Ron Paul on Real Time with Bill Maher (2/20/09)

Ron Paul never presents the big picture and basically repeats the same things he has for the past 30 years. Yet he still makes Bill Maher out to be the complete ignoramus that he is using basic, fundamental truths. All Maher can do is make his ridiculous jokes that are not even funny.

Video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f57_1235191312

 

bill maher's an ass. i love it.

 

Who likes Bill Maher? I don't know anyone that does.

 

Ugh, Bill Maher

Great responses by RP as usual

 

Some people don't like Bill Maher's views simply because they are held and expressed by Bill Maher. And because they don't like those opinions (for the above stated reason), they have decided to not like Bill Maher. I think what really sets people off about him is that he points out facts that are beyond dispute, but which are facts not liked among supporters of corporate-driven culture.

Molly Ivins was perhaps a better example of this phenomenon. Nine out of ten "letters to the editor" expressing dislike of her would rant about how her opinions were wrong, because, after all, they were her opinions. I read her columns for more than 20 years before I ever ran across a logical criticism of anything she ever wrote.

Personally, I think that both Ivins and Maher have done a good job of keeping the right issues in front of the public, and usually have a pretty solid line of reasoning for their positions, while their critics tend towards circular "reasoning." For instance, Maher pointed out that Kelloggs products kill more people every year (mostly through complications of diabetes, probably) than marijuana has killed in all of human recorded history (even while it was the most often-used plant ever).

 

Yet Maher is a product of the corporate media. Hmmm... interesting paradox.

I can't think of many people who are against the legalization (or decriminalization) of marijuana... except the government -- which ships in the majority of the cocaine and heroin -- itself.

 

I agree with SunLion. I would put it a bit differently - if you have views, some people are going to disagree, its as simple as that. I mean say you are for or against gun control, abortion, gay marriage, or the death penalty - a yes or no on one of these and half the country already thinks you are an idiot.

 

Ron who ?

 

whats the part where maher gets schooled like an ignoramus? he asked for ron paul's perspective on the past couple of weeks, there wasn't any conflicts. stop drumming up nonsense

 

I think people are more annoyed by his arrogant attitude much more so than his opinions. Sometimes he goes on and on about something that he is proven absolutely wrong about, and he does it in a self important, 'I am right, you're wrong' manner. People don't dislike him because he is wrong, but because he has this know-it-all attitude and talks down to people as he is wrong. I mean, look at him making disrespectful and unnecessary comments to RP only to be proven wrong as he speaks.


It's true Maher is direct and knowledgeable here and there, and what he has to say is really useful and truthful. But it's his attitude that bugs people more than the facts he presents.

The man has no humility.

 

What basic fundamental truths is Ron supposed to have expressed?

To me it sounds like the same old right wing libertarian stance

(1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]A Free Market economic policy
(2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]An Isolationist foreign policy
(3)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]And a domestic policy that would remove all state or government assistance that people might need to survive.

A Free Market economic policy

A completely deregulated laissez faire, market system, a bit like the one that caused this crisis but on steroids and unfettered by even the limited constraints it had?

And when it inevitably crashes oh well then you let it collapse. Runs on banks would bring them down, millions would have all their savings wiped out overnight, big business would fail, followed by small ones, the service sector would close up and a tsunami of unemployment would sweep across the country.

(oh and the rich having made their money in the boom would hold up or more likely leave with their wealth during the bust).

*

An Isolationist foreign policy

And while unemployment spread they would be closing the 700+ bases the US has around the world and returning over half a million overseas personnel and making them unemployed, along with a fair chunk of the US military, lets say you cut the US military to 20,000, that would mean making some 1.4 million + extra people unemployed during a depression. Basically it would be doing to the US what Rumsfeld did in Iraq.

*

And a domestic policy that would remove all state or government assistance that people might need to survive.

So they would be sacking all these disgruntled ex-military into a depression while removing all government provision, no government welfare of any kind.

Unless you had free market provision you’d get nothing and be totally dependent on charity.

