Sean Hannity, "I really like and Agree with your father on many issues"

[BamaFanNKy]

when interviewing Rand.

[CharlesTX]

Sean Hannity's a liberal deficient in understanding basic economics (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=248841). :D

[anaconda]

Make no mistake: Sean said on his radio show the day after one of the Republican debates: "Ron Paul sounded like an idiot.." Rand should have read the transcript back to him.

I am surprised that forum members are not more aware of that comment and do not make continual reference to it.

[Agorism]

Rand should have told Hannity that he's a dumb ass because he is one.

[Slutter McGee]

Do you guys ever stop? Seriously. Yeah Hannity is a bit neo-conish. And by "bit" I mean a lot. Yeah he trashed Ron. Yeah, he is still full of it. No I dont always believe him.

But he is also allowing Rand to reach sixteen fucking million people...so really, fuck off and shut up for a bit. Say a prayer of thanks that Rand has an audience.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[anaconda]

Do you guys ever stop? Seriously. Yeah Hannity is a bit neo-conish. And by "bit" I mean a lot. Yeah he trashed Ron. Yeah, he is still full of it. No I dont always believe him.

But he is also allowing Rand to reach sixteen fucking million people...so really, fuck off and shut up for a bit. Say a prayer of thanks that Rand has an audience.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

How many people did Rachel Maddow reach? I don't trust Sean Hannity.

[Scofield]

Do you guys ever stop? Seriously. Yeah Hannity is a bit neo-conish. And by "bit" I mean a lot. Yeah he trashed Ron. Yeah, he is still full of it. No I dont always believe him.

But he is also allowing Rand to reach sixteen fucking million people...so really, fuck off and shut up for a bit. Say a prayer of thanks that Rand has an audience.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

No.

I'm not going to push my principles and my beliefs aside, simply because of the benefit of Rand being allowed on FOX. Sean Hannity is a neo-con shill, and he deserves to be called on his bullshit, just like everyone else.

He isn't immune from criticism. No one is.

[Stary Hickory]

How many people did Rachel Maddow reach? I don't trust Sean Hannity.

But you trust Maddow?

[Anti Federalist]

Do you guys ever stop? Seriously. Yeah Hannity is a bit neo-conish. And by "bit" I mean a lot. Yeah he trashed Ron. Yeah, he is still full of it. No I dont always believe him.

But he is also allowing Rand to reach sixteen fucking million people...so really, fuck off and shut up for a bit. Say a prayer of thanks that Rand has an audience.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Fuck off and shut up?

Fuck you.

[Brett]

When Hannity is bad: "FUCK YOU HANNITY"
When Hannity is good: "FUCK YOU LYING HANNITY"

Ever think he just says it how he thinks it and sometimes it overlaps? Just maybe?

[Corto_Maltese]

Thing that bothers me the most about the civil rights "issue" is that it pushed Rand futher in the arms of the right/neo-cons. He gets more publicity, but from the very ppl I really cant stand (hannity, levin etc.). I feels really weird for those to be the "sane" pundits right now. Think this could all have been planned by the establishment? To discredit libertarianism and to associate it with the right?

[Slutter McGee]

Fuck off and shut up?

Fuck you.

Yeah. My comment was made to a general audience, because everybody bitches when even good stuff happens. It wasn't directed at you or anybody personally. I can be a bit of an ass, but I try not to directly insult my fellow liberty lovers. Grow up if you cant handle criticism. Because I am going to speak my mind, regardless of what you think of me.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Cowlesy]

Do you guys ever stop? Seriously. Yeah Hannity is a bit neo-conish. And by "bit" I mean a lot. Yeah he trashed Ron. Yeah, he is still full of it. No I dont always believe him.

But he is also allowing Rand to reach sixteen fucking million people...so really, fuck off and shut up for a bit. Say a prayer of thanks that Rand has an audience.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

You'll never stop the whining, hyperventilating and navel-gazing on this forum, ever.

http://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/Suicide%20Pistol.jpg

[freshjiva]

I agree with Slutter. Just chill out, people!

We all know Sean Hannity is a neo-con and is of no value to the Liberty movement, but just because the man insulted Ron Paul three years ago doesn't mean his attitudes towards Ron and Liberty principles cannot change. He did invite Rand on his show after all.

Just because people disagree with us doesn't mean they should be permanently branded as a tool.

