I hope Ron Paul does not become the Ralph Nader of the right.  He is refreshing.

sorry to disappoint but he already is.  You’re right, he is refreshing but has as much chance as a snowball in hell.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative that will reduce the size of government. 

one cursory glance at paul’s economic plan says everything you need to know,
and why so-called ‘statism’ is just a fancy word for “i hate government”

Ron Paul is the ONLY true Conservative running. Every other candidate is running on a liberal, Democratic foreign policy. Remember the Truman Doctrine? the foreign policy declared by Democratic President Harry Truman? That is the foreign policy that all of the other candidates in the GOP advocate EXCEPT Ron Paul.

Ron Paul 2012 Please!

Because I LOVE AMERICA NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!

Ron Paul pwned Hannity.

Ron Paul 2012.

Ron Paul is not a cuckoo. He is what a politician should be

And hating big, bloated gov’t that enslaves the American people is a bad thing why?

My sound went out, did Ron Paul call Hannity a Statist or was it assho_e?

Ron Paul schooling the neocon.

As usual, Ron Paul is right.

Wow, some one’s been chugging the koolaid. Drink!

He did?  How much did he get for him?  He’ll probably loose the ticket on purpose so he doesn’t have to pick him up……oh, I thought you said pawned.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Guys like Hannity have very large viewer ships and listening audiences. The fact alone that he and Hannity are agreeing on things and Ron has been on his shows more and more is huge for his campaign. Ron Paul and Hannity did not get along well during the 2008 cycle.

I saw someone comment today on another story saying theyd only vote for RP if he was nominated. I say we need to throw him a bone now. Donate to his campaign, register republican in your state and vote in the primaries for him, especially if you live in an early state. All I hear is “I like him but he can’t win.” Well I’ll tell ya what…we have the power to make it happen.

Sean Hannity is very nearly the singular biggest jerk on TV.  He could announce that he was hosting the reincarnated Ronald Reagan on his show, and I wouldn’t watch it, because the main subject would be Sean.
 

That’s a nice opinion you have, to bad unlike the media talking heads, you don’t get paid for your insightful speculation. 

Hahahaha… Hannity is such a bitch.  Get over yourself asshole.

Hannity is a statist.  Big government boondoggle military police the world America empire.  Yeah that is a statist.  
Small constitutional sized government.  That is Ron Paul’s message.  Freedom for all.  http://www.freemarketfan.com/2011/08/ron-paul-has-pushed-ideal-of-liberty.html

Darla is a proud slave.

Ron Paul will not win in 2012. Thank Goodness.

You throw him a bone.  I’ll throw him a leash and lead him off the playing field.

Paul was on Hannity’s radio show last week and they went over this.  There was no reason for Hannity to bring up the same conversation, again, unless it was to be combative with Paul in front of his tv audience.  

Ron Paul is a true small government champion of the people. Please research his positions yourself and make a decision on who you think is the best bet, not who you think can win based on the pundits opinion. This is American and you have to stand for Liberty or you will lose it. This is no joke, the time has come for real change and a new approach to how our government is run and how much control it has over it’s people.

This interview gives me the feeling that Ron Paul has a real shot at picking up the nomination. Hannity is the most solidly conservative voice on Fox and it seems like he’s opening the door a little for Paul.

Its becoming obvious that none of the other candidates outside of Romney are going to have any chance at all against Obama, something I never thought I’d say six months ago. And as solid a candidate as Romney would be there is just zero excitement for him. The republican leadership has to be seeing this.

Ron Paul would be a hail mary shot to be sure but he would throw the general election debates wide open. What other way do the republicans have to attack Obama militarily? His nonintervention position plays not only to independents, but liberals as well. On the budget and debt he has the strongest legs to stand on. On social issues he has a very easy to explain alternative to the status quo in the states right argument.

Maybe I’m misreading the atmosphere on the right, but I really hope they make this choice. It would be the most exciting thing to happen in American politics in the past decade.

I’ll sign up for “small government” when you folks dial in with “small individuals and corporations.”

The actual size of government is a non-issue, but government’s size should be commensurate with the “size” of individuals. Show me sustainability with government AND individuals and corporations and I’ll sign up with the young folks who love Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. Does size really matter–or is sustainability important.

And have you seen the “size” of most Americans today?

The word is “obese,” and perhaps it’s a good word for government today, too.

