On the last "Real Time with Bill Maher," Ron Paul was a guest with Michael Moore (Ben Affleck and P.J. O'Rourke were also panelists). I just caught the tail end of Paul's interview, but Maher heaped praise on him, gave him a standing ovation, and Maher's normally liberal crowd was boisterous in their applause for Paul.
Anyone see this? How did this go? I'm set to DVR the next running (only one more).
Ron Paul, Michael Moore, & Bill Maher
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by TomVols, May 30, 2007.
-
If Paul was a political threat, Maher's audience would have stoned him on the spot.
-
-
Except for liberals. They are always nasty to those who have the temerity to disagree with them. -
-
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? -
I just watched the DVR of the show. I have always doubted the liberterianism of Maher or his audience. Maher often speaks of the liberalism of his audience. Maher himself is liberal, save for drug legalization, where he suddenly becomes liberterian.
On this show, Maher and the crowd loudly cheered when Moore said we needed to "Eliminate profit making health insurance companies" and that Al Gore needed to run for president.
Maher's "surprise" at the applause for Paul the first couple of times seemed a little staged (Maher is a terrible actor, as his stint on "Murder She Wrote" showed). As for Paul, he spoke of civil liberties and universal health care, and seemed to nod in agreement with Maher when Maher said that people who attack us aren't necessarily terrorists. Maybe Paul was playing to his audience.
There are things about Paul that I like, but still, if I close my eyes, it sometimes seems like I'm hearing Gore or Moore or the like. Still, some folks in congress who have blurbed for Paul have my support, so I'm keeping an open mind.
I'm just having a hard time getting past someone being applauded by Moore, Maher, and Ben Affleck :laugh: -
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. -
I would hope Dr. Paul would have the conscience to shudder that he appealed to stoners :tonofbricks:
-
They also are not the monolithic, one-dimensional bloc you seem to perceive. -
-
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? -
-
1. Conventions are infomercials. They are not vehicles for a range of opinions. That said, you have seen Colin Powell espouse Afiirmative Action at the GOP convention in, I believe, '96.
2. There wasn't as much anti-war sentiment among GOP folks in the bid to reelect President Bush in '04 as you see in the election bids by the current band of candidates for '08. Funny how the chance at elected office makes people adopt or change opinions :laugh: -
Here's an excellent snap shot of what the 2004 Republican Convention was about...
2004 GOP Convention in 140 seconds -
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. -
-