We can always count on FOX “News” to give us informed sources with objective points of view. That’s why FOX “News” is the big fish in a 2 gallon aquarium.

Voight argued that our freedom depends–in part–on our massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, saying it’s a fact understood clearly by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, but obviously not by the new guy–whom Voight says is capable of “destroying our country.”

Sounds good to me
what’s the prob?

Anybody else remember when his daughter TOTALLY made-out with her brother… that was AWESOME. Of course that was back when she was married to Billy Bob and wore his blood around her neck… HOT!

He wanted Fabio but he was already booked on Cavuto. Thanks for the insight Hannity.

Voight was more “genuine” than this here headline!

“To Provide Perspective On START, Hannity Turns To Jon Voight. Wait, What?”

Hannity had nuthin’ to do with it!

Atticus Draco said:
Voight argued that our freedom depends–in part–on our massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, saying it’s a fact understood clearly by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, but obviously not by the new guy–whom Voight says is capable of “destroying our country.”

Sounds good to me
what’s the prob?

Let’s see, President Kennedy was elected 50 years ago. Raygun left office 22 years ago. The Soviet Union began collapsing 25 years ago, and the Berlin Wall came down 21 years ago. That seems to suggest that the operative facts may have changed a bit. Perhaps, the fallacy of the nuclear deterrent is even lamer now than it once was. Perhaps, we need to adjust our policies to current realities. Or, we could listen to mean old senile farts like Gramps McCain or mean old misinformed farts like the Midnight Cowboy. There is no reason to believe we’ll be any safer, but at least we’ll be expending billions of dollars in the process.

The nuclear threat these days, to the extent there is one, is with rogue, deteriorating nations for whom deterrence means nothing. Maybe, if FOX “News” had a guest who could articulate that, FOX “News” viewers would be less misinformed.

CosmosDan said:
He wanted Fabio but he was already booked on Cavuto. Thanks for the insight Hannity.

A big win for Craputo.

CosmosDan said:
He wanted Fabio but he was already booked on Cavuto. Thanks for the insight Hannity.

Coming from someone who takes his politics from Stewert, Moore, and Maher.

The Real Royal King said:
Let’s see, President Kennedy was elected 50 years ago. Raygun left office 22 years ago. The Soviet Union began collapsing 25 years ago, and the Berlin Wall came down 21 years ago. That seems to suggest that the operative facts may have changed a bit. Perhaps, the fallacy of the nuclear deterrent is even lamer now than it once was. Perhaps, we need to adjust our policies to current realities. Or, we could listen to mean old senile farts like Gramps McCain or mean old misinformed farts like the Midnight Cowboy. There is no reason to believe we’ll be any safer, but at least we’ll be expending billions of dollars in the process.

The nuclear threat these days, to the extent there is one, is with rogue, deteriorating nations for whom deterrence means nothing. Maybe, if FOX “News” had a guest who could articulate that, FOX “News” viewers would be less misinformed.

LMAO,, how does any of your babbel discredit what Voight SAID ?!?!?!?
IN FACT IT EMPOWERS HIS WORDS!!! LOL

Mark Steyn did a great job, why can’t CNN come up with someone like that.

Atticus Draco said:
LMAO,, how does any of your babbel discredit what Voight SAID ?!?!?!?
IN FACT IT EMPOWERS HIS WORDS!!! LOL

My point was we might be better protected by 2010 systems than 1968 systems. The treaty moves us in a more sensible direction.

Moderate said:
Mark Steyn did a great job, why can’t CNN come up with someone like that.

The CNN studios are not as convenient a walk to Hooter’s.

He wanted to get psycho lame duck Grayson, or some other excrement from the KOS and Daily Beast but they were busy cleaning the men’s room.
I wonder where these types of comments are when qweefy or tingles has their merry head nodders as guests for, let’s see ….just about every topic?

Penguin60 said:
He wanted to get psycho lame duck Grayson, or some other excrement from the KOS and Daily Beast but they were busy cleaning the men’s room.I wonder where these types of comments are when qweefy or tingles has their merry head nodders as guests for, let’s see ….just about every topic?

OK… I’ll give you that one. Vought does have a Howard Finnman (HuffPo) quality in the gravitas area.

The Real Royal King said:
Atticus Draco said:
LMAO,, how does any of your babbel discredit what Voight SAID ?!?!?!?
IN FACT IT EMPOWERS HIS WORDS!!! LOL

The Real Royal King said:
My point was we might be better protected by 2010 systems than 1968 systems. The treaty moves us in a more sensible direction.