Shrinking government is a simple act of covert greed until we ‘shrink’ individuals, but you folks will never do that.

Paul’s consistency fades when he delves into foreign policy. Instead of embracing the obvious freedom of the movement, he recoils and follows with more conventional islamo-Fear that so many share today.

It’s their freedom–Islamic or not–not ours!

It was’nt senator Paul, it was me.  I’ll put a buck in the “swear jar”.

Actually Pauls disagreement is with the CIA support of these Washington orchestrated fake revolutions

and big, bloated health insurance companies, telecom and oil companies, and mining
and timber companies are………on your side teshia!

Well, there’s some trade-offs involved in going on Hannitty, one of the them being that the viewers watching this are dumb enough to go for this, as opposed to using it as a position to discuss around.

Right off the bat, Paul makes the same old mistake: that the U.S. revived its economy by slashing spending after World War II. The data shows the truth was completely different. The U.S. economy was expanded under FDR for every year after he came into office in 1933 except in 1937 when he listened to the GOP and cut deficits, that is it started expanding again once he got rid of those policies in 1938, and it then DRAMATICALLY expanded starting in 1942 – with the biggest public works project in US history, the war efforts in Europe and the Pacific. Truman continued that spending rate, and then Ike continued both that and high marginal tax rates all through the 1950s, which resulted in continuation of the massive public works projects, while bringing down the deficit – AGAIN, BY HIGH MARGINAL TAX RATES. 

And I mean REALLY high, like 85% on those today in the top 1%.

So this means RoPaul, “refreshing” as some find him (He’s different all right.) is either a liar or just ignorant, and I have too much respect for his intelligence to suggest that he’s completely ignorant and I really don’t think he thinks of himself as a liar. What he is is a crank, someone who gets hold of an idea and won’t listen to opposing evidence.

I actually think it’s worthwhile having Paul in the House, because he does contribute to good legislation in specialized areas every once in a while, because he’s less hated or at least better tolerated by Dems than Republicans and like a lot of cranks, he means well. But he’s got a big blind spot here, with history and economics in particular. Indeed, if he was elected a Senator, he’d become not an asset to the nation, but a detriment (like his son, though more effective in bringing about bad effects), and if he were elected president, he’d be an absolute disaster. 

The reason I think people listen to him is that economics is a discipline that depends so much on language. It’s like with golf, where 99% of folks admit they don’t hit the ball straight but a lot of them think they can hit it far, and almost everyone except first class golfers thinks he or she can putt. It’s just an illusion: if you can’t it where you want, distance is of very limited value, often of negative value, and it turns out the closer you get the better you putt, so the first class golfers have an even greater advantage. Yet people think they understand economics despite not understanding math and despite having no objectively accurate picture of history. Being able to balance your check book and pay your bills each month does not mean you are a macroeconomist, nor does being able to run a profitable business. Your personal financial life and that of your business are functions of context, both of them being things done WITHIN the macroeconomic universe. Macroeconomics involves things beyond you and your business, like currency creation and support and trade policy. They are like equating checkers to chess and both to quantum mechanics. 

Paul knows how to run his own life, his own career and his own offices and campaigns. All those things are within established contexts and none of the things he’s learned from those things makes him any smarter on macroeconomics than your dog.

Sean Hannity is an egomaniac. He just talked to Paul about the statist comment last Tuesday when Paul went on his radio show.

They all call me a dreamer
But I’m not the only one …

Yeah but thankfully there’s too few of you to ever get him elected.

Paul is like one those blind pharsees in the Rudyard Kipling children’s story, where each feels a part of the elephant and thinks that’s completely what it is. Paul’s got hold of the gut and thinks it’s a beached whale. He’s right on the part he can feel, but he doesn’t listen to the others telling him what THEY feel, and thinks they’re wrong or lying. The elephant turns out to be what ALL the pharsees feel, brought together in a cohesive functioning whole.

He’s both. And lots of pols are nuts. Paul is high functioning nuts. But he has some value as a House rep.

Let me help out all of the sixteen year-olds on here that are lapping up that sweet, egoistic, Ayn Rand nectar dripping from the pages of Atlas Shrugged…

This will not totally fit because most of you are already fat, but trust me now when I say that the future offers you more of the same: you will only get fatter.

Now what am I talking about? When you’re born, you’re small, see? And as you grow up, you get BIG, see?

