Ron Paul 8/28 Interview On Fox News With Chris Wallace

Here's an interview that aired today on Fox News Sunday with Ron Paul:

HQ video on this website.

The first thing he brings up is Ron Pauls comments on FEMA with our current situation with Hurricane Irene, I was sure he would get some flak for that. But he defends himself and gives the reasons for why he thinks that way.

Wallace asks him about his "unconventional" viewpoints, and Ron Paul talks about how it's strange that freedom, liberty, a balanced budget, and a Constitutional and limited government are seen as "unconventional". He spins it around and says our state of government for the past 50 years has actually been the unconventional one. Chris Wallace rubs me the wrong way...

Ron Paul then talks about how he would follow the Constitution as president and this really stuck out:

"The constitution was written to restrict the government, not to restrict the people"

Wallace also asks him about his recent comments about Gaddafi and asks if he thinks it's a good thing that Libya is rid of Gadaffi. Paul agrees that it's a good thing, but talks about our government doing business with him 5 years ago and asks "Was that a good thing?", BOOM!

Then he branches out and talks about how Libya won't end up as a perfect, happily flourishing democracy because there are talks about how we might need troops on the ground to maintain order. Paul then says logic tells us we shouldn't be dealing with our foreign policy in this manner, we can't pretend like we can pick the dictators around the world because that's been unsuccesful.

He also brings up how his foreign policy is what attracts lots of people and gets him lots of support, because he gets more donations from those who are active in military duty than all other candidates combined.

Then they discuss the economy, Bernanke, and a few other things.

It's good to see Ron Paul getting some Sunday air time on the big networks.

reply to post by TupacShakur


This interview has gone viral on facebook. I think Ron Paul did a fabulous job of supporting his stance on those issues. He makes sense consistently!

Also, I'm glad you quoted him on the Constitution. I have been using that statement in my avatar for awhile. I researched it and found out Patrick Henry is actually due the credit for that profound truth.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Sometimes I wonder how many of our forefathers combined to create the Ron Paul. (that's a joke for all you serious people who will cry blasphemy...)

reply to post by EagleTalonZ

This interview has gone viral on facebook.

Yeah I see what you mean: Facebook

That interview aired today, was only posted less than 30 minutes ago, and already over 1,100 people on Facebook "liked" it. In the time I typed this up it already jumped to over 1,300 "likes", wow. An hour after it's been posted it's at 2,000 "likes".

I think Ron Paul did a fabulous job of supporting his stance on those issues. He makes sense consistently!

Agreed.

Sometimes I wonder how many of our forefathers combined to create the Ron Paul.

For real, he's like a genetically engineered Consitutional expert whose genes match all of the Founding Fathers. Maybe somebody dug up their bones, cremated them, mixed the ashes together, and somehow put that in a test-tube and 9 months later Ron Paul was born.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Wow.

What a real interview.

This truly is the icing on the cake. This man is either the best actor and deserves the highest actor's award (platinum oscar?) - or he is the real deal.

I never thought I'd witness a politician say exactly what I wanted.

Even if they are just words - the words give me some measure of hope that perhaps there is a politician that gives a rat's ass about the U.S

Vote Ron Paul or your puppy dies.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Chris Wallace is one program I do watch. He hits everyone he interviews with hard questions without regard to their Party or views and lets them respond fully. Not many on the air who do that anymore. That is a good thing for Paul. I think Wallace has one of the largest audiences out there.

I watch CNN about the same amount as I watch FoxNews, but they just don't have an interviewer like Wallace. I've liked Wallace since he Moderated Meet the Press. I know he has won multiple Emmy's and a Peabody.

One of my favorites was when he asked Michelle Bachmann are you a fake. That is the first question he should ask all politicians in fact.

I wish there were more interviewers like Wallace who lay their Party aside and do their jobs. Just as important, he lets them answer his questions.