[specsaregood]

Make no mistake: Sean said on his radio show the day after one of the Republican debates: "Ron Paul sounded like an idiot.." Rand should have read the transcript back to him.

I am surprised that forum members are not more aware of that comment and do not make continual reference to it.

And what good would that do. Burning bridges is a good way of leaving yourself stranded.


How many people did Rachel Maddow reach? I don't trust Sean Hannity.
Rachel Maddow reaches an insignificant portion of voters in comparison to Hannity.

I'm no fan of his but only a fool would ignore his influence on the electorate and use it when given the opportunity.

[RonPaulwillWin]

Fuck off and shut up?

Fuck you.

But he said "for a bit" , so that makes it ok.

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah. My comment was made to a general audience, because everybody bitches when even good stuff happens. It wasn't directed at you or anybody personally. I can be a bit of an ass, but I try not to directly insult my fellow liberty lovers. Grow up if you cant handle criticism. Because I am going to speak my mind, regardless of what you think of me.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

War is the health and well being of the state.

Hannity supports the wars without equivocation.

Nothing else he does or says makes that right or changes that fact, nor keeps the dead from those wars hanging around his neck like millstones.

So no, I won't shut the fuck up or get the fuck out.

ETA - Or shoot myself in the face.

[low preference guy]

Thing that bothers me the most about the civil rights "issue" is that it pushed Rand futher in the arms of the right/neo-cons. He gets more publicity, but from the very ppl I really cant stand (hannity, levin etc.). I feels really weird for those to be the "sane" pundits right now. Think this could all have been planned by the establishment? To discredit libertarianism and to associate it with the right?

1. Rand himself says he is not a libertarian. He calls himself a "Constitutional Conservative".
2. Associating Rand with "the right" is the best thing that could happen to him. If people on the right don't vote for Rand, he will lose the election. Rand might lose his badass status with a one or two posters at RPF, but he never really ran to be the favorite among pure as driven snow libertarians.

[Cowlesy]

Here is what I think the deal with Hannity and crew is. It was "cool" to dogpile on Ron Paul in 2007, because he was saying stuff that 95% of Republicans had never heard. If everyone else is piling on the hate, so too does Hannity because he's a team player.

Then when it doesn't matter, they look back and say, "Hey, most of that stuff is good, actually I like him" -- this only happens when there isn't a goal, and everyone is sitting back and navel-gazing.

It's a new game, and the player is Rand Paul. Hannity plays on Team (R), so he's going to lace-up and support Rand Paul because Rand is a winner, and everyone else is doing it.

Shouldn't read so much into either way. Hannity isn't playing some maniacal game to build him up to knock him down. If that was the game, they'd have already got rid of him in the primary. There is no over-arching plot to lose a precious senate seat to "prove a point" against "Paulbots." Hannity and crew are onboard and want to ride in for the big win, as we all expect.

[anaconda]

But you trust Maddow?


I don't trust either of them. That's my point. Any of these establishment shills are ultimately going to try to discredit him.

[TheDriver]

Here is what I think the deal with Hannity and crew is. It was "cool" to dogpile on Ron Paul in 2007, because he was saying stuff that 95% of Republicans had never heard. If everyone else is piling on the hate, so too does Hannity because he's a team player.

Then when it doesn't matter, they look back and say, "Hey, most of that stuff is good, actually I like him" -- this only happens when there isn't a goal, and everyone is sitting back and navel-gazing.

It's a new game, and the player is Rand Paul. Hannity plays on Team (R), so he's going to lace-up and support Rand Paul because Rand is a winner, and everyone else is doing it.

Shouldn't read so much into either way. Hannity isn't playing some maniacal game to build him up to knock him down. If that was the game, they'd have already got rid of him. There is no over-arching plot to lose a precious senate seat to "prove a point" against "Paulbots." Hannity and crew are onboard and want to ride in for the big win, as we all expect.

+1776

Jack Conway wasn't on national or state-wide radio today, either.

[Matt Collins]

The rats are trying to jump aboard the ship. That's ok though, we are glad to have them instead of havinh to fight them.

[Cowlesy]

I don't trust either of them. That's my point. Any of these establishment shills are ultimately going to try to discredit him.

I don't have any trust in him simply because if a shitty (R) can win, then he's going to shill for them. I'm done with that game. I won't campaign against them unless there is a great candidate, like Bob Conley vs. Lindsay Graham.

When our views on freedom are out of vogue by the string-pullers in the GOP, you won't hear a peep about our philosophy from Sean.