But as pointed out the market would be allowed to crash every few years and as experience has shown that means such provision would more than likely be wiped out. It becomes a lottery people can put money in such schemes not knowing if the money will be their when needed or they could put it in a bank that might just go bust.

As to charity history has shown that it can barely give subsistence help during booms and become totally overwhelmed in a bust (especially since many people stop giving, because they haven’t the spare cash or have left).

**

 

1.) First off it's not an unregulated "free market" that simply "caused" this problem. Banks could not make highly volatile loans if it wasn't for the fraction reserve system allowing them to make heavy investments with little actual capital. Without central banking backing up the banks, they wouldn't have the potential to even make these sub-prime loans in the first place. Capitalism isn't the "root cause" of this problem at all, it's much more complex. Speculation, business cycles, and monetary policy all add to the equation.

I don't know where you got "no government assistance" from, but less regulation doesn't mean less assistance. IT seems people are used to being run by rules that they truly forget what freedom is. Government is supposed to bring as much liberty to the person while gently overseeing the population. If marijuana is my last hope for relieving some ailment, who gives anybody the right to take that away from me? All Ron's saying is step back, and let the people do what they think is best for them. In a parallel universe with hemp/marijuana is legal, the world's industries would be a different place. But why aren't we there right now? Misinformation, propaganda, monetary investment, greed. Ron's definately got the right idea.
I'm not so sure about letting the economy collapse. Especially with complete social and economic collapse in an eye blink, it would be complete insanity. Martial law, inability to adapt, *foreign invasion/exploitation?*, complete loss of faith in the dollar. But in the other hand it would give a chance for change. It's simply the law of nature trying to balance extremes. Getting into debt to toss a quick fix to a huge, insanely deep and corrupt problem is definately not going to help. It just rearranges the power structures to those who are running the show, and will most likely prolong the same corrupt that has been happening for a long time.

 

Bingo!

And that's precisely what so many people, who seem to think they know soooo much about the cause of this engineered crisis, cannot grasp -- mainly because the media doesn't touch upon it. It's not hard to figure out why, either. Instead we hear the incessant drumbeat telling us that this was all caused by so-called "free market" capitalism, and that the only solution can be even more "government" manipulation of the markets (which is what caused this mess). The thing is, the proponents of government worship cannot wrap their minds around the fact that the bankers and the corporations run the government. They actually believe the government serves to keep the corporations in check, when the corporations and the government are one and the same. It's through the government that the corporations are able to control the people. The bigger that government becomes, the less accountable and more fascist and controlling of the people it becomes as well. That's why it's called corporate fascism (aka corporatism). You cannot have corporate fascism without government in the equation. The corporations and bankers in and of themselves are powerless to control the population, but when these corporations and bankers control the politicians, the police and the military, they pose a lot of danger because they are then working for these corporations, which now have direct control over the people through these governmental institutions.

We hear all this talk about "nationalization," and most people don't even understand what that means. The bankers who control the government are simply using the government to consolidate more power, while throwing it all on the taxpayer in the form of more debt and a devalued dollar.

If the "government will save us crowd" wants to talk about "regulations," why don't they start by calling for the Federal Reserve to be regulated? Of course if this were a free country the Federal Reserve would not even exist.

 

Neither you nor Rat understand what fractional reserve banking means. You are just repeating what you read on a conspiracy website.

 

What does fractional reserve banking mean, then?


Enlighten us.

 

Oni

So to you the ‘banks’ are the only part of the ‘free market’?

The free market search for short term profit and the self interest of the sellers ‘made’ the sub-prime loans, and the problem was that they then were sold on and speculated with.

The whole problem about the ‘business cycle’ is that unlike types of Keynesianism no ‘free market’ economic model has a way of actually dealing with it.

What do you mean by less regulation?

In what way is that related to ‘less assistance’

What do you mean by ‘being run by rules’?

What ‘rules’?

What do you mean by saying ‘they truly forget what freedom is ‘?

What do you mean by ‘freedom’?

