Hannity: Top 10 items for victory

**Brother of Yeshua** · #1 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 01:48 PM

Here's his list HERE

My response

1. National Security is definitely important. Let's keep this in mind as we go through this list.
a. Whatever that means.......supposedly it's freedom for Iraq, but I have my doubts.
b. Because obviously by abusing both detainees and citizens we can bring freedom more effectively to the masses.
c. Once again, the Republican mouthpieces like to equate policy issues with issues of "demeaning" people. Meanwhile, they're the ones supporting torture and erosion of Constitutional liberties.
d. Agreed. Nothing here.

2. I agree we should never appease, however Sean, you and the GOP seem to be confusing "diplomacy" and "having dialogue, even in disagreements" as being a bunch of pussies. A world where might makes right no matter what is never moral or just. Discussion and open lines of communication are CRITICAL to ever peacefully coexisting on an individual, local, national, or global level.
a. They throw this word "negotiate" around. Why can't we call it diplomatic relations? Having a conversation with someone you can't stand can be the best way to bridge some of the divide. I'm not saying bend over and take it in the ass, but let's at least try to talk reasonably with these people. (I know the next argument is something like "Terrorists can't reason! They are inhuman!") What are these "pre-conditions" you speak of Sean? That's some buzzword you've got there.

3. Yup Amen. You can start by revamping the Fed, eliminating the IRS, and redoing the whole tax code.
a. Preach it.
b. Word.
c. Hallelujah!

4. Once again, Agreed.
a. How about immediate contracts for people to make cars that don't need gasoline?
b. See above
c. I'm ok with this to some extent. I'd have to learn more about it before having a solid opinion on it.
d. I also have mixed feelings about this (Which is probably a Sin in Western PA).
e. Agreed. This is something that we must all accept and promote individually. We don't need people living in grass huts (unless they really want to) but if everyone made an effort to reduce their waste, it would add up quickly.

5. Agreed. You can start by bringing all our troops home so we have someone here to defend us. We wouldn't want another 9/11 because our only defenses were scheduled on a drill and got confused because of bungled communication and a bureaucratic nightmare.
a. Like the one planned now.....with MILES of gaps between each section. Didn't this thing cost like, a few billion dollars and it can't even cover 50% of the border?
b. Nope. Technology must be used by the government with severe caution and the people's expressed approval.
c. Just what we need. More CIA spooks and FBI watchdogs. No thanks. How about we get rid of that and stop running a secret war machine out of washington?

6. I agree with this for now. However, if a time came where our society was READY to handle the concept of national healthcare (which we aren't) I'd be all for it.
a. This seems like a good idea. I'd have to have more details of the policy.

7a. What's the plan for that exactly friend?
b. Agreed.
c. Sounds great. What's the plan chief?
d. Meh I have mixed feelings on these. I feel like I don't know enough about vouchers either.

8a. Great. Again, How?
b. I already have that. It's called a 401k It's not the government's job to save people who don't plan ahead. Anyone can start saving for retirement, and there are multiple ways to do it. People are also struggling financially, but this is part of the cause of that struggle. At some point we have to break our addictions to government and corporate handouts and bailouts. It's up to the private sector to care for the elderly who may not have means to support themselves. This would invigorate social service industries, create jobs, and give back to communities. We don't need social security at all. We need more money in circulation and more ways to invest privately NOT RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.

9a. That's a fine line. Isn't interpreting the Constitution in itself legislating in a way? There are so many situations that could happen in the world, that there isn't a specific law for all of them.

The whole job of a judge is to, well, judge. We need judges who recognize what the Constitution TRULY means, what FREEDOM truly means, and is able to make rational decisions in the best interest of both individuals and the greater community.

This last part I have to copy and paste and respond to chunk by chunk.

10) American Dream:
The Candidate accepts as their duty and responsibility to educate, inform, and remind people that with the blessings of Freedom comes a Great responsibility. That Government's primary goal is to preserve, protect and defend our God given gift of freedom.

You can do this, according to Sean Hannity above, by blindly supporting any government law or sanction that has anything to do with fighting Terrorism. This includes, but is not limited to, The PATRIOT Act, Military Commission Act of 2006, NSA Warrantless Wiretapping, Telecom immunity, etc etc you see my point I hope.

