38 votes

Ron Paul on CNN & Freedom Watch 3/21/11

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thanks Judge for the great lead-in for Dr. Ron Paul...

You're absolutely right, Dr. Paul, it's about the OIL! At about 7 minutes into the interview, Dr. Paul really pushes his points, gets agitated, and to me looks very presidental!
I want to see more of Dr. Paul getting pumped up like that.

I would like to hear RP call out the corporate/congressional

interests in endless war. The judge asked him why the Congress doesn't object at all to Obama (the Executive branch) muscling into their turf (declaring war). RP didn't really answer or get to answer (the question was rather long). However, I'd like to hear him state it for the viewers who really need to hear it:
1) Both parties have an interest in profiting from war (via looting the american taxpayer)
2) The leadership of both parties in Congress very likely PREFER Obama to take action unilaterally and take the heat for this latest war profit scheme. This way they stand to be enriched and don't have to take responsibility or answer for it to their constituants.

On another note, it was great to hear RP point out that Obama is a proponent of world government.

AC said that if the US stands

AC said that if the US stands idly by that it would be assumed that it has sided with gaddafi. So I guess with that logic, China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, ect, ect. support qaddafi.

What a jackass.

"The economy's not a class you can master in college. To think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge."


My opinion, but I think having the videos stacked up like that together is really ugly on the front page.

But I'll take stacked up Dr. Paul interviews any way I can get them!


Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

i think it looks revolutionary


Freudian blooper of the year: "Warhorks"

It's so descriptive of the revulsion we have for them. Let's start using it in postings in non-Paulist venues.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

The CNN Interviews

...are Home Runs!!!

Thank the Lord for this man.

These were great interviews

Especially the Spitzer segment. I think that it's clear that Spitzer agrees with Dr. Paul, and he is also upset that the president would ignore the Constitution and take orders from the UN instead.

he seemed a little tired in

he seemed a little tired in the first two interviews, I noticed he slurs his words sometimes, not sure if he did that a couple years ago, maybe just getting old..

anyways, those were pretty good interviews. the one with AC, he kept asking really difficult questions, and Paul always had a great response.

101 reasons not to go to war.. just ask RP!

I disagree with most of you who think this was bad...

I think all these interviews were very good. Here is why:

  1. Judge Napolitano is an obvious fan of our good doctor and amplifies his positions with similar or the same ones. This is good. It repeats and reiterates the message until it becomes mainstream.
  2. Spitzer and Anderson asked the questions that many Americans are asking or will ask as the campaign proceeds, since they don't fully understand the message. They also asked the questions that the good doctor's political opponents will pose in their respective campaigns.

Clearly, very little time is afforded in these interviews for a detailed and reasoned response. Unfortunately, this is the format that he has, and he has to get good at dealing with this, whether for TV interviews, or even the presidential debates, when only a few minutes are permitted for responses to questions that demand more substantive answers than the time allows. I suggest that the good doctor be prepared for these:

  1. In marketing, there is a term called Elevator Pitch. It is metaphorically the time it takes during a ride up an elevator to present your case (to an investor or customer) and make the sale. Doctor Paul needs to have an elevator pitch for each of these questions.
  2. We already know all the questions that are being asked and all the misconceptions that are being deliberately spread to weaken him. He should have succinct answers to each of these questions with the ability to deliver them in 30 seconds each, with an additional 10 seconds for rejoinders. Like it or not, America has a very short attention span.
  3. I propose that we make a list of these questions, along with the answers, and post them here on DP and everywhere else that we can. This will spread the message and educate the masses.

It doesn't serve us well to rail against the unfairness of our detractors. If we are to win this, we need to prepare, prepare, and then prepare some more. This may be our last chance to get the good doctor elected.

I have seen some brilliant dissertations on these topics by DP members. Let's combine these into a marketing presentation, for Doctor Paul, and for all of us as we go forth to spread the word.

Can someone smarter than I please take the lead on this?

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won,whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." --- Sun Tzu, The Art of War.


The need to educate while answering

I'm sure Dr Paul is thinking both of his different host's questions as well as the differences in the audiences he is reaching.

What some people criticize as lack of conciseness, I believe, is really his seizing the moment to lay down enough foundation so that he leaves no newbie behind.

Notice how much freer Dr. Paul is to open up to the Judge, not only because he's a like-minded host, but because his regular audience is so much better informed on Liberty issues than the other two audiences.

Yeah, we all have our rambling moments when were reaching for our best answer on the fly, but I agree that being better prepared is always a plus for all of us.

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass


Good plan! I'm sure it would be educational for everyone too.

I think you should start it off, since it was your idea. Just make a new thread. That should get the ball rolling.

I've been thinking over the past few days how our news has devolved into entertainment propaganda. It consists of anecdotal stories of no significance, propaganda, and interviews, much like the very ones Ron Paul is forced to do to try to get some truth out.

Imagine how much more news you could get and how much easier and quicker it would be for people to know what was going on if the media actually stuck to the facts like journalists are supposed to do.

