hotstuff

let me preface this by saying that i don't necessarily have to agree with the guy's opinions.

no, he didnt. he showed complete intellectual bankruptcy, as he always does. arguing the way he did is *not* acceptable in any debate. unfortunately, the dufus didn't have any wits about him - im still waiting for the time someone with half a brain gets to debate hannity. let's dissect his question:

'do you understand that the troops you are bashing allow you to have the freedom to say the things you do?'

that is not a valid argument. the question part is 'do you understand what i am saying' - of course he *understands*, saying otherwise would imply that he doesnt understand english. asking the question this way does, however, allow hannity to smuggle in a highly debatable statement, namely that 'american troops allow an individual in the US to have freedom of speech'. for further effect, hannity goes on to repeat that same question over and over and over. did the guy get owned? yes, but only because he's a halfwit. not that his bullshit would have been defensible, but hannity isnt the sharpest debater around ;]

american troops do not 'allow' us freedom of speech - the first amendment does. you could argue that brave men fighting the war of independence allowed (inote the past tense) us to have the state we have today, complete with the first amendment. you could also argue that US involvement in ww2 prevented some rather unpleasant people from taking over the world (the historically accurate view on this is, of course, that only US economic support was necessary, since the russians had ww2 won already - US military involvement was an action against expansion of soviet influence and not against germany). you can not reasonably argue that the wars fought under the truman doctrine (korea, vietnam) and the modern version thereof (iraq) somehow serve to enhance or reinforce our first amendment rights - this position is obviously nonsensical. does that matter to hannity? not in the least, because he can speak over anyone he invites to be on the show and joe sixpack is not educated or intelligent enough to see through or be informed about the demagogy practiced by him.

interestingly enough, there was a much more honest vector of debate available. you respect the troops because they are serving their country and putting their lives at risk, while in many cases they disagree with the course of action or have been dragged into active service with incomplete disclosure at the time of enrollment. you do not have to agree with the iraq war to respect soldiers fighting it. respect for the troops has been skillfully coupled (in the mind of the average american simpleton) to agreement with (or at least passive tolerance of) the war in iraq, because respect for soldiers is a position which is much easier to defend in the media. indeed, one could argue that the best way to support the troops is to make sure no more get killed for naught.

i just wish a few more people got in the habit of thinking about things instead of blindly parroting what they're being spoon fed.