Ron Paul Deprecated by Chris Wallace at GOP Debate + Ron Paul at GOP Debate (videos)

Dandelion Salad


Sept. 5, 2007

FOX News pundit-wannabe Chris Wallace, proving he is anything but a journalist, literally deprecated Rep. Ron Paul over an answer Paul gave on troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Although put in the form of a question, Wallace said Paul would take his “marching orders from al-Qaeda” to get the U.S. “off the Arabian peninsula.”

FOX News pundit-wannabe Chris Wallace…


dcarrico Compilation of Congressman Ron Paul a…

Compilation of Congressman Ron Paul at the Fourth GOP Presidential Debate held in the Whittemore Center at the University of New Hampshire on September 5th, 2007.

h/t: *RC_REVOLUTION 420 [resistance] and Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul and Sean Hannity Spar (09/05/07)

h/t: *RC_REVOLUTION 420 [resistance] and Ron Paul Revolution

43 thoughts on “Ron Paul Deprecated by Chris Wallace at GOP Debate + Ron Paul at GOP Debate (videos)

  1. I would only subject myself to listening to an idiot like Sean if Ron Paul is in the video. My god – how can anyone with more than a few brain cells listen to this creep. Fortunately i feel there is a revolution going on in this country that will indeed appeal to the higher angels of our existence. Ron Paul is an amazing man who has somehow managed to rise in a system trusting that we stay numb and dumb to the glorious legacy our forefathers gave to us. I do not know how Dr. Paul gathers the strength to treat these cretins with any respect what-so-ever. I would have no such ability. Americans are always derailed for being stupid and there is amazing evidence to support that notion, but i do believe there are enough who can and will make the difference.

  2. what the hell are you talking about?

    ron paul opposes abortion *because* he is a libertarian, and all libertarians agree fundamentally on the non-aggression principle–that is to say, you should *never* initiate the use of force unless in personal (or national) defense.

    are you saying that when a doctor, like paul, reaches into a woman and scrambling the brains of a fetus that, in late-term cases, has all the brain circuitry required to feel and respond to pain, he is not committing an act of aggression? besides, ron paul has stated on numerous occasions that this issue, and similar controversies with other comparable acts of violence, should be treated on the local/state level, where the people have more say in the democratic process.

    as for “gay rights” ron paul voted *against* the amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, and he voted *for* the defense of marriage act because it would take it out of the hands of the supreme court *entirely* to define it one way or another, leaving it, again, up to the democratic process of the individual states. as a libertarian, of course, he doesn’t believe the state should be involved in marriage *at all*, so it would be up to us, the people, to elect representatives in our states that carry the same viewpoint. electing a president with libertarian principles is just the beginning.

    get your facts straight at least, ok?

    and as for the “private enterprise” rant, it is just plain nonsense. capitalism has no inherent value-judgments other than, perhaps, than the concept of private property and getting back more from your investment than you put in. if you don’t like the way most businesses/corporations are run, then why don’t you open up your own green/syndicalist work force instead of whining about it and calling for more central planning/state intervention/redistribution of our wealth that almost always results in more totalitarianism, more theft, more bridges to nowhere, more wars.

    you want to know who is the #1 polluter of the environment and murderer of peoples world-wide? yes, you guessed it, the military; i.e. governments and states run amok. the modern corporation is the *result* of big government largesse, a la corporate “personhood” and the resulting “speech” rights and no-bid contracts and subsidies.

    i am so sick of this anti-capitalist rhetoric, usually coming from people who have benefited from its affluence, of course. elites everywhere always call for more central planning, because they want to be our platonic guardians and shepherd us on the “right path” as we are too ignorant and too weak to do the work ourselves, in our own communities and businesses and campuses.

    well, i say bullshit, and a pox on all your lies.

    if you want to know pure greed, talk to the bureaucrats in washington who steal money from your paychecks and spend it on what *they* want, obviously because you don’t know how to invest it yourself.


