I don't agree that "he wouldn't be able to be such an idiot without the people he's insulting", since our freedom of speech has never been decisively militarily defended. And they never really let him say anything. They should have been waaaay more professional.

Though I don't like Hannity, I do realize he and Colmes make a good team in situations like this. Colmes is the logical one that methodically break apart peoples arguments and Hannity is the one that gives them a good old fashioned ***** slapping, which is just what some people need. btw, these two really aren't journalists. They are more like analyists.

......that was news? THAT is what is insulting.

oh, and the guy was a douchebag and totally deserved it, however, it should have been on Jerry Springer or something. FOX is entertaining, but not informative.

...Hmm. This guy on Jerry Springer? That's an interesting thought! Crook vs. the army people he insults.

The show isn' supposed to be informative. It's a debate set up between Holmes and Hannity.

Dude, if the United States of America Army had not fought in the civil war, WWI, WWII, and who knows how many other wars, we never would have had our rights... and I'am an American, but I live in Mexico, so I do care.
And in the bottom line, he was just saying that Soldiers were getting over payed, and he wasn't. A COMPLETE FAILURE!

To get things straight, my dad was in Vietnam, and he had an accident where this ramp fell on his back, soo, he got a purple heart, and he gets nothing from the U.S. government because they outruled his situation as it was an accident...

The War of 1812 is the only war where we've actually been attacked and ran a risk of losing rights. The Civil War might be argued, but how much would things have changed had the South won? WWI and II took place across the Atlantic and would certainly have changed the world, but I honestly don't think they would have drastically changed evryday life in the US.

However, the people who do join the armed forces do sign up to protect the United States and our rights as citizens, even if they don't end up doing so while they are in the military. They are ready to give their live should it be necessary, though.

For the last time people, Hannity and Colmes isn't a typical NEWS show.

As others have said in this thread, that is pretty much the format of the show. They have an issue, debate it from a conservative side and liberal side. Usually they always disagree. It's entertaining to watch though, because it shows how both sides think.

It shows though how people who insult FOX News have no clue the premises behind some of the shows. FOXNews is not like CNN Headline news which is news 24/7. FOX has slots for that, but it also has shows where opinion is supposed to be involved like Hannity and Colmes and Bill O'Reilly.

The whole point of the show is the debates between conservative and liberal idealism's over current issues. This is not a journalistic piece - so stop using it as slander against FOX News when they have never boasted that the segment was supposed to be a news informative piece.

FOX has faults yes, as does every news channel. But it seems like half the people that do the FOX jokes are those who haven't even watched the shows to understand it

I used to only watch FOXNews but then switched to CNN, and unfortunately, CNN HLN also has retarded debate segments like FOX, although most of it is on CNN. Even Greta on FOX is annoying, although I admit, I like Hannity and Colmes a hell of a lot more than Bill O'Reilly.

I understand the premise, but if it's on a news channel, it should be more informative and less like a roast/scream fest which is what most of the talking heads on any news network do.

It used to be that way, back in the good old days, before there were a million cable new channels and they all had to do something to get people to watch.

WWI... no. Anerica was not threatened in the least.
The civil war.. what the ****? Americans won, Americans lost. South, north, who gives a ****?
WWII.. I might give you that one. The mainland was never threatened though, so who knows. My point is, America has never had to repel an invasion. America's liberties have never come even close to being threatened, except through internal politics.

All the other wars were just Americans bullying some poor country and it could in no way whatsoever be legitimately claimed that it was in defense of our freedoms. (Vietnam, Iraq, etc. etc.etc. etc. etc.)

Again, War of 1812. Only time. So stop spouting this never stuff.

Oh, come on. It's not like Canada would have enslaved the entire American population and put them in concentration camps or something. They would have assimilated them sooner or later. America ****ing ran Japan for many years after WW2. Did we **** on their liberties? No.. just the opposite. They actually liked it better...

You do realize the War of 1812 was a British attack on the US in an attempt to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, right?

whatever. replace Canada with England or whatever. It doesn't change my point.

"Whatever" is hardly a way to describe the War of 1812. Canada's involvment was contributing militia to the British cause.

It does about the other wars you mentioned, but hte War of 1812 was a huge deal for a fledging nation.

Right after the point when Crook was asked if he realized that he is "allowed" to say these stupid things because people fight for his freedoms, Crook could have gained the upper hand. But he didn't. He just blabbered on about the pay structure like an idiot. He should have said "and who is threatening my freedom of speech? Insurgents in Iraq? No. kthxbai." etc...

No, they're threatening our nation with attacks which force the government's hand to limit our Freedoms in order to protect us. Sound familiar?

If Europe had lost WWII but the US managed to pull out and hadn't been invaded, what would the future have held? A Europe and Russia controlled by Hilter would NOT be a nice thing. It's no doubt he would have eventually made his move on the United States, where we WOULD face invasion and the loss of all our rights. Germany was also working on developing an atomic bomb - which they would have finished if they hadn't lost the war. It's very, very likely that we'd have our asses handed to us if we hadn't helped in World War II. That is of course, assuming we were the deciding factor in the war. Now, no offense to Britian because they did a FANTASTIC job fighting German forces, but they couldn't have won it all by themselves.

