Did anyone catch Ron Paul on Maher last night?

Scrum · 04-01-2007, 02:12 AM

YouTube Video

Bill came out swinging on him and you could tell he was nervous, but I think he did well.
It was even better that he kept cool and had good answers with Bill going after him. I would rather get to these things and see how responds.

Even got some nice applause from the very liberal audience.

Too bad after the interview they kind of went off on a tangent about privatization that had nothing to do with the answer he gave, but I think the audience understood what he was saying about the private healthcare system he wanted for vets.

Thorgrim · 04-01-2007, 02:31 AM

Lots of anti-US talk....regarding the US killing other world leaders

His talk about slavery not being the cause of the civil war is bunk, 99% of respected historians, conservative, moderate whatever, will tell you that...the articles to secede were all filled with talk about slavery, southern newspapers had all their worries revolving around slavery shrinking, and the CSA wrapped itself in white supremacy talk that giving up slavery would be stupid and was not on the table for discussion (at least until it was obvious they were going to lose)

his volcano talk is directly from the ozone debate, i bet that's exactly what he said then too...but an extreme libertarian admitting to man-made global warming, that's gotta say something to you people

kinggovernor · 04-01-2007, 03:13 AM

I do agree with him about the VA, it does suck

lew · 04-01-2007, 04:03 PM

I saw him and was disappointed by Maher's attitude. I was hoping he would talk to Paul about Iraq, War on Drugs, and other issues Maher would agree with Paul on. Instead, Paul talked about the Civil War and other non-relevant issues. Overall though, Paul did a great job answering the questions and I am thankful to Maher that he had him on at least.

motivez · 04-01-2007, 04:04 PM

Gonna have to watch this.

Scrum · 04-01-2007, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I saw him and was disappointed by Maher's attitude. I was hoping he would talk to Paul about Iraq, War on Drugs, and other issues Maher would agree with Paul on. Instead, Paul talked about the Civil War and other non-relevant issues. Overall though, Paul did a great job answering the questions and I am thankful to Maher that he had him on at least.

Yeah I was kind of surprised he didn't bring up the war on drugs as well, but his final piece was on that so maybe he didn't want to go over things twice.

I think it's a good thing that Bill brought up those non-relevant issues because Ron at least had a chance to explain himself better than "Get rid of the FAA" or "Corporate run health care". That bumper sticker style of politics could really hurt him. It's good to see him come under fire for some of these things people think are wacky and explain his position.

I'm still super impressed with the interview and Ron gained quite a few points in my book.

RMNIXON · 04-01-2007, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I saw him and was disappointed by Maher's attitude. I was hoping he would talk to Paul about Iraq, War on Drugs, and other issues Maher would agree with Paul on. Instead, Paul talked about the Civil War and other non-relevant issues. Overall though, Paul did a great job answering the questions and I am thankful to Maher that he had him on at least.

I thought he did a fine job. He is the kind of guy who will answer any question and won't try to use it to direct the issue to talking points. For example, a typical liberal would dodge the Civil War question with a speech about how great the Democrats have been for blacks with special programs (after they voted against the Civil Rights Bill).

But the worst part for me is the idea that Maher has any libertarian leanings. I would need to ask him questions, but what I would suspect is nothing more than a typical liberal wide latitude in personal freedoms, but the government still must clean up the mess afterward! In short the personal responcibility and consequences part gets no press and little conversation.

RMNIXON · 04-01-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yeah I was kind of surprised he didn't bring up the war on drugs as well, but his final piece was on that so maybe he didn't want to go over things twice.

Again, I don't think he is the kind of guy who tries to direct the interview, so he just responded to what Maher wanted to throw at him. What I want to see is Ron Paul in a debate with both party candidates and all these current issues will come up and I think candidates in both major parties will need scramble to explain themselves.

lew · 04-01-2007, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yeah I was kind of surprised he didn't bring up the war on drugs as well, but his final piece was on that so maybe he didn't want to go over things twice.

I think it's a good thing that Bill brought up those non-relevant issues because Ron at least had a chance to explain himself better than "Get rid of the FAA" or "Corporate run health care". That bumper sticker style of politics could really hurt him. It's good to see him come under fire for some of these things people think are wacky and explain his position.

I'm still super impressed with the interview and Ron gained quite a few points in my book.

This makes me feel better about the interview and I can only hope that others that watched it felt the same.

Ardentfrost · 04-01-2007, 07:52 PM

I really liked the interview. Paul certainly wasn't tripped up, even with Maher yelling at him half the time.