Hey I’ve been advocating the legalisation of marijuana for about 30 years but that doesn’t actually equate to letting “people do what they think is best for them”, I mean the people that sold mortgages to people that they knew wouldn’t be able to keep up the payments got their commissions which was good for them, BUT was it good for the community, was good for the poor sap who gets his house repressed?

Again this seems confused one moment you say you’re against ‘letting the economy collapse’ the next you seem to think it would be a good thing since it might bring change?

What change are you expecting?

I mean history has shown that all too often the result such socio-economic upheavals is war and dictatorship (or both). How would you guard against that?

What is simply a law of nature? Are you claiming that the humanly constructed financial system is natural?

And as pointed out Keynesianism is about managing the business cycle by containing and restraining the excess of the market so that it isn’t allowed to become an insanely deep problem or corrupt.

Sorry Oni but you reply doesn’t seem to address what I said in fact it opens far more questions than it answers and the answers it does give are confused or even contradictory.

 

OK Oni

Let’s try and be clearer and a bit more focused. Let’s start with economics.

Do you favour the supposed economic ‘truths’ Ron is supposed to have expressed?

If so what do you believe they are?

Are you saying you are in favour of a ‘free market’ economic system if so which free market model are you thinking about?
(there are many variations form semi-socialist to theoretically free rein laissez faire)

*

Now right wing Libertarians seem to favour a completely deregulated laissez faire, market system, were self interest rules and anything (economically) is acceptable as long as it favours that self interest.

To me that just means that any speculation that makes a short term profit for the individual would be acceptable even if it was known that it would have a long term detrimental effect on the community.

To me that just isn’t a sane system.

 

This is it.

People like Ron Paul, his supporters and those that have right wing libertarian views just don’t seem to be able to defend their ideas - but what’s worse is as often as not they don’t even get asked to.

I mean Ron is allowed to sprout some rhetorical gibberish unopposed and the acolytes or unquestioning go out shouting that he’s somehow expressing fundamental truths.

But if asked to explain or defend these supposed ‘fundamental truths’ it obvious they don’t have a clue either.

**

I don’t know this Bill Maher but from wiki his main occupation seems to be as a comedian, moreover a comedian who claims to be a libertarian, which might account for him having someone of Ron Paul political views on his show and why he was given such an easy ride.

 

You come off as really condescending, Balbus.



Did you have an unhappy childhood?

 

I wanted to make a point and Drew came through for me.

Drew

You’re not arguing that what I’ve said is wrong (suggesting you agree with me) and instead try and belittle the impact of what I’ve said by posting what you probably think is an insulting and witty aside.

But the problem is some things warrant condescension.

*

Condescending = disdainful, contemptuous, scornful

Thing is, I am disdainful of right wing libertarian ideas, because they don’t make sense and no libertarian I’ve met so far is able to defend them against even the slightest criticism.

If you mean do I find rather contemptuous those people that can’t defend the views they all too readily promote, you’d be right.

And if you mean am I scornful of people that follow some political ideology without question, well yes.

Look at yourself.

You spend your time on the forums basically being a cheer leader for others. Time and again you show yourself completely unable to defend any of the views you claim to hold dear and instead come out with some utterly senseless, banal and arsine comments or meaningless and invariably irrational asides.

Do you think that is something to be proud of?

*

But here is may point some people think that because they hold something to be ‘the truth’ it is therefore gospel and the fact that they cannot in any way shape or form defend that view from even the slightest amount of scrutiny doesn’t matter.

The problem it seems to me is that too often in US politics they are not even asked to defend these views they’re just allowed to sprout them unchallenged.

So Ron Paul sprouts a load of garbage and the unquestioning call it ‘fundamental truths’ – but when asked to actually defend those ‘fundamentals’ they know they can’t.

*

(PS: Drew I had a reasonably normal childhood however it did involve an education that taught me to not only look at things rationally but also to question everything even my own viewpoint, I’m sorry to say that from the posts I’ve read those things seem to have been lacking from your own upbringing.)