PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on Hannity (12/15/11) Post Debate Interview - Official Thread




Pages : [1] 2

Matt Collins
12-15-2011, 12:15 PM
Ron Paul will be interviewed by Sean Hannity tonight following the debate (12/15/11). This is the official thread :toady:

ON EDIT --

Looks like someone has posted the video to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG3rq_SP8VU&feature=player_embedded

tribute_13
12-15-2011, 12:16 PM
Ew, Ron Paul better verbally bitchslap Hannity in every way imaginable. Especially after this weeks media assault.

bronxboy10
12-15-2011, 12:17 PM
Will he? Or will there be a suspicious "last minute cancellation" like that "last minute cancellation" yesterday on Hannity's radio show?

evadmurd
12-15-2011, 12:17 PM
God. I hope he takes him to the wood shed, big time.

Fermli
12-15-2011, 12:19 PM
looking forward to this

evadmurd
12-15-2011, 12:19 PM
Need Rand AND Ron to go on at the same time.

bluesc
12-15-2011, 12:22 PM
Stream: http://www.ronpaulcountry.com/launch

hellsingfan
12-15-2011, 12:28 PM
He needs to outright say: Who do you think you are. In fact Hannity you're a media lobbyist. You try to tell people who to vote for. Why do you have to say anything about my electability. If I get the nomination that means people support me, if I don't then they don't. Let the process decide the nominee. You don't like our political process do you? You don't like the fact people decide the nominee. Because apparently if people in Iowa vote for me, according to Fox News they are irrelevant, If I end up winning NH then they become irrelevant. Let me be clear. People are relevant. You media statist who try to lobby people and lie to them about my positions are irrelevant. You can't fool people forever Hannity. You're no conservative. You really are a statist. I just want people to know that find out about me yourself. Because all the media outlets have long tried to keep me out of your sight. I truly believe people will decide the next President not you media elites. So visit my website RonPaul2012.com to read up about my position, and if there is a position you don't understand or don't like talk to my supporters I'm sure they will be able to explain them to you instead of these media pundits lying to you.

trey4sports
12-15-2011, 12:28 PM
oh god.

bluesc
12-15-2011, 12:30 PM
oh god.

Screw it. Can't run away forever.

TNforPaul45
12-15-2011, 12:32 PM
Matt you need to get word back to the Campaign PRONTO and tell them to focus on this. Lots and Lots of wavering GOPers are going to be listening to this. Ron has to nail this, there can't be any wiggle room. But I know he will nail it.

Ron has to show the GOP core that he can take the heat and dish it out. They are doing this to test him with Obama-level smears. If he can pass through this "firey furnace" then we have a chance of winning the support of the core.

It's now or never.

Matt Collins
12-15-2011, 12:43 PM
Matt you need to get word back to the Campaign PRONTO and tell them to focus on this. Lots and Lots of wavering GOPers are going to be listening to this. Do you honestly think they don't already know that? Just sayin' ;). I think we're going to have a good night.

MrTudo
12-15-2011, 12:47 PM
Hannity is a traitor and a back stabbing liar. He's already on record stating that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate he CANNOT vote for. What a slimebag piece of shit hannity is.

futfut
12-15-2011, 12:49 PM
My humble advice for the debate and post interview. Dr.Paul should not take any offense personally. He 's at his best when relaxed and when he's not agitated. He should just enjoy the moment and be prepared for the newsletters question. And if things get tensed, he should ask Hannity if he's gonna vote for Obama or 3 party if he gets the nomination.

Todd
12-15-2011, 12:54 PM
Ron...

Why did you call me a statist.....Why did you write those racist newsletters......Why are you a truther? Your supporters really scared me with that slushy ball.....I like your son Rand and all.......You should come on my show more often.

CaptUSA
12-15-2011, 12:55 PM
I actually think it's more prudent to thank Hannity for questioning him about the newsletters. "Hannity, you are actually doing a job that the rest of the media isn't doing. They're all caught up in polls and who's winning the horse race, but you're one of the only ones actually digging into the past of the candidates. Thank you! This is what journalists are supposed to do!" Then he can go on to explain.

First, it makes it seem like the newsletters are no big deal. Second, it makes Hannity feel good about himself and have a more favorable opinion of Paul.

I know you want red meat, but this is the wiser path.



Trust This

JakeH
12-15-2011, 12:58 PM
Dr. Paul just needs to be like...

http://p.twimg.com/Agug7NzCQAAIPwI.jpg

V3n
12-15-2011, 12:59 PM
Do you honestly think they don't already know that? Just sayin' ;). I think we're going to have a good night.

Exactly! RP's been playing this game a long time. He's getting great coaching, looking great, he is on fire.
Bunch o' worry worts around here!

randomname
12-15-2011, 01:00 PM
ha, this should be good :D

Canderson
12-15-2011, 01:00 PM
Hes also about to be on Megyn Kelly TUNE IN !

SilentBull
12-15-2011, 01:01 PM
I actually think it's more prudent to thank Hannity for questioning him about the newsletters. "Hannity, you are actually doing a job that the rest of the media isn't doing. They're all caught up in polls and who's winning the horse race, but you're one of the only ones actually digging into the past of the candidates. Thank you! This is what journalists are supposed to do!" Then he can go on to explain.

First, it makes it seem like the newsletters are no big deal. Second, it makes Hannity feel good about himself and have a more favorable opinion of Paul.

I know you want red meat, but this is the wiser path.



Trust This

I like it.

Canderson
12-15-2011, 01:02 PM
Hes also going to be on Megyn Kelly in just a few min.

unknown
12-15-2011, 01:04 PM
Be ready for the newsletters question.

unknown
12-15-2011, 01:11 PM
I actually think it's more prudent to thank Hannity for questioning him about the newsletters. "Hannity, you are actually doing a job that the rest of the media isn't doing. They're all caught up in polls and who's winning the horse race, but you're one of the only ones actually digging into the past of the candidates. Thank you! This is what journalists are supposed to do!" Then he can go on to explain.

First, it makes it seem like the newsletters are no big deal. Second, it makes Hannity feel good about himself and have a more favorable opinion of Paul.

I know you want red meat, but this is the wiser path.

I think its a good idea to always be kind and polite but otherwise I dont agree. Hannity is going after the newsletters while glorifying Newt's "conservative" past... its laughable.

It would be good to thank him if he was consistent. Maybe encourage him to talk about everyone else's past.

CaptUSA
12-15-2011, 01:17 PM
It would be good to thank him if he was consistent. Maybe encourage him to talk about everyone else's past.I was kinda hoping that would entice Hannity to dig into the past of other candidates as well. Maybe he could add, "I wish the rest of the media would examine the past of all the candidates because there are a few that aren't getting asked the right questions."

cdw
12-15-2011, 01:22 PM
My opinion could change depending on how it goes, but right now I don't get why the campaign would dignify Hannity with a interview since they know, exactly, what he has planned for Dr. Paul. The questioning will be 100% negative, biased, and baiting with Hannity talking over Dr. Paul and possibly even yelling at him. There won't be an olive branch from Hannity of any sort, and Dr. Paul will be treated as if he were Obama himself. Hannity and Levin are probably passing each other skittles over the fact they've got Dr. Paul to come on and defend himself against their accusations.

Since I'm just a supporter I don't know the inner thinkings going on but I hope that whatever plan the campaign has for doing this works out exactly as they hoped, and for the better. But right now all I'm thinking is that Hannity didn't deserve an interview and that Dr. Paul has never and will never need the people in Hannity's audience that solely buys whatever he sells.

FreedomHorn
12-15-2011, 01:26 PM
It can only help. Not like Hannity's followers would be voting for him, otherwise.

PastaRocket848
12-15-2011, 01:45 PM
better have one hell of a "newsletter" answer ready to go.

sailingaway
12-15-2011, 01:47 PM
Spin, newsletters etc. Ron will have already had a full day. Have him eat his wheaties.

sailingaway
12-15-2011, 01:51 PM
My opinion could change depending on how it goes, but right now I don't get why the campaign would dignify Hannity with a interview since they know, exactly, what he has planned for Dr. Paul. The questioning will be 100% negative, biased, and baiting with Hannity talking over Dr. Paul and possibly even yelling at him. There won't be an olive branch from Hannity of any sort, and Dr. Paul will be treated as if he were Obama himself. Hannity and Levin are probably passing each other skittles over the fact they've got Dr. Paul to come on and defend himself against their accusations.

Since I'm just a supporter I don't know the inner thinkings going on but I hope that whatever plan the campaign has for doing this works out exactly as they hoped, and for the better. But right now all I'm thinking is that Hannity didn't deserve an interview and that Dr. Paul has never and will never need the people in Hannity's audience that solely buys whatever he sells.

I'm guessing Ron wants a chance to give his side to the audience Hannity is poisoning. Unfortunately, Ron is his own worst champion because he is so awful at tooting his own horn. At the time of the newsletters he was in private medical practice, not in public office, was not part of the management of the newsletters, only sent them occasional articles, and spent his day giving medical care to some of the poorest people of Brazoria county, Texas, refusing to take medicare or medicaid, while never turning any patient of any race or religion away for lack of ability to pay. He gave discounted or free services where necessary throughout his medical practice.

but he will never say so.

