Ron Paul interview with John Stewart

[Kuros]

He's fucking batshit, y'all. Batshit. And Jon calls him on it.

No, he's not. And Jon treated him with the respect he deserves. Unlike you.

You say you're a centrist, but I wonder where you stand on the Wall St. bailouts, or rampant "defense" spending, or the war on drugs. If you're against all these things and yet still think Ron Paul is "fucking batshit" then you are simply confused.

And you point out all the reasons why I was actually thinking of voting for the guy. Despite what the conservative trolls above would have you believe. I really wanted someone against corporate bailouts, against war, against the war on drugs...fiscal conservatism and social liberalism...

then he undercut it all by saying to Jon "if you just let the markets regulate themselves (federally) they can't steal or defraud customers." Ive got a timestamp above if you don't believe me.

That's where he lost me. Corporations aren't inherently evil...but they can't be trusted either.

Actually, your response to RP reminds me of the right-wing's candidate purity test. If you watch Jon Stewart you'll know where I'm coming from on this. You want the perfect candidate. There is none such perfect candidate.

He didn't undercut anything but the single point he was making at the time. He's wrong on some things. He's right about most others. What's most important: he's right about the points that matter, and he's right when everyone else is wrong or simply uncommitted.

Anyway, a Ron Paul Presidency would not see a dismantling of the Federal gov't. He'd be using all his political capital to end the drug war and blunt the military-industrial complex and reign in the Federal Reserve.

 

[manifold]

He's fucking batshit, y'all. Batshit. And Jon calls him on it.

No, he's not. And Jon treated him with the respect he deserves. Unlike you.

You say you're a centrist, but I wonder where you stand on the Wall St. bailouts, or rampant "defense" spending, or the war on drugs. If you're against all these things and yet still think Ron Paul is "fucking batshit" then you are simply confused.

And you point out all the reasons why I was actually thinking of voting for the guy. Despite what the conservative trolls above would have you believe. I really wanted someone against corporate bailouts, against war, against the war on drugs...fiscal conservatism and social liberalism...

then he undercut it all by saying to Jon "if you just let the markets regulate themselves (federally) they can't steal or defraud customers." Ive got a timestamp above if you don't believe me.

That's where he lost me. Corporations aren't inherently evil...but they can't be trusted either.

My apologies. I originally mistook you for another poster that I know would NEVER consider voting for Ron Paul. I'm not perfect, it happens.

But that said, I think you're dismissing him a bit too quickly over what is largely an immaterial remark. I agree that some of Paul's positions are too far out there, but I don't think any of those stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day even if by some miracle he actually got elected. But he can bring an end to the ME quagmire. He can put an end to the stupid war on drugs. And I would trust him more than any other candidate to appoint true defenders of individual liberty to the USSC. And quite frankly, that's more than enough good reasons to vote for him IMO. He's not going to end government regulation dude. Not ever.

 

[Vanquish]

No worries, guys. I bark a big game, but (with the exception of one poster on here) I don't hold grudges over silly stuff.

Oddly, you've sent me back towards Ron with two, well-worded posts. (Makes me seem fickle, I'm sure ha ha)

Anyway, a Ron Paul Presidency would not see a dismantling of the Federal gov't. He'd be using all his political capital to end the drug war and blunt the military-industrial complex and reign in the Federal Reserve.

You're right. I'm thinking of the worst theoretical damage and not what the reality would be. The reality is he couldn't dismantle as much as I feared.

But he can bring an end to the ME quagmire. He can put an end to the stupid war on drugs. And I would trust him more than any other candidate to appoint true defenders of individual liberty to the USSC.

Also true. He's consistent and he's against federal waste. I don't have to agree 100%...I just have to agree more than I do with anyone else. I'll keep digging.

BTW....Mani...what happened to those insanely hot chicas you had in your avatar. I'm going to have to change my sig! lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He basically said that the market will self-police better than the government. That's a complete crock. The old man is misguided. He doesn't just want to remove the stupid, wasteful laws,...he wants to remove all the damn laws. Too fucking far for my taste.

A delusional fantasy.