Originally posted by ThinkingCap

Vote Ron Paul or your puppy dies.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet, but

leave the puppies alone

OK

2012- Its over.

Call It Good.

Hes got it in the bag.

Time to go home kids, its time for the adults to take charge.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Chris Wallace is one program I do watch. He hits everyone he interviews with hard questions without regard to their Party or views and lets them respond fully. Not many on the air who do that anymore. That is a good thing for Paul. I think Wallace has one of the largest audiences out there.

That's awesome, I'm sure he just gained thousands of supporters with that interview.

I watch CNN about the same amount as I watch FoxNews, but they just don't have an interviewer like Wallace. I've liked Wallace since he Moderated Meet the Press. I know he has won multiple Emmy's and a Peabody.

Ever since that "top tier" comment of his, I've always been extremely skeptical of his intentions. But to be fair, I feel the same way about every MSM reporter because I think they're all controlled and they all have an agenda.

One of my favorites was when he asked Michelle Bachmann are you a fake. That is the first question he should ask all politicians in fact.

That's epic! I just looked it up because I had to see this: I just gained a lot of respect for Wallace.

I wish there were more interviewers like Wallace who lay their Party aside and do their jobs. Just as important, he lets them answer his questions.

Yeah in this interview he let Paul talk and talk and talk without interruption, it was good stuff.

reply to post by ThinkingCap


Ron Paul's the real deal. Just look up any speech that he's given to Congress and see for yourself, here's one of many:

He always tries his hardest to slap some sense into Congress.

Not a big fan of Wallace but here he gave alot of questions that were on people's minds and gave him an open podium to speak his case without interruption.

Once RP had that podium he just knocked it out of the park and the ball just might have destroyed a satellite in outer space

He's look very presidential here
Now this was an excellent interview I must say

His case against FEMA was on point as well as his argument on unconventionalism

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by EagleTalonZ

 

This interview has gone viral on facebook.

Yeah I see what you mean: Facebook

That interview aired today, was only posted less than 30 minutes ago, and already over 1,100 people on Facebook "liked" it. In the time I typed this up it already jumped to over 1,300 "likes", wow. An hour after it's been posted it's at 2,000 "likes".

Whoa! Look at the similar facebook pages. Sarah 3 million likes, Hukabee 650000, Romney 1 million, Ron Paul only 480000. This proves it, ron paul doesn't have the popular support. No wonder he never wins, he needs help from tptb if he wants any chance at all.

I check Barack page, 22 million likes.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


Just a heads up, don't use those numbers to base your opinion from. Ron Paul's page has climbed over 40,000 in the last two weeks alone. Also, you can't post on any page unless you 'LIKE' it. I have 3000 friends on my page and many of us have 'LIKE'd Romney, Obama, Palin, Bachmann, Cain, etc. just so we can educate their supporters, or in Obama's case (you can't post on his wall... I wonder why! haha) We post on his comments. Or we use the White House.

Just saying... the number of likes on their fb pages is not really important. What is interesting though is you can visit all those pages and you will see Ron Paul supporters pretty much running the walls. Yet on Ron Paul's page, you don't see other supporters saying anything. Ron Paul owns the internet.

reply to post by EagleTalonZ

Ron Paul owns the internet.

Also why the RP campaign catches so much flak, and I must admit it perplexes me. Getting out there, putting up signs, etc. all made easier with the net and none of the other candidates come close to the support RP gets, grassroots style. Yet we're bashed for doing what politics is supposed to be about, organizing and getting the word out there.

I have a large wall on the street, thinking of getting some RP peeps together and tagging it with a cool RP 2012 thing. I'll probably get busted if I do, some law or other, I don't care. Let them come. We'll see if I can get it done, as I can't do it right(it'll look crappy as hell) so whatever happens, happens.

