*promote
Jon Stewart comes up at 1:09

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 9:24am PDT - promote requested by original submitter Boise_Lib.

A sense of humor is the very first thing I look for when it comes to trusting anyone.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by ant.

That's something that I read from both Jon Stewart and Ron Paul -- they say what they mean and they mean what they say. That is a big part of why I like both of them, but I can also see how some people would argue that it makes Paul less "electable" than a standard greasy candidate.

The conventional candidates are pro-apple pie and mom, but anti-crime. They squirm when prompted to provide an opinion on anything remotely controversial, and have to run it through their internal focus-group filter first (my campaign manager told me that 18% of my potential voters won't like it if I mention anything anti-war!, etc.). On the other hand, Stewart and Paul are both going to just say what they think is right, focus groups be damned.

I suppose in this sense Ron Paul is a "fan" of Jon Stewart because he will give Ron Paul airtime to talk about his bent ideology.

Meh.

>> ^NetRunner:

I suppose in this sense Ron Paul is a "fan" of Jon Stewart because he will give Ron Paul airtime to talk about his bent ideology.
Meh.


Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?


Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Honesty has nothing to do with morals at all. If he attacks the left, and believes the programs are doomed to fail, then that is his preference. If I tell a woman, "Your children are fat, stupid and selfish," she will flip out--even if done nicely. Even if done to save the child's life and give the child a chance.

Honesty is a cruel thing, but is necessary. Ron Paul is honest, even when he doesn't know he is being honest (Which annoys me.)

America will burn as a nation so long as we remain overweight (You can buy soda with food stamps...lovely huh?) We will burn as long as we promote confidence over humility. We will burn as long as we think 9/11 just magically fucking happened. As long as we prop up corporations with corporate-friendly laws. As long as we think we deserve something for nothing. Our culture is useless and will falter, regardless of stimulus, universal healthcare, welfare, WIC, Unemployment insurance, etc. I favor most of these programs for the needy, but then in this culture it does not good, does it? Because we are entitled and greedy.

Paul admits to these--even if every other politician is to busy sucking every Americans cocks and teats to admit it.

Also, Paul supports liberal causes, just in personal choice. This is not dishonest; perhaps stupidity, but not dishonesty.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.

Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?

This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.

Yeah, 'nefarious agenda driven hackery'? I think you're coming down a little hard on him, NR. I'd appreciate an elaboration too.

I think Ron Paul is generally speaking an honest person. Lately, however, he's sounded a bit more "campaigny." Worse, he sounds a bit like age has taken a toll.

What I don't like about this clip is it seems like a blatant attempt to curry favor with liberal youth.

This gets at a bigger picture issue I have with Paul, which is why he is tolerated by the republican party. They aim to use him to attract much needed youth to their ideology. They know he'll be a non-factor in a few years, but those young republicans will grow up.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?
This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.


I took that from this, starting around 0:53:

The more liberal stations some of them wouldn't dare want to talk to me because their agenda is Democratic party politics and they're not for liberty, they're just for Democratic party politics and big government. But even on those stations, you will have a few very honest people.

Fellow Patriot,

Big Government took a huge leap forward in 2010. And you and I will suffer the consequences unless we take action today.

You see, the statists look for every opportunity to gain more power over our lives – and they found another one in the ObamaCare scheme.

It is a huge step toward a full takeover of our personal medical decisions, as well as a massive tax increase and a huge loss of liberty. It will also cause further destruction to our already fragile economy.
...
Please read the email below from Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. Campaign for Liberty has a great plan to help me win this fight, but they are going to need every Patriot in our Revolution to join them.
...
[Letter from John Tate that Paul wants us to read]
Dear NetRunner,

The ObamaCare scheme is designed to do two things statists love more than anything else: vastly increase the size and power of government and give our federal masters more control over our personal business.

Power over our very lives.

It's getting harder and harder for them to conceal their true intentions - and people are waking up to it.

You and I saw the results of this in the recent elections, giving us an opportunity to take action.

Ron Paul has a plan to fight back and END THE MANDATE, but Campaign for Liberty needs your help today to get the battle really moving.

You see, the debate over nationalized health care isn't about what Congress wants to "give" Americans.

It's not even about health care at all.

It's about power.

It's about what THEY take.

It's always been about what they take.

And their "take" is staggering.

>> ^kymbos:

Yeah, 'nefarious agenda driven hackery'? I think you're coming down a little hard on him, NR. I'd appreciate an elaboration too.


Even with everything I just said in my last comment, you're probably right.

I'm just saying, Ron Paul isn't who you might think he is from his TV appearances.

I see him as being deeply manipulative and deceptive in the way he practices politics, and I see that blaring loud and clear in this video. The whole thing is like a creepy body-snatcher convention. The big applause line is "now I'm up to 50 interviews on Fox!" and the upshot of the speech is "keep looking for an 'honest' liberal to give you a platform to spread your ideology to new audiences you wouldn't normally have access to."

That's just...creepy. Take that with his characterization of liberals, and it makes me really, really deeply distrustful of him.

Ron Paul's not the hero America needs, but the hero America deserves!

Thanks @NetRunner, that's exactly what i asked for. I wouldn't say the email shows dishonesty, but it's not common to get a decent reply like that when dealing with political comments on here

>> ^NetRunner:

1. Paul isn't honest.
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.

Ron paul would make a great think tank person... but a horrible president.