186 votes

Video Update: Ron Paul Highlights from Final GOP Debate before Iowa - Sioux City, Thursday 12/15/11

December 15, 2011 9:00 pm
Sioux City Convention Center, Sioux City, IA, United States

Thanks to realjoeplummer for the videos:


User SaveOurSovereignty had some sync issues with the videos and had to delete them. Above is the new, combined video.

Comment viewing options

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

You know what i have to say

You know what i have to say to them? "then go buy a ticket to iran and a gun and do it you self. Dont think for a minute that I want one cent of my money going to kill people over unsubstantiated claims about a nuke. While youre there maybe you should go talk with the people before you start shooting them."

Did I Miss Something?

A lot of downers on here...I just watched the clips of Ron (missed the whole debate) and I'm not seeing why people are so down and out. Was there something other than these clips that has been feeling down?


trolls are here trying to disrupt the movement....its obvious they will do that because they are scared as hell.

Paul looks and sounds far

Paul looks and sounds far more forceful on the YouTube than on stage. The subject of Israel and war on Iran is red meat to the neocons. IMO, Ron appeared to be floundering in his answer after Bachmann attacked him. Bachmann was spouting pure propaganda and Ron had to respond with facts. All in all I think Ron did well for the most part.

Not Really

Most are just disappointed because he didn't smile as much (valid point) or express a really concise view of dealing with Iran's desire to possess nuclear weapons. Personally, I think Ron responded OK. We'll just have to wait and see how the situation unfolds. Ron seemed to be more DISTRACTED, though, in his post-debate interview which might be due to background noise.

Sorry ....

Paul didn't do well tonight . His foreign policy is hurting him . He needs to explain to America that if there were a crisis somewhere in the world that was critical to America's safety , he needs to say that he would fight to win quickly then get out . Plus , he was kind of stammering too , and looking a bit crazy . Maybe Fox news makes him nuts or something .

Rebuttal on war was the best part!

The question itself from the moderator was aimed to paint Paul as someone who will back off defending our country. But if you are bought into this, you are missing the point.
Paul took this opportunity to drive home the point that the attitude that WE are the policeman of the world and that we can just “carelessly flub it and start these wars so often”, bombing countries, and killing innocent civilians are never the solution. We have been fighting numerous wars in the middle east. Has our country become stronger or safer? I am afraid not at all. "Why do we have 900 bases in 130 countries and we’re totally bankrupt"! Isolationists believe in arbitrary use of sanctions. Sanctions are an act of war. To paint Paul as an isolationist – you can just lure the fools to believe in it.
I personally think the rebuttal of Paul on this topic is the BEST part of tonight debate. I did not leave the debate feeling sorry. I replayed this part a few times and thoroughly enjoyed it. You suggested "he needs to say that he would fight to win quickly then get out" - I am afraid wars in general have a tendency of dragging on and draining the national resources, and leading to loss of lives. Ron Paul will not say things to please. This is a very important issue for Paul. He went all the way to defend his views and did a fantastic job.


The truth is I worried he stepped in something nasty with that Fox media trap, too... but now that I've watched the video again and read some of the favorable print stories out there (Forbes, LA Times), I'm realizing that he makes a very strong case and he will be getting a TON of coverage about how he's the ONLY anti-war candidate (including O). This may play out for a sudden surge in his numbers and his campaign money...

Umm he did. He talked about

Umm he did. He talked about the constitutional way to go to war. What was everyone missing?

He has talked about the

He has talked about the proper (swift) way to go to war many times.
I ways also disappointed about tonight, not because of Ron but the situation, I mean he was the only one not asked about the border and pro life issue, WTF ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Give me Liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry

Removed by User

is part two removed 0r is it just my viewing?

had to delete my debate

had to delete my debate footage from tonight i had a sync issue with one of the videos, my tv tuner is on the fritz, i will be getting some VERY nice recording equipment over the holidays. Sorry for any inconvenience. You can find Ron's highlights in one video below.
Again my apologize.

here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c

omg wheres part 2!!!!!!!

omg wheres part 2!!!!!!!

I can't view the videos,

I'm getting a message "This video has been removed by the user." Anyone else is getting this? Perhaps it's because I live in Hong Kong. Anyone with a working link, please? Thanks!

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

Ron Paul Money Bomb

Ron is the man.'
I love how Cavuto looks after trying to grill Ron ... on earmarks - he was like - I give up I tried to back him into a corner. Don't mess with RP.

Excellent job in the debate
Money Bomb NOw
Jay Leno show

ROn Paul 2012

Cavuto respects Ron Paul

I've seen that in many interviews he has had with him. That being said, he's not going to let him off the hook. The earmarks issue is one that Cavuto has asked RP about before. I think he was actually giving Ron a chance to express himself on that - which RP did quite well.

Part II has been removed by

Part II has been removed by the user.


The media has misread the IAEA's report on Iran.

Bachmann’s demagoguing illustrates how factually deficient she is as a trigger happy war panderer. Here are three articles which prove that.

1) www.presstv.com/detail/211379.html - Press TV - IAEA Iran report technically inconsistent

Nader Bagherzadeh, professor of the University of California said Ron Paul is the most “reasonable nominee with the most common sense.” ..”He’s following the Constitution to a T. He says we should try to have a negotiated solution instead of threats.”