For example, instead of all the propaganda, interviews, and opinions about Libya, what if the headlines instead simply read;

Barack Obama bombs Libya.

Doesn't that directly get the main truth of the story across in a clear way that anyone can understand? Obviously, people would not support Obama if the headlines were that simple and clear - if they were being told the simple truth.

I think it would be good for Ron Paul to focus on simple facts too, when possible.

Joη's picture

"It's What We Call the News!"

Judge Napolitano gets it right!

I'm glad there's at least one lawful and sound voice working in TV.

Who are these Spitzer and Anderson jokers?

Should we have gone into WWII

Should we have gone into WWII to stop Germany and his holocaust of the Jews? I would think that would be one example where we would intervene?

The U.S. was attacked in WW2,

The U.S. was attacked in WW2, it didn't enter the war until after Pearl Harbor happened. I don't think it would have ever entered without that, since there were some really influential non-interventionist tendencies in U.S. politics at that time.

But you say it wasn't Germany that attacked us... Nevertheless, Germany was an ally of the Empire of Japan, so by declaring war on Japan we automatically declared war on all of its allies. Besides, the legality and constitutionality of that engagement is unquestionable since Congress actually bothered to DECLARE WAR.

the USA was doing a trade

the USA was doing a trade embargo on Japan, and Pearl Harbor was Japan's response.

Ron Paul points out Sanctions are acts of war.

So, yes, in that sense, we actually started the war with the Japanese.

only thing, is that we did

only thing, is that we did that to them, because they were going to possibly invade China, and we had free trade agreements with China, so that would have affected us. I don't know all of the motives behind it, but more commonly, we're taught about Pearl Harbor, but not much about what led up to Pearl Harbor.

Yes though, sanctions can be an act of war, especially when we keep putting sanctions on these countries, on the other side of the world, that have nothing to do with us. Let their region worry about these countries, it's not our concern.

The law was followed in WWII.

Congress declared war.

HQ CNN link


Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

RP should reject Spit-zer show, accept other CNN interviews

Spit-zer is a snake and WILL bite RP and destroy him, any time he has a chance during this election cycle. He is no dispassionate interviewer. He has an agenda. Ron Paul should decline interviews on Spit show and accept interviews on other CNN shows.

I agree, Spitzer should be avoided.

Just the condescending tone he takes with the good doctor makes me sick.

I really miss the professionalism that the newscasters used to abide by decades ago.

Now they lead the guest or talk over them right after asking their question. And what's more startling is this is accepted as good practices by the viewing public.

It's clear Spitzer is still shopping for soundbites.

But I don't think Ron Paul should reject any interviews, even those on the attack, unless he is disrespected.

Ron Paul's message is powerful. The more that hear it the better. To grow a tree of liberty, you have to start by planting a seed.

Come On Girls, The Piece Was Edited or Sanitized by CNN Because

they can't deal with the good doctor on live TV. They have to ensure he doesn't hurt there rediculous arguments. We don't know what it was THEY EDITED OUT!

The change you got was "REGIME CHANGE"

Ron Paul For The Change You Hoped For..RP in 2012

Here is RP on AC

Ron Paul On CNN's Anderson Cooper 260: Talks Libya

Exercise Your Rights. If You Don't Use Them, You Will Lose Them.
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003

Anderson Cooper 260?

I was thinking it's Anderson Cooper 36 because he has such a limited view. Somebody made a typo and put a 0 on the end.

Another good interview.

Though, RP needs to get beyond the "we don't have the authority."

He needs to explain WHY we don't and WHY it is a BAD IDEA that we should have it.

He does it in a round about way, and gets all the info out, but he doesn't present it this way.

I keep running into people that don't understand WHY we can't just do whatever the hell we damned well please in the area of bombing the crap out of other people. Ron desperately needs to make that case why we should not.

Paul did an excellent job with one exception.

He didn't answer the question about "commander in chief" as a constitutional justification for committing acts of war where the President thought it was necessary for our national security.

Dr. Paul really needs to address this issue.

It is used frequently as a last ditch - "see, if all our other poor arguments fail, we always have this club to shut you up with."

#1 The truth of the matter, is that only Congress can determine what is in our national security interests - not the President.

#2 The President is ONLY commander in chief of the armed forces WHEN ACTUALLY CALLED INTO SERVICE BY CONGRESS.

So without a declaration of war, or the raising of armies for a specific purpose - The President is Commander in Chief of nothing. One might make the claim that he commands the armed forces during peacetime as well, but that is debatable. What is not debatable, is that unless those troops are called into service by Congress, the President can't make that call himself. There is no provision in any part of the Constitution that allows the President to unilaterally commit troops to war or commit any act of war without a Declaration of War by Congress.

Our Constitution is built and designed upon the principle that ONLY those powers listed and granted are available to any branch or officer of the government. Thus, since there is no clause granting the President such power, and more specifically, that power is granted to the Congress, the President does not have it.

This is thus clearly a usurpation of power, and an impeachable offense, as an act of war is certainly on the level of "high crimes."