This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Jon Stewart's Extended Interview With Ron Paul
About a month ago, after everyone in the wholly conflicted media (just ask one question: who pays all that advertising money - nuf said), on both the left and the right, was ignoring the most promising presidential candidate this country has had in decades, Jon Stewart decided to take Ron Paul under his wing, and made it clear that while those who don't matter can pretend to ignore Ron, the one man who does, and who reaches more than most of the legacy "serious media" combined, has certainly noticed Paul. Naturally Stewart could have left it there, especially given his own personal political view. To his great credit, he did not. Instead last night in an extended exclusive interview, he presented Ron Paul in a way that he should have been presented from the beginning: no tricks, no gotchas, no gimmicks, no commercial breaks every 45 seconds. Hopefully this is the beginning of the transition of the Paul campaign to one where he has enough critical mass to be taken seriously by everyone - something "everyone" should be doing regardless.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
»
- 50514 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands for the meaningful reforms we so desperately need. Here are a few he stands for:
End the Fed
Stop the bailouts
Bring back sound money
Stop the ridiculous war on drugs
Stop the unconstitutional wars and bring our troops home.
Reform our tax structure
Get federal government out of our schools
Reform entitlements
I am running one of Mr. Paul's campaign offices in NJ.....give them the truth Ron...we all can handle it...
You myopic Ron Paul haters...
Get on board the RP train -- if you want an opportunity to vote again, the next time around.
If you don't give a damn about such things, STFU and expatriate yourself.
Just as importantly, if you do give a damn, direct your attention to the 535, who have the power regardless, and are behaving seditiously.
yes, i know. everyone who dares to ask a question about mr paul or perhaps make a statement that does not pass muster as far as the ron paul censors like, well they are immediately branded ron paul haters. and to this, you add, why don't we love it or get out.....yep heard all of that before believe me....spoken like a true lover of liberty....
Sorry, High Plains Drifter, you read me as a "censor," which is incorrect.
I have an appreciation for exactly what we're up against (and I know you do too), and there is exactly one thing that will buy us time to turn the tide in the appropriate direction -- the rules and guidelines -- and from where I sit, there is exactly one man running for office that puts that at Priority Uno.
As far as "asking a question about" Ron Paul, I would've hoped it would be obvious that I was not referring to such comments, but rather the shallow off-the-cuff posts that ask no questions whatsoever.
Spouting off with no purpose (but to derange) is free speech, for sure, but it has nothing to do with love of liberty.
And you make many assumptions -- please do not question my love of liberty, free speech or otherwise.
A blind faith vs. a faith that has stood the test of doubt and skepticism, well, which believer do you want playing for your team? All of us are at where we are at. I am undecided but feel like voting does nothing. Ideologically, I love the guy. Practically, I don't think he can get elected or matter if he got in (that is how rotten I think the system is).
I like that you were polite under pressure. I think HPD has a reason to be skeptical.
Americans are too fucking stupid to ever elect Ron Paul. These white trash meth-addicted losers will re-elect that Muslim criminal Obama bin laden. They deserve the ass-fucking they're getting and the ass-fucking they're going to get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkutSrQnu-Y
this one goes out to the paulistas....
ok aura, since you dropped the gauntlet, some genuine questions been wanting to ask you ever since i watched RP's response on the morning after pill last debate (if you haven't seen it, you should watch, you might be surprised):
do you believe that a man that does not have respect for women and what women go through during pregnancy could have successfully delivered over 2000 babies?
do you believe that his "pro-life" views are more dangerous to a woman's right to choose than let's say Papa and Baby Bushes?
don't you think that he's at least consistent in his views considering that he's also against the death penalty?
curious to know your thoughts. agree with you that this subject needs to be addressed sooner than later by the good doctor himself.
phew tip - second to last post on a loooong thread - thought I'd never find it, ha!
