61 votes

VIDEO: Ron Paul One Hour Interview - Des Moines Register Editorial Board 11/19/11

Comment viewing options

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

This video was on again today and is worth a bump up

Would love to send it to all those on the phones in my state that say his foreign policy is not good and he is un-electable!

Take these www.3StepsTowardFreedom.com to assist Ron Paul in becoming our next Commander In Chief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-480OMya3U


I LOL'ed.



Totally full of shit

Any one catch Ron Paul saying shit 31 minutes in. Awesome

"Leo Strauss, Scoop Jackson & Irving Kristol can rot in hell"

You should edit this because RP says foolish!!

When I heard this initially I thought he was going that direction and would have excused him completely if he did. Edit post to remove, maybe??

Take these www.3StepsTowardFreedom.com to assist Ron Paul in becoming our next Commander In Chief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-480OMya3U

Speech censorship by Daily Paul

Why does the daily Paul censor the word shit when Ron Paul say shit freely in the Des Moines Register interview. Lets see if the words feces, poop, crap, and waste are edited. because they all are the same word essentially. Even more so than the Dems and GOP being the same party. Just a interesting thought.

"Leo Strauss, Scoop Jackson & Irving Kristol can rot in hell"

Ron Paul

Was corrected correctly that he said foolish and am trying to delete above posts but can't

"Leo Strauss, Scoop Jackson & Irving Kristol can rot in hell"

It's true that these questions were ignorant

but they are exemplary of the way our press and many individuals have been trained to think. I think this interview made for a great primer on getting our minds back in the groove of liberty. I know it is long, but some excerpts would be great to show conservative friends who don't get Ron Paul.

i do like

I do like how they allowed Dr. Paul to answer the questions fully. You can tell they are biased questions though.. I love these interviews where Ron Paul has time to fully explain his answers! way better than the 30 second sound bite cnn and Fox news and these lame debates try to get.. I could listen to Dr. Paul answer these question all day. You learn soo much!

It's great that these

It's great that these amateurs and CBS Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer both get owned by Ron Paul! The man is on fire!

God Bless Ron Paul!!

I don't think I could have lasted 40 min in that room! So many things I want to say, but mother's wisdom tells me that I shouldn't say anything at all, lol. Let's give The Good Doctor the tools he needs to continue to fight the good fight and WIN!!!

I need to ask...

I'm just not sure about his attitude answer to the question about the holocaust. I understand the whole idea about not being the world police, but is there no case where intervening is justified?

I mean, what about failing to help a woman you see getting beat up and robbed in a side alley as you walk by. Sometimes "It's not my problem" -although technically true- is just cowardly and immoral.

What do people here think about this one?

Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

Consider this...

Constitutionally Ron Paul as acting president would have the ability to move troops around and, as someone below pointed out, would have the authority to act if a threat were looming close to our shores. However it is not his place as president, nor would he have the authority to declare war-- even in such an instance that an atrocity was committed abroad. That is the job of your congressman, who represents you. He is supposed to step in and petition Congress, if his state feels we need to go to another country's aide. If the American people want to help then they better get letters off to their representatives to push for a declaration of war.
So you see we could opt to help as a country but we must follow the proper procedure to do so. Ron Paul is only stating that intervention would have to be the people's will enacted through Congress-- not by him as president.


Is saying he would never force someone to go fight for someone else battle but wouldn't stop anyone from picking up a rifle themself and go join the fight if they want to.

Your example of seeing someone getting beat up on the street. You can step in and help if u choose but the federal govt can't force you to put yourself in harms way to help someone else..

His point is that the federal

His point is that the federal government doesn't have that authority under the constitution to automatically wage war against a country for the rights of other people at the expense of ours.

It would require that the people through their representatives declare war or authorize some humanitarian mission.

The executive in and of itself can't do that. But the executive could if its own people were under attack act militarily.

We didn't invade China, they have killed an estimated 60 million, Stalin killed 20 million, etc.

This is true...

... we did not invade China or Russia.

And I agree and understand the need to have Congress declare war before we take action.

I suppose it is just hard to get around the fact that we would stand by and watch if that kind of thing happened today with our huge military might.

Clearly this is a tricky question.

Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

I know you were only giving an example

of genuine atrocity, but Wall Street orchestrated WWII and under President Paul, that wouldn't happen.

ytc's picture

When you see a woman beaten up & robbed in a side alley as

you walk by, should you IMMEDIATELY individually find ways to help her? Or should you wait for the FEDERAL government to send drones to assassinate the woman`s attacker(s) and a dozen bystanders as `collateral damage` victims?

You are confusing the analogy

I'm obviously substituting individual people here for countries or large groups of people, so calling the government for drones, etc. confuses things.

But to follow your logic, are you suggesting individual citizens in the US could have stopped Hitler's Germany without our military?

What's interesting is that you seem to agree that there is a moral imperative to help, but somehow believe that is only the responsibility of individuals. But how can individuals be effective against great and powerful nations?

When we were bombed in Pearl Harbor, we didn't just ask US individuals to immediately act on their own. We knew that to stop Hitler, we needed a huge military and coalition.

I agree that we should not act as world police and get involved in every conflict, but is there no case so horrible where hundreds of thousands of innocents die if we do not help? I am really asking that question, not making the case for any or all wars.

So, I'm not sure about the argument that, yes you should do something, but only immediately by individuals.

Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

If universal morality is

If universal morality is joined with political philosophy, we are lead to world government. If you believe that X, Y, and Z are moral imperatives for Americans, then how can they not be moral imperatives for all people? If property rights are moral in America, then they are moral in Uganda - if freedom of speech is moral in America, then it is moral in China.

This is the danger of giving precedence to moral concerns in political philosophy. The federal government does not have a moral imperative to invade Rwanda to end a genocide for the same reason that the federal government does not have a moral imperative to invade Virginia to impose X. It is not a question of morality, it is a question of the powers which governments ought to have.

If you believe in national sovereignty, then the responsibility of the federal government to protect individual rights ends at the national border. From a priori principles a world libertarian government is better than a single libertarian nation, is it not? However, we would do well to reject internationalism, for the same reason that we support federalism - i.e. because history teaches us that power is dangerous in proportion to its concentration.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Must declare war

There is a line where action is arguably justified, but it's the people -- via their representative in Congress -- who must decide when that line has been crossed, and declare war accordingly.

We did not allow ourselves to intervene in WWII, much less to investigate and try to stop the holocaust, until we were sucked in by the attack at Pearl Harbor.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."


Well, I agree with that

I agree with that. War should be declared by Congress (i.e. the people, not a single executive).

What I am trying to call attention to and figure out for myself is Ron's position on ANY intervention that is not a retaliation or in self-defense.

I do not think "to spread democracy" by force is a valid reason. However, what about genocide and such? Is it right to look the other way?

Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

About "the need" for intervention

Any intervention? The chicken or the egg came first? The way I understand Ron Paul's position is that we should stop intervening in other countries' internal business except for trading with them. America should quit giving foreign aid to any other country because recent history has shown that the countries that America supports eventually become oppressive and even genocidal. Unfortunately, many countries still have to reap what we have sown over the years. The policies of isolationism and militarism have to stop. The sooner we quit this, the better place the world will be.

To your other point about blindly following ideology, Dr. Paul recently gave an example that if the President knows that an enemy is next to the America's shore and the attack is imminent, then the President can make a decision without the formal approval from Congress. This calls for common sense, lots of integrity and self-control, which Dr. Paul has proven to have.

Not one of the preemptive military operations without declaration of war is Constitutional. If Washington does not follow the Constitution, we may be surprised if one day our own Govt declares all of us to be an enemy of the state until proven otherwise, just as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the list goes on.

The power of Govt to make decisions without the approval of the people must be limited. It is that simple.

Sad to hear the ignorance!

Just listening to the questions of these few people, all of whom I assume are "educated, literate" Americans causes me to conclude:

1) They are not educated, and
2) They are not literate...

...with regard to any history or literature which explains the proper role of our constitutional government.

If any are reading this, may I suggest reading:
1) The Constitution
2) Bastiat's "The Law"
3) Ezra Taft Benson's "The Proper Role of Government"
4) "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlett

I was just shocked that one of the lady editors seemed horrified that Ron believes the US shouldn't be a part of the UN. "If not the UN, then what type of global government model would you endorse?"

That question just shows that she can't even bring herself to think outside the paradigm of a collectivist governmental model.

And one of the other editors couldn't grasp that we (the people, the Congress) have never declared war, but we have been waging war on a "tactic" (Terror). He couldn't comprehend that with no defined enemy, there can be no victory, a recipe for endless war and an endless assault on our (HIS) personal liberties.

One of the editors with a straight face said, "Many Republicans charge you with being not very Republican", to which Paul just laughed, and with great patience explained that HE IS THE ONLY Republican candidate that actually is preaching in accordance to the Republican platform, that all the others don't practice or preach Republican values.

To which the editor asked a good question which indicated he may have "gotten it": "So you're saying that they are Repubs in name only?"

I wish Dr. Paul would have just said, "YES! And let their records speak for themselves."

That was my only criticism of Dr. Paul. He tends to be too non confrontational, to indirect at times. Be more aggressive sir, and call a spade a spade. "Obviously they are RINO's, and their records and even most of their rhetoric confirm that."

Nice interview I thought. The best half was the second half.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

ytc's picture

I am thrilled to see that Ron gets to leisurely answer those

`ignorant` `left-leaning` questions on a TV/radio stations with left-leaning audience. As long as the questioners & listeners are sincere and open-minded, there is a good chance that they will experience those `A-ha!` moments.

"But we've declared war on terrorists!"

Such ignorant interviewers. pathetic.

The doctor is brilliant of course.

ytc's picture

Three grand slam interviews on Nov 19 - 20, 2011!

Presidential candidate Ron is getting stronger and more confident. . . energizing each one of us to come up with a million ways to spread the Mutually Assured Respect Ron Paul Doctrine.

Ron Paul Tough As Nail!

Ron Paul is as solid as a Republican could be. He has the best platform among others. He's truthful in all arguments and he has the solid track record to back it up.

I can't imagine Cain leading the polls just look at him at an interview when asked about libya, he just went blank check out Herman Cain Interview

Truth, Liberty, Freedom, Free Market, Different Foreign Policy, No WAR, Less Regulation, Lower Taxes, End The Fed, Follow Constitution, Pro Life, Sound Money, Consistent, The Thomas Jefferson of our time.

Ron Paul 2012!

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Another outstanding

Another outstanding performance by Ron Paul!!

One thing we know, he has alot of supporters

"If on January third its 10 degrees below zero and 10 inches of snow, Ron Paul supporters will be there".

Gotta love that quote!