Replies

This is a poor argument that keeps being brought up here on FreeRepublic in this and other contexts, and I do not understand why it is accepted so uncritically. Hannity is fighting back and you tell him he shouldn’t. You suggest he is doing more harm than good by attracting attention to the man, but I think that you are attacking Hannity instead of Acosta. Why cannot this argument be applied to anyone who ever fights anything? “Be nice!” Don’t stoop to their level. “Just ignore it and it will go away....”

Hannity is fighting back and he does not need your permission or approval to do so. He does not need to fight in ways that you approve of, and you are doing more harm than good by criticizing someone who is trying to carry the fight to the enemy.

Perhaps you could write up some rules of engagement for Hannity and others so that they only fight in ways that make you feel comfortable. We could debate your ROE and read them into the minutes.

I know you are a good FReeper and a true patriot one of the best, there is no doubt about it nevergiveup, but I think that rather than take this line, perhaps you could suggest a line of attack that might be more effective.

If this line of criticism is correct then it should apply to President Trump as well. Trump is calling attention to CNN by calling them fake news. He should shut up and be nice, you think?

Perhaps we should recognize that the President and Hannity have identified the enemy target of the day. FIX BAYONETS!

My FRiend, I agree with you, and one of the greatest things about Trump is that he DOES fight back. I was only suggesting that he fight back by calling Acosta something like ‘the Fake Newscaster’, instead of calling him by name. With Acosta's ego, nothing would PO him more than to become anonymous.

Actually, to your point about Trumps characterization of the biased media as Fake News, I think it's time to start characterizing leftwing lunatic academics as ‘Fake Intellectuals’.