*deep breath*
okay, I'll clarify my position on "a woman's right to choose" - which includes her own personal decision to choose not to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.
it should not be anyone's decision but her own, after careful consideration. forcing a pregnancy on a woman who does NOT want to carry it full term can be a devastating experience, both for the woman and the unborne / new birth. can we accept the notion that a distressed pregnancy might lead to a less than healthy birth? with subsequent impact on the life of both the woman and the newborne?
when the unwanted pregnancy is carried full term - then what? who will provide for the baby? will the woman be again "forced" to provide for the baby? how far will that force, with no social net support, be taken? who pays to raise the baby?
what is never ever mentioned in the "abortion debate" is the role of the sperm donor. biology says it takes a sperm and an egg to create an foetus - is there ANY provision for bringing the sperm donor into the enforced pregnancy? or the enforced "responsibility" of raising the baby? I've yet to see it, even as a discussion point. who pays to take care of the unwanted birthed child?
should THAT enter into the discussion, my attention would be undivided.
because it's a well known fact that many, not all, but many males are allergic to using condoms, supposedly because it "interferes" with their pleasure? like pregnancy doesn't? but THAT's all on the female - get her on a hormone / body disrupting pill and have at it - and if the pill fails, sorry bitch, laterz!
I'm not "in favour" of abortions, but I know women who believe the "oh baby you're the best, I looooove you, take off yer clothes" lies and further down that road find a dead end, often when the pregnancy rears it's head - and sure, maybe "she" should be more "responsible" and not believe all the lies she's told, etc. - but this world is skewed towards the man having the "freedoms" and the woman is there to be used and discarded - again, this is in general, not specifics, and I do know and love many fine males who do not fit this description.
now, to answer your questions:
RP's "respect" for delivering wanted babies is fine by me. has he ever done any work with abandoned children, unwanted children, battered children? does he have anything to say about the rape of daughters by their fathers/brothers/uncles/etc., which is more common than many people want to think.
on the Bush comparison, pass. same with Clinton, Obama, Reagan, etc. - all are sub-human in my book, opinions are irrelevant.
yes, he's consistent in his views. he's also a Xtian, and likely a Freemason from some reports I've read. although hasn't his view of the death penalty changed from his past POV? some of his newsletters also have "viewpoints" that I would question - and saying "oh but he didn't write them" bzzzzzzzzzt! sorry, if his name is on them, and he didn't stop them from being promoted at the time, end of.
bottom line though - I think he's just out there as a red herring of sorts, giving it one more try to rally round the election pole, vote for change! and hope! and it disappoints me somewhat that so many here are falling in line to TALK ABOUT THIS FOR THE NEXT YEAR - "oh, wait till RP gets in!! then things will change!!!" - which delays the inevitable realisation that folks, this sideshow is a farce, the united states isn't even what you believe it to be, from the fucking get-go - and until THAT fact is addressed in people's minds. . .
and it won't be, and the circus will continue.
peace bro.
CA - This should be a private issue in the early days when we're talking about a grouping of a few cells. Once the baby is viable however, killing it looks like murder to me.
In ancient Rome, it was legal for a father to kill any of his children, whenever he wanted. They were his after all. They came from his seed. Maybe the kid was proving tobe a burden to the parent. To me this is just a different version of your argument, once the fetus/baby is viable outside the womb.
Killing a sentinent being because somebody might be inconvenienced is wrong IMO. In China and India they're prone to abort females. How does that baby's right-to-choose it's own life get any recognition?
In any case, let the states decide.
Not trying to fight. Just sharing a different perspective.
Did you ever find out who's flying those chem-trail planes and from where?
no see, I don't believe in "let the states decide" when it comes to body sovereignty. how is this "libertarian"?
to FORCE a woman to carry a foetus full term, when she alone knows the circumstances of the conception and the viability of the FULL life circumstances available to the foetus is cruel and inhumane, to all concerned. I say it can be an easy opinion to hold by someone who cannot even imagine the impact of carrying a foetus to birth, which is when it is legally considered a "human, being."
for the record, I have not had an abortion, nor been pregnant, nor do I have or want children - this is not an "emotive" subject to me, I argue from the position that the woman is bearing the FULL responsibility here, and the impregnator is NEVER brought up, as if it's always a "whore" who conceived by immaculate conception.
At what point does logic allow the discussion to include the sperm donor and HIS responsibility in this? where is the comparable censure of his part in the pregnancy? and what comparable "punishment" to being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy full term? when that discussion begins, I'll be listening.
the aborting of female foetuses in China and India just illustrates the cultural disdain for the female in those nations, and historically both have terrible stories of what can happen to those females "allowed" to live, such as footbinding, bride burning, etc. of course, the "result" of excess males means they can export their genes to other nationstates, and breed with "local" women worldwide, establishing legal residency and the right to set up shop - I suspect that, barring war, China will have quite a few new "bloodlines", including those in Africa. globalism takes on many forms, the new colonialism is the same old same old.