Honestly, SOMEONE has to say this on his behalf.

Sweman
12-15-2011, 01:56 PM
Hes also about to be on Megyn Kelly TUNE IN !
Quick! Make an official thread before [someone else] does it! :D

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 02:09 PM
"SNOWBALLS; WHY AM I A STATIST? I LOVE YOUR SON; I HATE YOUR FOREIGN POLICY" end interview

brooks009
12-15-2011, 02:13 PM
LOL, Hann says...Ron Paul supporters are giving him a hard time. Good job guys. :D

trey4sports
12-15-2011, 02:16 PM
LOL, Hann says...Ron Paul supporters are giving him a hard time. Good job guys. :D

on todays radio show?

brooks009
12-15-2011, 02:17 PM
on todays radio show?

Yes, just now at the start of his show.

cdw
12-15-2011, 02:19 PM
on todays radio show?
Yes, he's playing the victim card, claiming that he's only trying to be "fair" in vetting Dr. Paul and that Dr. Paul's supporters are unfairly coming after him.

brooks009
12-15-2011, 02:19 PM
Just said..."You Paul folks dont be mad at me for...bla bla bla"

anaconda
12-15-2011, 02:20 PM
Will he? Or will there be a suspicious "last minute cancellation" like that "last minute cancellation" yesterday on Hannity's radio show?

Ron has blown Hannity off on every post fox debate show this year I believe. He should do it again. If he goes on he needs to crucify Sean. He needs to start with Hannity calling him an "idiot" in 2008 and than explain exactly why he's a statist.

anaconda
12-15-2011, 02:22 PM
I actually think it's more prudent to thank Hannity for questioning him about the newsletters. "Hannity, you are actually doing a job that the rest of the media isn't doing. They're all caught up in polls and who's winning the horse race, but you're one of the only ones actually digging into the past of the candidates. Thank you! This is what journalists are supposed to do!" Then he can go on to explain.

First, it makes it seem like the newsletters are no big deal. Second, it makes Hannity feel good about himself and have a more favorable opinion of Paul.

I know you want red meat, but this is the wiser path.



Trust This

This would probably be far more effective than my knee jerk angry approach that I just posted above.

TER
12-15-2011, 02:22 PM
This is exactly what needs to be done! May God grant him strength!

wgadget
12-15-2011, 02:23 PM
Ron has blown Hannity off on every post fox debate show this year I believe. He should do it again. If he goes on he needs to crucify Sean. He needs to start with Hannity calling him an "idiot" in 2008 and than explain exactly why he's a statist.

America deserves to know what a statist is. It explains a LOT about most of the candidates.

Diashi
12-15-2011, 02:28 PM
America deserves to know what a statist is. It explains a LOT about most of the candidates.

Where the hell is that video of the interviewer, not Paul, using that word Statist, and Paul not denying it, because I think that's the interview Hannity uses to accuse Paul of calling him a Statist. Or maybe I'm wrong and it doesn't exist?

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 02:32 PM
I actually think it's more prudent to thank Hannity for questioning him about the newsletters. "Hannity, you are actually doing a job that the rest of the media isn't doing. They're all caught up in polls and who's winning the horse race, but you're one of the only ones actually digging into the past of the candidates. Thank you! This is what journalists are supposed to do!" Then he can go on to explain.

First, it makes it seem like the newsletters are no big deal. Second, it makes Hannity feel good about himself and have a more favorable opinion of Paul.

I know you want red meat, but this is the wiser path.



Trust This

Probably the best approach.

Jtorsella
12-15-2011, 02:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddAi8FF3F4

TheLasersShadow
12-15-2011, 02:50 PM
Ron NEEDS to come out tonight with TOTAL CONFIDENCE and smack down the newsletter BS. He's gotta do it right or it's going to stick around.

RP needs to get pumped up and mad like when he gets challenged by these dimwits in the debate, NO SCREWING AROUND, NO PADDY CAKE LAME COMPLEX ANSWERS!

This is going to be the attack Ron Paul debate, pray God lights a fire in Ron Paul's belly so he can demolish their attacks with passionate precision!

danbeaulieu
12-15-2011, 02:54 PM
I bet hannity launches the "racist" smear campaign tonight right to Ron's face...

TheLasersShadow
12-15-2011, 02:57 PM
I bet hannity launches the "racist" smear campaign tonight right to Ron's face...
Count on it, they are in panic mode big time.

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 04:09 PM
OK, I've been browsing the conservative sites(Ace, hotair, etc) and they are pushing the newsletter story hard. It's incredible how hard they are pushing it, actually. Shit needs to be addressed with Hannity tonight.

KingNothing
12-15-2011, 05:28 PM
I bet Hannity shits in his hand, and flings it at Ron.

Epic
12-15-2011, 05:34 PM
It was addressed last campaign. Does it really need to be addressed - it would give it legitimacy.

EBounding
12-15-2011, 05:35 PM
I wouldn't have said this a few weeks ago, but I wish Ron would blow Hannity off. Yes, he reaches a large number of conservative voters that we need, but obviously we haven't needed his help. There is NO WAY Ron's success so far has been because of Hannity.

cswake
12-15-2011, 05:38 PM
This is in retaliation to Rand setting Hannity up last week:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHiGIqJUpE

HOLLYWOOD
12-15-2011, 05:41 PM
OK, I've been browsing the conservative sites(Ace, hotair, etc) and they are pushing the newsletter story hard. It's incredible how hard they are pushing it, actually. Shit needs to be addressed with Hannity tonight.Very Well Planned... Like they say, Nothing happens as a surprise in Politics and that also goes for political news.

Yeah, they crafted this very well HIT CAMPAIGN in the 11th hour of Iowa.

Cavuto will be neutral, but we have seen the other 3 are given orders to attack like Pit Bulls,

Bret Beair *signed* at Ron Paul @ the last debate he moderated and Jon Stewart covered Beair's ridiculous animations during the debate.
Carl Cameron... do we even need to discuss this fascist-neocon statist?
Megan Kelly already tried to attack Ron Paul as "MEAN" "BRUTAL" in her HIT INTERVIEW this afternoon. Only took her 95 seconds to bring Israel into the entrapped interview.

Neil Cavuto just stated, "We've got a couple of people leading the polls right now, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, so it might be the 'Mutual Pyle-On by some of the Other Candidates' "

trey4sports
12-15-2011, 05:51 PM
Very Well Planned... Like they say, Nothing happens as a surprise in Politics and that also goes for political news.

Yeah, they crafted this very well HIT CAMPAIGN in the 11th hour of Iowa.

Cavuto will be neutral, but we have seen the other 3 are given orders to attack like Pit Bulls,

Bret Beair *signed* at Ron Paul @ the last debate he moderated and Jon Stewart covered Beair's ridiculous animations during the debate.
Carl Cameron... do we even need to discuss this fascist-neocon statist?
Megan Kelly already tried to attack Ron Paul as "MEAN" "BRUTAL" in her HIT INTERVIEW this afternoon. Only took her 95 seconds to bring Israel into the entrapped interview.

Neil Cavuto just stated, "We've got a couple of people leading the polls right now, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, so it might be the 'Mutual Pyle-On by some of the Other Candidates' "


he also asked something along the lines of "you know there's a possibilty they will attack you tonight?" an ominous reference to candidates (or mods) attacking him tonight.

Immortal Technique
12-15-2011, 06:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf-oE1mQ5TM

CaptUSA
12-15-2011, 06:17 PM
I actually think it's more prudent to thank Hannity for questioning him about the newsletters. "Hannity, you are actually doing a job that the rest of the media isn't doing. They're all caught up in polls and who's winning the horse race, but you're one of the only ones actually digging into the past of the candidates. Thank you! This is what journalists are supposed to do!" Then he can go on to explain.

First, it makes it seem like the newsletters are no big deal. Second, it makes Hannity feel good about himself and have a more favorable opinion of Paul.

I know you want red meat, but this is the wiser path.



Trust ThisAfter actually listening to a piece of Hannity's show today, I am once again endorsing this type of response! It will be huge! Remember to use your opponent's strength against him. Hannity wants to throw bombs at Paul? Paul thanks him and says it's about time someone in the media is examining the candidates record. It would confuse and neuter Hannity's attack!

Matt Collins
12-15-2011, 07:23 PM
This interview is still scheduled to happen BTW.

69360
12-15-2011, 07:34 PM
The whole premise of this attack is stupid. Ultra-right talking heads who spew hate for a living calling Ron a racist to an ultra-right audience that doesn't really care about racism.

I'll worry about this when there are MSM stories.

1stAmendguy
12-15-2011, 10:02 PM
bump

1stAmendguy
12-15-2011, 10:06 PM
Luntz talking about Ron now

bunklocoempire
12-15-2011, 10:08 PM
Eat my shorts Frank.

serenity now, serenity now....

unknown
12-15-2011, 10:08 PM
What time is it? Stream?