  3. Akston. I fall right in line with Ron Paul on most issues. Where we differ is on trivialities that determine elections. Gun control, abortion, etc.
    The difference I have with him on the war in Iraq, is he, like the rest of them couch it far to narrow a terms. iran is a huge factor in what we are doing there; as are China and Russia. It’s shortsighted to base your feelings on this war on body counts, and alleged violations of the constitution.
    I guess what I dislike most about Ron Paul is his claiming to be about liberty, and then personally opposing abortion and gay rights. What the hell business is it of his? From a libertarian perspective….none.

    do you have a blog?


    It is always refreshing to see Ron Paul stand up to flat-earth goons like Hannity and Wallace. He exposes the hypocrisy and anti-intelligent . history-twisting, simplistic mindset the republicans adopted in their brain-dead propaganda ever since they wrapped the bible-belt around their propaganda of militarism and personal & corporate profit at the expense of everyone and everything else.

    The problem with Paul’s platform as I see it is in his further reliance on private enterprise to fix the woes of the world. Private enterprise and the free market are a system that relies on selfishness and greed to sustain itself, and as such is not an ideology, it’s a disease.

    What his right wing constituency fails to realize is that greed-based private enterprise leads not to safety and equilibrium, but to an utter lack of personal scruples, communal ethics, general compassion and civic virtue. These are the values that will unite and cure our ills, not further greed and free enterprise. We’ve seen with tragic consequences what allowing capitalism run amok has done to our environment and our foreign policy, and the time for re-orienting our course back toward civic virtue is long overdue.

    If you train a child from the outset that “greed is good” then you get a greedy, nasty, selfish, self-serving kid (i.e. a republicrat). Indeed there are impulses of greed and other killer instincts infecting the Id from birth, but there are also innate aspects of altruism and conscientiousness and communal cooperativeness which are natural to children as well.

    By reinforcing the anti-social impulses in an attempt to achieve peace and prosperity through selfishness and greed, what you get is a nation of selfish, sick minds. Instead the protocol should be to train OUT these bad notions, and reinforce those which would naturally seek peace and prosperity for the community as a whole.

    There is a fundamental philosophical flaw in the capitalist method. It breeds selfishness and oversimplifies the complex landscape of society’s social and political ills. To solve the problems we face requires not simplistic slogans (remember ‘trickle-down’?) but a highly compassionate and sensitive platform.

    This is why Dennis Kucinich is the true anti-establishment candidate, and why Ron Paul, while true in h is properly anti-establishment outrage, pursues some critically important agendas, but for the wrong reasons.

    One is glad to see Paul shake up the likes of the darkest evil in his party (giuliani for one), but Paul is sadly infected with this apparently particularly Texan myth that personal greed will keep the world honest, when in fact human nature dictates that just the opposite is likely the case.

    Dennis Kucinich is the only healthy candidate.

  5. I agree that Dr. Paul is a “breath of fresh air” because he has the gutts to take on the beltway and say iike it is. He speaks with a passion and is not another flip flopper.

    Sadly however I think the media is trying to label him as just another crazy and disregard his views.

  6. What a circus Fox News turned that debate into.

    Since when do the candidates have to start debating the moderators too?

    This was clearly not a “fair & balanced” debate, and obviously slanted against Dr. Ron Paul.

  7. “It’s wonderful to have a great plan. Less so if it’s impossible to implement because you can’t build a coalition to support your views.”

    Ah, a pragmatist I see.

    While we could toss numeric guesses back and forth for quite some time (Polls of whom? Are they always 2%? Do text message polls count? Do Internet polls count? Do straw polls count? Do the pollsters have any vested interest in the outcome? Is Ron Paul even on the list of options? etc, ad nauseam), I like the coalition part of your statement.

    It begs the question: “Can one have a stance based on a consistent philosophy and still build a coalition?” or: “Doesn’t one need to appear to agree with every constituency and prevaricate to win?”

    For now, let’s use phone poll data and stipulate that Ron Paul is currently polling at 2% in phone polls. That data also shows close to 70% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who voted against that invasion in the first place, and who supports immediate withdrawal. Is there any chance that this stance might be more appealing to that 70% than the American democracy-by-invasion jingoism sported by the rest of the field? Perhaps one of the first coalitions could be made there?