you write of ancient Rome, and fathers legally able to kill their children because they "owned" them - it wasn't too many decades ago in amrka that fathers had complete control over "their" households, and reporting violence, including sexual, to the "authorities" would often result in looking the other way, because the "man's home is his castle" where he had rights over all under his roof. things change very, very slowly, if at all.
k, not trying to fight either - just points of view!
with regards the chemtrailing, the planes are flown from many places, globally - but here's a couple of links with amrkn specifics:
http://aircrap.org/loose-lips-sink-ships-and-747s-too/33516/
http://theintelhub.com/2011/03/30/secret-presidential-chemtrail-budget-u...
after a couple months of mostly blue skies, last week they began the drill - we had 6 planes at a time overhead, going both directions - two days later, white out skies. . . surreal world to exist in, eh.
take care.
watched a nice symmetric grid pattern float across the night sky last week, way past the hour of most commercial air traffic. like a giant chessboard (or a shield). all weekend after that, white out. perfectly natural of course.
I'm going to try and squeeze in here between your two replies - heh - at the weekend I was at a local "fair" and chatting with someone who remarked on the sky filling with "clouds" - I pointed to the northern horizon, where against the blue sky you could see four parallel trails as they emerged from the whiteout overhead - they looked like the four fingers of a hand, pointing downward - some I was speaking with have heard me mention the aerosoling for years now - it was definitely an "aha!" moment for them, and I've been asked for some more information. small steps, more bridges within local community. . . share detox/ chelation information. . . what else can one do? bizarre world. . .
to your other post - I agree that laws don't necessarily lead to more personal responsibility, in fact, more laws lead to lazy, immature citizens IMO - but at THIS stage in the game, I'm against selective punitive laws based mostly in Xtian "morality" - these will always go against the female, because inherent in the doctrine is the madonna/whore nonsense. and it's my opinion that both Pauls are pandering to a voting public with this issue, the Xtian right. why else would the rules apply exclusively to the female, and the male NEVER gets a mention?
I'd love to think women would take more responsibility for their sexuality - but with porn being the dominant paradigm now, the deck's stacked against them. perhaps a new harsh reality of the social "safety net" being removed, no benefits, and abandonment by the impregnators will help evolve a strong realisation that coercive sexual acts have consequences, and it's time for females to stop allowing themselves to be used and discarded sexually. there's a fair amount of gals who also "get pregnant" to "keep the man" and that needs to be exposed as well - again, learning and desiring to be self-sufficient, both financially AND emotionally, would be great, but that's a utopia I'll never live to see, I do realise!
always a pleasure tip e.!
CA - we're about to have a new paradigm I think. One in which life for most will change a lot. Power, IMO will devolve to a more local level.
Being self-sufficient is the way to be in most things I agree. Emotional works better with partners IMO.
Re. to FORCE a woman to carry a foetus full term, when she alone knows the circumstances of the conception and the viability of the FULL life circumstances available to the foetus is cruel and inhumane, to all concerned.
I pretty much concur.
I can't understand these late-term abortions. That's why I said that once the fetus is sentinent, killing her/him is murder. Otherwise, it's someone's private business.
thanks for ur response...it's a sticky issue we men have the luxury of avoiding if we choose...and almost all of us do, this is true. but does a law of any kind (or the Law in general) lead to an increase of personal responsibility (which seems to be the essential quality that our world lacks most and which would resolve many of these issues)?
your general skepticism is as always welcomed by me. always good to bounce things back and forth to avoid groupthink blinders. and yes agreed, the whole thing is a farce and there are many closets full of skeletons for this country's peoples to open before a healthy rebirth can occur. (gotta admit that Wayne Paul video referenced elsewhere on the thread is a decent start tho)
peace sis
If we did it Ron's way, there would be states where it was legal and states where it is not.
I have my reasons, but I personally could not get an abortion. On the other hand I am also against forcing a woman to make the decision I would ask her to make, given that there is no clear support for her during and after the birth of the child. If I were alone, stuck in that situation, my God. I don't have the right to suggest she carry full term as long as we have a society set up like this one. But some folks chose to abort because they don't have the resources. I have girlfriends who have done it. ALL of them regret it. ALL of them have scars from doing it (even the VERY successful ones). I travel in VERY educated circles, it does not matter. This issue is tough. But I don't see Ron shoving his answer down my throat unless I live in his state.