[Anti Federalist]

The rats are trying to jump aboard the ship. That's ok though, we are glad to have them instead of havinh to fight them.

As a general rule, you do not want rats onboard your ship.

[Slutter McGee]

War is the health and well being of the state.

Hannity supports the wars without equivocation.

Nothing else he does or says makes that right or changes that fact, nor keeps the dead from those wars hanging around his neck like millstones.

So no, I won't shut the fuck up or get the fuck out.

ETA - Or shoot myself in the face.


I don't want you to leave. I just want you to grow up some. Maybe accept that reasonable people can disagree. It doesn't mean they are right. Just not that everyone that supports the war is the spawn of satan. They are misguided. They are wrong. Maybe they only support it for economic benefit or for political reasons. Who knows. Maybe they are genuinly concerned about security.

And it certainly doesn't mean that you stop pointing out when somebody is wrong. Unfortunately some people will never learn.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[anaconda]

Here is what I think the deal with Hannity and crew is. It was "cool" to dogpile on Ron Paul in 2007, because he was saying stuff that 95% of Republicans had never heard. If everyone else is piling on the hate, so too does Hannity because he's a team player.

Then when it doesn't matter, they look back and say, "Hey, most of that stuff is good, actually I like him" -- this only happens when there isn't a goal, and everyone is sitting back and navel-gazing.

It's a new game, and the player is Rand Paul. Hannity plays on Team (R), so he's going to lace-up and support Rand Paul because Rand is a winner, and everyone else is doing it.

Shouldn't read so much into either way. Hannity isn't playing some maniacal game to build him up to knock him down. If that was the game, they'd have already got rid of him in the primary. There is no over-arching plot to lose a precious senate seat to "prove a point" against "Paulbots." Hannity and crew are onboard and want to ride in for the big win, as we all expect.

I wish I were as confident of this as you. I can imagine grave concern among the elites that Rand Paul in the U.S. Senate could create a wave of public sentiment for policies that are 180 degrees against their agendas. An "over-arching plot" would not surprise me one bit.

[low preference guy]

As a general rule, you do not want rats onboard your ship.

Translation: As a general rule, you want to lose elections.

[tremendoustie]

Dudes, reporting that something positive was said by a neocon or socialist like hannity does not constitute a request to french kiss them, trust them, or think they're a good guy.

It's like if you've got a semi-housebroken dog and he doesn't wet the carpet for once. "Hey look, spot went outside this time!"

"Hey look, Hannity said something good for once".

Smile, nod, and hope he doesn't wet the carpet next time.

[Depressed Liberator]

There's been an alarming increase in neocons (or at least neocon sympathizers) on this board since Obama got elected, and I do not like it.

[Slutter McGee]

Translation: As a general rule, you want to lose elections.


Purity before enhancing liberty. Because enhancing liberty in small steps isnt pure enough.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Anti Federalist]

Translation: As a general rule, you want to lose elections.

If wading through rat shit and calling it jello means winning, then yeah, I'd prefer losing...

[low preference guy]

There's been an alarming increase in neocons (or at least neocon sympathizers) on this board since Obama got elected, and I do not like it.

Yeah, I agree. Depressed liberator is one of the new 2010 members that are neocons and whom I would like to not be on this board.

[Slutter McGee]

If wading through rat shit and calling it jello means winning, then yeah, I'd prefer losing...

Wading through the ratshit IS politics.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[low preference guy]

If wading through rat shit and calling it jello means winning, then yeah, I'd prefer losing...

Glad Rand understands that talking to somebody who doesn't agree with you isn't "wading through rat shit and calling it jello". Glad he is in it to win it.

[Southron]

Someone on these forums said it once and I agree. Hannity is the butler of the Republican Party.

If the Ron Paul Republicans are in charge then he does their bidding.

It seems like to me this is like a team sport to him. All that matters is that his team wins-principles be damned.

[Anti Federalist]

Wading through the ratshit IS politics.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Which explains why I detest it so much.

[Depressed Liberator]

Yeah, I agree. Depressed liberator is one of the new 2010 members that are neocons and whom I would like to not be on this board.

I actually have an account from late 2007, though I do not have the email I signed up with and do not even remember the name I registered with. I campaigned in Georgia for Paul though and even went to surrounding states to campaign for him. What did you do?

[anaconda]

And what good would that do. Burning bridges is a good way of leaving yourself stranded.