2)http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-a...- Iran and the I.A.E.A. by Seymour M. Hersh

3) http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/chain-reacti... Chain reaction: How the media has misread the IAEA's report on Iran

When, earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report on Iran's nuclear program, several media agencies and politicians walked away with two messages: that the Vienna-based agency now refutes past estimates of the US intelligence community, and that Iran is now making a break for the bomb. Both representations are false. Yet these assertions have been repeated often enough to give them traction with the public and Congress.
Most analysts familiar with the report agree that there "is nothing in the report that was not previously known by the governments of the major powers" -- a nuclear Iran is "neither imminent nor inevitable." While it is clear that Iran's continuing research on nuclear weapons is a serious concern for international security, there "has been no smoking gun when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons intentions."

It baffles my mind how people

It baffles my mind how people can get so in a tissy about Iran having nukes when Pakistan has some. Why would Pakistan be more restrained and trusted than Iran? Complete idiocy.

Perhaps a Youtuber...

can use this data and create a short video out of it in defense of Ron Paul :)

I thought Paul did great!

Best answer: Cuban Nuke Crisis

Second: Monetary policy

third: Judges and making them go before congress as screwy

Forth: Newt selling access


Send a general email about the media bias that was blatantly obvious and driven by an anti-paul agenda. Here's an email list:


I've said this before, but

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. If people vote for anyone besides Ron, they must think the economy is doing just fine. Why? Well, we keeping how the economy is in the tank, the deficits and debt are rising, unemployment is high, taxes are high, spending is ridiculous. But Ron is the only one serious about these issues. The rest are lightweights.

But, in robotic fashion, the people reflexively say that they can't vote for Ron because of his foreign policy; that the Iranians are more terrifying. So, in essence, these people will put foreign affairs ahead of domestic affairs. By doing this and, say, electing Newt Gingrich, they will, basically, have their war and skirmishes, but at the expense of a sane domestic home-front; they will see the continuation of our crumbling economy; they will see no spending cuts(how could they when war is an option?); they will see no reduction in regulations, taxes, rules, edicts; and they will see no return to secure private property, civil liberties, jury trials, and other intrusions in private dealings.

The other candidates, save Ron Paul, will export freedom to backwards countries while freedom in our country is stifled. And since freedom in those foreign countries will be precarious, large military establishments will dig in, and other satellite countries will be added to our growing Empire. This after the blood of our men and women fill the streets and rivers in a humanitarian nightmare. Forget the lugubrious families who are without a father or mother or child; forget the glue that holds families together, instead, divorce rates skyrocket, negating any attempt to keep intact family values; forget the wishes of those individuals, their pursuits, dreams, aspirations, instead, they’re replaced with an RIP sign, and a flag that is given to console grief stricken families.

A vote other than Ron Paul is a vote against the economy, the family, and liberty. A vote for anyone but Ron is a vote for bloodshed, taxes, enlargement of the debt, destruction of liberty, and the destruction of the family.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke


minds....Why? Because people still have the BAD IMAGES of the GRINCH & ROMNEY in their heads, and Michelle & Perry as non-entities. The others don't even count.

NOTHING can erase THESE BAD IMAGES, so anyway, even though some don't like Ron's conservative stance on Iran, they just don't trust Romney & Grinch.


We must show a TV AD with RON PAUL as a GREAT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF who will defend our country under a threat of attack, who will get the war declared, and who will counter-attack the country who even DARES to perpetrate this kind of attack. But, he will go to war, get the job done, and come home! He won't be in a war just to make money off producing war machines. He won't sacrifice the lives our soldiers for that frivolous reason, but he will DEFEND AMERICA!


How about something like that or similar showing Dr. Paul as the Commander-in-Chief giving the command to intercept a missile aimed at the USA & blowing it up!! And, defending America & attacking the "enemy" (whoever that could be~~maybe Darth Vader).

Great print media coverage

If you haven't read the Forbes article that just came out about the Paul vs Bachman segment, you're going to love it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/15/ron-paul-and...

Also, LA Times gave Paul a very fair accounting.

It seems Fox is on the wrong side of this. Excellent.

Thanks, definitely a great

Thanks, definitely a great article. The people will begin to see through the propaganda as long as we keep promoting the truth and challenging them to actually think for themselves.

I really appreciated this part of the article:
"Iran may indeed be a threat, but there are other ways to approach this threat than war, including working to bring Iran into the global economy, giving them a stake in the peace and prosperity of the world economy. The far greater threat, as Paul warned, is a costly and destructive overreaction."

What is that you say? Other ways to deal with threats than attacking their people? ...who'd a thunk it?

Layered Voice Analysis

Has anyone ever though of running a Layered Voice Analysis on the other canidits responces? Then maybe posting all them even Ron Pauls.. I bet it would show only Dr. Paul as the canidit who knows what he's talking about!

Just a though.

I agree with Paul 100%, too!

From listening to the comments I would have assumed that this exchange with Bachmann was damaging. If anything, I like Paul better NOW than I did before.

Bachmann: Must Kill Them and Kill Them NOW!

Paul: Practice Caution through debate within congress and actually declare war.

Ummmm...who sounds more reasonable and constitutional?

Gee, Mrs. Bachmann! In case you haven't noticed this 'imminent' threat has been floating around on the tables of varying Washington think-tanks since circa 1995.

Imminent indeed.

A little

A little further back than that. If you haven't seen it yet, go to YT and see You Like Ron Paul, But not his Foreign Policy This was a great post on DP for this.


Protest at Faux News?

BTW, does anyone know what the ruckus was at 08:30 of the 2nd video? it sounded like someone from the audience was protesting and shouting something about the federal reserve before these security men pounced on him.