It''s always bothered me that Maher calls himself libertarian because he is one of the most flaming liberals on TV... I even know flaming liberals that say Maher is a flaming liberal.

The civil war stuff was especially good. He said out what a lot of libertarians say but few listen to, that we were the ONLY country to have a civil war over slavery, which should tell you that although used as the foremost reason for the war, it simply doesn't add up. However, it matters little NOW (for Paul's campaign particularly) except to show further that he supports a smaller government.

And I loved the part about him telling everyone explicitly that he does not support subsidizing companies, even big oil.

lew · 04-01-2007, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The civil war stuff was especially good. He said out what a lot of libertarians say but few listen to, that we were the ONLY country to have a civil war over slavery, which should tell you that although used as the foremost reason for the war, it simply doesn't add up. However, it matters little NOW (for Paul's campaign particularly) except to show further that he supports a smaller government.

And I loved the part about him telling everyone explicitly that he does not support subsidizing companies, even big oil.

motivez · 04-01-2007, 10:12 PM

About to go watch this now, I'll report back with my thoughts

IminWonderland · 04-02-2007, 11:12 AM

I saw this, and though he sounded stumbly, I think he conveyed his messages pretty well.

I see his point about the Civil War. I think that if you want to look at it from an abolitionist point of view you could, but there was also a central government idea as well as a unification goal. In Lincoln's speeches to Congress, he talks mostly of uniting the country.

lew · 04-02-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I saw this, and though he sounded stumbly, I think he conveyed his messages pretty well.

I see his point about the Civil War. I think that if you want to look at it from an abolitionist point of view you could, but there was also a central government idea as well as a unification goal. In Lincoln's speeches to Congress, he talks mostly of uniting the country.

He stumbled a little bit here and there, but I thought his points were excellent and that he got them across well.

Thorgrim · 04-02-2007, 11:37 AM

Lincoln didn't secede, his role is of secondary importance

What did the CSA do, what were the context for their actions...all evidence points that they only cared about slavery, and their "state rights" were ALL rooted in the fear that "well...if they do this...one day...they might...TAKE AWAY SLAVERY?!?!?! AHHHH"

The artilces to secede, which if they had worked, would be like our declaration of indepedence...a shining beacaon of what a country stood for...was full of pro-slavery ideology and a commitment to slavery

To dimisss that alone is like saying 'well the founding fathers really didn't care about liberty, they just liked the word'

Put together with tons of southern articles, political statements, CSA government policy, the popular opinion of CSA officials...it's overwhelming

This is not seriously debated in academic circles anymore

Ardentfrost · 04-02-2007, 12:59 PM

No amount of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA" will change that DESPITE all the pro-slavery babble from southerners (of which there was plenty) we were STILL the ONLY COUNTRY that got rid of slavery with a civil war. Many other countries came to see that slavery wasn't an economical option... hell, most of the North saw that.

Plus, once the war started and other states saw that Lincoln meant to FORCE them to stay in the union, thereby destroying their rights, 4 MORE STATES LEFT THE UNION. And there were even pro-confederate states in the union, such as Maryland (a slave owning state that remained in the union) so in response, Lincoln called for martial law there.

Slavery would have been abolished with or without the war. It wasn't NEEDED, except to FORCE the CSA to rejoin the union. If you force a state to be a member of the union, then what is the point of having states at all? You might as well make it a parlimentary monarchary

Ardentfrost · 04-02-2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

This is not seriously debated in academic circles anymore

I also wanted to quickly point out the fallacy in this statement

Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice

DosEquis · 04-02-2007, 01:15 PM

I am also glad he pushed him on issues like 'no cia' because most people will gasp and bring up the point that Maher did... that "omg we have terrorists that want to kill us we need to investigate!"

Democrats get in big trouble politically when they oppose things like the patriot act...the backlash on this view (no cia at all) is going to be signficant and he needs to explain in detail why no cia is better than having one. Otherwise republicans are going to play the "we will get attacked again" card.

Those more controversial views he has he needs to get out and explain. Granted it is not the type of attention you want all the time, but it needs to be said because like scrum said, he will be gobbled up with slogans.

Pro Street · 04-02-2007, 01:16 PM

privatize the FAA?

no way.

Ardentfrost · 04-02-2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

privatize the FAA?

no way.

Yeah, we don't really need an FAA at all. He was just saying that if we actually needed one, then one can be privitized.