Tough stuff. Not a reason to be against him. I am not on the band wagon because I see his campaign as a hopeless cause.
appreciate your weighing in on this MsC.
I agree I don't think I'd be able to have an abortion, nor do I desire to have a child - so for me, personal responsibility with my sexual partners was primary. but not every female has the "power" to come to this decision / awareness prior to being sexually active. some fall into the cultural fairytales and get burned, some resign themselves to their fates, some emerge with wisdom, some regrets - but it should be the female's choice, and NOT the state, particularly when it's skewed to NOT censure the male who is equally "responsible" - all I really ask is consistency, which is absent now.
I have known women who regretted abortions, and those who are completely at peace with their decisions. to some extent, it depends on the support they get in their friends / peer groups. I've counselled many, and like any "groupthink" meme, once the logic of the decision is accepted, regret can be acknowledged with awareness that the best decision was taken at the time.
with regards RP's "leaving it to the state" - it's a cop out in my opinion - either you have a stance or you don't - and if it's left to individual states, what is a nationSTATEs purpose? just devolve to small state-hoods, let people choose which one fits? I'd be for that, but we all know that's not going to happen - we just do it within our local communities, and dodge the thought police. (like the wise women who know how to release the menses with herbs, and do it with sacred ceremony so all may be honoured and at peace, cyclically)
The 9 year old who is pregnant is the one that gets me. Saw a movie about an orphaned child raped by soldiers who had to take care of the baby and her little brother. No adults. She kills herself at the end of the movie, she does not make it to her teens. There are no clear answers to this issue. I guess I have a personal stance I am not willing to shove down other's throats so I am willing to be open and let localities decide for themselves. It may be a cop out, I concur. But no answer seems to work across the board. Some feel pressured to get them because of freedom of choice (2 of my girlfriends fit this bill, one can't have kids now). And so it goes.
what you relate is why I believe the choice is with the female whose body & life are most affected by the decision, and this is why leaving it to a "state" to enact legislation - particularly when entangled with religious beliefs, which should be PERSONAL, not state/universal - is very obviously not a fair choice. again, particularly when the laws are punitive to the female, and completely ignore the male's role.
the "freedom of choice" you mention - the important word is "choice" - and choices have outcomes, including regrets. again, coming to peace with choices made, and re-membering the circumstances at the time of the choice is important. replaying an old memory over and over to re-inforce an emotion tied to it is very human, but not very healthy - best to come to some peace in the now - which is all there is anyhow. . .
awwwww, checking back I see we BOTH got a driveby *slap* by an anonymous sadface boy.
mebbe next time, an argument, or even just a comment? doubtful. . .
re. driveby - wasn't me.
While he seems genuine and indeed consistent, he makes sweeping claims like the free markets being the fairest provider of health care - claims that I'd love to see him try to defend in an honest debate. In 2009, there were about 15k Walmart employees in Ohio alone who were on medicaid - these aren't lazy people who don't want to work; the market simply won't provide healthcare for large sectors of workers in this country. Pretending that somehow the market will come up with a solution to this problem, when the only possible workable solutions would involve the market participants killing their ability to make a profit, is pure fantasy.
Dude - Health care is a racket in the US of A. So many pockets have to get stuffed. Get the parisites out of the system.
Where I live, quality health care is available to locals for $1 pre visit/ hospitalisation. Even for me, a non-local, it costs a bit more, but is very reasonable, so self-insuring is no problem.
Take responsibility for your own health.
Walmart is the king of corporatism. When the old man ran the place, everything that could be sourced from america was sourced from america.
When the kids inherited it, they put business types in charge, and they realized that they could set up the compensation packages such that the government paid for healthcare. Part of walmart employee orientation is how to get benefits from the government. Its really no different that many other industries and even independant small business people who tweak the system to get maximum cash income, minimal reportable income such that benefits including medical, food stamps, grants, financial assistance for their kids, etc are all sourced from the government. This allowed walmart to focus on beating down their supppliers and let .gov beat down on the benefit providers for their employees.
Thats why we either need to go full socialized medicine, on terms that hospitals and doctors agree with, with the option for folks to pay for additional coverage, or go back to market driven health care with out the competitive restriction that .gov imposes on insurers.
Every time the .gov half asses something, it makes it far worse than if they just stayed out of it. They do things half ass because the congress criters only care about ONE number 51%. Same is true for the tax code and the cluster it is.