Voight DID NOT SAY THAT,, AND YOU KNOW DAMN WELL HE DIDNT!!

Atticus Draco said:
The Real Royal King said:
Atticus Draco said:
LMAO,, how does any of your babbel discredit what Voight SAID ?!?!?!?
IN FACT IT EMPOWERS HIS WORDS!!! LOL

The Real Royal King said:
My point was we might be better protected by 2010 systems than 1968 systems. The treaty moves us in a more sensible direction.

Voight DID NOT SAY THAT,, AND YOU KNOW DAMN WELL HE DIDNT!!

You know essential Voight said OBAMA is MORE DANGEROUS to our country THAN A WHOLE WORLD FULL OF NUKES!!!
LMAO,,, i paraphrase,, but essentially,, THAT’S WHAT HE SAID!
LOL

gar said:
Coming from someone who takes his politics from Stewert, Moore, and Maher.

I take Stewart , Moore and Maher for what they are and I take Hannity the same way. If you can show me that Jon Voight has any kind of expertise and background that makes his opinion at all relevant on this subject please present it and I’ll acknowledge it. Hannity is an opinion for hire and gets paid well for it. Good for him, but that’s not a reason to take him or Voight seriously on this issue.

Atticus Draco said:
Hannity had nuthin’ to do with it!

So he doesn’t control who his guests are and the topic of discussion?

Wow Mark, where is your surprise shock, etc., when folks like Megan McCain, Mikey Moore, Cher, et al speak out? What a joke of a headline, not surprising for mediaite, after all Voigt is a known rarity in Hollywood (an actual conservative who actually pays attention to issues).

Give it a rest and shame on you for this headline.

Perhaps you can make up for it next time you report on Megan McCain – maybe “The boob speaks” or something like that, or when Cher speaks again you can headline it with: Wait, what? Cher? Whodat, whocares?

Why not? Libs turn to such luminaries as Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen and Michael Moore. for expertise.

CosmosDan said:
Atticus Draco said:
Hannity had nuthin’ to do with it!

CosmosDan said:
So he doesn’t control who his guests are and the topic of discussion?

Hannity had a GUEST HOST last night
Hannity is on vacation

“fill-in host Mark Steyn”

The Real Royal King said:
The nuclear threat these days, to the extent there is one, is with rogue, deteriorating nations for whom deterrence means nothing. Maybe, if FOX “News” had a guest who could articulate that, FOX “News” viewers would be less misinformed.

They did. Perhaps you should watch the whole show, and not just one little snippet.

Judge Mental said:
They did. Perhaps you should watch the whole show, and not just one little snippet.

Who?

notsofast said:
Why not? Libs turn to such luminaries as Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen and Michael Moore. for expertise.

BOOM!!!

Hannity is dumb! he turns to anyone who will tell him a Democrat is evil.

The Real Royal King said:
Who?

Sorry, but I don’t remember who said what. The treaty was a major topic of the show. The other guests included Dick Morris, and the panel included Andrea Tarantos, Judy Miller, and Michael Meyers. It may have even been Steyn who made that point.

Why not? He’s no different than Limbaugh or the rest of the blowhard know-nothings. He just doesn’t have a radio show yet.

What’s with the moustache anyway. Acting in a 30′s movie.

gar said:
Coming from someone who takes his politics from Stewert, Moore, and Maher.

Better than Bill ~ Beck and Hannity. ugh

Atticus Draco said:
Voight argued that our freedom depends–in part–on our massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, saying it’s a fact understood clearly by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, but obviously not by the new guy–whom Voight says is capable of “destroying our country.”

Sounds good to me
what’s the prob?

Well perhaps the fact that without the treaty, the US has no access to examining the Russian stockpile, or any build up they may have….not to mention the possibility that some of those “loose nukes” could end up in the hands of people who really wish the US harm. Being able to have access to Russian arms is paramount to any “stick it to Obama” feeling you righties have.

notsofast said:
Why not? Libs turn to such luminaries as Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen and Michael Moore. for expertise.

Don’t forget Janaene “limbic brain” Garafolo.

nighean donn said:
….not to mention the possibility that some of those “loose nukes” could end up in the hands of people who really wish the US harm.

If Russia can’t manage control over their nukes, what makes you think that we’re going to be able to do it for them? A treaty? Unless it puts American troops at Russian nuclear sites, it ain’t gonna happen. Is that in there?