    When I read posts from Ron Paul’s base, I find that they come from highly varied groups. Some are “fringe”; many are just convinced by his honesty and command of the facts after hearing him speak a few times. It’s a diverse collection of people from sometimes, widely-differing views. Sounds very coalition-like to me. What did “Reagan Democrats” do in 1980 and 84?

    So, Ron Paul might actually be the Republicans’ only hope.

    But in my case, that’s not the reason registered Republican to vote for him. I’ll vote for him because I agree with 90% of what he proposes, and I won’t have to watch out for false-coalition-building flip-flops on essential issues. Ron Paul has been basing his actions on the same philosophy for the last 20 years: constitutionality. I support the constitutional view of a limited federal government, real free trade, citizen responsibility, and on, and on. See ronpaul2008 dot com for all of the issues.

    When I vote for a candidate who I agree with, I’m doing one of the most important things I can do to recover and preserve our liberties, and make us safer. When I vote against a candidate I detest, using a candidate I detest less…I deserve what I get.

    But enough about me. Who do you support?

  8. akston…very well written, thought out, and irrelevent.
    2%….no movement in months, and no reason to suspect that there will be any.
    It’s wonderful to have a great plan. Less so if it’s impossible to implement because you can’t build a coalition to support your views.
    All the talk in the world doesn’t change the fact that he will lose with his current position, and compromise is not only needed, but an intelligent approach.

  9. criminyjicket posted:

    “Do you honestly believe that with his current overall position he has any chance whatever of winning this election.

    I know its hard to fathom how truly dangerous this world is, but making up your own questions because you don’t like the ones you are asked very seldom works on the world stage.”

    Yes. Ron Paul is the only Republican who has a chance to garner the broad-based support that will be required to pull the party out of the hole it’s in. He’s the only Republican who opposes the foreign policy that lost the Republicans their majority in Congress in 2006.

    As for your second statement, I apologize in advance for a very long response, but here it is:

    For me, it boils down to two issues. How faithful to the constitution should America remain, and what role do I see America having in the world. Luckily for me, these two issues compliment each other well.

    As far as constitutionality, almost every candidate will actually swear that he or she “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” (as required by the constitution itself). Perhaps many have actually read the constitution. Where, in that document, it mentions going to war at the president’s discretion, government-supplied health care or federal regulation of education remains a mystery to me.

    In contrast, Ron Paul actually uses the constitution as his rationale for every position he’s taken that I’ve read or heard. He uses the constitution as the basis for his legislation. I prefer an executive who not only claims he or she will preserve, protect, and defend it, but has an actual 20 year record of doing just that. When you don’t know why Ron Paul supports or opposes something, check the constitution. I’d prefer to rely on that consistency, rather than the twisting contradictory self-serving opinion-of-the-moment all the other candidates treat us to.

    As for America’s role in the world, the constitution was designed for this as well.

    During the Cold War, we developed the image of America as a Super Power. We were the “Free World”; the Soviet Union was the “Evil Empire”. The USSR was indeed an evil empire. History has confirmed that one, and the Russian people are still rebuilding from it. But many in America still see our country as a kind empire…just a “good” empire. We’ll spread this good empire of democracy everywhere, at our own expense of treasure and lives, whether they want it or not, whether they are ready for its responsibilities or not, whether it gives cover for radical extremists or not. And, in the spirit of democracy, we’ll do it by invasion.

    The constitution does not define our government that way. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”. If we declare war on a nation, it’s supposed to have a limited scope. That’s why Congress never actually declares war anymore. It would tie the government’s hands. Instead we prosecute undeclared “wars” on tactics and inanimate objects (the “war on terror, the “war” on drugs). These absurdities have no end point. The constitution was not designed with vast standing armies in mind, and if we follow its precepts, we won’t need a military built for world policing, just one built for defending us.

    How large is Switzerland’s military? How can they manage with that? How often do they insert themselves into other nations’ alliances, feuds, and conquests? Are they isolationists? Do they trade with others?

