Ron Paul, Michael Moore, & Bill Maher

If Paul was a political threat, Maher's audience would have stoned him on the spot.

 

Carpo, it is possible for people who normally have different political views to find areas of like mindedness with those of differing political ideologies. Most of the world does not operate from a neat little political box.

 

True enough.

Except for liberals. They are always nasty to those who have the temerity to disagree with them.

 

Ron Paul on Bill Maher Show 5-25-07-Video

 

Bill Maher's audience tends to have some libertarians mixed in anyway, and I think more flocked to the show to see Dr. Paul.

I thought the interview was good and, like FP said, we can all find common ground on occassion. One just has to weight whether the common ground is more important than the rest. Bill Maher is much more socialist on some issues, with a libertarian streak as well, and he seems to care more about the commonalities with Dr. Paul than the dissimilarities. I happen to agree with him.

Isn't it funny how liberals and conservatives can find common ground when they shut up and quit fighting long enough to look for it?

If, as most Americans say, stopping terrorism is their number one priority, they should all be looking to Dr. Paul as the next leader of this country. The rest of the candidates, whether in Iraq for the Republicans or in Sudan for the Democrats, will just continue the same old policy of butting into other peoples' affairs that has brought us the love from people all over the world.

Bill Maher, Ron Paul, James Reed, and John Q. Public all agree that we need less government interference abroad and a much more stream-lined federal government at home. This means more prosperity, less violence/war, and a greater worldwide respect for our country. It would also be nice to see a politician who the public actually believes when he speaks.

 

"The United States has unthinkingly embarked upon a neo-imperial policy that must involve us in viturally every great war of the coming century--and wars are the deaths of republics...if we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak--terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on U.S. soil...then liberty, the cause of the republic, will itself be in peril".


Wonder if Ron Paul, Bill Maher, and Michael Moore would agree with that statement, which was written in 1999?

 

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

When you have a common foe (big government), you suddenly find yourself side by side with the one you thought was your enemy.

As for Maher and his audience, Maher is very liberal on some issues, and he's libertarian, almost conservative, on a few. His views really run the gamut, though he is mostly very liberal. His audience, on the other hand, is full of collegiate age people. He has a broad base of twenty-somethings, who tend to be more libertarian than most. It's probably the drug thing, but, hey, if a bunch of stoners want to vote for Ron Paul, I am not going to complain, and I don't think Dr. Paul will either.

 

It's too bad you cannot get out and actually interact with your liberal and progressive neighbors. You'd find they don't fit your cartoonish caricature of them, but rather they are real people with valid concerns and ideas, who deeply love this country. They may have different ideas as to how to improve our lot, but they are hardworking, loyal Americans, every bit as much so as any conservative.

They also are not the monolithic, one-dimensional bloc you seem to perceive.

 

I don't think Ron Paul worries to much about who he does and doesn't appeal too. Far as I know he's had one message and hasn't flip flopped on it to appeal to anyone. Kinda makes him stand out from the crowd of pro warfare/welfare statists trying to be appealing to everyone.

 

Sorry, but liberals have no tolerance for dissent.

I'll recant from that statement if you can tell me who the pro life speaker was at either the 2000 or 2004 Democrat Convention.

Meanwhile, it's not a problem at all to name the pro choice speakers at the Republican Conventions, is it?

 

Okay, if you tell us who the anti-war Republican speakers were.

 

Touche`

Here's an excellent snap shot of what the 2004 Republican Convention was about...

2004 GOP Convention in 140 seconds

 

There was no war in 2000. And...

Why would anyone who supports the troops have spoken against the war at the 2004 convention while our troops are in combat?

No wonder they lost.

 

You said 2000 or 2004. There was certainly war in 2004, as well as opposition to it, albeit not as much as now.

If you want to bring the troops home, you don't wait until they're back before you say it.

Who lost what?

 

We'd all be supporting our troops truer and better if we quit supporting Govcorp Inc's imperial pursuits. We can either have an empire or a republic, can't have both, the Romans learned that a long time ago.