This is classic statement: “And what would follow would be much more severe than what we’re currently going through with 9.6 unemployment.” This is the problem I have always had with the Hannity show. He invites these has been actors like Jon Voight as guest like they bring some value to the subject. What I would like to know is who died and made Jon Voight an expert. This is not the first time Hannity has done this. He appears to use their name to get viewership. As it relates to the subject in my opinion not approving Start will do serious damage to Russian/American relations. This will setup a perception with other countries we can not be trusted and I can’t say I would blame them.

Truth said:
What I would like to know is who died and made Jon Voight an expert.

You know I think the same when I see the anyone from Hollywood spewing off. I guess you feel the same way when Garafalo, Penn, Maher, Stewart……et al start their rants.

Truth said:
He appears to use their name to get viewership.

Yes, people all over the country think “OMG! Jon Voight is on Hannity!?! I totally have to watch that! I better set my alarm to remind me. I sure don’t want to miss that. ” Ratings. Bonanza.

Penguin60 said:
You know I think the same when I see the anyone from Hollywood spewing off. I guess you feel the same way when Garafalo, Penn, Maher, Stewart……et al start their rants.

They are what they are entertainers with political opinions. Are you saying Hannity is no more than that. I thought of him as more of conservative attack dog, therefore bringing in more credible guest to support his case which by the way he does not. Maybe it’s a low budget program.

Pablo said:
Yes, people all over the country think “OMG! Jon Voight is on Hannity!?! I totally have to watch that! I better set my alarm to remind me. I sure don’t want to miss that. ” Ratings. Bonanza

Good one! Why have him on then? Its a face many people know. May not know S**T from shineola, but has been in the public eye. Unfortunately to the blind he must be right.

CosmosDan said:
He wanted Fabio but he was already booked on Cavuto. Thanks for the insight Hannity.

Where was Voight wrong?

The Real Royal King said:
Who?

YOU, numbnuts.

Truth said:
Are you saying Hannity is no more than that.

Yep, he’s an entertainer, as is Beck, olberman, Maddow. Pandering to their base. It’s funny how the left get all riled up about them, getting their their ass kicked every night at LSDNBC(ratings wise). Just look at how many times Fox is mentioned by LSDNBC. But what does it matter? It matters about the dollars. I would think that everyone of the above have some fact and a lot of spin, no matter what the topic. Getting all your facts from them is a serious mistake.

Truth said:
They are what they are entertainers with political opinions. Are you saying Hannity is no more than that. I thought of him as more of conservative attack dog, therefore bringing in more credible guest to support his case which by the way he does not. Maybe it’s a low budget program.

When that clue train rolls through your end of town, jump aboard and grab with both hands asswipe.

Truth said:
Good one! Why have him on then? Its a face many people know. May not know S**T from shineola, but has been in the public eye. Unfortunately to the blind he must be right.

I dunno….why have folks like MadCow and BathTub had on libs of dubious intellect like Barfalo and Joyless Babar?

I guess when we see an actual column out of the hacks here one of you lefty assclowns might get to opine.

Right about the time flying primates spring from my rectum…………..

The Real Royal King said:
We can always count on FOX “News” to give us informed sources with objective points of view. That’s why FOX “News” is the big fish in a 2 gallon aquarium.

How rediculous to get news opinions from an actor when we should be getting them from a comic like the Racist King does.

The Real Royal King said:
My point was we might be better protected by 2010 systems than 1968 systems. The treaty moves us in a more sensible direction.

In what way? Explain exactly how it does that.

VoiceofReason said:
I dunno….why have folks like MadCow and BathTub had on libs of dubious intellect like Barfalo and Joyless Babar?
I guess when we see an actual column out of the hacks here one of you lefty assclowns might get to opine.
Right about the time flying primates spring from my rectum…………..

If you want to make a compiling argument why don’t you learn to write in english?

The Real Royal King said:
The CNN studios are not as convenient a walk to Hooter’s.

The Racist King is even wrong about stupid stuff like this. The CNN studios in Manhattan are closer to Hooters than the Fox Studios. Try getting a brain, Racist.

Penguin60 said:
Yep, he’s an entertainer, as is Beck, olberman, Maddow. Pandering to their base. It’s funny how the left get all riled up about them, getting their their ass kicked every night at LSDNBC(ratings wise). Just look at how many times Fox is mentioned by LSDNBC. But what does it matter? It matters about the dollars. I would think that everyone of the above have some fact and a lot of spin, no matter what the topic. Getting all your facts from them is a serious mistake.