The point I am making in the barest of terms is ‘increase’ or as our economist friends like to say, growth.

Now as we grow, most of us get bigger in every sense of the word: most of you live with your parents,but soon you’ll live in a dorm, and later you’ll get an apartment. And even if the economy flattens for the next ten years or so, you will still grow, though at a much slower rate than your parents or their parents.

The expectation in the US economy has always been growth; it’s fundamental to capitalism (see what Henry Ford said about ‘how much growth?’) Life is growth in this country. When you graduate from high school, you’ll weigh 175 and by college it will be 225. When you’re 40, you’ll punch in at three bills. This analogy fits perfectly with the economy at large: people will make more people and everything will grow–except that evel thing called government, right?

But don’t despair! You’ll also expect to drive a better car live in a McMansion, and have a 65″ Plasma–as opposed to your current 25″ model. You’ll spend more and you’ll own more–and you’ll probably be in more debt, too. The American Dream is a BIG DREAM, get it? We want your buttons to absolutely burst as you lurch towards middle age. Keep getting fat on Cain’s pizza! Keep buying stuff that you don’t need–cuz if you don’t…the economy will fail. We need you to keep buying stuff and getting fatter!

Now think about the plight of government in this whole scheme. Mr. Paul and Mrs. Rand want the smallest government possible because they believe that government oppresses people. Fair enough, right?

You and I are expected to get fat, while government should stay skinny, right? As time goes by, everything is getting bigger: inflation, prices, wages?, waistlines, etc., and new things are emerging all the time. Today we have cell phones, but your parents didn’t have these lovely devices for Facebook distraction, now did they? And cell phones have somehow managed to merge with the older automotive technology to form what is now called “distracted driving.” Have you heard of this? Maybe you saw a video in health or drivers’ ed about it?

Well, it’s new…and it’s also another one of those things that we can attribute to the theme of this screed: GROWTH. Cellular technology is a new industry that resulted from some folks who got together and grew the idea that we’d all walk around with radiation-emitting devices welded to our heads (not dangerous-I assure you?) Cool, huh? Cell phones represent growth, get it? And when you put them together with automobiles, its DANGER!!! People die just cuz they were doin’ 70 and texting ‘WUTZ UP, BRO?’ around a bend…”Watch out for that tree!!”

So what happened? The folks in government got together to legislate this growth industry–for some reason the folks who made and sell the cell phones were against new laws. But it was government that stepped in to address what was coming to be seen as a major problem.

Now think about that. If we think that government should be small–however we mean that word–how will we attend to the obvious problems inherent to growth? You probably smoke, as many kids do these days, but did you know that in your parents day, dying smokers used lawyers( inconcert with health care professionals and scientists who determined that cigs were hazardous to health) to sue tobacco companies who were in turn sued by state governments into submission. Most of us know that cigs are dangerous–in health and fiscal terms. You will die from lung cancer, but I will foot the bill through higher premiums. But it was government that secured this victory, a government that determined the danger inherent in this product.

My point is that you will grow, but you also need government to grow as well. I’m not talking about ‘big government’ per se, but simply a government with the scope to address important issues like cell phones, cigarettes, AGW and other environmental issues.

We need a government that grows with us and helps us grow smarter and grow in ways that are healthy and sustainable. Destroying government through the distorted idea of freedom is nonsense. That kid that drove his car into your friends family is not freedom, it’s juvenile irresponsibility–and it’s a phenomenon that folks of all ages have today.

Grow up big, youngsters, but grow up to be strong and smart about growth!

Uncle Timothy

Paul is very effective at getting people to consider his ideas, and he certainly got me to read his. They’re still nuts.

I would be so excited to see Paul run in the general. What a bizarre hoot that would be. It will never happen, but if it did it would be quite the kick in the ass. Of course it would be a guaranteed re-election for Obama.

F#CK YOU! C@CK SUC*ER

Not so long ago Hannity was calling Paul a crazy kook.  Now he’s pleading his case that he is a conservative to him.  There isn’t any doubt that Paul is the true conservative in the race.   To continue to deny that only further harms the credibility of hanity and limbaugh and the like. 

I saw Hannity interview Dr Ron Paul in 2008 after the debate. He was so rude and disrespectful. Now grovelling. I want to see the Dr Ron Paul debate that insane, inhumane manchurian in the white house, teleprompter free.