That Government's do not have the ability to solve all of our problems, and to take away all of our fears and concerns. We need their pledge that we will be the candidate that promotes Individual liberty, Capitalism, a strong national defense and will support policies that encourage such...

They do, however have the power to try and scare the shit out of everyone and create their own brand of fear. As for supporting the rest of that....It kind of makes me want to vomit in my mouth a little bit.

It is our fundamental belief that limited Government, and Greater individual responsibility will insure the continued prosperity and success for future generations.

Man he sure talks a good game....man....if only someone actually stood for this and was pumped up as the Republican Nominee.

We the people who believe in the words of Ronald Reagan, that we are "the best last hope for man on this earth," "a shining city on a hill," and that our best days are before us if our Government will simply trust the American people.

Apparently, trust involves spying, no rights to a trial, not needing to testify under oath to the public while we all are required, bullying other nations on our behalf, and generally infringing onto our lives more and more and slowly creating a oligarchical socialist nightmare

Your responses to Sean's article or to my responses are all welcome. I just thought this was a good way to talk about some real issues.

Too bad Sean has just as much feel good rhetoric as Obama, with about as much substantial content as Obama as well.

JumpInTheFire · 05-21-2008, 04:18 PM

Great replies overall, I'll do the same.

btw, I can't stand that Hannity is always squinting...its so annoying..but obviously it makes him look more "patriotic" and the "leader" type i suppose

1. I'm a strong national security kinda guy. Let's secure our borders and stop sending troops elsewhere around the world

A. "Victory" eh? What does that mean exactly? Even if that did mean "freedom" or "democracy" whos to say that they even want democracy? We need to stop westernizing the entire world

B. wow... support the patriot act? Sorry, I don't support things that are unconstitutional, nor do I support little rooms in an AT&T building that gather everything internet-wise for our government to spy on. Keeping gitmo open eh? What do we need it for again... oh yes, to torture?

C. Saying that the "surge has failed" is no way a crack at our troops. You can "support" the troops by wanting them to stay alive...which would/could mean to pull out from War. The last time I checked theres nothing wrong with saying your government is doing the wrong thing...thats basically the only thing we CAN do for our troops... vietnam anyone?

D. I have no problems with that. Dignity for all. I'm all for it.

2. Now..it depends on what you mean by appeasement. If you consider having a non-interventionist foreign policy a way of "appeasing" dictator countries..then i guess i'm from another planet.

A. Depends what "pre-conditions" are. And who says we have to talk to them in the first place? As long as they aren't threatening to directly attack us, then why do we have to interfere?

3. Tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. I'm all for it.

A. Also strongly agree.

B. Ehh... i have to disagree here. That's giving the perception that somehow all and any earmarks are "bad" or "unconstitutional"

C. yes, please balance away

4. Nothing wrong with energy independence

A. I'm not up to date with my "drilling info" so i have no comment

B. new refineries, fine

C. As long as theres no obvious incredible risks to ourselves and environment, go ahead

D. Not sure how coal is becoming energy dependent... coal sources are dwindling away as well

E. again, depends on what "realistic" means. I'm against obvious things such as dumping hazardous materials into the sea, rivers, etc

5. I'm for securing our borders

A. fences? Don't really think that will do much good besides shelling out more money. Having actual border patrolmen patrolling the U.S. instead of Iraq would be much more sufficient...

B. I'm all for helping border agents EXCEPT in the cases of trying to set up national ID card, government databases that are belittling to citizens rights and freedoms

C. train and hire away

6. thank goodness... no nationalization of health care, free-market is the way to go

A. newer insurance plans and set-away accounts are good

7.

A. If by save you mean get rid of the department of education, go right ahead

B. yes, get rid of the mediocre things we call our current school systems

C. choice is good, parents deciding is good

D. Not entirely read-up on the voucher program, so no comment

8.

A. hmm.. not sure how you can save social security. I think we should get out of it. Help those who are dependent on it and get the younger ones out.

B. I'm all for private funds

9. If by interperate the constitution, you mean follow it according to our founding fathers, then yes...

10. You have lost me Hannity... you talk about personal freedoms and limited government? lol... wow. How do you call a government which spies on its own people and whose president wants to give immunity to telecom companies...small and limited?

This entire last passage is pretty much in contradiction with the previous 9 points