Fermli
12-15-2011, 10:11 PM
What time is it? Stream?

no clue. probably towards the bottom of the hour.

1stAmendguy
12-15-2011, 10:12 PM
I think it's at 11:30

RonRocks
12-15-2011, 10:13 PM
Streams: http://tvpc.us/Channel.php?ChannelID=6905

http://www.hqcast.info/channel.php?live=foxnews01

Harbinger631
12-15-2011, 10:16 PM
LOL at the huge Ron Paul sign behind Gingrich!

Crotale
12-15-2011, 10:17 PM
I'm off to bed. It's too late. Make sure someone gets a tube for me. :p

Sullivan*
12-15-2011, 10:20 PM
I bet Hannity shits in his hand, and flings it at Ron.

I wouldn't lump primates in with the likes of Sean Hannity. They exhibit much greater amounts of basic human behavior.

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:21 PM
Hannity just finished drooling over Gingrich.

unknown
12-15-2011, 10:21 PM
LOL at the huge Ron Paul sign behind Gingrich!

I wanna see....

eok321
12-15-2011, 10:22 PM
LOL at the huge Ron Paul sign behind Gingrich!

Needs a longer stick

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq182/freemarket08/HOLD.jpg

fearthereaperx
12-15-2011, 10:22 PM
Ron Paul cancelled

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:22 PM
Romulus up now

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:23 PM
Ron Paul cancelled

Evidence?

Sullivan*
12-15-2011, 10:25 PM
I wanna see....
It was a big ass Ron Paul 2012 sign with John Tate written under it sitting right next to Gingrich's fat head... Almost as big, too.

unknown
12-15-2011, 10:25 PM
Ron Paul sign ahahahhaa

PeteinLA
12-15-2011, 10:26 PM
Mitt likes Ron Paul. He is pimping Ron Paul signs while talking to Romney

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:26 PM
2 Ron Paul signs now.

tremendoustie
12-15-2011, 10:26 PM
I actually think it's more prudent to thank Hannity for questioning him about the newsletters. "Hannity, you are actually doing a job that the rest of the media isn't doing. They're all caught up in polls and who's winning the horse race, but you're one of the only ones actually digging into the past of the candidates. Thank you! This is what journalists are supposed to do!" Then he can go on to explain.

First, it makes it seem like the newsletters are no big deal. Second, it makes Hannity feel good about himself and have a more favorable opinion of Paul.

I know you want red meat, but this is the wiser path.



Trust This

GREAT Idea!

bluesc
12-15-2011, 10:26 PM
Ron Paul cancelled

Have an actual source for that?

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:27 PM
Why did you say RP cancelled? How do you know?

Fermli
12-15-2011, 10:27 PM
Can't wait to see some epic Ron Paul rolling his eyes.

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:28 PM
Someone trying to cover one of the RP signs with another sign.

sunghoko
12-15-2011, 10:28 PM
need answers!

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:29 PM
Haha, cameras trying to find another angle without RP signs. LOL.

iamse7en
12-15-2011, 10:29 PM
Remember when O'Reilly said, "We're not bombing ANYBODY!"

What the hell is that drone that Iran has? What are all these civilian attacks we're hearing about in Pakistan? The boogedy man?

fearthereaperx
12-15-2011, 10:30 PM
Why did you say RP cancelled? How do you know?

Why would he go on and talk to someone who has been trashing him recently on radio and trying to foment a media-blitz type scandal out of the rehashed newsletters?

smithtg
12-15-2011, 10:30 PM
love the ron paul signs lol

jkob
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
lulz that guy is so trying to block out that Ron Paul sign

smithtg
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
ron is on next!@

CplKoontz
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
Paul is next

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
RP next after the break. Wahoo.

sunghoko
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
Hannity teased Ron Paul next

johndeal
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
Ron Paul next

icecap
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
stream?

NewRightLibertarian
12-15-2011, 10:31 PM
Ugh. I don't think I can bear this one. I know Hannity's going to try to destroy Paul

fearthereaperx
12-15-2011, 10:32 PM
welp, i guess i was wrong

KramerDSP
12-15-2011, 10:32 PM
Ron Paul next after the break!

damiengwa
12-15-2011, 10:32 PM
Ron paul on after commercial break...http://tvpc.us/Channel.php?ChannelID=6905

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:32 PM
Why would he go on and talk to someone who has been trashing him recently on radio and trying to foment a media-blitz type scandal out of the rehashed newsletters?

Uhh...ok, so you were speculating. Unfortunately you speculated wrong. Good thing I didn't go to bed.

Maestro232
12-15-2011, 10:33 PM
http://88.80.17.89/user/mediaplayer/player.swf?autostart=true&controlbar.position=over&streamer=rtmp://109.201.135.51/live/&file=foxnews.flv

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:33 PM
Ugh. I don't think I can bear this one. I know Hannity's going to try to destroy Paul

No he won't- Hannity is a f*cking coward, and f*cking cowards talk shit behind your back, then smile in your face and are buddy with you when you are within 10 ft of them.

KingNothing
12-15-2011, 10:33 PM
Now we'll hear that Hannity agrees with Paul 95-percent of the time, but that they fundamentally disagree over foreign policy.

Ron HAS to handle this well. ...though, at this point, I'm sure many people aren't watching.

aSwedishSupporter
12-15-2011, 10:34 PM
...

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:35 PM
...

http://tvpc.us/Channel.php?ChannelID=6905

this is the one I'm watching right now

Jtorsella
12-15-2011, 10:35 PM
On now

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 10:36 PM
Oh, Christ. Here we go.

D.A.S.
12-15-2011, 10:36 PM
our hannity stream is up on www.ronpaulcountry.com also - live now.

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 10:36 PM
I would not have shook his hand.

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:37 PM
RP looks visibly pissed being within 3 ft of Sean.

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 10:37 PM
No he won't- Hannity is a f*cking coward, and f*cking cowards talk shit behind your back, then smile in your face and are buddy with you when you are within 10 ft of them.

There isn't enough sailor jerrys in the world to get me to sit down and have a drink with that chickenshit.

tbone717
12-15-2011, 10:37 PM
Why doesn't he just say, I plan on winning the GOP nomination, will you support me when I do that?

Sullivan*
12-15-2011, 10:38 PM
Hitting him hard. Ron being a bad ass as usual though

Anti Federalist
12-15-2011, 10:38 PM
I would have told him (Shamity) to pound salt.

Banksy
12-15-2011, 10:38 PM
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:38 PM
There isn't enough sailor jerrys in the world to get me to sit down and have a drink with that chickshit.

HA! You caught me...


<drinks up>

Jtorsella
12-15-2011, 10:39 PM
damnit Paul is defending Iran from the wiping off the map charges.

Anti Federalist
12-15-2011, 10:39 PM
So, what have we got here?

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
damnit Paul is defending Iran from the wiping off the map charges.

That would be because they are not true.

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
"Did I hear you right that we killed millions of Iraqis?" Are you kidding me?

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
So, what have we got here?

Sailor jerry's in hand.

ronpaulfollower999
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
Why is Ron going back into education mode? Save this for the general, not primaries.

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
HA! You caught me...
<drinks up>

I'm dancing with jose cuervo tonight.


damnit Paul is defending Iran from the wiping off the map charges.
The only way to battle complete falsehoods is with the truth.

jkob
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
HERE IT COMES

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
Here we go, newsletters time.

Havax
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
Here we go, newsletters.

libertyfanatic
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
Newsletters...

1stAmendguy
12-15-2011, 10:40 PM
newsletters again :rolleyes:

ross11988
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Newsletters!

Jtorsella
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Newsletters.

Xenophage
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Fuck hannity

UtahApocalypse
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Knew this was coming.....

should ask if he supports that Nazi guy.

ronpaulfollower999
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070

Fr3shjive
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Hannity is on full attack mode.

Fr3shjive
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Fuck hannity
+1

Unknown.User
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
..

Anti Federalist
12-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Hal Turner you piece of shit!!!

sunghoko
12-15-2011, 10:42 PM
damn they are bringing up the newsletters.

StudentForPaul08
12-15-2011, 10:42 PM
I feel bad for Ron

Havax
12-15-2011, 10:42 PM
HAHA Ron said peace out mothafucka

Shellshock1918
12-15-2011, 10:42 PM
glad im not watching this live or my TV would be out the window

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 10:42 PM
Oh my god you can just tell Ron Paul has absolute disdain for Hannity. There was some tension there.

ronpaulfollower999
12-15-2011, 10:43 PM
You could tell Ron didn't want to be there.

KingNothing
12-15-2011, 10:43 PM
Hannity was fine.

lol Ron is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaallly not your standard schmoozing politician.

HOLLYWOOD
12-15-2011, 10:43 PM
Ron never brings up World War escalations... RUSSIA CHINA IRAN pacts...

Stop the fuckin philosophical eduction BS and but these NEOCON WARMONGERING CHIKENHAWKS to rest

pauliticalfan
12-15-2011, 10:43 PM
Holy shit that was tense.

Anti Federalist
12-15-2011, 10:43 PM
I really do despise a bunch of Sean Shamity.