His every appearance on TV is like a beam of light from all the insanity going on. While Cain is publicly struggling to comprehend the difference between pro-life/choice, Rick Perry is excavating the birther idiocy to up his poll-numbers, while Bachmann is making up the stories about girls going mentally deranged because they were vaccinated… Ron Paul is talking about issues, with clarity and with the badly missed common sense in the discussions.

Hannity tried to derail him and take him to the levels of the above-mentioned competition, but failed miserably in doing so.

I think DR. Paul touched a nerve. 

I know whose side I’d be on if I was to choose between these 2. Ron Paul has more credibility than this GOP spokesman. 

If you are in support of bombing innocents like the rest of the war mongers, Ron Paul is definitely not your man.

Which idea do you consider nuts? Bringing our troops home? Ceasing to bomb innocents in other countries? Trading openly with other countries? Allowing personal liberty? Being anti federal reserve (the guys that keep devaluing our money)?

Actually Ron Paul has been projected to beat Obama in the general election.

As seen here : http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/870/Default.aspx

 ”If Ron Paul was the Republican nominee, he would beat President Obama 51% to 49%”

Why waste all that time talking about himself?  Is he the story?  Is he running for President?

Hannity is such a friggin’ hack.

Fact: Anyone but Obama in 2012!

Fact: Then let him sign up for it but first show up here!

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/cain-and-gingrich-agree-to-lincoln-douglas-style-debate-in-the-woodlands/

Fact: True conservatives want strong defense!

I agree that Paul would make an interesting candidate, but that poll is pretty useless.

1. A two point “win” is within the margin of error. 

2. The electorate at large knows very little about Paul or his policies. I think under the harsh glare of light, his pure strain of libertarianism is not going to play well with voters who want reassurances that their financial safety net is not about to be hacked away or that government has no role in stimulating the economy. 

Excellent analogy.

The problem is that people like Hannity truly hate government, bloated or not. They’re dismissive of what it does — building roads, keeping schools and hospitals running, providing clean water and air, funding massive projects like dams or the internet — and fool themselves into believing that all these functions can just be turned over to the private sector, which has its own problems. 

Fact: I always placed my dogs ability to add and subtract over and above any demarodents ability to balance debt. Thanx for making it clear!

He was neither rude or disrespectful.  You don’t like Hannity fine, but don’t make up garbage.

Fact: Has anyone read all this crap?

If you don’t see that he has tremendous support then you aren’t really paying attention. Let’s be serious.

Dude… are you new the this thing called the internet?  Or are your jokes lacking set up, delivery, and funny?

Uh, no its not. Its actually a confusing and non-sensicle analogy.

Every time I’ve seen you post in a manner against Paul, it’s all
bright red and round, but filled with enough helium to suffocate your own
arguments. You’re best left floating off into the distance. So let me just untie you *unties rope*. Bye bye now :)

Hannity is so self absorbed. At least Rush pulls it off with sarcastic flare…Hannity is a cry baby.

“I’ll sign up for “small government” when you folks dial in with “small individuals and corporations.”
Dr. Paul would actually attack that problem through the insidious and burdensome regulations that multiply daily. These regulations are often backed by and built by the corportations in order to eliminate competition. While large corporations can simply toss money at fines, smaller businesses, the backbone of our economy and the real jobs producers, cannot afford to fight the regulations and pay the fines imposed, therefore, they either have to go out of business or at best cannot hire new workers. This is one very, very important area in which a Ron Paul presidency would benefit the entire country while stifling the large corporations ability to gain power and monopolies. 

Our schools and hospitals ran a whole lot better before the government got involved. Goldwater warned us of this kind of government involvement and meddling and now it is out of control and failing.

Quote from another poster elsewhere says it very well:

Once the government got in the business of Regulating and interferin­g in the market of Education.Prices Sky Rocketed.Quality went down. Once the government got in the business of Regulating and interferin­g in the market of Health CarePrices Sky Rocketed.Quality went downOnce the government got in the business of Regulating and interferin­g in the market of Housing.Prices Sky Rocketed.People got kicked out.Once the government got in the business of Regulating and interferin­g in the market of Labor.Prices Sky Rocketed.Quality went downOnce the government got in the business of Regulating and interferin­g in the market of Wall StreetInflation Sky Rocketed.Crooks were protectedMain street went downOnce the government got in the business of Regulating and interferin­g in the market of EnergyPrices Sky Rocketed.Quality went downThese correlatio­ns are undeniable but yet well hidden through Corporate Media Propaganda and Partisan Biases. Thank You Doctor Paul for telling America the Truth. You are the most honest politician we have and you are starting a revolution­!

