The attack on Christmas is real, despite of the call to Hannity and despite you believing there is one or not.
![]()
Good. Those little "crackers" should learn about some other cultures.
By the way, when you say the attack on Christmas is real and then use a call to the Sean Hannity show as evidence, you're not making a very good case.
The attack on Christmas is real, despite of the call to Hannity and despite you believing there is one or not.
Sean Hannity's credentials:
1. Heard on over 500 stations, including Armed Forces Radio
2. Pretty good ratings on TV show
3. Author of a best-selling book
4. Sell-out crowds at every appearance
Mr. Peabody's credentials:
1. Make-believe cartoon character
Now - who has more credibility?
The Attack on X-Mas
starring Steven Segall as Santa Claus
and kelly LeBrock as Mrs. Claus
Which one of us makes millions by getting people to buy into his bull ? Now talk about credibility.
Besides, you neo-cons don't seems to realize that Rush and Hannity are merely entertainers. They say things that get people fired up because that's their job. That's how they get ratings. Nothing makes these guys happier than to have you getting upset over a topic they mention. The funny part is that people like you take them so seriously and really believe everything they say.
No, it's the libs like Al Franken, Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore who say how the rest of us should live, then do something totally different in their own lives!
I don't know about Rush Limbaugh, but I strongly believe Sean Hannity really believes and lives what he speaks. If he didn't, someone would have done an expose on him long before now.
I don't agree with most of what Sean Hannity says.
As Kramer would put it "He is . . . pppprrrrrrr . . . out there!" (and gesticulates with his hand).
"Campus speech codes were not designed to preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage through an equal application of rules. They were designed to destroy it through a selective application of rules."
wow, this asshole gets the bull lies out immediately, huh?
It depends on how the "attack" is defined. If that is in reference to publicly financed religious displays, well, that's a cons utional matter, not exactly something without cause for some concern. If it's more generally defined, as a cultural matter with pressure placed on private en ies to engage in politically correct changes to longstanding policies, then yeah, there is an "attack"...
No question - Mr. Peabody, easy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)