ou guys have really been drinking the Kool-Aid!
For one thing, I am not a Neo-Con. I am not a Republican either although I tend to vote that way.
I consider myself a Libertarian with Conservative leanings.
I am for Freedom and Liberty for the individual above all. I am against Group think and collectivism and statism.
I believe in limited Government.
I believe in equal opportunity but am against forcing the equality of outcomes.
I also believe that Capitalism can go too far without regulation but regulation has to be limited and effective. (the problem with government regulation is the injection of politics. The motives of government regulation are not always pristine. there is always the question of why did they do it that way? Who benefits? Who loses?)
With all that said I watch Hannity some times and listen to him on the radio.
I watched the episode that is in the context of this posting.
It seems to me; the main contention was that Hannity was making the point that President Obama is a Socialist. All the evidence of his life experience and what he has done as President supports that belief. Whether you believe in Socialism or not, he is a Socialist.
Layla Kayleigh disagreed with his assessment although she gave no reason for her disagreement. She also said that we need to stop attacking Obama’s policies and come together as a people. Conservatives believe that his policies are antithetical to what this country was founded on and what has made us the beacon for freedom and prosperity in the world (which was another bone of contention that Layla Kayleigh didn’t seem to want to address after being asked several times.) and mainly that his policies could do irrevocable harm to the country. So there probably isn’t going to be a whole lot of support or coming together on these issues. On the issue whether Hannity called some people un-patriotic to me was irrelevant. So what if he did? Does that mean that none of the points he was raising were valid?
I’m invalidating you points because you called me a name!!
Bush was brutalized in the press. Some pretty mean spirited things were said about him. And, as for needing evidence that the enemy was more encouraged to fight because of the level of attacks against bush and his war policy? Come on! That really is a no brainer. All you have to do is put yourself in that situation. What would you do? Let me see, the public's resolve to win this war in my enemy's country is really low and they are giving their leader hell over this war so my guess is if we can just keep killing a shitload of his soldiers, they will eventually lose the will to fight and pull out. And that is probably what the thoughts of the folks protesting the war were. Not that more soldiers would be killed but that because of the level of opposition, the president would cut and run ending the war. We'll, there was no way we would have cut and run and left that country in KAOS. Even though Obama ran on doing just that, he isn’t pulling out either. So you have an energized enemy with us not leaving equals more dead soldiers. It may not be scientific but it is a pretty easy cause and effect to make.