You contradict yourself. It is the warmongers who are the fearful ones and fear producing ones.

Your are correct though in that “It’s their freedom–Islamic or not–not ours!” Therefore, it is none of our business to involve ourselves in their sovereign concerns. We have no authority and we have no right to go into their lands and foment wars and uprisings.

Rex,
Ron Paul has said, repeatedly, he doesn’t want to manage/run the economy. He is a true free-market capitalist and believes individuals working together can make better, more efficient decisions as an uncentralized collective than any centrally-planned government agency. There are numerous historical examples of failed centrally-planned economies, take your pick. Economics is easy…the rationing of finite resources. However, the inefficient and corruptible nature of government makes it an inappropriate means of determining how resources are rationed and distributed throughout a society. If you cannot understand this simple fact, there should be no surprise why economics and Ron Paul confuse you so.

The private sector is also corruptible.

–Cobra

Why are people so blind anybody but Run Paul is going to continue running the country exactly like obama. I don’t why people want government to keep running there.

Cobra,
True, the private sector is corruptible as well. However, the private sector is held accountable through consumer choice and risk along with the law. Governments have proven time and again that government provides no accountability, no choice, can distort risk and is above the law. It is ultimately all about choice. The choice of one, unaccountable government authority or the choice of numerous private exchanges held accountable by the law.

Life

“The expectation in the US economy has always been growth; it’s fundamental to capitalism”

This explicitly does not mean growth of government. Growth of bigger and bigger government stifles the growth of capitalism and the economy. Bigger and bigger government steals the capital from capitalists and buries it in government with its bloated bureaucracies. There must be less government in order to actually have enough revenue to fund our government, not more government. This is the failure of statism for decades now. I have seen it for over sixty years and have had enough of it. It is imperative that we get the capital back into capitalism, but only through a true free market, not through monopolized multinational corporations who steal the wealth and redistribute it out of America. Small business is true capitalism. 

bull crap.    The entire GOP establishment and media has been extremely rude and disrespectful to Ron Paul and his supporters over the years.

The sole purpose of government is to protect the freedoms and liberties of the people.  

I volunteered for the Ron Paul campaign last time around. I talked to a lot of people who wanted to vote for him  but felt he “couldn’t win”. That’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy. Actually vote for him and he’ll win. We have to ditch this horse race mentality of voting for the best-ranked horse. Vote your conscience. If everyone does this, the results might be surprising. I’ve had enough of voting for the lesser of two evils. You still get evil. Last few decades ring a bell?

True conservatives do indeed want strong defense jst as Dr. Paul does. We just do not want agression, militarism, and empire which are bleeding the wealth of America and destroying our country and making us many enemies around the world. I am tired of our country being the laughing stock of the rest of the world. True defense begins at home, not in a dozen countries in the mideast.

Disagree.     Hard left and Hard right have never mattered in elections.    There are going to be a base of voters who vote republican no matter what, and a base of voters who vote democrat no matter what.

The difference in elections comes from swing voters.    And Ron Paul has the largest appeal to that group.

Furthermore, Ron Paul’s positions are always misrepresented with false dichotomy.    Even among republicans.    You either support all the wars, or you are soft on defense, and an “isolationist”.   Well this is of course not true, and it’s simply a matter of pointing out the false dichotomy, which supporters often do.

And when you look at Ron Paul and his support, it’s not the same as other candidates.   His poll numbers do not have the same meaning as the others – they are always understated.

Least we forget that the support Ron Paul has generated has been while a mainstream media and talking heads have pushed him down.    He has gained that support while being marginalized, always with the statement that he can’t win.   The most limited time in the debates, and so on.

No telling where he would be if there wasn’t so much bias against him.    Ron Paul has been running with weights tied around his ankles, and his still outrunning other candidates who are riding the back of the media bus.

