FOX News Blames Democrats For Iran Captives

Commenting on FOX news usually holds little to no interest for me, but since it's spring break, I'm feeling lazy. I also feel I must update this thing at least once a month.

Apparently, Rosie O’Donnell has made some rather interesting comments (yet again) on the view. She spoke first about Iranian portrayal in the United States media, something I agree with (Oh God, I'm agreeing with Rosie). There are those who believe that the entire Iranian population, not only it's government officials, are "unable to do anything ethical." It's an unfortunate (but thankfully not universal) mindset in the US. (Her comments were in regards to the current Iranian hostage situation, which I am unfortunately not keeping up on due to laziness on my part).

She then starts talking about how she thinks 9/11 was a setup by the US Government (Her position that "fire doesn't melt steel" is ridiculous; fire doesn't melt steel, but the conditions in the building allowed for extreme temperatures) before mentioning FOX News. When I say mentioning, I mean less than a sentence devoted to FOX. Heck, FOX News wasn't even the subject of the sentence.

Of course, FOX felt obligated to respond with a 6 and 3/4 minute response on the popular "Hannity and Colmes." Most interesting was their guest, Bill Cunningham, especially regarding some of the comments he made, then being hailed as a "great American" by Hannity. Literally one of the first things out of his mouth: "She has no right to speak."

Ironically, this so called "great American" is arguing against one of the very cornerstones of democracy, which is the open forum of ideas. He has every right to disagree with Rosie, but to go as far as saying she has no right to speak... forgive me for saying so, but that sounds just a little fascist to me. Wow, Hannity, you sure do know great Americans when you see them.

He then continued to argue against her by calling her a "fat slob" and a "gay rights activist" (what a horrible thing to be!). Colmes, in one of his FEW displays of argumentative intelligence, tells Cunningham he isn't advancing any argument through name calling, but Cunningham seems to disagree. "I'm right, though," he says. "She describes her self that way." And be that as it may, it hasn't persuaded me to believe that Rosie "has no right to speak."

Colmes continues the discussion with a Democratic analysis in which they disagree with exactly what Rosie said (pretty humorous in my mind).

Hannity decides to get in on the action by speaking with Cunningham. It never ceases to amaze me how skilled he is at incriminating complete nations of people. "[She] rushes to the side of our enemies [Iran]..." The conversation quickly turns into what can best be described as a (forgive me in advance) circle-jerk in which they fail to ask or answer any questions with each other and merely respond to hateful speech with more hate speech until Cunningham groups her statements with supposedly similar statements by Clinton, Kerry, and Durban (whom he misquotes), then uses that piece of brilliant logic to link their alleged positions of "anti-Americanism" and "f**k the troops" with those of the mainstream liberal. He then accuses those "liberals" who don't agree with those positions of refusing to recognize the anti-American mainstream message "liberals" are trying to get across.

The main point of this is that I thought this sort of though was confined to FOX news, but recently, I've come up with people who nonsensically make the same sorts of arguments. When responding to their "rhetoric" with any response that takes more than a few seconds of though, I am received with more nonsensical statements that both dodge any questions my arguments provoke and more lazy arguments. So seriously, if somebody wants to condemn Rosie's right to free speech, please do so. If you have any sort of cognitive argument as to why that woman should not be allowed to speak (other than that she's a loon, in which I would be compelled yet unable to agree with) please comment.