Next time it's iceballs.

Unknown.User
12-15-2011, 10:43 PM
..

Sullivan*
12-15-2011, 10:43 PM
He said he's hit Mitt and Newt hard on issues too... He can kiss my ass. His weak attempt to divert our attention away from his bias towards Ron was feeble at best.

braane
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
I really...really don't like Hannity. Ron answered the question really well.

KingNothing
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
I absolutely do not have a problem with the questions that Hannity asked.

D.A.S.
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
Oh my god, this interview was such a piece of garbage...

Fredom101
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
Toobz?

RonPaulCult
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
Laughed my ass off when he stood up at the end. He didn't want to spend one additional second with that bastard. That was so awesome. Stand tall Dr. Paul - you are the real conservative.

D.A.S.
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
Hannity is a total piece of s**t.

jclay2
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
I think mr. bernanke and hannity are my two most loathed individuals now.

Michael Landon
12-15-2011, 10:44 PM
What was the newspaper that Ron Paul mentioned?

- ML

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 10:45 PM
Oh my god you can just tell Ron Paul has absolute disdain for Hannity. There was some tension there.
Hannity's first day of national syndication was on 9/10/2001.
his entire career has quite literally been about neoconservatism and the war on terror. he is the exact propaganda machine that we are at war against.

TXcarlosTX
12-15-2011, 10:45 PM
he did good. newsletters?? this is a non issue!!!

SlowSki
12-15-2011, 10:45 PM
holocaust denier? f you hannity.

Epic
12-15-2011, 10:45 PM
It's so much crap - they only talked Iran. Mitt and Newt got to talk their strengths.

Hannity should be asking Paul stuff about economics, health care, stuff people actually care about.

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:45 PM
I feel bad for Ron

Yeah, me too, he looks whooped...and not physically.

It must have shattered that man's soul tonight to hear Bachman spouting her nonsense on Iran, and I don't mean from what she said-but the audiences reaction. Broke my heart as well.


<takes big swig of sailor jerry's>

Karsten
12-15-2011, 10:45 PM
I think mr. bernanke and hannity are my two most loathed individuals now.
Nah, that's unfair.
Hannity is way worse.

jclay2
12-15-2011, 10:45 PM
I really do despise a bunch of Sean Shamity.

Next time it's iceballs.

Like someone said earlier, why send an iceball to do a rocks job? ...lol

Fr3shjive
12-15-2011, 10:46 PM
I feel bad for Ron

Dont feel bad for Paul. This isnt his first rodeo. He'll be fine and we'll have the last laugh in the end.

wgadget
12-15-2011, 10:46 PM
Hannity is coming UNHINGED.

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 10:46 PM
Holy shit that was tense.

I think Hannity finds Ron Paul intimidating when he's one on one with him. Notice how he was spouting off about Ron Paul being a racist and a kook and a possible truther when he's on his radio show by himself, but once he gets on TV with Ron Paul his tune changes to, "Now, I've vetted all the candidates...", "people could see this as...", "don't you think" and so on. Hannity is a coward.

pauladin
12-15-2011, 10:46 PM
if hannity was actually hoping to skewer paul with the newsletters right there, talk about an EPIC FAIL. ron brushed it off like he didn't even care. more will come over it though in time.

WD-NY
12-15-2011, 10:46 PM
Dr. Paul just handled the newsletter issue perfectly.

AdamT
12-15-2011, 10:46 PM
The Founders would've had Hannity working in the kitchen. No way would he have been allowed to mingle amongst them or speak a word.

Karsten
12-15-2011, 10:46 PM
Hannity's first day of national syndication was on 9/10/2001.

Really?
Wow, that's kind of...........weird, don't you think?

unknown
12-15-2011, 10:47 PM
The Paul vs Perry sign holder was very amusing

I couldnt even tell if it was a Rick Perry sign.

wgadget
12-15-2011, 10:47 PM
Yeah, me too, he looks whooped...and not physically.

It must have shattered that man's soul tonight to hear Bachman spouting her nonsense on Iran, and I don't mean from what she said-but the audiences reaction. Broke my heart as well.


<takes big swig of sailor jerry's>

Stacked audience.

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:47 PM
Like someone said earlier, why send an iceball to do a rocks job? ...lol

Smart, and on a public forum, to boot.:rolleyes:

ETA: I believe in some states ( I know in Florida), someone could LEGALLY open fire on your ass with a gun over that shit. (I realize he's in NY, before a Captain Obvious rolls through here).

ASIDE from promoting things that may end up getting you (or whoever) hurt/killed/arrested, WWRP DO?

bunklocoempire
12-15-2011, 10:47 PM
Truth doesn't mix with lies too easy.

Way to go Dr. Paul, that punk's life will prove your truth. :)

Donsta
12-15-2011, 10:47 PM
Hannity is such a waste of life! He didn't even let Ron finish when he asked him about the fake newsletters!

wgadget
12-15-2011, 10:48 PM
Wow! LOOK AT HANNITY skewering PERRY!!!!

NOT.

dillo
12-15-2011, 10:48 PM
Did anyone see Paul swag off Hannity when he was constantly interrupting Dr. Paul? Dr Paul gave him that ceasar milan look and hannity backed down like a cowardice neo-con.

thehungarian
12-15-2011, 10:49 PM
Hannity's first day of national syndication was on 9/10/2001.

Oh my. I don't even know what to say.

Shellshock1918
12-15-2011, 10:49 PM
Waiting for the upload...dont know if i want my blood pressure to go that high...man I despise Hannity. He's such a shill for the GOP establishment.

jclay2
12-15-2011, 10:49 PM
Smart, and on a public forum, to boot.:rolleyes:

its a joke, for goodness sake. If hannity wants to attack ron with what one supporter on the internet says, he can be my guest.

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 10:49 PM
Really?
Wow, that's kind of...........weird, don't you think?

Yes, true. not gonna speculate on weirdness of it. but, the war on terriers has been very profitable for Mr. Hannity.

evadmurd
12-15-2011, 10:50 PM
I turned it off. Couldn't watch. We'll see what tomorrow brings. LOT'S OF CASH FOR RON PAUL!!!!! Let's win this thing!

coastie
12-15-2011, 10:51 PM
Stacked audience.



Yeah, but still hurts. I'm all emotional and sh*t right now, just go with it.:o:p

HRD53
12-15-2011, 10:51 PM
You could cut the tension with a knife when Hannity brought up those newsletters, but guess what thats politics. And unfortunately they are going to hit Dr. Paul harder since he is so anti-establishment. What I really wish is that the person who actually wrote those letters would just fess up and let Paul off the hook a little bit here. I've heard its Lew Rockwell... If it is, its time for him to step up and own up responsibility

LibertyEagle
12-15-2011, 10:51 PM
Did anyone catch that article that Paul told Hannity to read? I figure we should have it at our fingertips in case we need it.

cdw
12-15-2011, 10:52 PM
Whew, that wasn't nearly as bad as I feared it would be. Once in person with Dr. Paul, Hannity was all bark with no bite. If that's his idea of vetting, he fell flat on his face in front of everybody. He struck out so badly that he cut Dr. Paul off from further embarrassing him and then quickly asked his last question then ended the interview.

I think we made it out of this just fine, everybody. Dr. Paul can go catch some rest now while we take care of his fundraising.

Unknown.User
12-15-2011, 10:52 PM
..

hogsfan90
12-15-2011, 10:52 PM
You could cut the tension with a knife when Hannity brought up those newsletters, but guess what thats politics. And unfortunately they are going to hit Dr. Paul harder since he is so anti-establishment. What I really wish is that the person who actually wrote those letters would just fess up and let Paul off the hook a little bit here. I've heard its Lew Rockwell... If it is, its time for him to step up and own up responsibility
Sacrificial lamb. Offered on the altar of freedom.

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 10:53 PM
I've heard its Lew Rockwell... If it is, its time for him to step up and own up responsibility
Uhm, he said he didn't write them. Are you calling him a liar? Who told you this? What makes them more trustworthy?

The person that wrote them died long ago, move on. If Hannity can hangout with and promote neo-nazis then Paul can certainly move on past that stuff.

AdamT
12-15-2011, 10:53 PM
Hannity's first day of national syndication was on 9/10/2001.
his entire career has quite literally been about neoconservatism and the war on terror. he is the exact propaganda machine that we are at war against.

Link? I find this intriguing.

Karsten
12-15-2011, 10:53 PM
You could cut the tension with a knife when Hannity brought up those newsletters, but guess what thats politics. And unfortunately they are going to hit Dr. Paul harder since he is so anti-establishment. What I really wish is that the person who actually wrote those letters would just fess up and let Paul off the hook a little bit here. I've heard its Lew Rockwell... If it is, its time for him to step up and own up responsibility

IF indeed it is Lew Rockwell, and it looks like it probably is, he SHOULD admit up to it. Sometimes I feel like Lew just wants Ron Paul to educate people above all else.