In a general election debate, he would absolutely kill Obama.     Unless you believe Obama was elected for Obamacare – which I’m sure he wasn’t.     Obama has broken every promise he made and was elected on.   And wouldn’t you know it – Ron Paul just so happens to be on the right side of those issues.    Meaning, what gained Obama support over republicans in 2008, is lost to Obama in 2012 – but only if Ron Paul is the GOP nominee.   No other republican has that advantage.

Even aside from the issues, Ron Paul speaks with common sense and principle.   On a stage with only 2 people – good bye Obama.   Go ahead and bring that talking point out Obama, and Ron Paul will dismantle it for the falsehood it presents – similar to the heroin question at an earlier GOP debate this year, or the way he absolutely killed Rudy Guilliani in 2008.

And the greatest issue of all – The federal reserve.     Not only because of the bailouts and TARP – which again Obama supported and so did the GOP, but also because if people really find out what goes on there – it’s game over for any candidate who doesn’t want to get rid of it.    That sentiment has already started to sweep the GOP thanks to Ron Paul, and it will sweep over to the left as well because the issue goes beyond left vs right.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who has groups of democrats who are so eager to vote for him, that they have switched parties. 

And there is more, but this is long already and I think you get the point.   Obama is weak and the GOP recognizes this.  However, Obama is weak because he has kept the status quo, and the best chance Obama has of getting re-elected is with a GOP candidate who supports the status quo.

The problem are the neo-cons, who are actually extreme left liberals.   They want the status quo(Obama is a neo-con).    And they are doing everything in their power to keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination.       The problem for Ron Paul isn’t in the general election, it’s getting past the neo-cons who have a hold on the republican party establishment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8845020/Afghanistan-would-back-Pakistan-in-war-with-US-claims-Hamid-Karzai.html

This is what Paul is warning us about.  Our militaristic policies DO NOT create friends.  If anything they create more enemies.

The story of the blind men and the elephants is an old Hindu/Buddhist proverb.    And other religions and such have picked it up because it’s such a good little lesson on perspective.

But apparently, you’ve completely missed the point and don’t apply it correctly at all.  

Ron Paul is not blind.   Proof is in the fact that he has time and time again predicted the events of the future.      He predicted the housing bubble, he told people in 2008 that the economy was about to fall, and all things like it.     At the same time, these other candidates were telling people everything was ok.     And then the next thing you know, we are suddenly having to pass bills that nobody has read(talk about blind) overnight to keep the economy from completely crashing and omg it’s going to be anarchy on the street blah blah blah.

The only thing I can think of where Perry or Romney have experience that Ron Paul doesn’t is being democrats and/or constantly changing positions on issues depending on what the polls say as a means of gaining votes and lacking true principle.

Ron Paul is the only way the GOP will beat Obama.  He brings massive support from the young, Libertarians, independents, even alot of your fellow Dems that realized Obama is a crock are now pulling for RP. 

It was some crazy ass rant about cell phone usage. 

No stronger defense than having your troops home to defend.  Derp.

Yes, but McDonalds can’t jail you for not buying a Big Mac.

Sean is a statest because he
believes in endless war. U can never have 100% safety, but u can have
0% liberty, Sean would be ok with that because, according to EVERYTHING
he’s ever said over the past 10 years, at least we would be safe. I
would rather have 100% liberty, even if it meant having 0% safety. I
can work to increase my safety and maintain my liberty. I cannot work
to increase my liberty and maintain my safety

ballderdash and pumpkins!  You figure cause nobody invites him on as a regular diet they disrespect him?
He’s not a republican!  Don’t you get it?  He’s a libertarian.   He’s a kindly doddering old guy and he’s had his 15 minutes.  His ideas are silly and giving him any more air time is a waste of time.  

Rude by sorry butt. 

Sounds to me like you are jealous or scared that Ron Paul is gaining traction.  If he is no threat that why not let him “play” I think you are afraid. 

Even though sean, the loud-mouth little frog, attempted to intimidate Ron Paul, it didn’t go as he hoped. Mr. Paul is older, wiser, and so much more intelligent, he didn’t even blink, and kept talking when the frog tried to shut him down and cut him off.  It was a fun interview.  I like Ron Paul, don’t agree with everything, but he is definitely his own man.

One of the most perfect descriptions of sean, the little frog, who so wanted to be kind.

You are like the media, that will not acknowledge him but say that he does not have a chance.  If he does not have a chance then why not allow him some air time on mainstream media program? 

