trying to say was that guns are too easy to get, and the reason for that is the bird-brained hillbily lobbyists of the NRA. Even my US Government textbook and the US Supreme Court says that the 2nd Amendmnet doesn't give everybody the right to bear arms, only those in the national gaurd.

[GePap]

I am surprised Jesse jackson is so high. The list is skewed: many of the people there are not pundits. Moore is not a pundit, even if you decide to label him a propagandist: if you do, then obviosuly you DONT believe he is a pundit, now do you? Jesse isn;t one either.And Al Franker is slowly becoming one.

As for the pundits left, Coulter gets my vote hand down, though Hannity should be on there and then he would get my vote.

Oh: what is a pundit? Someone who makes themselves famous by providing political opinions on TV in the from of editorials, or in arguements. Which is why I say Moore and Jackson aren't. Al Franken is very slowwly becoming one.

[Berzerker]

Gepap, pundits can't be propagandists?

Odin -

Even my US Government textbook and the US Supreme Court says that the 2nd Amendmnet doesn't give everybody the right to bear arms, only those in the national gaurd.

Funny, there was no national guard when the 2nd Amendment was written. Does your US government text book explain that?
The word "militia" meant state militias as defined by the states at that time, and the states had 2 militias - one with more formal training and "on-call" and another comprised of the citizenry, the "irregular" militia, who would be called into action when needed to back up the smaller "regular" militia. These "irregular" militias fought in the Revolution, the War of 1812, The Indian Wars, the Mexican War, and the US Civil War. According to you (or these people you seem willing to rely on), the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - the right of THE PEOPLE (not the right of the militia) to keep and bear arms is negated by the Framer's explanation and advice that the states were the ultimate arbiters of their liberty via militias. Does that make sense? Why did the Framers mention a right of the people to keep and bear arms if they meant only to guarantee state militias this "right"? Btw, states don't have rights, they have powers (read the 10th Amendment).

If you were serious, you'd read what the Framers wrote about the right to keep and bear arms - they were, after all, unanimous on the matter.

[Berzerker]

Satire is streching the truth to make a point.

The Academy didn't give him an Oscar for best "satire", they gave it for best documentary...

[Ned]

On the second amendment, it was directed to restricting the power of the Federal Government from banning or regulating the "right" of the poeple to keep and bear arms, rifles, pistols and the like, so that they could form state militias. The founding fathers were concerned that the Feds could kill the militia by banning private ownership of weapons and being the sole source of weapons for the state militias, which would not be forthcoming.

This is a States vs. the Feds balance-of-power issue.

The second amendment is silent on the issue of whether a state could ban weapons. This issue has never been the focus of any litigation that I know of, and has not been addressed by the Supremes. The only case where the Supremes took up the issue involved a "sawed off" shotgun. The Supremes decide that a ban on this kind of weapon was outside the Second Amendment because it was clearly not a military weapon. However, clearly suggests that a ban on military weapons, such as assault rifles, by the Federal government falls squarely in the sights of the Second Amendment.

[Q Classic]

listening to the radio on the way home yesterday (my brother and mom love hannity, so i have to listen to him whether i like it or not whenever i get in the car and don't get the driver's or front seat...) i remembered another annoying habit of hannity's--and most talk show hosts, actually.

i'm f*cking sick of sycophantic kudos calls. i want to hear debate on talk shows, not some f*cking a**hole saying: "oh, hannity, i want to have your babies, you sweet sweet outspoken and moral conservative man you."

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
I am surprised Jesse jackson is so high. The list is skewed: many of the people there are not pundits. Moore is not a pundit, even if you decide to label him a propagandist: if you do, then obviosuly you DONT believe he is a pundit, now do you? Jesse isn;t one either.And Al Franker is slowly becoming one.

As for the pundits left, Coulter gets my vote hand down, though Hannity should be on there and then he would get my vote.

Oh: what is a pundit? Someone who makes themselves famous by providing political opinions on TV in the from of editorials, or in arguements. Which is why I say Moore and Jackson aren't. Al Franken is very slowwly becoming one.

I've seen Jesse Jackson and Michael Moore being pundits on numerous occasions. Because they have other gigs they are allowed to describe themselves by other titles, but they are pundits as well.

[GhengisFarb™]

I didn't worry about whether the people I voted for were Liberals or Conservatives. I just voted for the ones I found annoying.

I don't agree with any of Al Franken's beliefs but I still think he's funny.

[Ned]

Well Ben Affleck just mouthed off on Bush at an awards concert in the mold of Michael Moore.

Too bad, I formerly liked Affleck. I seriously doubt I will ever see another of his movies.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by cinch
Copied And Pasted from Buck's link, in case anyone's too lazy/closed-minded to clicky:

...............

Seems pretty straightforward to me that nothing was staged.

How can you say that pack of non-debating methods was anything like straightforward? I like the part where he tries to defend his implication that because these boys lived near a plant that made ICBMs before these kids were born and before they or their parents lived in the area that somehow this had an impact on their murderous behavior. Yea, that's why there have been so many children committing mass murder in Amarillo Texas and Alamagordo New Mexico.

Note how he writes several paragraphs of vitriol and character assasination before slipping in his "evidence" that what he did was cool. His defense is 90% attacking the messenger. There is no doubt that the Heston "speech" was cobbled together from at least two speeches using deceptive editing to make it seem as though Heston was gloating in Denver and in Michigan while the victims blood was still wet. I also note that instead of defending himself from the more sophisticated critiques of his movie (see David Kopel's article for one of these), he only rises to defend himself from charges that I have never seen from a guy I've never heard of. The man is thouroughly dishonest, and mean to boot. Take a look at his movie Pets or Meat for another fine example of him taking in regular people under false pretenses in order to make fun of them.

[Ned]

Sik, I haven't seen any of Michael Moore's libelous works, but it I have heard enough to know what he is, an immoral propagandist. That the Academy could have given him an award speak volumes about Hollywood.