Fermli
12-15-2011, 10:54 PM
You could cut the tension with a knife when Hannity brought up those newsletters, but guess what thats politics. And unfortunately they are going to hit Dr. Paul harder since he is so anti-establishment. What I really wish is that the person who actually wrote those letters would just fess up and let Paul off the hook a little bit here. I've heard its Lew Rockwell... If it is, its time for him to step up and own up responsibility

Lew Rockwell is a great libertarian from what I've read and heard from him. Very similar to Dr. Paul. Really doubtful that Lew wrote them, and it's disappointing to see Paul supporters blame Lew for it.

Giuliani was there on 911
12-15-2011, 10:55 PM
I looked over some excerpts from the newsletters and to be honest I don't even think most Republicans would find them all that objectionable.

Shellshock1918
12-15-2011, 10:55 PM
Paul should go have a drink, sleep it off. He will get his chance on Leno tomorrow to set all of the records straight. He didn't do badly, but whether or not he converted new independents is the question.

Lets raise a lot of money tonight and get back to the narrative of unstoppable Paul.

Paul doesn't drink! (well a glass of wine or champagne once and a while) Tell that to your sober evangelical friends that are on the fence!

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 10:55 PM
Link? I find this intriguing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity#Radio


The Sean Hannity Show began national syndication on September 10, 2001 on over 500 stations nationwide.

Pisces
12-15-2011, 10:56 PM
Did anyone catch that article that Paul told Hannity to read? I figure we should have it at our fingertips in case we need it.

I heard him say the article was from Texas Monthly magazine. My stream kept cutting out though so I didn't hear the month and year of the issue that the article was included in.

Revolution9
12-15-2011, 10:56 PM
Really?
Wow, that's kind of...........weird, don't you think?

He worked with Hal Turner who worked for the zog..so no..it dovetails perfectly with public intel desk research. He is from the rah rah siss boom bah waterboys sector of the gambit which was needed in the days after that event to sway public opinion towards war..

Rev9

Oklahoman
12-15-2011, 10:56 PM
There was a moment....a brief moment where I honestly thought Ron was gonna knock him out.....

But then again, that wouldn't be our Ron.

I've watched it over and over, and his eyes light up and you can see him holding back the anger.

braane
12-15-2011, 10:57 PM
Now for Bachmann! So she can get in free shots... Oh well. They are lying to themselves and their listeners.

"Could you imagine if we get it wrong...?"

Isn't that what we said before Iraq... They aren't learning from history.

seyferjm
12-15-2011, 10:58 PM
Wow, Bachmann is clueless. I hope that informed voters see through her.

Badger Paul
12-15-2011, 10:59 PM
This is war gentlemen, political war (not the real stuff of course. I will not insult those who serve by comparing the two and I hate to use the analogy but I can't think of anything else stronger). Understand that what we are trying to do is rip an entire political party away from the two groups of people who think they are entitled to it, Conservative INC. and the main GOP establishment. They are not going to give up without a fight. We must be prepared and mentally and physically for the coming struggle because it will be brutal. RP is where we've wanted him to be for four years, right on the cusp of success but because of this the vested interests and the powers that be do not want this to happen and use their sock puppets to try and stop us and wil use lany means fair and unfair to try and trip us up. We can only hope and pray there's a decent amount of people out there tired of their nonsense which led us to death and bankruptcy. And if so, they only have one candidate to support.

Revolution9
12-15-2011, 10:59 PM
You could cut the tension with a knife when Hannity brought up those newsletters, but guess what thats politics. And unfortunately they are going to hit Dr. Paul harder since he is so anti-establishment. What I really wish is that the person who actually wrote those letters would just fess up and let Paul off the hook a little bit here. I've heard its Lew Rockwell... If it is, its time for him to step up and own up responsibility

For a bunch of barstool philosophers adept with tossing around big words about personal responsibility being the cornerstone of the society they trumpet then where the frak is the beef? They won't man up. Not in their bones.

Rev9

NoPants
12-15-2011, 11:00 PM
Bachmann hurts herself here. She's not gaining any ground by making herself seem eager to start a war. Just look how well it worked for Santorum. He's really burning up the polls. There is a difference between applause at a Faux News debate and truly connecting with the American people.

HRD53
12-15-2011, 11:00 PM
Uhm, he said he didn't write them. Are you calling him a liar? Who told you this? What makes them more trustworthy?

The person that wrote them died long ago, move on. If Hannity can hangout with and promote neo-nazis then Paul can certainly move on past that stuff.

I got my info from Reason. Plenty of other folks have read enough articles from reputable enough sources... so its not like the accusations are coming out of left field and since I'm not an insider in the Ron Paul circle, what am i supposed to believe? Where are you getting your info that the person who wrote them died a long time ago?

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

JohnGalt1225
12-15-2011, 11:00 PM
Anyone have a tube of this uploaded yet?

brendan.orourke
12-15-2011, 11:01 PM
Video of this interview yet?

helmuth_hubener
12-15-2011, 11:01 PM
I really do despise a bunch of Sean Shamity.

Next time it's iceballs. This guy should not be able to go ANYWHERE in public, for the REST OF HIS LIFE, without getting snowballs thrown at him.

Every day.

All the time.

For the rest of his life.

Johncjackson
12-15-2011, 11:02 PM
Lew Rockwell is a great libertarian from what I've read and heard from him. Very similar to Dr. Paul. Really doubtful that Lew wrote them, and it's disappointing to see Paul supporters blame Lew for it.

Rockwell is great for libertarianism, IMO, but he did write similar stuff under his own name and other publications he worked for. He did work for the "Newsletters" and most likely was the editor in charge. Did he write them? Lots of other libertarians and people that were around then think he did. Does anyone know? I dont know. Does it matter at this point?

ForLibertyFight
12-15-2011, 11:04 PM
I will throw a snowball at Sean if I see him in Iowa

wgadget
12-15-2011, 11:05 PM
Anyone have a tube of this uploaded yet?

Someone posted one.

musicmax
12-15-2011, 11:05 PM
Texas Monthly article RP referred to:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 11:06 PM
I got my info from Reason. Plenty of other folks have read enough articles from reputable enough sources... so its not like the accusations are coming out of left field and since I'm not an insider in the Ron Paul circle, what am i supposed to believe? Where are you getting your info that the person who wrote them died a long time ago?

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Ah yes, reason magazine. One of the smear merchants.
http://takimag.com/article/who_is_matt_welch/

Fact is, Rockwell denied writing them and I have no reason not to believe him.

Fermli
12-15-2011, 11:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG3rq_SP8VU

Fermli
12-15-2011, 11:07 PM
Missed it live, but Paul was REAL CLOSE to walking out of the interview at 3:09 of the youtube.

FSP-Rebel
12-15-2011, 11:08 PM
Rockwell is great for libertarianism, IMO, but he did write similar stuff under his own name and other publications he worked for. He did work for the "Newsletters" and most likely was the editor in charge. Did he write them? Lots of other libertarians and people that were around then think he did. Does anyone know? I dont know. Does it matter at this point?
chill and it wouldn't matter if he did. Your battle won't hang em even if. As of tonight, we're past this thing. Ron pulls a win.

samforpaul
12-15-2011, 11:10 PM
My opinion of the interview: Sean had an agenda to make Ron look bad w his questions. Then when Ron spoke Sean would cut him off before he could get out his complete answer so he could get on w another attempt to smear Dr. Paul. Incidentally when Frank Lutz spoke of how Ron helped himself in the first part of the debate, Hannity, before Luntz was finished, jumped to say that Ron hurt himself in the last part of the debate (his commentary , not mine). Then when Bachmann was interviewed what did Sean do? He set her up w talk of Iran which led to further demagoguing Dr. Paul.

Sean can say that he "vets" all candidates, but it sure seemed that he was friendlier w the other candidates and allowed them to speak w/o interruption unlike how he interviewed Ron.

f r e e s t y l e
12-15-2011, 11:10 PM
Paul: "In 2002, The Texas Monthly reviewed that and they wrote a long, long article, and that's a real liberal newspaper, so you read that and you'll find out that [Hannity interrupting] I did not write it and I do not support those views."

musicmax
12-15-2011, 11:16 PM
Ah yes, reason magazine. One of the smear merchants.
http://takimag.com/article/who_is_matt_welch/

Fact is, Rockwell denied writing them and I have no reason not to believe him.

Somebody wrote them. We need to know who. The first step in getting an elephant out of a room is acknowledging that there is an elephant in the room.

Thor
12-15-2011, 11:20 PM
Texas Monthly article RP referred to:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7

Dr. No

Republican congressman Ron Paul of Surfside says no to PAC contributions. He says no to pork barrel spending for his district. He says no to honoring Mother Teresa. And he has no influence in Washington. So why do the Democrats have no chance of beating him?

by S. C. Gwynne

October 2001

Imagine, for a moment, the perfect congressman. Though he works in Washington, D.C., a city of shameless opportunism, shifting allegiances, and flannel-mouthed pieties, he is both deeply principled and wholly uncompromised. He does not bend with the political winds. He does not take money from corporate PACs. Lobbyists cannot sway him; to try is a waste of time. He never bargains with his own deeply held beliefs, nor does he cut backroom deals. Because his political views and his personal convictions are in complete harmony, he seldom faces a "tough" vote. And when the politicking for the week is over, he returns to his district to take up his lifelong occupation, which has nothing to do with politics.

