12 Jan 2012

Jon Stewart on Ron Paul in New Hampshire

Ron Paul 42 Comments

I think the existence of Jon Stewart is the single best argument for gay marriage. (I want to marry him.)

42 Responses to “Jon Stewart on Ron Paul in New Hampshire”

  1. Daniel Kuehn says:

    I’m with you on the blatant pushing Paul out of things, but I think you have tendency to conflate a lot of different approaches to Ron Paul – some of which are very valid and some of which aren’t.

    There is not a valid case for excluding Paul from a debate or failing to mention how he places in a primary.

    There is a valid case for noting that there is an extremely low chance the GOP could ever nominate him but it’s plausible that the GOP could nominate any of the other candidates. So – abstracting away from the one candidate that probably won’t get it simply because the GOP is a conservative party and Ron Paul is not conservative – what does New Hampshire mean for the candidates that CAN actually get it. That seems to be all they were doing here. That seems fairly reasonable, no?

    It’s just like in 2008 if Kucinich did reasonably well in New Hampshire (second let’s say), but Obama surged much closer to Clinton than he had been. It woudl be entirely reasonable to set Kucinich aside and talk about Obama for five minutes.

    It’s entirely reasonable to set Paul aside and talk about Huntsman for five minutes. There was a Huntsman story in New Hampshire. They don’t have to be talking about Ron Paul constantly, and I guarantee you Jon Stewart isn’t showing you the clips where they actually do talk about Ron Paul.

    • Dan says:

      Buzzkillington, you don’t need to get on your soap box every time something is posted on here that covers Ron Paul. It was a funny bit. Learn to laugh.

      • sandre says:

        “It was a funny bit. Learn to laugh”


      • Major_Freedom says:

        I was laughing at the video, then I came here to see what people are saying, then I laughed even more at the fact that Daniel stole my verbose thunder, LOL!

        “It’s just physics!”

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      Daniel, did you happen to see O’Donnell’s entire statement? It is far worse than what Stewart showed, he called Ron Paul a “fraud” .

    • Robert Fellner says:

      Ya this “let’s just take Ron Paul out” segment is a great example of Murphy’s terrible weakness of conflating all the different approaches to Ron Paul, not a great example of how stupendously delusional you are….

      It’s interesting to note that it appears you may not even believe the crap you are spewing. You consistently use the phrase “entirely reasonable” as if you are trying to convince yourself in the above pile of Kuehn-speak above.

      How fascinating!

      • Bob Roddis says:


        Just found your blog. Good stuff.

        I love it when “progressives” express concern for minorities (or fling the “racist” charge against their opponents). Progressives and their policies have been the black plague of death for the third world and minorities for a century.

        Are they stupid or do they intend the results that are so easily predicted as the result of their policies? Regardless, they are certainly callous about the inevitable results. In the law, gross negligence can often replace the element of intent when attempting to convict a criminal. I suggest that the gross callousness of progressives regarding the impact of their policies is the same as intent.

        Did you know that we don’t want a war with Iran because we hate Jews?


        • Joseph Fetz says:

          Mr. Roddis,

          As you may well know many different groups support Ron Paul for vastly different reasons. What I have found during my years spent in the End The Fed movement, as well as in some RP meetup groups, is that most of the fringe factions that support RP do so because of his insistence on ending the Fed. The thing is that among this group of people that support ending the Fed (thus, they support Ron Paul) is that many of them are Greenbackers.

          Many of these people (Greenbackers) really believe that the Fed is a cartel formed for the benefit of “Jewish banksters” and that if only we put the monetary monopoly in the hands of the Treasury, then everything would be just peaches and cream. They also believe that gold is the money of greedy bankers and Jews. In my dealings with these people it became quite clear that they do not study political economy, rather they get all of their “knowledge” from documentaries on Youtube (and what used to be Google video).

          They get their information from guys like Rense, Alex Jones, Michael Rivero, etc. So, it should be no surprise that not only do they believe in things like the Illuminati ruling the world and a great many falsifiable “conspiracy theories”, but they also believe that Jews are inherently evil. Unfortunately, these people also comment on articles related to Ron Paul…

          Note: While I do find the news aggregation websites of both Jones and Rivero to be good news resources, I do not agree with the opinions of these men.

    • LAGI says:

      I think one of the challenges is clearly defining the words “Conservative” and “Liberal”.