Agreed

RichS said:
The CNN studios in Manhattan are closer to Hooters than the Fox Studios.

And Hooters is headquartered in the same city as CNN.

What’s next? Calling in Stephen Colbert to speak on immigration? Oh, wait……

VoiceofReason said:
Where was Voight wrong?

What background or expertise does Voight have that warrants me giving his opinion any weight , or even bothering to listen to him?

If the point is to inform and educate then let’s have people who have some kind of credentials to make their opinion a very educated one filled with facts to support them.

There’s nothing wrong with an exchange of opinions and ideas, but that doesn’t make it relevant or informative.

Atticus Draco said:
saying it’s a fact understood clearly by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, but obviously not by the new guy–whom Voight says is capable of “destroying our country.”

Well, the problem with his statement is that he is clearly ignoring the fact that Reagan was a vocal proponent to nuclear non-proliferation. In fact, the original START treaty was one of Reagan’s greatest achievements. This is, essentially, an extension of Reagan’s original START treaty with a great deal of modernization included.

The original START expired last year. Since then, we have been unable to monitor the nuclear stockpile of the states of the former USSR, a nuclear stockpile certain ne’er-do-wells would like to get their hands on. If Voight’s so concerned about national security, he would understand this development as being severely deleterious to our safety and international leadership.

VoiceofReason said:
Where was Voight wrong?

He mis-characterized both Kennedy and Reagan. Both Kennedy and Reagan fought against nuclear proliferation. Kennedy famously proposed a nuclear disarmament plan while addressing the UN in 1961 and Reagan proposed the START 1 treaty, which served us well until it expired next year.

Why complain about having Jon Voight on Hannity to give his thoughts on anything? It is not like Hannity is a news show, it is a talk/opinion show, just like Olberman, O’Reilly, Matthews, Maddow. These are shows where the host clearly has an agenda and brings in guests to support their views (and occasionally brings in a guest with differing views to add a little excitement or attempt to make their shows appear objective). But, these are not news shows. They don’t independently discover and verify new facts, they interpret and spin existing news. Anyone who thinks they are receiving straight news from real journalists in these shows are likely folks who simply desire their own opinions to be reinforced.

Mr. Mark Joyella says, Hannity turns to Voightt on the START program, implying that Mr.Voight doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to address this heavy issue? Implying that Mr.Voit, like the rest of us, has neither the insight nor the necessary cogent reasoning to put forth an opinion. President Reagen’s START program relied heavily on “trust but, verify”. Verifying being the operative word in the phrase. Verifying, being exactly what the Russians want removed. This is not a good treaty. This is another capitulation of power by Obimbo in his never ending push to remake America into his fathers socialist dream.

CAconservative said:
This is another capitulation of power by Obimbo in his never ending push to remake America into his fathers socialist dream.

Which is funny, considering that nearly every economic policy he’s enacted has benefited corporations and the rich. Socialist, indeed.

I find it hilarious that Voight’s rant is so wrongheaded that even his defenders here can only try and change the subject. Never mind that Reagan proposed the first START, and it was signed by President Bush (who also supports the new SALT, last I checked he was a WWII vet Jon). Never mind that it’s also supported by (roll call) Robert Gates, Admiral Mullen, Colin Powell (another combat vet Jon), James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Henry Kissinger, among many others. Not to mention that it already has the Republican votes in the Senate to pass.

To the reporter Mark Joyella…….at least get your facts straight. Jon Voigt DID NOT PLAY JACK BAUER’S FATHER ! ! ! He played a man named Jonas Hodges in Season 7. This man was the head of a company named Starkwood. They were a private firm setting up their own group of highly trained military operatives. They attempted to create a disaster so they could step in and save the day and secure lucrative government contracts.

So, John Voight on Fox isn’t as good as that has been dancer Ron Reagan on MSNBC.

Could someone possibly give Jon Voight a history lesson?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921207,00.html
After that, maybe an acting lesson, he has been giving the same performance since Mission Impossible.

notsofast said:
Why not? Libs turn to such luminaries as Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen and Michael Moore. for expertise.

Sorry, when were they on discussing the START treaty?

Stephen Hogan:

What economic policies did Obimbo enact that benefited the rich? If your talking about bailouts, most of that money has been paid back with interest. And the jury is still out on whether or not it was needed in the first place. Obimbo’s need to “distribute” other people’s wealth to the bottom feeders is text-book socialism.