This, of course, sounds like unalloyed fantasy; no one who clung so tenaciously—or so naively—to his beliefs would last in Washington. The grizzled old pols who run the place would grind him up and sprinkle him on their pecan-encrusted mahimahi for dinner. But there is such a man. Whether he is perfect or not is a matter for debate, as you will see, but the plain fact is that a congressman named Ron Paul, a 66-year-old Republican who represents Texas' 14th Congressional District, otherwise fits this description exactly. The phrase "honest politician" is an oxymoron; yet in the sense that Paul never, ever votes against his stated principles—which are libertarian and include the belief that much of our federal government, from the IRS to the Department of Education, and the massive taxes that support it, should be abolished—the phrase describes him.

Wait. There's more. The same beliefs that cause him to vote against every single appropriations bill in Congress also carry over to his private life. He intends, for example, to refuse his congressional pension. He would not let his children take out federally subsidized education loans. He actually returns money each year from his congressional office—some $50,000 last year. "I have always thought that there are two brands of conservatives: the kind who follow the money and conservatives of principle," says Ronnie Dugger, who as a longtime liberal and a former editor of the Texas Observer is an unlikely admirer. "Paul is a conservative of principle. He's held his ground, and he is an honest man."

He has also violated almost every rule of political survival you can think of, short of committing a felony. Paul's beliefs run so deep that he will unhesitatingly vote against his constituents' interests. In a district with 675 miles of coastline, he opposes federally sponsored flood insurance. In an overwhelmingly rural region, he speaks out against farm subsidies. In a district with large numbers of senior citizens and poor people, he is on record opposing "the welfare state." In almost all cases, he refuses to deliver "pork" to the good folks of his home district. Appeals to party loyalty are useless; he was one of only sixteen Republicans who voted against George W. Bush's energy plan, one of only four Republicans who voted against the administration-backed version of the patient's rights bill, and he opposes its education bill. (He did vote for the president's tax cut, because he supports tax cuts of any kind.)

His contrarian behavior has made him an enormously appealing figure to residents of the 14th District, which extends from the central Texas coast to the suburbs of Austin and San Antonio. Seven times, over four decades and in two different districts, he has been elected, despite fierce opposition. In the past three elections, he was targeted by the national Democratic party and by major unions, which spent lavishly to beat him. Yet he has won by ever-widening margins. As he coasts into the second year of his seventh term, he may now be unbeatable.

He stands at the microphone in the empty, echoing hall, addressing his words to no one. At seven-twenty on a winter night in the United States House of Representatives, Congressman Paul is the only member on the floor. High above him, half a dozen people are scattered across the nosebleed seats of the spectator gallery, along with a couple of yawning security guards. There is a woman in the seat where the Speaker of the House normally sits, shuffling paper and paying no attention. There is a lone stenographer on the floor. Out in the Great American Night, there are no doubt some C-SPAN2 junkies watching and listening—part of Paul's far-flung network of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-property rights, and anti-government admirers, perhaps—but here in the vast, cavernous gallery, there are only empty seats and silence. Paul is unfazed; he is an habitué of this place in these lonely off-hours. This is his time—the end of the workday, when everyone goes home except those who want to speechify on any subject. In a soft tenor voice that occasionally rises to a higher pitch, he delivers a stem-winding denunciation of the secretive institution he believes is responsible for many of the economic ills of the modern world: the Federal Reserve System.

This is, of course, a distinctly minority view in a city that regards Federal Reserve System board chairman Alan Greenspan as a sort of cross between Houdini and Saint Peter. But it is typical of Paul's unconventional ideas. If he had his way, there would be no Federal Reserve at all. (He calls Greenspan a "price fixer" and refers to the Fed as the "chief counterfeiter for the world.") He wants to return the U.S. to the gold standard, get us out of the United Nations, and abolish most forms of federal law enforcement. He has also voted against giving congressional medals to Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks, against giving earthquake relief to India, and against a bill that would have helped prevent child pornography on the Internet. He wants to abolish all federal drug laws and cancel the war on drugs. Like Don Quixote, Paul confronts a vast and transcendent evil that most of his colleagues do not believe exists. They have a name for him: Dr. No. His beliefs are so at odds with those of his 434 House colleagues that as of October 1, 1999, the Congressional Quarterly had tallied that he had been the lone negative vote 42 times in the previous two sessions—compared to 22 times for everybody else combined. He hates Washington, never attends the usual cocktail parties and receptions, and spends as little time there as he possibly can.

Back in his quiet, high-ceilinged office in the Capitol, the dreaded Dr. No turns out to be something different from the gun-toting, fire-breathing, right-wing militia nut his opponents would have you believe he is. Instead of a libertarian Genghis Khan, I am talking to a friendly, slender man with graying hair, wearing a standard-issue chalk-stripe suit. He would strike you as a kindly, crinkle-eyed, slightly absentminded family doctor, direct from central casting. In fact, he is a doctor, a prominent obstetrician in Brazoria County who has delivered four thousand babies, a good portion of those while serving as a congressman. He is answering, in a patient and good-natured way, a question asking if he thinks the federal government has become too powerful.

"I think it's a police state that is absolutely out of control," he says placidly, eating a modest lunch of canned soup and a white-bread sandwich at his desk. "We have eighty-three thousand federal officials carrying guns. Every regulation that is made, every federal law that is written, is done with the idea that there is a gun waiting right there to enforce it. If you don't pay your taxes or follow the regulation or use your land exactly as they tell you to, if you cut down a tree you're not supposed to or fill in a ditch, a gun will come and take your money, take your land, or put you in jail. Everything that is done up here is based on a gun. It's an armed state. It has gotten so big already, it's going to be hard to stop." He pauses, then smiles and says, "You know, I'm for gun control. I want to get the guns out of the hands of the bureaucrats."

To grasp fully how such a man can possibly exist in contemporary American electoral politics, you must first understand two basic truths. One involves gynecology; the other involves a semi-obscure, dead Austrian economist by the name of Ludwig von Mises. If that sounds like a slightly odd preamble to a story about a United States congressman, it is no more odd than the world of Ron Paul.

First: Politics for him is a passion, not a career. Paul is one of few doctors in the House (eight, including dentists) and part of an even smaller group that has actively practiced medicine while holding office. After attending Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, Paul, who was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, spent five years as an Air Force flight surgeon—two and a half on active duty at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio—then set up practice in Lake Jackson in 1968. Having taken over the practice of a retiring doctor, he was the only ob-gyn in Brazoria County. "On my first day, I had thirty to forty patients in my office," Paul says. "I delivered forty to fifty babies a month and did a lot of surgery. It was exactly what I was looking for." He was 41 and a prominent, successful physician when he was first elected to Congress. He is affluent, or whatever the notch below wealthy is. He doesn't need the job.

Second: His hero is neither a founding father nor a contemporary politician but an obscure Austrian economist whose ideas guide most of what Paul does. While he was pursuing his medical career, he became interested in economics, especially the works of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), a laissez-faire economist opposed to government intervention in markets and in favor of the gold standard. What launched Paul into politics were two distinctly un-Misean actions taken by President Richard Nixon in 1971: He intervened massively in the U.S. economy by establishing wage and price controls, and he took the country off the gold standard. For Paul, these actions were unthinkable exercises of federal power. We all have our moments of clarity. His epiphany came on August 15, 1971. "I remember the day very clearly," he says. "Nixon closed the gold window, which meant admitting that we could no longer meet our commitments and that there would be no more backing of the dollar. After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded." In 1974, the year of Nixon's resignation and possibly the worst year in American history for the Republican party, Paul, already the contrarian, decided to become a Republican and run for Congress from the 22nd District, which lies slightly to the north and east of the 14th (and which is now represented by Tom DeLay). He lost that election. Then he got lucky: When the winner resigned a year later, Paul won the special election that followed.

He quickly made a name for himself as the ultimate constitutional dogmatist: If it wasn't written in plain language in the Constitution, which allocated only a few specific powers to the federal government, he didn't believe in it. In Paul's view, government should provide for national defense, ensure fairness under the law, guarantee personal liberty—and get out of the way. That includes abortion, which he sees as murder, but he believes that the proper authority to deal with it is the state, not the federal government. What galls him more than anything else is the sheer size of government. He likes to remind people that in 1909 the cost of government at all levels came to 7.7 percent of the total domestic economy. Today that figure is 50 percent.

Though Paul is a Republican, he can be maddeningly uncooperative with his GOP colleagues, especially when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. In the eighties Republicans desperately needed Paul's vote in favor of the B-1 bomber. Despite enormous pressure, he refused. He saw it as a needless expenditure of taxpayer money to fund an expansionist foreign policy that he opposed. He even got a call from President Reagan and still would not change his vote. "The conservatives hated me for that," he says. He can also be, on occasion, something of a gadfly. When he was criticized for voting against the medal for Mother Teresa, he chivied his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did, of course. At the time, Paul observed, "It's easier to be generous with other people's money."