Why not hold Hannity accountable for his malicious transgressions? Make him explain to Rand and his audience why Ron's platform (which is pretty much Rand's) was "idiotic?" It was Hannity that "burned the bridges." He is the one who should be left "stranded."

But your point is well taken. Sounds like the interview went well. We'll see what kind of little malicious comments Sean may work in about Rand in the course of his shows in the near future. I just think we can get good exposure AND provide Sean with a strong incentive to not mistreat Rand at some point. Which I think may very well happen.

[tremendoustie]

It seems like to me this is like a team sport to him. All that matters is that his team wins-principles be damned.

Yes, that's very true.

[Scofield]

Translation: As a general rule, you want to lose elections.

Translation: I'd rather lose an election honestly, than win dishonestly.

[Anti Federalist]

Glad Rand understands that talking to somebody who doesn't agree with you isn't "wading through rat shit and calling it jello". Glad he is in it to win it.

Yeah, unlike his dad, right? A what, 12 term congressman.

As opposed to his son, good man that he is, who hasn't won anything yet.

I'd take Ron over Rand any day of the week.

[specsaregood]

Someone on these forums said it once and I agree. Hannity is the butler of the Republican Party.

It seems like to me this is like a team sport to him. All that matters is that his team wins-principles be damned.

And that is why Hannity is "on our side". Because he has painted himself into a corner and HAS to support Rand now. He didnt' have Rand on before the primary did he?

[Corto_Maltese]

Question really is how far do we want Rand to bend on rhetoric and association with the neo-cons in order to get elected. I can really understand if many dont care how he gets elected as long as he gets in, but I think he shouldnt push it or he will lose integrity. We had a convo about this in Schiff forum not long ago about wether Rand should endorse Schiff or not.

[low preference guy]

Why not hold Hannity accountable for his malicious transgressions? Make him explain to Rand and his audience why Ron's platform (which is pretty much Rand's) was "idiotic?"

I bet he doesn't know about the "idiotic" statement. Rand probably doesn't listen to Hannity. And that's the way it should be. His focus is winning an election, not become the crusader to straight up every wrong statement every radio personality makes.

[Anti Federalist]

Question really is how far do we want Rand to bend on rhetoric and association with the neo-cons in order to get elected. I can really understand if many dont care how he gets elected as long as he gets in, but I think he shouldnt push it or he will lose integrity. We had a convo about this in Schiff forum not long ago about wether Rand should endorse Schiff or not.

There are some that think kissing Beelzebub's ass, if it will help "win", is worth it.

[tremendoustie]

Why not hold Hannity accountable for his malicious transgressions? Make him explain to Rand and his audience why Ron's platform (which is pretty much Rand's) was "idiotic?"

It's a cost benefit analysis. Possible costs include enmity from Hannity, and giving him an excuse to drone on about things he dislikes about Paul. Benefits may include waking people up to the duplicity of republican talking heads, and helping them think independently.

There may be other costs or benfits -- you can add them if you have any ideas.

It's important not to do this kind of thing because of personal dislike for Hannity, however. Hannity's just one man ... nailing a personal opponent may be cathartic, but if it damages the cause of liberty, it's foolish.

[Cowlesy]

I stand by my position that many of you will be pleasantly surprised when Senator Paul begins to legislate.

[low preference guy]

Yeah, unlike his dad, right? A what, 12 term congressman.

As opposed to his son, good man that he is, who hasn't won anything yet.

I'd take Ron over Rand any day of the week.

Last I've heard Ron and Rand weren't running against each other in any election. Sorry if this distracts you from your useless mental masturbation.

[anaconda]

Someone on these forums said it once and I agree. Hannity is the butler of the Republican Party.

If the Ron Paul Republicans are in charge then he does their bidding.

It seems like to me this is like a team sport to him. All that matters is that his team wins-principles be damned.


Is Ruppert Murdoch on the Rand Paul team?

[tremendoustie]

I'd take Ron over Rand any day of the week.

Yep, that's certainly true.

[low preference guy]

Is Ruppert Murdoch on the Rand Paul team?

Is Judge Napolitano in the neocon team? He must. He works for Murdoch, the owner of the station who excluded Ron Paul from the debates.

Lew Rockwell is also on the neocon team. He appeared on the Neocon Judge show! He didn't even make any disparaging statement about the owner of the channel while he was on!