      I think folks assume conservative means starched collars, closed minded toward everything not approved of in the bible, etc. And assume liberal means wanting civil liberties and freedoms. But it’s actually, to other way around.

      The Liberals want to give all their power away to the big governement to care for them. That’s a very expensive way to run a country.

      The Conservatives want to limit the power of the Federal Governemnt, and there by maintain more of our civil liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution. Conserving our freedoms, conserving our money.

      This later part if key: this is what MLK wanted. Civil liberties were always a big part of the Republican platform: Lincoln was a Republican. The Republicans opposed slavery and other inititiatives post slavery that limited freedoms for non-whites.

      The challenge with big government is it isn’t fluid. If something’s broken, it doesn’t get fixed. If anything, it is replaced with a worse system.

      Ron Paul, and others like him, want to return to the governing document of America – the Constitution. Following the Constitution is what made America free, and strong. The further we get from it, the weaker and the broker we become, and the closer we resemble a socialist country: each of which have gone broke and lost all their power.

      The GOP and the Democrats are not that different anymore. And is any of it working? The main difference between Bush and Obama is they are both maintaining the same lame approach to government with broken systems like “stimulating the econmomy through free money”, but Obama is spending more on it. Nothing is different. If it was, we’d have less debt.

      Nothing about how government works is working. It will only change by changing the systms. And the only one talking about changing the systems is Ron Paul.

      We can’t do the same things, the same way, and expect different results. And we can’t afford not to change. Most of our “leaders” and “leader-want-to-be’s” are afraid of change.

      How much more debt can we handle? Ron Paul’s plan would cut $1 Trillion dollars his first year, and have us out of debt in 3 eyars. No one else is proposing any changes close to that. At this point, I don’t think we can afford to not give Ron Paul a chance. Nothing will change with the other Republican candidates, or with Obama. He’s had his chance. He made things worse. He needs to go.

  2. Daniel Kuehn says:

    See Gene’s post on DiLorenzo… let’s not confuse Jon Stewart’s 10 second clip or what DiLorenzo caught at 10 pm with the entire news cycle.

  3. Brian Shelley says:


    You have to get serious here. Sure, Ron Paul may get his obligatory 51% of the vote, but he can’t possibly win the nomination.

    • Anthony Flood says:

      Let’s get serious by not confusing impossibility with improbability. The former cannot be overcome, but the latter can. Those who air their conviction of extreme improbability are usually only making clear that THEY would never vote for Ron Paul. Those who would vote for him aim at overcoming the naysayers’ objections. Those who’ve made up their mind against him come hell or high water are not the best judges of his prospects for victory. They are just hoping that repetitive prophesying against Ron Paul will somehow be efficacious.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      “he can’t possibly win the nomination.”


  4. Anthony Flood says:

    The MSM media pundits do discuss Ron Paul, but only when they cannot avoid doing so and, when they do, dismissively, contemptuously. It is clear that most of them — be they of the right, left, or center — simply DO NOT LIKE the fact that his themes resonate with so many Americans, and this subjective preference informs their professional judgments. They’d rather discuss, say, whether Adelson’s millions will help Gingrich mount an effective counterattack to Romney in South Carolina, not Paul’s broader appeal that makes such a financial angel welcome but unnecessary to his success — which so far, not incidentally, is greater than Gingrich’s!

    If the GOP won’t make Ron Paul its nominee, then too bad for the GOP. Ron Paul represents a movement to realign politics against the welfare-warfare state, rather than continuing the reign of the alternating emphases of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The literature of Austro-libertarianism, which Ron Paul commends to his fans, continues to inspire and instruct that movement, which predates and transcends this election cycle. Much to the chagrin of our prophesying pundits, it will not go the way of Ross Perot’s or Jesse Jackson’s entertaining but philosophically empty efforts.

  5. KP says:

    You know Jon has writers, right Bob?

    • MamMoTh says:

      One thing is to support gay marriage, but an altogether different thing to support polygamy.

      • KP says:

        If Bob and all the writers want to marry that’s fine too, I just thought his love for Jon might be due to an inaccurate presentation.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        What libertarian “supports” polygamy? As opposed to renouncing the initiation of force against others practicing polygamy on their own property and retaining all right to ignore and/or ostracize those that one might not agree with?