When the aliens do archeology on our culture they are going to be bedazzled at the emphasis on the number 51. not pi. not the golden rule, not fibbonaci sequences, not prime numbers, but the goal of 51% dominanating every decision making process.
Even if you hate Ron Paul, he symbolizes what a 3rd party can add to the politcal discourse. He is a "republican" in name only. If the system allowed him to get on national ballots without dumping al of his capaign cash, he would be a perpetual independant.
"1. He supports regular audits of the Federal Reserve, which would seriously compromise their ability to set monetary policy independently without political meddling"
Wash. To my understand, the Federal Reserve is the bank's bank to centrally plan the domestic economy that is closely aligned to the Executive Branch of the US government allowing a direct lobbyist position between shareholders and Federal Reserve board's/especially chairman.
"2. He favours the end of social security which could see millions of elderly and disabled people on the streets during these tough economic times"
Last time, I looked; he advocates reforming SS with an opt out option with the proviso never to apply for it.
"3. He intends to legalise ALL drugs, giving children access to life-threatening substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin to name a few"
Weed, Crack, and Heroine are dually cheaper than prescription drugs. Not to mention, there's no pharma hemp and/or Raw milk lobby placing pressure on prices to manufactured drugs. Additionally, it creates a very flexible black market that creates an unground economy that also justifies interventionalist methods in domestic and international affairs.
"4. Mr Paul follows the long discredited ‘Austrian school of economics’ which consists of nothing but a motley crew of eccentric and clownish anarchists"
Wow. Correction. Hayek goes point to point against John Maynard Keynes's 'General Theory' and blows it out of the water. Keynes's 'General theory' functions only in a closed Auhtoritarian or Absolute Monarchy forms of systems. The biggest draw to Keynesianism is that it advocates using deficits to steer economies aka central planning that enables politicians to promise anything and everything in a perpetual boom of expansion without little to no pain in mal-investment. Yet, Keynesian policies for growth and limiting pain across the board is an utter failure that concludes if only more was spent.
While Hayek and Keynes were friends, they strongly disagreed in economics. Essentially, Keynes advocates the euthanasia of savers and absolute authority of governments at the discretion of governments. Stalin would consider Keynes and his followers Keynesians very useful idiots indeed.
"5. He supports the legalisation of gay marriage at the state level, which could see children being raised by parents of the same sex"
So what? Do you advocate civil rights or civil privileges? These two are not mutually exclusive; we are either a free society based on civil rights or not a free society based on civil privileges. Choose which society you want to be married to.
"- RP is NOT being ignored by the mainstream: Jon Stewart IS THE MAINSTREAM!"
Last I checked Jon Stewart is a comedian who uses humor in presenting the news. Psychologically, it amounts to Jon Stewart equating Ron Paul as an utter joke.
"- RP has done practically nothing since becoming chairman of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee"
Yet, the audits have helped bring about awareness that has disabled the Federal Reserve from not recieving monumental blame if the economy collapses due to its so-called mandates.
"- RP lies about 9/11, keeping to the BS 'official story' - that liar will never be true, and his deception is as obvious as Obama's was."
Not informed enough to comment here.
"- RP is milquetoast in just about everything he says, especially our wars (it's not only about getting our soldiers home: it's about recognizing our WAR CRIMES) and Israel (it's not just about cutting our funding of the vile Nazi/Apartheid regime, it's about recognizing that they are our enemies, rather than our 'friend')"
I must have missed something. Care to elaborate? This appears to be an ideological twist to the very inaccurate assessment of US isolationism prior to both World Wars. US Isolationism was directly at Europe in the US's attempt to sternly avoid Europe's balance of power geopolitics, which required the Monroe Doctrine and US had expanded itself quite a bit by the time of both wars.
"I know I'll get downrated a bunch for criticizing RP, but will any of the legion of RP fans present ever bother arguing against any of these points?"
I understand the sentiment here. If anything, the points do mostly revolve around the gradualistic progress here, which I agree is somewhat worrisome.
"Unfortunately you clearly have a lot of background reading to do before you can fully appreciate the genious of Keynesian economics. I suggest reading some papers by Krugman, Stigletz and Blinder for a deeper understanding of the underlying principles."
So, you advocate essentially firebombing the US's entire infrastructure to spur investment or mass deception or even enhanced authoritarian powers to correct the economy with friends like these who needs enemies. Krugman and Keynesians better go lobby the TSA's procedure to disband itself as national security is preventing economic security.
