Bill Maher | Janice Dickinson | Michael Moore | News | Ron Paul | Towleroad Guide to the Tube

Towleroad Guide to the Tube #133

RON PAUL: Defends his positions on CNN Late Edition.

BILL MAHER: Why aren't any of the Democrats talking like Ron Paul?

SICKO: A sneak peek at the new film from Michael Moore.

JANICE DICKINSON: Her appearance on the UK's Friday Night with Jonathan Ross. Here's part one.

Check out our previous guides to the Tube here!

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. oh andy, please don't tell me you're like Maher and being seduced by a "libertarian" republican?!?!

    he'd sooner get rid of every government apparatus that provides a safety-net for this country than be a "nice" republican.

    Posted by: nycredneck | May 21, 2007 2:47:53 PM


  2. Ande, have you read this guy's positions? He's just as crazy as the rest of him, except he isn't in favor of the war. He's NOT a friend of the gay community, that's for sure. He's not going to actively work to protect our rights.

    He can't just call himself a libertarian because he believes the government is bad. He's not socially libertarian at all!

    Posted by: Ryan | May 21, 2007 2:54:29 PM


  3. Not being seduced by Ron Paul. I do think he's created some interesting dialogue as of late. Please don't take my presentation as any kind of endorsement.

    Posted by: andy | May 21, 2007 2:57:33 PM


  4. ah, ok. just the two clips about him, coupled with Maher being all "he's my hero," because he says negative things about the war, had me worried.

    Posted by: nycredneck | May 21, 2007 3:02:47 PM


  5. TO: Bill Maher. Are you still defending Ann Cuntler as your "dear friend" as you arrogantly imagine that YOU would suffer most under a government controlled by fascists like her?

    Just askin'.

    Posted by: Leland | May 21, 2007 3:06:35 PM


  6. Andy, thanks for featuring Ron Paul again.

    Ryan, you say Dr. Paul isn't a friend of the gay community. Do you have specific example to back that up? I don't know much about his views on gay rights. I would imagine, as a libertarian, he'd prefer to leave it up to the states, but that doesn't make him anti-gay by any means.

    Posted by: Jordan | May 21, 2007 3:10:33 PM


  7. I don't like the idea of my civil rights being "left up to the states". Advancing civil liberties in the face of depraved and willful ignorance on the part of the population and their representatives requires the full force and support of the judicial branch of government to compel change... I really don't think it's appropriate to leave those decisions to "the people".

    Posted by: Brian | May 21, 2007 3:18:38 PM


  8. I disagree with Paul on everything except the war and some of his points on selective foreign intervention. But like Andy said, he is opening up the debate and forcing his opponents to face topics they'd just as soon avoid.

    He's serving just the sort of role an underdog should...fixating on a pet topic of major importance and forcing discussion on the merits, not the rhetoric.

    He's also generating lots of buzz on the web. TONS of video is devoted to him on youtube. There's more people who agree with him than many want to admit. He's also won the online polling after both debates. These are just the sort of people who are ripe for coalescing around a viable third party campaign. I would not be surprised if a third party ticket eventually adopts a decent chunk of his positions on Iraq and foreign policy. Maher is right that the Dems would be smart to take a closer look at some of his points if the want to avoid loosing some of those swing voters.

    Posted by: James C | May 21, 2007 3:21:22 PM


  9. While Paul voted against the bill supporting a ban on gay marriage in the US Constitution, he supports DOMA and the Marriage Protection Act which would reinforce it. "Leaving it up to the states" IS de facto antigay by choosing the blind ideology of "states' rights" over the rights of the individual and groups within that state. Imagine leaving slavery, or even Blacks' right to vote, job and housing protection up to the Great White Fathers of Mississippi! Further, he voted to ban federal funding of adoptions of non-married couples which was crafted to ban gay adoptions in DC.

    In addition, he:

    Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
    Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a “pro-family” voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
    Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
    Wants to abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
    Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
    Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
    Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro- gun rights” voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
    Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
    Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

    Posted by: Leland | May 21, 2007 3:47:05 PM


  10. Michael Moore is going to need bariatric surgery pretty soon, free or not.

    Ron Paul is a fairly consistent Libertarian, though SDI is probably not non consistent. If you don't understand the idea of cutting the Federal govt. down to size the his ideas can seem a bit mean, though whether a particular govt. program actually works, funded or no, is a matter entirely separate from its ostensible purpose. He often the only congressman to vote against budgets 434 to 1. His opposite number is Bernie Sanders of VT.

    Posted by: anon | May 21, 2007 5:28:24 PM


  11. "SDI funding is probably not consistent with Libertarian philosophy" would have been clearer. Oops.

    Posted by: anon | May 21, 2007 5:30:08 PM


  12. I hope I won't have to sit through "Sicko" yelling to myself "Yeah, but Canadians and the Brits all pay for their healthcare through taxes! They pay a lot of taxes. It's certainly not 'free'." He really has to bring something new to the table with this hoary topic.

    Posted by: anon | May 21, 2007 5:41:26 PM


  13. Anon, from what I understand from the reviews I've read, Moore does include that they pay for their "free" healthcare through taxes. The point still is, that even with higher taxes, they still end up saving money with their system. No one ever wants to raise taxes here, but sometimes raising them means saving more money in the long run.

    Posted by: Donny B | May 21, 2007 9:19:57 PM


  14. To Brian:

    The judicial branch of government's purpose is NOT to compel change--it's only function is to interpret the law.

    I hate it when people think they can use the judicial branch to MAKE laws--that's what the legislative branch is for.

    Posted by: John | May 21, 2007 10:27:02 PM


  15. When you really get down to it, Libertarian philosophy is more gay-friendly than Democratic. True Libertarians belive that everyone has a right to do whatever he or she wants as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I know many Democrats that despise gays and do not wish them to be associated with the Democratic party.

    Posted by: John | May 21, 2007 10:34:48 PM


  16. John,

    I hate it when people misunderstand the functions of the three branches of the United States government.

    The legislative branch does, indeed, make laws. And the judicial branch interprets the law. However, in their primary function of interpreting the law, the judicial branch renders verdicts which then, by default create a type of law called 'case law'. Case law has the same authority as laws created by legislative bodies.

    Someone needs a beginner's civics lesson (and it isn't me).

    xo
    peterparker

    Posted by: peterparker | May 21, 2007 10:58:13 PM


  17. While there is case law, it SHOULD not supercede laws enacted by the legislature and those laws SHOULD NEVER under any circumstances supercede Constitutional Law. I'm a Strict Constitutionalist and find no solice in a legislative and judicial branch of government that do not respect the Constitution and think less highly of a President who thinks that a War in Iraq is Constitutional and within his power. But I digress. Mainly I meant to state that "legislating from the bench" is completely unconstitutional.

    Posted by: John | May 21, 2007 11:37:57 PM


  18. I think Bill found his hero in Paul because finally someone told the truth during a debate, and of course for doing so, was surrounded by the wolf pack and attacked. I am no big Ron Paul fan and will not be voting for him if her were by some miracle able to secure his party's nomination, but I give him props for cutting through the easy soundbites and talking points rhetoric that makes sure important issues are never discussed openly and honestly.

    If I were Paul, I'd ask Rudy "I lived through 9/11-I'll keep you safe" Giuliani if he bothered to read the 9/11 Report at all. Obviously, he did not.

    Posted by: Marco | May 22, 2007 4:04:22 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Gay Flamingos Adopt Abandoned Chick in Britain« «