[John Taylor]

Do you guys ever stop? Seriously. Yeah Hannity is a bit neo-conish. And by "bit" I mean a lot. Yeah he trashed Ron. Yeah, he is still full of it. No I dont always believe him.

But he is also allowing Rand to reach sixteen fucking million people...so really, fuck off and shut up for a bit. Say a prayer of thanks that Rand has an audience.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Thank you. Perhaps we should be the ones happy to expose our philosophy to untold millions, instead of focusing on tearing into Mr. Hannity, horrid though he has been.

[anaconda]

It's a cost benefit analysis. Possible costs include enmity from Hannity, and giving him an excuse to drone on about things he dislikes about Paul. Benefits may include waking people up to the duplicity of republican talking heads, and helping them think independently.

There may be other costs or benfits -- you can add them if you have any ideas.

It's important not to do this kind of thing because of personal dislike for Hannity, however. Hannity's just one man ... nailing a personal opponent may be cathartic, but if it damages the cause of liberty, it's foolish.

Fair enough. You convinced me.

[specsaregood]

I stand by my position that many of you will be presently surprised when Senator Paul begins to legislate.

If you meant "pleasantly" surprised, I agree. The guy has already talked about filibustering his ass off if the budget isn't balanced. If you listen to the nuances of the stuff he has said that has angered the hardest core libertarians, there is a lot of freedom-oriented wiggle room.

[Corto_Maltese]

Video is up btw: YouTube - Rand Paul on Sean Hannity Radio 6-8-2010 Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxUpNhjFLq8)

[lester1/2jr]

colmes was worse though. he would say stuff you kind of agreed with but argue it so badly it made the point look stupid

[Anti Federalist]

Last I've heard Ron and Rand weren't running against each other in any election. Sorry if this distracts you from your useless mental masturbation.

You made the statement that Rand was "in it to win it".

That assumes that someone like Ron, who stays consistent to principle in spite of all the sound and fury and mealy mouthed Millies who would advise him to shut up, is somehow NOT in it to win it.

You following me so far?

So, based on that, Ron would never win, right? Heaven forfend, some of the impolitic things he has said over the years.

So, how do you explain his 12 winning terms as a congressman?

[tremendoustie]

I stand by my position that many of you will be presently surprised when Senator Paul begins to legislate.

I really hope you are right :).

[John Taylor]

You made the statement that Rand was "in it to win it".

That assumes that someone like Ron, who stays consistent to principle in spite of all the sound and fury and mealy mouthed Millies who would advise him to shut up, is somehow NOT in it to win it.

You following me so far?

So, based on that, Ron would never win, right? Heaven forfend, some of the impolitic things he has said over the years.

So, how do you explain his 12 winning terms as a congressman?

A very providential and lucky campaign in 1976, which allowed him to be on Reagan's Gold Commission, and to be exposed to the donors he's needed to stay in office since 1996. What do you think?

[low preference guy]

You made the statement that Rand was "in it to win it".

That assumes that someone like Ron, who stays consistent to principle in spite of all the sound and fury and mealy mouthed Millies who would advise him to shut up, is somehow NOT in it to win it.

You following me so far?

So, based on that, Ron would never win, right? Heaven forfend, some of the impolitic things he has said over the years.

So, how do you explain his 12 winning terms as a congressman?

You were talking about not wading through shit or something is better than winning. But Ron waded through a lot of shit, much, much more than Rand.

I was not talking about Ron Paul, but since you bring it up, he lost his Senate primary when he ran. Which by the way, doesn't take anything away from Ron, because he achieved much more educating people. But Rand isn't an educator, he is a candidate running to win and do a bit of balanced budget filibustering, which I absolutely approve.

[tremendoustie]

A very providential and lucky campaign in 1976, which allowed him to be on Reagan's Gold Commission, and to be exposed to the donors he's needed to stay in office since 1996. What do you think?

I think principles are popular, if they are clearly, honestly, and unequivocally explained. I think many "political strategists" underestimate this effect.

[specsaregood]

So, how do you explain his 12 winning terms as a congressman?

My understanding is that a lot of it has to do with the service level he provides to his constituents. They care less about his positions, when they all know somebody that he has helped in the past. Plus he is an incumbent and incumbents already have a 96% reelection rate.

[John Taylor]

I think principles are popular, if they are clearly, honestly, and unequivocally explained. I think many "political strategists" underestimate this effect.