Or, do we conviently forget that the disasters in Japan were Keynesianly believed to be good for the economy/growth.
That Keynesian deficit spending is forming a currency confidence crisis for the national economy with more debt saturation than non-upside adjusted GDP and growth.
Not to mention, the best Keynesians can argue with the data is at best fluctuating breaking even and losses.
Yeah, I believe you. Yeah, uh-huh, Yeah.
"1. Set up a global central bank with an international currency which will be legal tender across the globe - this bank will be responsible for large liquidity injections during times of economic weakness, as well as influencing global interest rates for maximum prosperity"
Yet, it's not a free market, and Keynesianism requires being the reserve currency using fundamental methods that eventually leads to implosion. Gotta admit fiat IOUs and digital credit are easier to debase than being required to dilute the weight. But once confidence runs out; the result is essentially the same. The bang simply various on the size of the government imploding.
Only when there's economic weakness? Wow... I don't think further comment is necessary here.
"2. Create a central body for setting the prices of all consumer goods, to ensure that goods are consumed according to the most objective mathematical models, rather than the merely subjective preferences underlying 'supply-demand dynamics"
Garbage in is garbage out. It really is the one adventage to models; it's easy to confirm one's bias with the majority of your peers with the same viewpoint. Models tend to have one major thing in common a marginal error can through the entire model out of whack. If Keynesianism modeled in seismology, no magnitude and epicenter would ever, and I do mean ever meet the fundamental requirements. Yet, I could repeatedly claim that the fundamentals are sound; then again, I'd have trouble keeping a straight face saying it. The fundamentals can be as sound as it can be, and the methodology so thoroughly flawed as to ignore the very same fundamentals. That would be Keynesianism at its finest.
"3. Employ a system for seeking out and selecting the potential economic leaders at a young age. This would involve setting up economics academies for teaching the most advanced Keynesian theories and pioneering ever more efficient capital-allocation models"
Yet, when the methodology preached as genious is flawed to the point of being 'magic'/sorcery', these so-called pioneers are being taught a flawed 'hypothesis' or considering economics is technically a human science 'theory' perhaps actually is the proper term here. Even though Keynesian economics is paramount to teaching Continental Drift to Geologists.
"where theory and practice diverge considerably."
Huh... It occurred to me that economics could be construed as a human/social science? If so, I have to admit to a knee-jerk reaction. Drats... In earth sciences, theory is the superior/largely supported by the data while hypothesis is not. In human/social science, the reverse is true.
yes, nice catch IEVI. pretty funny.
Why does Stewart softball Paul like he's interviewing a dying grandma? And why does Paul sputter with such light debate?? Sure, some of his positions are catnip to a certain audience but if he can't even survive this interview...
do yourself a favor..........FUCK YOUR FACE BITCH!
Aside from all the comments re: milliondollarclosethomo's remarks (clearly, he/she has a strong preoccupation with gay sex and children... enough about that) let Uncle Keith set all you myopic bitches straight...
As a Progressive, I can clue you all in something: The American polictical left, center and right all have (at least) one thing in common. We'd all love to have an honest discussion about rampant corporate socialism; civil liberties erosions; personal responsibilities. What MSM doesn't want anyone to know is there exists about 2/3rd's commonly held opinion overlap amongst the prescribers to the various American "ism's". 2/3rds.
We all live in a Plutocracy. No one - aside from the Plutocrats and their sychophants - is content with the current status quo. This site is populated by Free Market Anti-Keyneseans. So be it. Every idea and ideology has its place and time. Everyone needs a seat at the ideological table when it comes to problem solving. Everyone is right at least some of the time. There is no one right ideology all of the time.
So, John Stewart is also a Progressive. He can legitimize Ron Paul. Hell, it's the patriotic thing to do. Force MSM to give credence to Ron Paul and his opinions. Let's have a broad based discussion about issues, problems and, solutions. We will not achieve this without Ron Paul in the race.
Mr Stewart, have your researcher's dig into the next set of lies.