Paul served four terms in Congress, during which time he usually voted no, and sponsored dozens of bills that were instantly consigned to oblivion and a few, such as one that would have set term limits, that were ahead of their time. In 1984 he took his own advice and term-limited himself, made a hopeless run against Phil Gramm in the Republican Senate primary, then retired to doctoring—which he had kept doing the whole time anyway, seeing patients and delivering babies on Mondays and Saturdays for all of his eight years in Congress. He was then 49, had a prospering practice, and had no particular political ambitions. As always, he refused to take Medicare or Medicaid money from patients (he worked out a cash payment or did not charge them). He didn't believe in the welfare state, so why take its money?

For reasons that even he cannot quite explain, in 1987 Ron Paul became the Libertarian party's candidate for president of the United States. Though his positions on most issues are identical to those of the Libertarians (abortion being the main exception), Paul admits that this was a strange, almost Sisyphean move, considering his prospects for victory. "I probably invested close to a year," he says. "It was a lot of time and effort. Sometimes I had some ambivalence about how productive it was."As it turned out, it was hugely productive but not in ways that Paul could see then. Though he got less than one percent of the vote in the 1988 presidential election, he managed to unite a vast network of true believers—not only staunch Libertarians, but also anti-gun control folks, fiscal conservatives, home-schoolers, right-to-lifers, school prayer advocates, isolationists, and people who generally felt that the U.S. government was veering out of control. Their financial support would become a key factor in Paul's return to congressional politics.

That happened in 1996. With Nolan Ryan as his honorary campaign chairman, he entered a bruising Republican primary against incumbent Greg Laughlin, who had switched parties the year before. Paul was now running in a new district, the 14th (he had moved his residence from Lake Jackson to his beach house in Surfside). It was a demographic oddity that connected the Gulf Coast and Central Texas and included the Brazos, Colorado, and Guadalupe lower river basins and the small cities of Victoria, San Marcos, and Freeport. Paul immediately discovered that the electoral ground rules had changed: With the Democrats trying to regain control of the House, which they had lost two Dr. No years earlier, and Speaker Newt Gingrich backing Laughlin, whom GOP regulars viewed as the stronger candidate, someone who had run for president on the Libertarian ticket—and who had advocated things like the repeal of federal drug laws and an end to the "so-called drug war"—was now a much bigger and more visible target. "My image was completely different in 1996 than in 1976," Paul says. "You can't just get passed off as an average Republican having done what I did. We got hit hard."

Most of the hitting was on the drug issue, first by Laughlin, whom Paul beat convincingly in a runoff, then by Charles "Lefty" Morris, Paul's opponent in the general election. Morris was certain that Paul's radical views would discredit him with voters. "We just have to get his ideas out, and people will know what he really stands for," Morris said at the time. He ran ads saying that Paul advocated the legalization of illegal drugs, which was not entirely accurate. Though some of Paul's public remarks had suggested that he supported full drug legalization, his official position was (and is) that federal drug laws ought to be repealed: Let the states handle all drug laws. Then Morris' subalterns dug up something even more damaging to Paul: copies of a 1992 newsletter he had published that contained racially tinted remarks.

They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

That controversy ought to have destroyed him. Lefty Morris certainly thought it would, and things looked even bleaker for Paul when the AFL-CIO kicked in with a heavy rotation of anti-Paul ads. That may explain why, even after midnight on Election Day, when the newspapers were all giving the election to Paul, Morris still refused to concede. He simply couldn't believe it.

As it turned out, Morris had underestimated Paul's ability both to raise money from his national network of donors and to successfully paint his opponent as a tool of trial lawyers and big labor. Paul raised $1.2 million to Morris' $472,153. "He has one of the largest contributor bases in Congress, outside of the leadership," says Ken Bryan, a political consultant who has worked for Democratic state senator Ken Armbrister and for Paul opponents Laughlin and Loy Sneary. According to Paul's campaign manager, Mark Elam, Paul raises a lot of money in small amounts. "He appeals to people nationwide," he says. "We have used direct mail and built our own contributors' list. The vast majority of it comes from individuals, at an average of about forty dollars." That money enabled him to launch a massive direct-mail campaign in the 14th Congressional District.

In the 1998 election, the Democrats were just as certain that Paul could be beaten. His opponent was Loy Sneary, a rice farmer from Bay City and a former Matagorda County judge. This time even more national party money and union money flowed into the 14th. "The Democrats officially targeted us both times," says Elam. After all, here was a politician foolish enough to preach against federal farm subsidies in a rural district. And he was now famous as Dr. No, the man who voted against everything.

Again, Paul drew on his vast contributor base, outraising Sneary $2.1 million to $734,000. And again he won, this time by 55 percent to 44 percent—a significant improvement over his 51 to 48 win over Morris. In 2000 Paul raised $2.4 million to Sneary's $1.1 million and widened his margin yet again, to 60 to 40.

In the years of defending himself against the assembled liberal multitudes, Paul has learned a slashing campaign style of his own. "Ron Paul specializes in attack, only he is much better at it than they are," says Dan Cobb, the editorial page editor of the Victoria Advocate, which endorsed Sneary. "He used Sneary's own record as a county judge to attack him in a misleading fashion, but it worked." Indeed, in a "Truth Test" report during the 2000 campaign, TV station KVUE in Austin found three out of four claims in Paul's ads to be false; a fourth was "true but misleading." Says Sneary, who is still upset about the campaign: "It's one thing when you criticize our position. It's another thing to take that information and use half-truths and no truths in a campaign."

Cobb says that, in part, Sneary and the Democrats asked for it. "He [Sneary] tried to paint Paul as a right-wing monster. He's not that. He's a bundle of interesting points of view, no question. You can't turn that into a terrible person. It's just nonsense and people don't buy it because they know him." Cobb also says Sneary was wrong, strategically, to attack Paul: "It should be obvious by now that you can't attack him. All you can do is run a positive campaign. People in the Fourteenth feel they know exactly where Paul stands. He is consistent and adheres to his principles. He has great personal integrity."

The question about someone like Ron Paul, who always votes his conscience and never cuts a deal, is whether he can be effective. That depends upon how you define "effective." Out in his district, where he spends three to four days a week, every week, often taking one or two of his fifteen grandchildren out politicking with him, it is quickly apparent how good he is at keeping in touch with his constituents. He is famous for attending Boy Scout honor ceremonies and graduations and civic club luncheons and just about any event that will have him. I recently followed him as he made his rounds in his district. He began the day at his home in Surfside, driving east with a staffer to Victoria. He met with the editors of the Victoria Advocate, attended two war-medal ceremonies in Victoria and Bay City, made several calls on constituents, met with his staff briefly at his district office, listened to the complaints of a commercial fisherman, and gave a midday speech to a civic group. By the end of the day, he had driven three hundred miles or more. For him, this is politics as usual.

The medal ceremonies are a good example of why Paul is so effective as a candidate. They are the result of efforts by his staff to secure medals for veterans who never received them. These are moving events, and Paul does dozens of them each year. The recipients' families often weep when they receive the medals that Paul's staff has had framed, usually with photographs of the soldier as a young man. Paul gives a short speech, celebrating the medal winners and plugging a few of his own political causes. At several stops people who know him as a doctor come up to him. "Guess what?" one young woman says as we stand in the parking lot of a small newspaper. "You delivered me!" Several of his older constituents mention the help they got from Paul in getting free or discounted prescription drugs by exploiting a little-known patient-assistance program offered by drug companies. His staff makes an effort to send all of his constituents birthday cards, as well as condolences at the death of a family member.

At the Northside Rotary Club luncheon at the Victoria Country Club, Paul is in his usual form. He is not a particularly inspiring speaker, but he pulls no punches: a combination of bland and apocalyptic. He talks of the "bubble" world economy, of the Federal Reserve System as the "counterfeiter for the world." He says that, contrary to what everyone else in Washington thinks, there is no surplus in the Treasury. He says we should get rid of the income tax, get rid of the Food and Drug Administration ("It does more harm than good"), and abolish the Environmental Protection Agency ("It now controls your land").

The businessmen in attendance applaud politely. They seem to be somewhat perplexed by Paul's monetary theories, strongly in favor of his anti-tax message, and amused by some of the anti-government rhetoric. A couple of them tell me that they like him because he votes against taxes. But what he actually says in his twenty-minute speech doesn't seem to matter that much to the one hundred or so Rotarians. In a strange way, he transcends his message. They don't see Dr. No, the man who wants to dismantle Washington. They just see good old Ron Paul, the taxpayers' best friend.

