I'm sorry he feels that way. I like him a lot. He's a good Republican, a good spokesman for our side, an angry bulldog who's constantly in attack (a liberal) mode . . .
I don't always agree with him. But I don't always agree with anybody.
I think he's just ticked off because of the constant attacks on him here. It's too bad, really.
I suppose Sean is a little thin-skinned if the Ruth's Chris comments get to him.
I've always said, it's easier to ignore the Hashers (Hannity Bashers)...they show up like clockwork on his threads. And of course, they're entitled to their opinions....
I find the over the top reaction, by some, to be amusing. If you rely on someone like Hannity, Savage, Rush, O'Reilly to form your opinions, it does not say much about your ability to form your own opinions. Yes, I am a conservative, and all four of the listed, plus others, make valid points during their presentations, they all, also, make inane comments. No one is always right or always wrong, even those on the left (though they are wrong far more often than they are right), most have agendas and opinions that are self-serving to some degree.
Do Freepers sometimes attack their own ? If we say no, we are lying. Just like any community, we aren't perfect. So does it really matter that Hannity said something negative about Freepers ? He's not God, nor are we. If we (conservatives) start fighting amongst ourselves, we fall prey to the divide and conquer strategy, and we are doing it to ourselves. The more noise and publicity we give to his comment, the larger the impact. We need to keep a big umbrella approach, allowing some disagreement, as long as the foundation of conservativism and capitalism are advanced. Keep your eye on the big picture, not little skirmishes that are only a distraction.
On a personal note, I find Hannity to be redundant, he has a bad tendency to grab onto one message and repeat it over and over until it becomes tedious and monotonous, and, in the process, he misses even more valid points to support his positions.