EU: Treaty of debt (ESM)
Where the IMF Gets its Money - September 14, 2011
Each member of the IMF is assigned a quota, based broadly on its relative size in the world economy, which determines its maximum contribution to the IMF’s financial resources. Upon joining the IMF, a country normally pays up to one-quarter of its quota in the form of widely accepted foreign currencies (such as the U.S. dollar, euro, yen, or pound sterling) or Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The remaining three-quarters are paid in the country’s own currency. Quotas are reviewed at least every five years. Ad hoc quota increases of 1.8 percent were agreed in 2006 as the first step in a two-year program of quota and voice reforms. Further ad hoc quota increases were approved by the Board of Governors in April 2008, resulting in an overall increase of 11.5 percent. The 2008 reform came into effect in March 2011 following ratification of the amendment to the IMF’s Articles by 117 member countries, representing 85 percent of the IMF’s voting power. The Fourteenth General Review of Quotas was completed two years ahead of the original schedule in December 2010, with a decision to double the IMF’s quota resources to SDR 476.8 billion. Earlier reviews concluded in January 2003 and January 2008 resulted in no change in quotas.??
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/finfac.htm
These Fuckers are broke and want to steal more monies to pretend to be the globalist within the international community. Have a look at all the bad loans.
Bolstering the IMF's Lending Capacity -Last Updated: October 12, 2010
One of the Primarily Global Loan Sharks are not receiving scheduled monthly payments. Other rich nations will have to outlay liquidity to repay old loan shark receipts.
Mr. Stewart will make the high Teevee ratings. Doubt any will understand the connected fraud. Good Luck.
"VIDEO NOT AVAILABLE FROM YOUR LOCATION"
Anywhere else other than Australia where the interview is not allowed to be seen?
Maybe now Jon can turn his newly found objctivity on Sarah:) Is that teeth nashing I hear....?
http://hippies4palin.blogspot.com/
I decided 2 years ago I was voting for Ron Paul in 2012 whether he is the GOP nominee or not.
Calling all Financial Geniuses and Trolls That This Site Is So Attractive And Hip To : Ron Paul nails it. It's personal responsibility and choice. It's St. Francis of Assisi, It's Abe Lincoln, Its MLK, Its Bob Dylan, It's love your neighbor, it's all a Jewish carpenter ever talked about. Anything else is just more pus in the festering zit that has become America.
The MSM's blackout of Ron Paul will reign in a new awareness of just how orchestrated our past elections have been. Thanks Tyler, Ron and of course Jon. You are all great patriots. Ron Paul 2012!
"Sorry, this video is unavailable from your location." ... FUCK AOL!! ... FUCK HULU!!
Short term ( 1-3 months ) silver and gold predcition-have a look- some steadiness in turbulent times:
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2626&p=34264#p34264
He comes off as a doddering old fool.
I am Chumbawamba.
Sorry this video is unavailable from your location.
What a crock.
Wow...no one seems to get it. Jon Stewart gives a shiite about Ron Paul's view. Stewart is trying to split the REP vote to allow for the DEMs to retain WH.
GHB had the election vs Clinton wrapped up (inspite of massive Lame Stream Media bias supporting Clinton). Enter Ross Perot who garners 20% of the vote.
It is that simpke.
Yep. And it has a pretty good chance of working: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_democrats_2012_victory_plan.html
Take it easy on the acid, clown.
Ron Paul is intelligent enough not to run as independent if he's not nominated by GOP. 50% of GOP winning, even if it's not him, is a lot better than 100% of them losing.
If you don't believe that then you're as clueless as Ross Perot.
...good eyes COA. Stew is proof that, even among Fight Club, bruising heel on one's own ass remains alive and kicking, for now. Lol. I can see his fans now, at their non smoking bars listening to the latest crap they heard on MTV or Clear Channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGtMPFB_YIg
I like Gary Johnson. http://classicalvalues.com/2011/09/why-i-like-johnson/
Bunch of delusional fools: do you honestly think the MSM and the dumbass sheep will elect Ron Paul?
I have nothing against Paul, but they've already picked their candidates--I guess they're the ones that put out the best per lobbyist dollar spent.
Anyway, what I'm saying is this: you're all dumbasses. Throw your fucking optimism away and prepare for the fucking worst because your stupid wishes that RP will be elected will not happen.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Is it sinking in, yet?
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Is it registering?
You need more?
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Americans are too dumb to elect Ron Paul.
Hello, DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?
Uhhh - Daves not here, man. Go away, you are cutting into my bong time.............................. And, you, sir, are an ass hat. Go slit your wrists in private, and let self determination govern others decisions in life, mainstrean depression on legs that you are.
I'd love to see you bend over and let Lloyd Blankfein stick his tiny little rod right up your ass. It's inevitable, so why resist? You'd probably enjoy it.-dickwad
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44690751