I just spent a few hours over at Hannity.com to see what was going on. Now, of course, my bias against Hannity is pretty obvious. What's surprising is that I was banned for criticizing Hannity. Here are there Forum Rules, as presented when signing up:

Upon registration, you can click on a FAQ and discover more rules and restrictions, including the Insta-ban policy of disallowing the criticism of the host. My ban came well before this knowledge. I don't intend on going back, since those forums contain very little constructive debate. It's so nice to come back here, to a place where conservatives and liberals alike can argue without resorting to cheap name-calling. This place feels like a warm comfort blanket after the cold reception I received there. Yikes!

Also, isn't it a bit ironic that someone (Hannity) proclaims to uphold Constitutional rights, except when it comes to his own message boards? Funny stuff.

They are dense over there, and that’s being polite in describing them. I lasted a few days.

Point out to them that the 9-11 Commission Report says that the Sudan-Clinton-Deal claims were a canard; they claim the 9-11 Commission is wrong and one source, with a history of double dealing us, has to be right; because Miniter had written about it. But they failed to realize that the 9-11 Commission had interviewed the original Miniter source, and had asked the Sudan. I’m sure the 6 Republicans on the Commission would have said something if there was anything too it.


I once hung around a forum where a few of the Hannity crowd joined, and I never have seen more obtuse people. One guy was claiming that there were WMD’s in Iraq, when pressed for proof he started a semantic game and tried saying that the old spent munitions found in the desert that dated from the Iraq-Iran war were WMD’s. He failed to realize that a 20 year old rusted out shell was neither a W nor an M and defiantly had zero D potential.

Then he said that there were 8 or 9 Yellowcake documents, and that they all were real. This was the 1st I’d heard of that, and asked for a link. I was curious as to what he had come across and wanted a good laugh by reading it; after another inquiry from someone else for a link, he high-tailed it out claiming he was personally attack because he was asked for proof.


When shown the quotes from the Duelfer Report that says not only were no WMD’s found, there were also no WMD Programs for close to a decade; they claimed that because they had not been found, it must mean they are there. It is like they are a member of a Cult. Maybe it’s that new Judeo-Christian hybrid that some on the Right are trying to found.


There is no talking to these people; show them the SIC Report conclusions that say that there were no Operational Ties/Links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and they will claim that the SIC Report does say there are Operational Ties. When asked where, they claim that the Quote from the SIC Report that says “No” actually says “Yes”. Like I said, they are dense.

And when shown Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions; where it says that if “Any” of the criteria in Article 4 is met, then the detainee is covered. They continually raise the part about Uniforms and Insignia, which is only “one” of the criteria in Section 4; failing to realize that “Any” does not mean “All”.

And let’s not forget any mention of torture; the ‘Panty on Head’ post start; and this is the same bunch that doesn’t want the Abu Ghraib pictures and video’s released. If it’s only “Panties on the Head”, or Sophomore Pranks; where is the danger to the troops from that.


I got banned because I un-intentionally bypassed the “Cuss Word Filter” in telling them to get a calendar to check the dates in 96 when the FBI started its criminal investigation of bin Laden vs. the time he left the Sudan in the early part of the year.

Sites like hannity.com and lucianne.com are not debate or political discussion boards - they are Bushbot camps spouting party-line rhetoric. Any deviation from that will get you bounced.

Stay here at AD and stay away from sites like those because friends don't let friends argue with retards.

I completely agree. Sites like Free Republic and Hannity.com are one sided echo chambers. However the right doesn't have a monopoly on this trend. Try posting anything but what is outlined in the little red book over at Democratic Underground or Daily Kos, and you will find yourself bounced just as quickly.
Retards come in all flavors.........

From what you all are saying, it seems like they did a credible job with the Hannity forums of capturing the spirit of the radio program.

Why can there not be a radio show which captures the spirit of AmericasDebate?

I agree that there are plenty of rabid and intolerant left-wing sites, but I'd like to make two observations. First Daily Kos is not overly intolerant. I have occasionally posted reasoned arguments that undermine some aspect of the group belief, and have been treated civillly. I have seen a few right-wing trolls try to provoke the group there, and they succeed quite effortlessly. So I'd say that, so long as you make your case with civility and some source backup, you'll be argued with but not verbally assaulted as is the case with some of the right-wing boards I have seen. Again, I'm sure that there are less tolerant left-wing sites -- I suspect that Democratic Underground is that way but I have not spent enough time there to form an opinion.

The second point is an observation somebody made on Daily Kos some months ago. They produced a list of the top ten or twenty right wing blogs and the top ten or twenty left-wing blogs, and pointed out that most of those right wing blogs do not permit open discussion, while most of the left-wing blogs do permit discussion. An interesting distinction, it is.