Quote Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff View Post
I agree with a number of the concepts that he poorly copies and pastes, but I can't expect any well thought out objectivity from him, so there is nor purpose in watching him. Plus I'm pissed that Colmes is leaving.

I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.

Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.
Another instance where you and I will agree, Tuff.

I for one like the bare-bones idea of a moderate liberal and a genuine conservative analyzing the day's news events, and discussing issues. I'd be more pleased with actual debates, moderated of course.

But what Hannity and Colmes does is it pits a rather toothless liberal against a pundit who will overtalk, interrupt, get loud, and doesn't debate with any kind of fairness or objectivity. It's a shame, because like Crossfire, it had potential.

I don't mind the enthusiasm, I don't mind the commitment to one point of view. I just mind the unprofessionalism in the program from Hannity and the overall Fox slant. Colmes is often silent on that program, and lobs decent but hardly inspired questions at conservatives, and tends to drop things when they get heated.

I think there's room for a real debate between intellectuals who are either conservative leaning or liberal leaning, maybe even wingers. But the debate has to be more than shouting, opining, and cherry-picked news articles which always favor one side of an argument. However, to be fair, it often degraded into that with the previous US election thread, so we've learned from the masters.