I swear to fucking god this guy thinks if we get rid of government, corporations will just play nice and do what customers want them to. If we'd done that childredn would still be working and minorities would still be treated like shit. Hell...women still make pennies on the dollar compared to men.

He's fucking batshit, y'all. Batshit. And Jon calls him on it. So Paul deflects to "socialism and authoritarianism sucks" so anything else must be better.

Yes, Paul thinks it’s the 1830’s and everything one consumes or buys is grown or manufactured within a thirty-mile radius of where one lives.

Again, a delusional, reactionary fantasy.

 

[editec]

What Rom Paul stands for is meaningless if it is out of step with the party he rode in on, folks.

The only thing that the GOP and a Ron Paul team is going to do is deregulate business.

The WoD will continue, wars of empire likewise,

He's running for POTUS, not dictator.

 

[manifold]

What Rom Paul stands for is meaningless if it is out of step with the party he rode in on, folks.

The only thing that the GOP and a Ron Paul team is going to do is deregulate business.

The WoD will continue, wars of empire likewise,

He's running for POTUS, not dictator.

As CiC he can certainly pull back on our ME presence. And as POTUS he would be only one nominating SC justices. But he might have more trouble ending the war on drugs, that is true.

 

[Vanquish]

He basically said that the market will self-police better than the government. That's a complete crock. The old man is misguided. He doesn't just want to remove the stupid, wasteful laws,...he wants to remove all the damn laws. Too fucking far for my taste.

A delusional fantasy.

I swear to fucking god this guy thinks if we get rid of government, corporations will just play nice and do what customers want them to. If we'd done that childredn would still be working and minorities would still be treated like shit. Hell...women still make pennies on the dollar compared to men.

He's fucking batshit, y'all. Batshit. And Jon calls him on it. So Paul deflects to "socialism and authoritarianism sucks" so anything else must be better.

Yes, Paul thinks it’s the 1830’s and everything one consumes or buys is grown or manufactured within a thirty-mile radius of where one lives.

Again, a delusional, reactionary fantasy.

Not fantasy. It's his actual words.

Here are the actual words AGAIN. Will you believe his actual words?

Jon: 5:15
Wouldn't you rather have people regulating that are accountable to voters rather than corporations who are only accountable to shareholders? Isn't our system as unfair as it can be. At least they're accountable to US."

Ron: 5:36
"But the regulations are stricter in the marketplace. For instance, the regulators have been very much involved in the housing industry. We print a lot of money...

"The regulators got bailed out, the middle class lose their jobs and their houses. All this desire to trust in the government to make sure that big corporations won't hurt them actually is a backfire on them," he said.

Ron: 6:11
"the regulations are much tougher in a free market because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people" and "in a true libertarian society you have to be responsible."

Not fantasy...fact. The man said it.

He thinks that "the marketplace" will stop bad people from doing bad things...which is bonkers.

I'm not reactionary. I'm trying to parse this shit out man. Here's someone I thought I liked...and may still...who's said a lot of good stuff.

Then I hear that "stuff" and I'm thinking "come on!"

I insulted him (coot + batshit) so I deserve some blowback. But it's true. He said it.

 

[Avorysuds]

He basically said that the market will self-police better than the government. That's a complete crock. The old man is misguided. He doesn't just want to remove the stupid, wasteful laws,...he wants to remove all the damn laws. Too fucking far for my taste.

A delusional fantasy.

I swear to fucking god this guy thinks if we get rid of government, corporations will just play nice and do what customers want them to. If we'd done that childredn would still be working and minorities would still be treated like shit. Hell...women still make pennies on the dollar compared to men.

He's fucking batshit, y'all. Batshit. And Jon calls him on it. So Paul deflects to "socialism and authoritarianism sucks" so anything else must be better.

Yes, Paul thinks it’s the 1830’s and everything one consumes or buys is grown or manufactured within a thirty-mile radius of where one lives.

Again, a delusional, reactionary fantasy.

Not fantasy. It's his actual words.

Here are the actual words AGAIN. Will you believe his actual words?

Jon: 5:15
Wouldn't you rather have people regulating that are accountable to voters rather than corporations who are only accountable to shareholders? Isn't our system as unfair as it can be. At least they're accountable to US."