        Since the spoon-feeding method has not seemed to work, I suppose we need to employ the nipple-feeding method. Libertarianism concerns private property and the non-aggression principle. Austrian School theory is based upon the observable limited knowledge of humans and the pricing process. It’s not that complicated. Why the continuous incomprehension?

        • MamMoTh says:

          You are sick.

          Not sure if more than Major Freedom, but I suppose it doesn’t matter.

          You need help too.

      • visose says:

        Polygamy would be a huge benefit for all women, it must be stopped for man’s sake (unless you legalize prostitution too).

      • Tel says:

        Can you explain from basic moral principles why gay marriage is more legitimate than polygamy? Of course, they are different things… but morally they both seem like consensual relations between adults as far as I can tell.

        • MamMoTh says:

          Morality has nothing to do with it. It’s all about databases. If we allow 1-N (or even N-N?) relationships we’ll need to reprogram most administrative programs.

          Oh my, that’s actually a wonderful idea for a fiscal stimulus. Who would have thought we could polyamory ourselves out of the recession?

          • Bob Roddis says:

            Of course, the central feature of the Rothbardian worldview is the “need to reprogram most administrative programs”. Good and hard.

            • Joseph Fetz says:

              And deep.

              • MamMoTh says:

                Murphy’s site will get suspended again.

              • Joseph Fetz says:

                Hey, I don’t want to hear any lip from you, Frenchy.


          • Tel says:

            Woot! That a much more legitimate point than I expected you to deliver… who would have through MMT still had surprises left in it?

            If you think that polygamy is bad for databases, you might want to take a long, slow, look at unicode. Then change your name to MámMöTh.

  6. Tonka says:

    “Buzzkillington, you don’t need to get on your soap box every time something is posted on here that covers Ron Paul.”

    He does that with everything that opposes his world view. Though Kuehn tries to be subtle and feign ignorance about his bias, there’s always a copious amount oozing from every corner of his mouths.

  7. sandre says:

    He won that many votes with “no one” expecting him to win the nomination. I wonder how many he would have won if someone expected him to win.

  8. Major_Freedom says:

    Thanks for the hilarious video Bob!

  9. Jack says:

    People leave some really stupid, off topic comments on here.

    • Joseph Fetz says:

      A lot of it has to do with familiarity and references to old arguments. There’s a little of inside joking going on.

  10. kavram says:

    If a….
    then b!!!

    but… ~a

  11. geoih says:

    A majority of Ron Paul voters will not vote for Romney (or Huntsman, or whoever). So not nominating Pual only puts Obama back in the White House. Consequently, Ron Paul is the only Republican that can beat Obama.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that has gotten second place in two primaries (and I’m not counting Iowa). Guess who got second place in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire? Go ahead, guess?

  12. Bob Roddis says:

    1. My only criticism of Ron Paul is that he fails to point out that the Fed banking system is the cause of inflation. Inflation isn’t the mysterious force of nature that most people think it is. Austrians will not be successful until that point is generally understood but I think that we will be wildly successful once [if] the cause of inflation is generally understood.

    2. Several non-political friends have sent me links to this video explaining the debt ceiling and showing a toddler signing on at the end:


    It reaffirms my belief that there is no traction in the general public for the absurd notion that the present debt will not be a burden on the future and that no normal person could possibly believe otherwise, except for the totalitarian MMT nerd cohort.

    • Robert Fellner says:


      Ron Paul relentlessly drives home the point that the Fed is responsible for inflation.

      • Dan says:

        I agree, I’m not sure where Bob’s coming from there.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        I’m not so sure that he does pound enough on that issue. Tom Woods made this suggestion:

        (I would still urge that the term “business cycle” be avoided completely, since almost no American knows what it means; still less should the phrase “liquidate the debt,” which even many of his own supporters are confused about, be used.).


        I’m not convinced that those terms should be avoided but I would certainly pound home the idea inflation is caused by the Fed “printing money” prior to bringing them up. I would also challenge individual MSM personalities as to why they fail to report on the cause of inflation. If it’s being said, it’s not being said enough or it’s being said in a way that is not being understood by average people.

    • MamMoTh says:

      Your squandering stolen non renewable gas to give meaning to your life is the only real burden on future generations, not numbers. Even a toddler knows it.

Leave a Reply