    We can choose the model of a strong, freely-trading, non-interventionist, constitutional republic which still relentlessly pursues the actual culprits of atrocities. Or, we can choose the model of a “good” empire, spreading democracy through invasion, maintaining military bases worldwide, entangling ourselves with constantly changing friends-this-moment, enemies-the-next (Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein), and sending our people out to die for it. Which model do you suppose makes us safer in this dangerous world?

  10. OMG, what do the Status Quo “commentator”s” want? This man is talking about things that Sham Hamity, and Crips Wil-lace-u-up have forgotten, or don’t understand.
    Peace is totally different concept, and they will not or can not Comprehend it. Now if he was talking War, they’d get it(?). Of course Rep. Dr. Ron Paul is laughed at, they don’t get the rhetoric that conform to other Candidates blah, blah blah, this gives these types “commentator’s” more ammunition. His questions are asked in the Negative(a Bill O’Really tactic), which he is able to turn back to a positive, while commentators continue to plow forward Negatively. Shame on them. Good temporment Dr. Paul, his finger on the button, even Dennis Kucinich, or Rudy, Mitt, or George ?
    Vote by Absentee Ballot, No-Morph, No-Caging

  11. are you guys listening?

    paul talked about getting rid of the CIA (the biggest terrorist organization around the world, bar none) *and* the federal reserve (you want to know who is responsible for the great depression? read “the fed’s depression and the birth of the new deal”).

    men have been assassinated for even *breathing* opposition to one of these corrupting secretive entities, let alone both.

    not to mention, his foreign policy would spell a total end to the military-industrial complex as it has grown to obese proportions over the twentieth century. he would not only take us out of iraq…he would close down pretty much all the 200+ miltary bases we have installed around the world, as well as cut off much of the “foreign aid” (i.e. israel) that is further bankrupting our economy.

    de-centralizing the power structure away from the federal government and back to state and local governance would mean that we are closer to our democratic process as well, and less likely to be pushed around by would-be tyrants. not to mention having more say over where our money is invested (i.e. more charity-outreach, education and health care and less bridges to nowhere and endless wars).

    what paul proposes is nothing short of a revolution. his presidency would mean that we have a fighting chance in dismantling all the cartels that have hijacked our republic since the turn of the twentieth century. not to mention saving us from the national i.d./homeland security/north american union travesties.

    oh yeah, he would also work to get rid of corporate personhood, which means we could start holding individual accountable for their business practices in court again, and he would take away corporate subsidies and no-bid contracts, as well as free up the market from all the rules and regulations and license fees that make it impossible for you and i to start our own little shop or co-op or clinic or shelter or whatever and liven up our communities, so we can beat the wal-marts at their own game. not to mention, lobbyists wouldn’t have any power in a paul administration, because the regulators who stack the cards in favor of big business would pretty much all lose their jobs. so yeah, a likely end to corporate monopolies as well, who rely more on washington than on wall street to keep their cartels safe and secure.

    and if you’re worried about the environment…imagine if we all each owned one tree in our national forests, and we are all given the task of taking care of that tree, and we were not allowed to cut down or pollute our neighbors tree and/or soil (or water or air or whatever)…this is the libertarian solution to the environment…when everyone has a stake in taking care of their particular portion of the land, rather than giving it over to some federal agency or “commonwealth” and having no say in how that land is treated, then the land inevitably ends up in a better condition. and if we are remiss and we allow our tree to rot and fall down on top of another tree…we can be sued by our neighbor for our negligence. it introduces responsibility and accountability into the picture.

    in any case, we have nothing to fear from paul. join the revolution. it is about f*ing time!


  12. wouldn’t it be great if we could take a time out? We need to fix ourselves so the rest of you guys need to wait over there. His goals are unrealistic, and the ability to compromise is a virtue.
    Some of you seem really bright. Do you honestly believe that with his current overall position he has any chance whatever of winning this election.
    I know its hard to fathom how truly dangerous this world is, but making up your own questions because you don’t like the ones you are asked very seldom works on the world stage.

Comments are closed.