Ron: 5:36
"But the regulations are stricter in the marketplace. For instance, the regulators have been very much involved in the housing industry. We print a lot of money...

"The regulators got bailed out, the middle class lose their jobs and their houses. All this desire to trust in the government to make sure that big corporations won't hurt them actually is a backfire on them," he said.

Ron: 6:11
"the regulations are much tougher in a free market because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people" and "in a true libertarian society you have to be responsible."

Not fantasy...fact. The man said it.

He thinks that "the marketplace" will stop bad people from doing bad things...which is bonkers.

I'm not reactionary. I'm trying to parse this shit out man. Here's someone I thought I liked...and may still...who's said a lot of good stuff.

Then I hear that "stuff" and I'm thinking "come on!"

I insulted him (coot + batshit) so I deserve some blowback. But it's true. He said it.

I think what he meant to say was "and get away with it like we see in Government." I base that off knowing RP and off what he was talking about in thge interview.

 

[bodhisattva]

Who is John Stewart ?

John Stewart is a Liberal comedian some of whose farts are funny.

He is not as ridiculous Bill Maher ...... but then who is ?

 

[Article 15]

Who is John Stewart?

The "Who is _____________?" thing wasn't funny the first 927 times you posted it.

 

[Article 15]

Who is John Stewart ?

It's getting to be ridiculous with you. I don't even log on here that much anymore and it seems like almost anytime I do I see a "who is ____" from you. And those are just the ones I notice, I can only imagine how often you're actually doing it.

It's not funny. Trust me.

lol.... I can see I'm not alone.

 

[idb]

Stewart said at the start of the interview (and I'm paraphrasing from memory)
"I start to think 'Yeah, he's making sense, I like what that fella's saying' and then you open your mouth and say '..............' and I'm like 'Nooooooooooooo!!!! Don't go there!!'"

 

[Unkotare]

Who is John Stewart ?

It's getting to be ridiculous with you. I don't even log on here that much anymore and it seems like almost anytime I do I see a "who is ____" from you. And those are just the ones I notice, I can only imagine how often you're actually doing it.

It's not funny. Trust me.

Who are you?

 

[Article 15]

Who is John Stewart ?

It's getting to be ridiculous with you. I don't even log on here that much anymore and it seems like almost anytime I do I see a "who is ____" from you. And those are just the ones I notice, I can only imagine how often you're actually doing it.

It's not funny. Trust me.

Who are you?

That's Paulie. He's a USMB OG.

 

[elvis]

Who is John Stewart ?

It's getting to be ridiculous with you. I don't even log on here that much anymore and it seems like almost anytime I do I see a "who is ____" from you. And those are just the ones I notice, I can only imagine how often you're actually doing it.

It's not funny. Trust me.

Who are you?

He's Adrian's brother.

 

[Unkotare]

It's getting to be ridiculous with you. I don't even log on here that much anymore and it seems like almost anytime I do I see a "who is ____" from you. And those are just the ones I notice, I can only imagine how often you're actually doing it.

It's not funny. Trust me.

Who are you?

That's Paulie. He's a USMB OG.

What's an "OG"?

 

[Unkotare]

It's getting to be ridiculous with you. I don't even log on here that much anymore and it seems like almost anytime I do I see a "who is ____" from you. And those are just the ones I notice, I can only imagine how often you're actually doing it.

It's not funny. Trust me.

Who are you?

He's Adrian's brother.

Who is Adrian?

 

[Unkotare]

Which one of you is Spartacus?

 

[Vanquish]

So this thread has ...

Seriously though. I can't see why the man thinks that "free market" forces will regulate more stringently than actual laws.

 

[manifold]

Seriously though. I can't see why the man thinks that "free market" forces will regulate more stringently than actual laws.

I can understand the belief, although I don't agree with it. In the extreme, it's clear cut lunacy. But then again so is socialism. The reason both extremes are bat shit crazy notions is because they both stand in direct conflict with human nature. I could delve into exactly why that is so, but that's probably a discussion worthy of it's own thread.