Because they, like you,  KNOW that RON PAUL IS ELECTABLE.  VERY ELECTABLE. and the media and you are very scared so you resort to insults and they try to ignore him.   RON PAUL 2012

Yup – I’m jealous doofus.  

You want to waste your time and play with him, you go right ahead. 

Dumb dumb comment.  Lights out, nobody home.

Based on your response, I have come to the conclusion you have no idea what the words rude and disrespectful mean.

Based on your response, I have come to the conclusion you have no idea what the words rude and disrespectful mean.

Sean Hannity treated Ron Paul like crap in 2008 primary. That is why his supporters chased him with snowballs. Ron Paul didn’t change, the Republican party is changing because of the Ron Paul REVOLUTION and Sean Hannity doesn’t want to be left out in the Cold.

According to your yardstick – not giving him a constant platform is rude and disrespectful.  Well, I just pointed out to you that he is not a republican, so why are you bashing the republicans as being rude and disrespectful?  

When you or whoever said Hannity was rude to him, I knew that your idea of “rude” and the general publics idea of rude are two different things.  Hannity is not rude – to anybody, so I knew that you knew not what you were talking about.  You’re in here shilling for Paul.  Good for you.  

I’m just telling you the simple facts – you can push all you want an orange will not turn into an apple because you wish it to.  

The reason why Ron Paul was critical of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, et al, was because they are all warmongering neo-cons whose idea of a “constitutional government” includes bankrupting our economy by destroying foreign nations that have 3rd rate military defenses and jailing Americans for what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Just for starters.

Sean is a mouthpiece for the Republican party. He was Bush’s biggest cheerleader (with the possible exception of Dana Perino). He continues to echo Bush’s defense policy. However, I suspect Sean realizes that Ron Paul, who he has belittled and mocked for years, is a much more serious contender this time around. As a result, he is trying to cover all his bases. He doesn’t want to be shut out if Paul gets the nomination. Sean has been in broadcasting long enough to know it’s all about ratings. If he is not “in” with the top Republican, his ratings drop. So, Sean is trying to be polite with Paul, even though he obviously still dislikes him.

Exactly. Guess what everybody, your rights don’t come from the government! 

I remember watching footage from 2008 where Hannity was very disrespectful to Paul as well…

We can’t grow if someone who is larger and controls all of the food is eating all of our food..

The economy can’t grow if the government is taking up all of the capital.Our innovations can’t grow if regulations are setting up blockades against all new business..

So, be a realist and wake up..  The real world is about people being allowed to chose what foods to eat so they can determine how they’d like to grow without the government taking 35% of the food off of their plates.. 

Try these scenarios on for size:
1. Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination: No GOP candidate is strong enough to beat Obama next year, especially after Obama’s campaign tears them apart and Obama wins all the head-to-head debates.
2. Ron Paul gets the nomination: He picks up nearly 100% of the coveted Independents, all of the former Obama voters who are disappointed with him, all of the Obama-haters (basically all Republicans), and all of his rabid supporters go to the voting booth, guaranteed, which hands the election to Ron Paul.

The voters wouldn’t listen to Ross Perot either, now many don’t have a job.

What I would give to see RP call out Obama on a debate. Obummer has no chance.

@   REX THE WONDER IDIOT YOU ARE AN EASTERN PARASITE THAT LIVES OFF THE SYSTEM AND MORE LIKELY A ZIONIST HAPPY TO BE SLAVE.