Oh, yeah, not a bad interview. I don't watch MSM news so was surprised that he let him talk. Thought that was something from yesteryear.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

He's look very presidential here
Now this was an excellent interview I must say

His case against FEMA was on point as well as his argument on unconventionalism

I agree, and who knows how many tens of thousands of people watched that interview on Fox this morning. Add the upcoming debates to the increasing about of media attention that he is getting--(either due to pressure from public outrage or some other factor), and Ron Paul is going to become more and more popular as time progresses.

I loved the way he flipped Wallace's question around and said our state of government is what's unconventional rather than his particular viewpoint. It's crazy to think that the way the government currently operates is seen as the norm, and challenging the "status quo" as Paul always puts it and attempting to return to our roots is what's seen as unusual.

For some reason the high quality interview was removed from that website that I linked in the OP and replaced by the YouTube video, so here's a link to the high quality Fox News interview on their website.

Also, notice the title? "Media Ignoring Ron Paul?"

Wow, looks like they have something to prove since their reputation has gone to crap in the past few weeks. It reminds me of a little kid who almost never uses something, then when you try to take it away they suddenly grab it and say "See? I'm using it, you can't have it".

Same thing here, the media was giving Ron Paul very little attention, but when people caught onand called them out, they grabbed Ron Paul and said "See? We're not ignoring him, you can't say that".

PEJ also looked specifically at the network morning andevening news programs, primetime cable news programs and Sunday morning shows on August 14 and 15. The results?

According to that analysis, Paul was mentioned just 29 times. By comparison, Perry was mentioned 371 times, Bachmann was mentioned 274 times, and Romney was mentioned 183 times.

Yes Fox News story-title chooser, Ron Paul is being ignored by the media.

Ron Paul does not understand the Constitution and he verify's this everytime he speaks about it. The Constitution wasn't written to restrict the government.

It was written to "form a more perfect union" by actually increasing the power of the Central Government and pulling power from the States.

The Bill of Rights, which is the individual protections, was not in the original Constitution but added as an after thought.

reply to post by kro32


.....Nice to see you at it again kro

Ron Paul does not understand the Constitution and he verify's this everytime he speaks about it. The Constitution wasn't written to restrict the government.

The Constitution wasn't written to restrict the government? Can you explain the purpose of checks and balances then?

The Constitution says what the government can do, in other words giving the government restrictions.

It was written to "form a more perfect union" by actually increasing the power of the Central Government and pulling power from the States.

Ah so more power to the federal government and less power to the states is actually progression towards perfection! The 10th Amendment says otherwise.

The Bill of Rights, which is the individual protections, was not in the original Constitution but added as an after thought.

And the meat in the "original Constitution" says what powers the government are given.

Thanks for agreeing with me. Yes the Constitution is all about restrictions on the governmental powers however it also is responsible for giving them those powers in the first place and then restricting them. Prior to the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation which was not successful in uniting us into one solid country.

Each state had almost full autonomy and even had the ability to make and print their own currency. With the Constitution the Central goverment took alot of that power and the founders also limited it in certain ways. The Constitution had very little to do with individual protections in it's original form.

reply to post by kro32

Thanks for agreeing with me

You said this:

The Constitution wasn't written to restrict the government.

Now you're saying this:

Yes the Constitution is all about restrictions on the governmental powers

So it's all about restrictions, but it doesn't restrict the government?

The Constitution had very little to do with individual protections in it's original form.

You're talking about the protection of individual rights, I'm talking about the limitations of the federal government based on the restrictions given within. The government can't do anything that isn't a power given to them in the Constitution, meaning it is restricted.

Hi Tupac, just noticed you authored this thread. I like debating you because your logical so here goes. The Constitution WAS NOT written to restrict the Federal Government. That was not the purpose of it's creation. The Constitution did give the Central Government far more power than it had previously and with these new powers the founders added some limits to it.

Sorry for the confusion there. Also the government has not only expressed powers, those that are clearly written, but also implied powers which the Supreme Court has upheld so even if it's not expressly listed as a power of theirs it's implied that it is. This is another area Ron Paul refuses to believe.

Your turn