Can you believe this guy?

This guy just makes me sick.

http://www.filecabi.net/host/file/MichaelCrook/wmv

He's an ass, but the guy who interviews him isn't much better. The second interviewer did a slightly better job, but I thought the whole thing played more like a Jerry Springer show than any kind of real debate.

After watching that I have no idea what the guy's position actually is because they never let him speak. Both commentators just lectured at him, which I'm sure is the only reason they invited him on in the first place.

Anybody got a transcript for those of us who can't watch video at work?

Or those that refuse to let windows media get within a mile of their computer?

i think the gist of the interveiw is this. The interveiwee was of course far less articulate then the interviewers, so i have to translate a bit. Oh im paraphrasing everyone a little.

Conservative Guy - theres this college age guy who celebrates American troops being killed even has a website about Forsaking the troops. We have him on the show.

(picture of a kinda nerdy looking man is on split screen)

Conservative Guy - so basically you celebrate the death of the people who fight for your right to even say what your opinion is on the websight

Interveiwee - basically yes - they are idiots.

Conservative - you do understand that those troops are thje reason your allowed to voice your opinion.

Interveiwee - well yes and no. Freedom of speech is a priviledge not a right.

Convervative: Yes and NO? you are an idiot - the only reason you have freedom of speech is becuase of those people. why would you attack them

Interveiwee - becuase they are idiots, the pay structure ...

(Conservative interupts again)

Liberal - Okay let me try to understand , you are saying the troops deserve to die, why? you are arguing about the pay structure , what does that have to do with the troops , thats a governement decision. So is whether they go to war.

Interveiwee - well yeah , BUT the troops are still idiots and deserve to get killed becuase of how things are.

Liberal - again i dont understand why you are against the troops ; it sounds like your complaints should be with the government.

Interveiwee - ...

(Conservative verbally rips the interveiwee to shreds)

(clip ends)

Looks like the actual website he had was removed - http://www.forsakethetroops.info

Purchased by a patrotic group

theres a short interveiw with him - i have no idea how valid the site is as a source but the the words attributed to him DO seem in line with what he said ont he clib , as well as the (bad) photo

http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/04/forsake-troops-interview-michael-crook.html

http://urbangrounds.com/2005/05/11/michael-crook-forsake-the-troops/

And heres a breif opinion commentary piece saying the whole thing was an attempt by the interviwee to get money for website domain names by ticking people off to get them to buy him off.

wow even weirder

Here is the EBAY information - hes taking bids saying he will leave the country for good for the right price

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5599945852

His website is -

http://michaelcrooktalks.com/

(emphasis added)

Exactly.

haha... okay. At first I thought he was a jackass, but he may actually be a genius

Gives new meaning to the Marketplace of Ideas, doesn't it?

Quoted from his website:



I think that about sums it up. He's cashing in on being hated. That's capitalism at its finest.

As for Hannity acting like a noisy attack dog, that's his M.O. He realizes that there's nothing to his rhetoric beyond empty White House talking points, so he doesn't let anybody get a word in edgewise long enough to prove him a boob.

I don't know if I should say ROFL or throw up.

The fact that everyone here chose to attack "THE EVIL CONSERVATIVE" (even though everything Sean said was justified and correct, and everything the idiot said was completely ignorant and wrong)....well, I don't know what to say...

You know, if you're unable to make a good point, and you're a complete ass in the process, why the hell shouldn't Sean rip into you?

Unable (or unwilling?) to defend your views + unwilling to admit you are wrong = you are an asshole with an agenda that deserves to be called names.

The fact that after the interview the kid DID reveal an agenda just proves my point. I don't know why anyone is annoyed by what Sean Hannity said. Don't you feel the same way??? He only interrupts you when you refuse to answer his questions. And since his questions are usually very good, many times people don't have a good answer to them. Obviously this kid had NO answers. Didn't what the stupid kid was saying (or trying to say) even phase anyone? I know he didn't get a chance to state too many of his stupid "opinions" but Sean quoted quite enough to give us the basic idea. He didn't need to speak other than to say "yes I wrote that".

I'll ignore Hannity's rhetoric this time. That evening, Hannity interviewed an even bigger dick.

Which one? The interviewers or the interviewee?

I think both are equally sickening. It's just Fox's version of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Well, Sean can rip into the guy all he wants, but that doesn't make it a logical debate. When the nerd guy says "They are idiots", a better question would be why he thought they were idiots. The irony that the military (idealistically) defends the country's self interest, (which in tern keeps his right to express himself intact) irrelevant to the truth or validity of his opinion.

A spoof of their interview might go something like this.

This guy makes me laugh:
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=FPS-doug

What makes me sick is that someone like this can get so much attention.

Actually I didnt pass judgement on any of them in my paraphrase. It is basically what happened.

Of course Hannity was correct in not agreeing with the person.

However like was said, he didnt bother to try to hear his reasons at all.

Combs also wasnt too interested in hearing the man's position, he was more interested in pointing out it was wrong to criticize the troops for governemnt policies.

Now of course the position of the interviewee is pretty much undefendable. And his veiws are really offensive.

But I dont think Hannity and Combs were really interested in an interview - I think they both were more interested in attacking him and showing THEIR support for the troops.

Now further research looked to me the man may not beleive the stuff he said entirely - Instead was deliberately offensive for his own reasons (money it looks like in this case).

Reminds me a bit of certain forum trolls.

The first sentence is why the kid didn't deserve a "real" interview. (Probably Hannity's opinion, knowing that there's nothing the kid could possibly say to reasonably defend his position anyway.) And this is why Sean didn't ask a "better" question...why bother?

Second sentence, true, what can I say...ALL media is out looking for stuff that gets people's attention and gets you to tune in. That's all this really was. (As well as an opportunity to tear into an asshole.)

Third sentence--I realize "the kid" most likely doesn't really believe what he's saying. The reason I'm still calling him a severe asshole is because even if he doesn't believe what he's saying, he's still personally profiting off of it. He's profiting off of calling our servicemen/women names, probably telling lies, probably spreading misinformation, etc. And to make things worse, now there's probably going to be copycats out there trying to get people to "buy them off" and shutdown their bullshit propaganda websites..which hopefully doesn't happen.

He's still qualified for being called a dirtball to me.

I think that's a reasonable and justified conclusion.

If Sean thinks the troops are dying to allow these kind of off-the-wall opinions, then why doesn't he let the guy state his opinion?

My personal opinion is if he let the guy speak it would be like giving him more rope with which to hang himself. Only unpopular opinion needs to be defended.

By treating the guy poorly it made Sean look bad.

I don't know what's worse. That this guy says those things to sell domains or that Fox News decided with everything else going on in the world they needed an entire segment devoted to that.

Who is more stupid, the guy selling the website or the "news" program that gave him free national publicity?

I'm happy to call them all asses in this case. Sean pisses me off sometimes when he doesn't let people talk more, I know what you mean about that. In Fox's defense, the amount of time they spent on this was what probably less than a commercial break? Shouldn't have been bothered with at all, but it strikes me as one of those "end of show" things they put there just to get people to watch the whole show, waiting for it. So I'd chalk it up to the "plz watch my show" factor that the media loves to pull these days.