But if effectiveness is measured by his success at sponsoring and passing bills in Congress, he does not score as well. He is not, after all, a leader or a consensus builder. He is a loner, an outsider. "We don't kid ourselves about the chance of passage of a lot of these bills," concedes Paul's press secretary, Jeff Deist. In his past three terms in Congress, Paul has managed to get only two pieces of his own legislation onto the floor and into law: a bill to prohibit the Department of Housing and Urban Development from seizing a church in New York State by eminent domain and a bill transferring ownership of the Lake Texana dam project from the federal government back to the State of Texas. He has, in addition, managed to get four amendments into other bills, including prohibitions on funding for national ID numbers and federal teacher certification. That doesn't mean he doesn't try to pass legislation. In the 106th Congress he sponsored 59 bills, including measures abolishing the income tax and estate and gift taxes, withdrawing the U.S. from the World Trade Organization, ensuring the integrity of Social Security trust funds, and prohibiting the Department of Defense from using troops in Kosovo unless specifically authorized by law. In the current Congress, he is sponsoring 35 bills. He again proposes to abolish the personal income tax, he wants to repeal the War Powers Resolution so that the president cannot deploy American troops without a declaration of war by Congress, and he has moved to end U.S. membership in the United Nations. Few of these have even been debated on the floor, let alone voted on. His greatest influence these days is probably felt in the area of individual privacy; he has worked tirelessly against national ID cards and other forms of what he considers to be federal snooping.

"Principles have a price," says Charlie Cook, who publishes the Cook Political Report in Washington. "Ron Paul has a rigid, inflexible ideology, and it has undermined his effectiveness. But he probably sleeps better than anyone else on Capitol Hill." Paul's own answer is short and vintage Ron Paul. "The only real measure of effectiveness," he says, "is if I stand up for people's rights and their liberty and the Constitution."

jacmicwag
12-15-2011, 11:20 PM
Yeah, me too, he looks whooped...and not physically.

It must have shattered that man's soul tonight to hear Bachman spouting her nonsense on Iran, and I don't mean from what she said-but the audiences reaction. Broke my heart as well.


<takes big swig of sailor jerry's>

RP doesn't looked whipped at all to me. He does not like Hannity and that comes across to all which bothers Hannity a lot more than Paul. I admire Hannity for pulling himself up by his boot strings but he will never win this fight and I think he knows it.

NewRightLibertarian
12-15-2011, 11:26 PM
Somebody wrote them. We need to know who. The first step in getting an elephant out of a room is acknowledging that there is an elephant in the room.

Yeah, but this isn't an elephant in the room. This is a non-issue. Utter nonsense.

ctiger2
12-15-2011, 11:28 PM
Just watched it. Hannity is a big government/military statist. He's also a dirty reporter, I could sense his massive shame as he brought up the newsletters. You can see his face flushed disguising the guilt.

Roy Bleckert
12-15-2011, 11:28 PM
I just checked way in on who won the debate Ron 43% Newty 43% Mittens 17% , IIRC Frankie said at the beginning of the Hannity post debate show they were gonna give the results .... I did not hear frankie or sean give the results , Did I miss them ?

donnay
12-15-2011, 11:29 PM
Can any really blame why Dr. Paul avoids that snake at all cost? He is smarmy neocon artist. :mad:

Roy Bleckert
12-15-2011, 11:29 PM
Opps should be Newty 34%

Anti Federalist
12-15-2011, 11:30 PM
They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

And that is the "racism".

You'll find more "racism" in an "All in the Family" re-run.

Tinnuhana
12-15-2011, 11:31 PM
This may seem like a cultural difference, but here goes: a friend of mine who works for the Navy said some people in her office kid her about Ron Paul being a racist (she keeps a copy of his books on the corner of her desk/work space). She asked me about it and I explained what RP said about racism being collectivism. I read her the chapter out of Liberty Defined. Then I told her the reason he still gets lied about was that he refused to throrw the true author under the bus. She started to cry. "Ron Paul, he is not afraid of anybody." So at least in Okinawa culture, it is considered a big positive that Ron was strong enough to take the heat even though he did nothing wrong, to protect a friend.
Also, like Jesus telling various people, "Go and sin no more." I've got to feel that whoever wrote the articles is probably a much better person and doing greater service for freedom and liberty than if they'd been "hung out to dry" and reputation destroyed so they could do nothing. Ron Paul = shock absorber.

ForLibertyFight
12-15-2011, 11:32 PM
It's a sad day when the only candidate speaking passionately for peace is getting booed while the warmongers are praised.

ONUV
12-15-2011, 11:33 PM
lee kington must have got marching orders from sean tonight. he's in full ron paul attack mode. i think his signature is new too. it says, "Newt hired. Obama fired. Paul retired."

Anti Federalist
12-15-2011, 11:33 PM
And here's what that piece of shit Shamity's pal Hal Turner had to say:


December 14, 2007: "I am looking for volunteers from the Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazis and Skinheads to join me in Baltimore this weekend for some good old vigilante justice. We will ride the same buses where the attacks took place, looking for the perps. If we find them - or any other upity [sic] negroes [sic] looking for trouble - we will 'take care of business' vigilante-style, in the street. See how the negroes [sic] like it when they finally face the original 'Boyz in the Hood.'"

God I hate to post this link...ugh...http://www.adl.org/main_extremism/turner_own_words.htm

NewRightLibertarian
12-15-2011, 11:36 PM
Hal Turner was a fed

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 11:38 PM
Hal Turner was a fed

and sean hannity's best friend. so what does that make hannity?

NewRightLibertarian
12-15-2011, 11:40 PM
and sean hannity's best friend. so what does that make hannity?

but that was before 9/11 and he could start labeling his enemies as 'anti-semites'

seyferjm
12-15-2011, 11:42 PM
Did I hear correctly when I thought Sean called him a Holocaust denier?

James Madison
12-15-2011, 11:44 PM
Did I hear correctly when I thought Sean called him a Holocaust denier?

I think he was talking about the 'leader' of Iran who isn't actually the leader of Iran. Go figure...

Expatriate
12-15-2011, 11:45 PM
Did I hear correctly when I thought Sean called him a Holocaust denier?

I think he was trying to say that Iran (Ahmadinejad?) is a holocaust denier, but yeah that didn't make much sense to me either.

MrTudo
12-15-2011, 11:45 PM
Did I hear correctly when I thought Sean called him a Holocaust denier?

He sarcastically asked him if he was. The bachman/hannity combo I think was designed to be the similar hit job that that slimebag glen beck did.

coastie
12-15-2011, 11:46 PM
I think he was talking about the 'leader' of Iran who isn't actually the leader of Iran. Go figure...

Yeah...the Prez of Iran is actually like the 15th in charge, or some IRRELEVANT shit like that.

ShaneEnochs
12-15-2011, 11:48 PM
I hope he immediately went to a bar where his supporters were so they could all cheer him up. That was absolutely a horrible thing for him to go through from the booing to the nonsense with Hannity. I feel so bad for him =\

specsaregood
12-15-2011, 11:49 PM
but that was before 9/11 and he could start labeling his enemies as 'anti-semites'

of course as mentioned earlier, hannity was a nobody before 9/10. he probably thanks those terrorists every night before bed.

James Madison
12-15-2011, 11:50 PM
I hope he immediately went to a bar where his supporters were so they could all cheer him up. That was absolutely a horrible thing for him to go through from the booing to the nonsense with Hannity. I feel so bad for him =\

That's why Ron is the man! How many people would be willing to go through what he does on a daily basis?

Matt Collins
12-16-2011, 12:11 AM
Video added to the OP

helmuth_hubener
12-16-2011, 12:15 AM
Video added to the OP Thank you. Now if I could just find a video of the debate highlights...

donnay
12-16-2011, 12:15 AM
and sean hannity's best friend. so what does that make hannity?

Well it makes me fed-up! :mad:

I have never liked boot lickin' Sean. I had only wished I was able to throw a snowball at him...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL864vbZTdY

dolphin
12-16-2011, 12:17 AM
Ron Paul will be interviewed by Sean Hannity tonight following the debate (12/15/11). This is the official thread :toady:

ON EDIT --

Looks like someone has posted the video to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG3rq_SP8VU&feature=player_embedded


Translation.

Hannity is being a suckup now that Ron Paul has proven his worth.

They cannot win without his support and know they will lose if he goes third party.

In other words we have made Ron Paul the King Maker even if he does not win the nomination.

We have elevated our candidate to the status of Power Broker.

We should all be very proud of that accomplishment.

jclay2
12-16-2011, 12:21 AM
Translation.

Hannity is being a suckup now that Ron Paul has proven his worth.

They cannot win without his support and know they will lose if he goes third party.

In other words we have made Ron Paul the King Maker even if he does not win the nomination.

We have elevated our candidate to the status of Power Broker.

We should all be very proud of that accomplishment.

This is true. Ron Paul doing a legitamate third party run takes away at least 2-3 % (mostly negative to the gop). With how close things are, this would probably ensure an obama victory at the minimum.

specsaregood
12-16-2011, 12:25 AM
This is true. Ron Paul doing a legitamate third party run takes away at least 2-3 % (mostly negative to the gop). With how close things are, this would probably ensure an obama victory at the minimum.
polls show a lot closer to 10%.

thehungarian
12-16-2011, 12:28 AM
Post debate thoughts: i can't stop thinking how NDAA and SOPA were not even brought up.

helmuth_hubener
12-16-2011, 12:29 AM
Or even 15 to 20%.