@  exGOPman YOU ARE A REAL TROLL, IS A WAST OF TIME TO WAKE YOU UP CONTINUE SLEEPING

As much as I want to blast Vanity Hannity, I have to remind myself that I too used to think according to this  neoconservative mindset. What emancipated me from this mindset regarding foreign policy was a combination of seeing facts which were undeniable, e.g., no WMD’s found in Iraq, Al Queda/Taliban seated in Pakistan and still causing trouble in Afhghanistan after our forces have been there over 10 years, Iraqi Christians being worse off now than before, new Libya going Shariah law state, Obama doing much the same as Bush in waging undeclared wars without congressional approval under cover of NATO/UN, and above all, how we’re going broke and still using our defense budget expenditures overseas while we have an open borders here at home where that money would be better spent (who knows how many AQ cells could have come in through Mexico?)  Did I mention we’re broke?  And while Hannity claims to like some of Ron Paul’s economic plans, i doubt that he really has any intellectual understanding and substance behind his “talking points” (i.e., limited government, understands Austrian vs. Keynesian economics, what the Federal Reserve does over/against sound monetary policies and how such affects the economy, jobs, inflation, etc.  For example, he was so gung ho for Paul Ryan’s plan during the debt increase debates 3 months agto, but was oblivious to the fact that even Ryan’s plan would do little more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, which was why Ron Paul rejected all plans including Ryan’s. Perhaps it is all due to Fox News being corporate, although I’m not sure.  All I can say is that while I’m ardently for a strong defense, I also realize that such is not achievable by this current, pre-emptive ”greatest show on turf” neocon doctrine that the “best defense is a great offense.” Such might temporarily work, but in the long run, it will only weaken the defense, while we go broke in the process.   Lastly, while I don’t want to see Isreael or any other ally blown off the map, I also don’t think it is right to make them welfare cases, especially given we’re in such debt here at home. They still remain our larrgest annual recipient of foreign aid, and have a full military/air force/navy and over 300+ nuclear missiles with which to defend itself……hence, keep in mind that Hannity’s type of  Christian beliefs include a pre-millenial dispensationalism which helps to explain this adamant”Israel firster, Cater to Israel at any cost” foreign policy where we keep in line all their “Ishmaelite” enemies for them—ala a misapplication of the “you” in Genesis 12:3,(“He who blesses/curses you, I will bless/curse”) as applying to a physical nation, rather than to all who hold the same faith in the promised Christ which Abraham did, regardless of whether they be Jew or Gentile. But hey, I’m just a Lutheran. ;)  I was quite alarmed to see Hannity, as well as Limbaugh and Beck, often interview and support the Dispensationalism of such Iran fear-mongerers as Joel Roesenberg.  Yeesh!   

Romney and Cain are the guys insisting that it’s a donkey.

Hello, jealous doofus.

He’s lying. He’s like Cain. Doesn’t like to read.

We don’t need to cut the defense budget, just the foreign aggression budget.

I supported Ron Paul in 2008. I remember hannity treating him like dirt after the debates. Hannity called Ron Paul names and his interviews were very hostile. Hannity is conservative when it comes to monetary policy and agrees with Ron Paul there. Ron Paul is a conservative for both monetary policy AND FOREIGN POLICY. Ron paul is a thorough, true conservaitve throug and through. What hannity doesnt get is the fact that we have a VERY costly foreign policy and it effects us economically. We prop up dictators, send them US taxpayer dollars, bomb them while we can’t take care of our own backyard. As ron paul has said, the poor here get taxed, we send that money to rich leaders in poor cou tries…the poor here and there never benefit. Only the rich here and there. We go into wars carelessly and bailout/print money and send it todoreign banks, that just short list. That is what hannity doesn’t understand. We are broke and can’t take care of our borders and our bridges, but we spend billions of dollars taking care of foreign borders and bridges after bombing them and killing innocent civilians? We have a failed foreign policy. Hannity likes it just the way it is and that makes him a statist and non-conservative. hannity is a foreign policy liberal PERIOD.

I supported Ron Paul in 2008. I remember hannity treating him like dirt after the debates. Hannity called Ron Paul names and his interviews were very hostile. Hannity is conservative when it comes to monetary policy and agrees with Ron Paul there. Ron Paul is a conservative for both monetary policy AND FOREIGN POLICY. Ron paul is a thorough, true conservaitve throug and through. What hannity doesnt get is the fact that we have a VERY costly foreign policy and it effects us economically. We prop up dictators, send them US taxpayer dollars, bomb them while we can’t take care of our own backyard. As ron paul has said, the poor here get taxed, we send that money to rich leaders in poor cou tries…the poor here and there never benefit. Only the rich here and there. We go into wars carelessly and bailout/print money and send it todoreign banks, that just short list. That is what hannity doesn’t understand. We are broke and can’t take care of our borders and our bridges, but we spend billions of dollars taking care of foreign borders and bridges after bombing them and killing innocent civilians? We have a failed foreign policy. Hannity likes it just the way it is and that makes him a statist and non-conservative. hannity is a foreign policy liberal PERIOD.

That could be true becasue I’m a true conservative and I want a strong national defense…. I just don’t care for the the international oiffense we have going on rigtht now.