Ron Paul on the stimulus bill today sm

• Ron Paul on the stimulus bill today sm - LVMT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.ahead/index.html?iref=nextin

Joy was hateful through the whole thing. I used to like her but not anymore.

She's always arguing with Liz and now she even told Bill that she doesn't hate him, she just dislikes him. You know why? He tells it like it is and she even seemed furious that he and Barney Fife got into it on his program. It makes her sound like she likes Barney and she definitely doesn't believe he had anything to do with the downfall of FM/FM.  Bill tried to explain it but you think she would listen? Heck no.  I just can't believe how hateful she can be!

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.

You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.

How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?

BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.

But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...

O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.

MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?

You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.

O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.

But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?

All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?

MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.

O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.

MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.

O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...

MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.

In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.

We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...

O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.

MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...

O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.

MAHER: Whatever it costs.

O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?

MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.

O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.

MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.

O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.

MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.

O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.

MAHER: Thank you.

O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.

MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.

O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?

MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?

O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.

MAHER: Yes.

O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.

But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.

There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.

I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.

MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.

O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.

Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?

MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.

O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.

Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.

MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.

O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

I plan to vote for Barack Obama (bash him if you want - I cannot be swayed!), but I checked out Ron Paul's website awhile back, and it seems like he has a pretty great record.  I wouldn't mind if he got elected.  I think both Obama and Paul seem to have one great quality in common - integrity!!  People can call me foolish if they want, but I go with my gut feeling a lot through life (serving me well so far), and I have a good feeling about both of these men.  They seem like decent, honest men - well, honest for politicians at least. :)

I like Obama because he talks about the things that mean the most to my family, and I really think he has what it takes to bring our divided nation back together somewhat, but if a Republican makes it to office, I hope it's Paul.

candidate or just a wasted vote?  I'm not liking neither Obama nor McCain at this point, and I've been researching Ron Paul a little bit.  I don't know that I'm leaning towards him, just curious if he has a viable chance in this election. 

It seems worthless to vote for someone you know won't get enough of the votes to actually win the thing.  Any thoughts?  Does Ron Paul have enough supporters to get voted in?

Go Ron Paul!

Would love to see a true statesman like Ron Paul be President of our country.

Great article in the Rocky Mountain News. 

This is why the powers that be behind the scenes made sure Ron Paul didn't get proper media coverage and couldn't get his message out there........too many agendas in governments around the world.  We do need to keep our butts out of this......no matter what happens, the middle east will always and has always been fighting.  Surely the U.S. doesn't think WE will be able to suddenly stop all that.  All we are doing is making matters worse by taking sides at this point.  If Israel feels the need to counter attack or invade the gaza strip, regardless, we need to stay out of it.  Let them do what they need to do and we need to stay out. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M

Ron Paul has been so right all along.  We just keep throwing more and more money, printing more money, just wasted, all of it!   Government is not supposed to be in the business of economic planning for this country....that's not a free society!   Government has NEVER done ANYTHING worthwhile with our money other than blow it............they have no business in the private sector. 

All the CEOs they sit up there and grill....what have they found out?  Nothing....and they never will.  Government can't get anything right. 

didn't vote for him, but if he had been treated more fairly, my opinions may have changed.  As of now, they're beginning to change.

There are a lot of things the federal government have no business sticking their noses into.  Last time I heard, Ron Paul had nailed most of them down.

Since I'm beginning to become disillusioned with both the Republican and Democratic parties, I just may vote for Paul (if he's still running) during the next election.

    Friday 14 October 2005

    George W. Bush, I once wrote, values loyalty above expertise and may have a preference for advisers whose personal fortunes are almost entirely bound up with his own. And he likes to surround himself with obsequious courtiers.

    Lots of people are saying things like that these days. But those quotes are from a column published on Nov. 19, 2000.

    I don't believe that I'm any better than the average person at judging other people's character. I got it right because I said those things in the context of a discussion of Mr. Bush's choice of economic advisers, a subject in which I do have some expertise.

    But many people in the news media do claim, at least implicitly, to be experts at discerning character - and their judgments play a large, sometimes decisive role in our political life. The 2000 election would have ended in a chad-proof victory for Al Gore if many reporters hadn't taken a dislike to Mr. Gore, while portraying Mr. Bush as an honest, likable guy. The 2004 election was largely decided by the image of Mr. Bush as a strong, effective leader.

    So it's important to ask why those judgments are often so wrong.

    Right now, with the Bush administration in meltdown on multiple issues, we're hearing a lot about President Bush's personal failings. But what happened to the commanding figure of yore, the heroic leader in the war on terror? The answer, of course, is that the commanding figure never existed: Mr. Bush is the same man he always was. All the character flaws that are now fodder for late-night humor were fully visible, for those willing to see them, during the 2000 campaign.

    And President Bush the great leader is far from the only fictional character, bearing no resemblance to the real man, created by media images.

    Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media.

    Why does this happen? A large part of the answer is that the news business places great weight on up close and personal interviews with important people, largely because they're hard to get but also because they play well with the public. But such interviews are rarely revealing. The fact is that most people - myself included - are pretty bad at using personal impressions to judge character. Psychologists find, for example, that most people do little better than chance in distinguishing liars from truth-tellers.

    More broadly, the big problem with political reporting based on character portraits is that there are no rules, no way for a reporter to be proved wrong. If a reporter tells you about the steely resolve of a politician who turns out to be ineffectual and unwilling to make hard choices, you've been misled, but not in a way that requires a formal correction.

    And that makes it all too easy for coverage to be shaped by what reporters feel they can safely say, rather than what they actually think or know. Now that Mr. Bush's approval ratings are in the 30's, we're hearing about his coldness and bad temper, about how aides are afraid to tell him bad news. Does anyone think that journalists have only just discovered these personal characteristics?

    Let's be frank: the Bush administration has made brilliant use of journalistic careerism. Those who wrote puff pieces about Mr. Bush and those around him have been rewarded with career-boosting access. Those who raised questions about his character found themselves under personal attack from the administration's proxies. (Yes, I'm speaking in part from experience.) Only now, with Mr. Bush in desperate trouble, has the structure of rewards shifted.

    So what's the answer? Journalists who are better at judging character? Unfortunately, that's not a practical plan. After all, who judges their judgment?

    What we really need is political journalism based less on perceptions of personalities and more on actual facts. Schadenfreude aside, we should not be happy that stories about Mr. Bush's boldness have given way to stories analyzing his facial tics. Think, instead, about how different the world would be today if, during the 2000 campaign, reporting had focused on the candidates' fiscal policies instead of their wardrobes.

had my interest.  We need to get back to the constitution.  That's another thing about Obama.  He taught the constitution and said he would reinstate the writ of habeus corpus.  Hillary has not said a word about reinstating writ of habeus corpus.  Telling, I think.  But before knowing what Obama was about, really listening to what he was saying, I was in favor of Ron Paul, he's a respectable guy.