[to dj yoshi] I would agree. The government is the only entity that can take away freedom of speech. My only point is that it is absurd to claim that troops fighting in Iraq are protecting my freedoms.

[to emon] I disagree that Britain would have lost. The allies would have pulled through, but it would have been a lot hairer without U.S. help.

Meh.

[insert the obligatory 'I wasted my time on that!'-post]

Emon, a cold war between the US and Germany would have been far mroe likely than an invasion of the US by Germany. It would have been far too difficult for them to stage the invasion because it's too far across the Atlantic to feasibly do so.

That's true. However, if Germany had won the war, it's safe to say the US wouldn't have given up easily. A great deal would have been lost, leaving us potentially more open to attack. Granted Germany would have lost a lot too, I'm just saying.

And a cold war could also have escalated to a hot one. It could have easily been nuclear holocaust like what almost happened with Russia. More likely even, since Hitler was goddamn crazy.

My point is that the US soldiers in WWII fought to defend our rights. Perhaps not from an immediate and direct threat, but it would have happened if they HADN'T fought.

No doubt on that one.

Well, I would call Pearl Harbor a direct threat... I think a war where you are actually attacked is justififed... IMO WW2 was the last justifiable war America was in. What makes it even better in my eyes is that America tried to stay out of it as long as possible. Sound foreign policy IMO... god what happened to us.

Didn't hitler have a plan to invade america, or something like that? I'm only remembering bits of something from the history channel, so I honestly don't know, but I seem to remember seeing something about him planning to attack america after he was done with europe...

I don't watch Fox news, ever.

Uhhh....Korea, Desert Storm, and Afghanistan weren't justified? Our allies are invaded and we go to help them, but that isn't justified? We are attacked and we strike back at the nation that provides a base of operations and safety for that group, and that isn't justified?

Without a military, we're a sitting duck. We come under attack, what can be done? How fast do you think a nation would be attacked if they had no military? I mean... really.

Except they're not.

Iraq was not a threat to your freedom of speech.

Sure, if some country were, like Afganistan was by supporting Al Queada and refusing to give them up, then the soldiers invading would be protecting your freedom.

But as we've covered fairly comprehensively, Iraq wasn't a threat. The soliders in Iraq are not protecting your freedoms because they were never under attack in the first place.

If you oppose the war, you're going to oppose the soldiers fighting it. Yes, it makes more sense to go directly to the top, to the decision makers, and that's exactly what most anti-war campaigners do.
But it is up to the individual soldier to choose whether to pull that trigger, or press that button. Being 'under orders' simply isn't an excuse.
US soldiers are not conscripts, they are there because they want to be there. If there are soldiers that are fighting in Iraq who don't agree with the Iraq invasion, then that is unfortunate and I do feel for them, they are victims of this injustice too. But for those that do support the Iraq invasion, as I suspect most of them do, I feel nothing for them. The invasion was not 'noble' or 'heroic', and neither are the soldiers participating in it. They are not 'protecting' your freedoms by killing Iraqis. They are merely killing Iraqis. There is nothing noble or heroic about that.
Like I said, it's a much better idea for anti-war campaigners to target the politicians, but the soldiers need to put in some careful thought about what exactly they're doing as well. "I'm just doing my job" simply isn't an excuse, the Nuremberg defense is inadmissible.

America is the only country that should enjoy freedom.

So it's FOX that is responsible for the ridiculous polarisation of everything as either 'liberal' or 'conservative'?

They shouldn't be "Oh, I'll be conservative and I'll attack liberals, and look now I'm liberal and I'll attack conservatives!". That doesn't achieve anything. They need to attack fuzzy logic. Opinions are not all 'equally valid'. Many opinions are false, wrong, incorrect. They need to be shown as that. The real problem with FOX it seems is that it just doesn't value logic. Being logically valid and sound, that's a nice 'added bonus', but if something isn't, then oh no it doesn't really matter, we'll include it just for 'balance'.

Here here! News/opinion shows shouldn't be giving both sides of an argument to an audience and should just decide which is the better argument and only deliver that one.

Pre emptive strike anyone? Though granted at the moment we're just freeing Iraq and giving them freedoms. And you can whine about how the US was wrong, how Iraq was better under Saddam's control, you'd still be wrong, and we'd still be in Iraq. So I suggest you give up now.

Except arguments have a lot more than just two sides.

Why did you quote my post? Did you even understand what I said?

So you think debates aren't meant to be informative? Poor Aristotle is turning in his grave! :p

Kieran: Mort nailed it. Instead of giving you information and context, Fox gives you two opposing talking points. Then you choose one and get to pretend you're well-informed.

Yoshi: Hilarious. A draft for the Iraqi bill of rights was leaked recently. Guess what? Practically every declaration of citizen rights was followed by "except by law". No censorship, except by law. No opening mail, except by law. No coercion, except by law. Religious freedom, except when restricted by law. Equality for women, except where it "conflicts with or disturbs Islamic shari'a." No slavery, except by law. "Citizens may not own, bear, buy, or sell weapons, except by a permit issued in accordance with law." "Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency."

Basically, there are no constitutional restrictions that would prevent Iraq from turning into Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Well, yes, it's informative, but it isn't straight news. That's all we're getting at.