I do agree with you, I just know that a great many people with more charisma than Ron have tried for office and failed, in districts as friendly as the Texas 14, so I think there was some opportunistic luck involved... and then, with the power of incumbency, he's stayed on... Look at Rand in KY... KY is a socially conservative state, but it looks likely that KY will elect the most libertarian senator in 65 years to the senate... does that mean KY is a libertarian paradise? Not at all, it means Rand has used the perfect storm and the perfect background to run.

[tnvoter]

When Hannity is bad: "FUCK YOU HANNITY"
When Hannity is good: "FUCK YOU LYING HANNITY"

Ever think he just says it how he thinks it and sometimes it overlaps? Just maybe?

haha yes, the way of most loudmouths imo

[BamaFanNKy]

I am shocked. Someone told me to post this in the general and they said you guys would flip out. Wow.

[BlackTerrel]

Make no mistake: Sean said on his radio show the day after one of the Republican debates: "Ron Paul sounded like an idiot.." Rand should have read the transcript back to him.

I am surprised that forum members are not more aware of that comment and do not make continual reference to it.


Rand should have told Hannity that he's a dumb ass because he is one.


You're right. Screw getting your message out to 16 million people. Instead he should pick a fight with Hannity.

I sometimes wonder if certain people here want to win. Or if they prefer to lose so we can continue to be on the outside looking in and bitch on the internet.

[0zzy]

You're right. Screw getting your message out to 16 million people. Instead he should pick a fight with Hannity.

I sometimes wonder if certain people here want to win. Or if they prefer to lose so we can continue to be on the outside looking in and bitch on the internet.

+17+76

They should listen to Michael Badnarik's speech from the LP convention.

[silentshout]

OMG, this guy is such a liar. Between him and Maddow, yuck, can't stand any of them.

[BlackTerrel]

Why not hold Hannity accountable for his malicious transgressions? Make him explain to Rand and his audience why Ron's platform (which is pretty much Rand's) was "idiotic?" It was Hannity that "burned the bridges." He is the one who should be left "stranded."

Because the goal is not to settle some feud with a dude from 2007. The goal is to get your message out to as many Americans as you can. And Hannity has an audience of 16 million people that like him.


And that is why Hannity is "on our side". Because he has painted himself into a corner and HAS to support Rand now. He didnt' have Rand on before the primary did he?

To a point maybe. But Hannity doesn't NEED Rand. Hannity has $100 million in the bank and an audience of 16 million. If Rand told him to fuck off then Hannity would reciprocate.

Luckily for us Rand is not an idiot.

[Roxi]

I agree with Slutter. Just chill out, people!

We all know Sean Hannity is a neo-con and is of no value to the Liberty movement, but just because the man insulted Ron Paul three years ago doesn't mean his attitudes towards Ron and Liberty principles cannot change. He did invite Rand on his show after all.

Just because people disagree with us doesn't mean they should be permanently branded as a tool.

Nope, you're wrong... Hannity is a specific type of evil. He has always personally believed a lot of the things Ron says, but he pushed aside his principals and did everything he could to screw us over during the campaign. He didn't just disagree with us, he went out of his way to make Ron and all of his supporters look like fools.

I don't give a shit if he begs Ron Paul on his knees to forgive him and kisses his feet. Hannity will ALWAYS be a tool. Ron Paul was a hope for change in a dark society, anyone who went out of their way to keep him from winning will be a permatool in my book.

[Anti Federalist]

Nope, you're wrong... Hannity is a specific type of evil. He has always personally believed a lot of the things Ron says, but he pushed aside his principals and did everything he could to screw us over during the campaign. He didn't just disagree with us, he went out of his way to make Ron and all of his supporters look like fools.

I don't give a shit if he begs Ron Paul on his knees to forgive him and kisses his feet. Hannity will ALWAYS be a tool. Ron Paul was a hope for change in a dark society, anyone who went out of their way to keep him from winning will be a permatool in my book.

Yeah, that +1776

[Slutter McGee]

Nope, you're wrong... Hannity is a specific type of evil... He didn't just disagree with us, he went out of his way to make Ron and all of his supporters look like fools.

Read my thread on liberty and victimhood. These kind of statements are what I am talking about. Hannity isn't wrong. He is evil. And as such, the best course of action is to insult and degrade because he has victimized us. And evil people can't change.

It is so simple when other people aren't wrong but rather evil. Life aint that simple. Liberty aint that simple. And people aint that simple.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee