# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul speech at Howard University 4/10/13 (tube added)

## tsai3904

> U.S. Sen. Rand Paul will deliver a speech to students at one of the nation's oldest historically black colleges next week, part of the Kentucky Republican's new push to reach out to minority voters as he explores a potential 2016 presidential bid. 
> 
> Business Insider has learned that Paul will deliver remarks at Howard University in Washington, D.C., next Wednesday morning — just one month before former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to deliver the university's commencement address.
> 
> According to a senior Paul aide, his speech will focus on school choice, civil liberties, and reforming federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Paul will also speak about the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters," the aide told Business Insider.


More:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-...ty-2016-2013-4


press release from Howard University:
http://www.howard.edu/newsroom/relea...niversity.html


Video:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/312014-1




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzwwZFU6_yk

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Liked

----------


## abacabb

Being that Rand spoke spanish to be condescending to hispanics, time he broke out the Ebonics.

----------


## heckler23

Does anyone have anymore details on this event?

----------


## BlackTerrel

Awesome.  Rand is the man.

----------


## Adrock

Showing up for a conversation is a good step in the right direction for Rand. The really good news is that he has a coherent message that can resonate with his target audience. Good on him!

----------


## RonPaulMall

_Paul will also speak about the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters," the aide told Business Insider._

I'd rather he just go and speak to them like they were a normal audience.  Give them the same pitch he gives to a college in New Hampshire or town hall in Iowa.  And of all the "black" topics to bring up, the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters" seems an odd choice.  Because doesn't that boil down to, "when the standard bearer of the GOP was a mass murdering tyrant, the GOP was popular with blacks, and remained so for over a hundred years until the GOP nominated one of the best and most pro-liberty candidates to run for President in the 20th Century, at which point blacks deserted the GOP en masse."?

----------


## abacabb

> _Paul will also speak about the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters," the aide told Business Insider._
> 
> I'd rather he just go and speak to them like they were a normal audience.  Give them the same pitch he gives to a college in New Hampshire or town hall in Iowa.  And of all the "black" topics to bring up, the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters" seems an odd choice.  Because doesn't that boil down to, "when the standard bearer of the GOP was a mass murdering tyrant, the GOP was popular with blacks, and remained so for over a hundred years until the GOP nominated one of the best and most pro-liberty candidates to run for President in the 20th Century, at which point blacks deserted the GOP en masse."?


Because whites are dumb enough to think that being condescending to other races, it will endear themselves.

----------


## Rudeman

Democrats do it all the time, so clearly it works.

----------


## abacabb

> Democrats do it all the time, so clearly it works.


Do they? National Democrats don't even bother campaigning to minorities, their votes are taken for granted.

----------


## jmdrake

Kudos to Rand!  And for those throwing around the racial stereotypes, Howard University medical school only accepts 3.9% of applicants and none of them speak ebonics.  Spanish is a language of pride for all of spanish decent.  That is not true of ebonics.  If Rand wants to impress by speaking an ancestral language I suppose he could brush up on Swahili.  I hope he's come up with a cogent answer on the Civil Rights Act as that may come up in question and answer.  A good answer is "The concern I was expressing is that part of the civil rights act is based on a flawed interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that claims that anything anyone does that might have some impact on interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal government.  Even whether or not you each vegetables arguably has a cumulative effect on Interstate commerce.  The supreme court in more recent years has started to real in that broad interpretation of the commerce clause.  While I applaud that, I am concerned as to what that means for those depending on the Civil Rights Act as written.  That's just something people need to think about."

----------


## matt0611

> Do they? National Democrats don't even bother campaigning to minorities, their votes are taken for granted.


"Thar gonna put ya'll back in chains!" - Biden

----------


## abacabb

> And for those throwing around the racial stereotypes, Howard University medical school only accepts 3.9% of applicants and none of them speak ebonics. Spanish is a language of pride for all of spanish decent. That is not true of ebonics.



That's addressed to me. Obviously all blacks don't speak ebonics, but I disagree with you, outside of the 1st generation spanish-speaking people generally do not speak spanish. By the second generation, all many immigrants know are the curse words.

That's why I think Rand was being condescending. If he spoke ebonics to a black crowd, he would look like a douche. So, how doesn't he look douchey doing the same thing in front of the hispanic chamber of commerce?

----------


## jmdrake

> That's addressed to me. Obviously all blacks don't speak ebonics, but I disagree with you, outside of the 1st generation spanish-speaking people generally do not speak spanish. By the second generation, all many immigrants know are the curse words.
> 
> That's why I think Rand was being condescending. If he spoke ebonics to a black crowd, he would look like a douche. So, how doesn't he look douchey doing the same thing in front of the hispanic chamber of commerce?[/COLOR]


I didn't say all people of Spanish descent speak Spanish.  I said it was a source of universal pride.  I don't speak Swahili, but it is a sense of pride as opposed to ebonics.  Comparing Spanish to ebonics shows a lack of understanding of both.

----------


## abacabb

> I didn't say all people of Spanish descent speak Spanish.  I said it was a source of universal pride.  I don't speak Swahili, but it is a sense of pride as opposed to ebonics.  Comparing Spanish to ebonics shows a lack of understanding of both.


I agree with you that there are different cultural backgrounds, but I still don't see how it is not condescending for a white guy to stand in front of a crowd of blacks, hispanics, asians or whatever and purposely speak a language that isn't his and pick out quotes from leaders all coincidentally of the identical racial background as the crowd being addressed.

Speak to people like they're people. But, Rand's playing politics. I understand that. But, history will laugh at the tip-toe race relations we have in the present day.

----------


## Canderson

> That's addressed to me. Obviously all blacks don't speak ebonics, but I disagree with you, outside of the 1st generation spanish-speaking people generally do not speak spanish. By the second generation, all many immigrants know are the curse words.
> 
> That's why I think Rand was being condescending. If he spoke ebonics to a black crowd, he would look like a douche. So, how doesn't he look douchey doing the same thing in front of the hispanic chamber of commerce?[/COLOR]


Not necessarily true, all the immigrants in my family and almost everyone who ever knew them are dead, but a ton of people in my family still speak German. Similarly I live in a college apartment where two of my roommates have Mexican parents and they both speak spanish. I think Rand speaking Spanish was good, it conveys that there is no cultural, linguistic or religious litmus test for being American. Do what ever you want, America is free! I can't wait to see how Rand responds to the national language question and what Rubio does afterward.

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree with you that there are different cultural backgrounds, but I still don't see how it is not condescending for a white guy to stand in front of a crowd of blacks, hispanics, asians or whatever and purposely speak a language that isn't his and *pick out quotes from leaders all coincidentally of the identical racial background as the crowd being addressed.*
> 
> Speak to people like they're people. But, Rand's playing politics. I understand that. But, history will laugh at the tip-toe race relations we have in the present day.


When Ron Paul spoke at the Tavis Smiley "All American" debate in 2007 and was asked about a study that showed that African American high school gradulates had a significantly lower employment rate then white high school dropouts, Ron Paul quoted economist Walter Williams....who just happens to be black.

Go in about 3 minutes here:




I don't think anyone felt insulted or that Ron was being condesending.  I certainly didn't feel that way.

----------


## Matt Collins

> time he broke out the Ebonics.

----------


## abacabb

> Not necessarily true, all the immigrants in my family and almost everyone who ever knew them are dead, but a ton of people in my family still speak German. Similarly I live in a college apartment where two of my roommates have Mexican parents and they both speak spanish. I think Rand speaking Spanish was good, it conveys that there is no cultural, linguistic or religious litmus test for being American. Do what ever you want, America is free! I can't wait to see how Rand responds to the national language question and what Rubio does afterward.


If your family still has conversations in German instead of a few curse words, than that is good. It is certainly atypical for most second generation Americans. However, I disagree. The language of America is English. All of our founding documents, literature and science are in English.




> When Ron Paul spoke at the Tavis Smiley "All American" debate in 2007 and was asked about a study that showed that African American high school gradulates had a significantly lower employment rate then white high school dropouts, Ron Paul quoted economist Walter Williams....who just happens to be black.



Williams is a legit economist and Ron was naming only one guy. If he rattled off 4 people in a row, all black, then I'd call him out for it.

Ron's too old school for that. For Pete's Sake he said the following about TSA agents: “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.” http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/singleton/

----------


## abacabb

> 


At least you understand my point. How is Hill' bein' 'ny diff'nt?

----------


## jmdrake

> If your family still has conversations in German instead of a few curse words, than that is good. It is certainly atypical for most second generation Americans. However, I disagree. The language of America is English. All of our founding documents and literature and science is in English.
> 
> 
> Williams is a legit economist and Ron was naming only one guy. If he rattled off 4 people in a row, all black, then I'd call him out for it.
> 
> Ron's too old school for that. For Pete's Sake he said the following about TSA agents: “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.” http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/singleton/


Ah.  Moving the goalpost.  Now it has to be 4.    Ron has also invoked MLK when appropriate.  




Really, your argument does not hold water.

----------


## jmdrake

> At least you understand my point. How is Hill' bein' 'ny diff'nt?


You don't understand that someone can disagree with your "point" and understand it.  Yes, there's little different from ebonics and redneck.  There's a huge difference between ebonics, redneck and standard Spanish.  If Rand started speaking "spanglish" you'd have a point.  Otherwise...you don't.

----------


## abacabb

> Ah.  Moving the goalpost.  Now it has to be 4.    Ron has also invoked MLK when appropriate.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, your argument does not hold water.


We'll have to agree to disagree then. Ron doesn't go speak in front of a crowd of hispanics, speak spanglish to them and then quote nothing but hispanic people (who were commies no less). I'm not sure why you can't see the obvious condescending note.

----------


## abacabb

> You don't understand that someone can disagree with your "point" and understand it.  Yes, there's little different from ebonics and redneck.  There's a huge difference between ebonics, redneck and standard Spanish.  If Rand started speaking "spanglish" you'd have a point.  Otherwise...you don't.


I'm not anti rand, I got a bumper stick of his on my car. But, his little stunt was amateurish in my honest opinion, and wouldn't fly in front of a group of black people.

----------


## mczerone

> _Paul will also speak about the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters," the aide told Business Insider._
> 
> *I'd rather he just go and speak to them like they were a normal audience.*  Give them the same pitch he gives to a college in New Hampshire or town hall in Iowa.  And of all the "black" topics to bring up, the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters" seems an odd choice.  Because doesn't that boil down to, "when the standard bearer of the GOP was a mass murdering tyrant, the GOP was popular with blacks, and remained so for over a hundred years until the GOP nominated one of the best and most pro-liberty candidates to run for President in the 20th Century, at which point blacks deserted the GOP en masse."?


They ARE a normal audience, and as such a speaker rightly chooses topics and language to reach that audience.

A politician's speech given in Iowa should be different than one given in NH, should be different than one given in San Diego. The message should be consistent and principled, but the form and the content should ALWAYS be tailored to the audience. San Diego doesn't want to hear about farm freedom and rural issues, and NH doesn't really want to hear about a principled approach to Mexican immigrants.

Rand would be right to capitalize on the anti-liberty actions that the Dems have done and show those at Howard how their families and self-selected cultures have been decimated by the policies that were sold to them as "help".

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not anti rand, I got a bumper stick of his on my car. But, his little stunt was amateurish in my honest opinion, and wouldn't fly in front of a group of black people.


I guess what I'm saying, my point that *you* can't seem to grasp, is that speaking ebonics would be a different "stunt".  If Rand came in and started speaking some Swahili, maybe raise is fist and shout out a few "Harambes", then that *might* be similar.

----------


## mczerone

> We'll have to agree to disagree then. Ron doesn't go speak in front of a crowd of hispanics, speak spanglish to them and then quote nothing but hispanic people (who were commies no less). I'm not sure why you can't see the obvious condescending note.


Goofily attempting to relate to a crowd with small snippets of what you think their language is is not the same as picking the issues that you know that they care about and focusing on them, or by picking an issue that you know they are mistaken about and trying to show them your side of it.

Relating to an audience =/= pandering =/= condescension.

----------


## abacabb

> I guess what I'm saying, my point that *you* can't seem to grasp, is that speaking ebonics would be a different "stunt".  If Rand came in and started speaking some Swahili, maybe raise is fist and shout out a few "Harambes", then that *might* be similar.


Not all Africans speak swahili though.

What if he went in front of a crowd of muslims and rattled of a few verses in Arabic from the Quran (being that all Muslims pray in Arabic) and then quoted only muslims? It just seems to me to be total pandering.

----------


## abacabb

> Goofily attempting to relate to a crowd with small snippets of what you think their language is is not the same as picking the issues that you know that they care about and focusing on them, or by picking an issue that you know they are mistaken about and trying to show them your side of it.
> 
> Relating to an audience =/= pandering =/= condescension.


True, but where in Rand's meandering speech did he do that? All I seem to remember is that his principal was divorced, he hated spanish class and that if people want to work in America they can. I don't see his attempt at relating opening the opportunity for any pro-liberty info bombs. It was pure political expediency, to thrust himself into an immigration debate which he has no say in, because he's not in the gang of 8.

----------


## jmdrake

> We'll have to agree to disagree then. Ron doesn't go speak in front of a crowd of hispanics, speak spanglish to them and then quote nothing but hispanic people (who were commies no less). I'm not sure why you can't see the obvious condescending note.


Saying some Spanish sentences in a mostly English speech isn't "spanglish".  At least it doesn't fit my definition.  Spanglish is using what is neither recognizable English nor recognizable Spanish.  My Spanish is rusty, but reading through his speech the phrases he used are recognizable Spanish.

As for quoting "commies"?  Well I'm glad you apparently recognize that MLK wasn't a commie.    That's been a bone of contention around here.  If you do think MLK was a commie (I don't) then Ron did the same thing Rand did in that regard.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not all Africans speak swahili though.
> 
> What if he went in front of a crowd of muslims and rattled of a few verses in Arabic from the Quran (being that all Muslims pray in Arabic) and then quoted only muslims? It just seems to me to be total pandering.


Yeah.  But many (if not most) African Americans, who have no idea what language our ancestors spoke, have adopted Swahili as a kind of ancestoral language.  It definitely carries a different weight, especially among educated blacks (like you'll find at Howard University) than does ebonics.

----------


## jmdrake

abacabb: I'm curious.  Who did Rand reference quote that you thought was communist?  Jaime Escalante, the calculus teacher who helped inner city kids perform exceptionally well on AP exams, Migeul de Unamondo, the Spanish author that at first embraced Franco, but then came out strong against fascism?  Neither seem communist to me.  Or am I missing someone?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> "The concern I was expressing is that part of the civil rights act is based on a flawed interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that claims that anything anyone does that might have some impact on interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal government.  Even whether or not you each vegetables arguably has a cumulative effect on Interstate commerce.  The supreme court in more recent years has started to real in that broad interpretation of the commerce clause.  While I applaud that, I am concerned as to what that means for those depending on the Civil Rights Act as written.  That's just something people need to think about."


I think this would be an absolute failure and people will not pay attention until he is done talking at which point they will label him a racist.  He should and will say something closer to this, "Well the interesting thing is that the left wing media tried to portray me as some kind of racist, but the truth is that I want to allow racist business owners to self identify so I can withhold my business and encourage others to do so.  I just can't understand a law that forces racists to hide in the shadows and allows them to profit off of the people they hate.  I think that makes me the opposite of a racist."  

And then the crowd goes wild.

----------


## abacabb

> Saying some Spanish sentences in a mostly English speech isn't "spanglish".  At least it doesn't fit my definition.  Spanglish is using what is neither recognizable English nor recognizable Spanish.  My Spanish is rusty, but reading through his speech the phrases he used are recognizable Spanish.
> 
> As for quoting "commies"?  Well I'm glad you apparently recognize that MLK wasn't a commie.    That's been a bone of contention around here.  If you do think MLK was a commie (I don't) then Ron did the same thing Rand did in that regard.


Well, Rand quoted leftists. MLK was a leftist, though he gets a pass from me for his opposition to Vietname and segregation. He, like Paul, are latter day prophets perhaps.

----------


## abacabb

> abacabb: I'm curious.  Who did Rand reference quote that you thought was communist?  Jaime Escalante, the calculus teacher who helped inner city kids perform exceptionally well on AP exams, Migeul de Unamondo, the Spanish author that at first embraced Franco, but then came out strong against fascism?  Neither seem communist to me.  Or am I missing someone?


To quote the crappy ex-congressman

"Rand Paul concluded his speech by quoting (in Spanish) the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda. Paul did not mention that Neruda served as a Senator for the Chilean Communist Party."
http://m.christianpost.com/news/why-...nd-paul-92423/

----------


## jmdrake

> I think this would be an absolute failure and people will not pay attention until he is done talking at which point they will label him a racist.  He should and will say something closer to this, "Well the interesting thing is that the left wing media tried to portray me as some kind of racist, but the truth is that I want to allow racist business owners to self identify so I can withhold my business and encourage others to do so.  I just can't understand a law that forces racists to hide in the shadows and allows them to profit off of the people they hate.  I think that makes me the opposite of a racist."  
> 
> And then the crowd goes wild.


Well I would find your approach an absolute failure if it was tried on me.  So I hope he goes with mine.    Seriously, understanding the commerce clause is the only reason I came to peace with Ron Paul's position on the CRA.  Not some Jon Stossel "reverse racism" argument.  I doubt the reverse racism argument will work with others either.

----------


## Zarn Solen

As a Hispanic, I ask people who are offended for me to stop. I say the same to the liberals who tell me that I should be upset about something they think is racist.

I have no issue with Rand Paul speaking Spanish. He spoke to a specifically Hispanic crowd. If anything, it was appropriate to use a little Spanish.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Well I would find your approach an absolute failure if it was tried on me.  So I hope he goes with mine.    Seriously, understanding the commerce clause is the only reason I came to peace with Ron Paul's position on the CRA.  Not some Jon Stossel "reverse racism" argument.  I doubt the reverse racism argument will work with others either.


Haha, only time will tell.  You place far too much confidence in your fellow man's ability to a. give a $#@! about the Constitution and b. consider the intricacies of a position.  Most people shut down the second you start discussing the constitutionality of something.  For your average person, they only invoke the Constitution when it suits what they want and are happy to ignore it when what they want conflicts with what is constitutional.  On something like race especially, they are inclined to say or think, "I don't care what the Constitution says.  Racism is bad and we need to stop it.  The Constitution also once permitted slavery."

----------


## abacabb

> As a Hispanic, I ask people who are offended for me to stop. I say the same to the liberals who tell me that I should be upset about something they think is racist.
> 
> I have no issue with Rand Paul speaking Spanish. He spoke to a specifically Hispanic crowd. If anything, it was appropriate to use a little Spanish.


I don't think any one is saying what he was doing was offensive. My opinion is that he was being condescending. But, hey, it appears he played to his audience.

----------


## Zarn Solen

Being condescending is offensive. It's inherent.

The only person being condescending is the person that is telling me that I don't like it when white people speak Spanish to Hispanics. BTW, most Hispanics have "white blood."

----------


## abacabb

> Being condescending is offensive. It's inherent.
> 
> The only person being condescending is the person that is telling me that I don't like it when white people speak Spanish to Hispanics. BTW, most Hispanics have "white blood."


So, now you're going to pull the I'm "offending" you card? Sorry, this white dude don't feel bad about it. Having an opinion isn't condescension. What Rand Paul did was practically the definition of it. He was being patronizing through and through.

And, who here is talking about the blood of hispanic people? The Pope is Italian for Pete's sake and he's hispanic. No one questions that.

----------


## juleswin

> As a Hispanic, I ask people who are offended for me to stop. I say the same to the liberals who tell me that I should be upset about something they think is racist.
> 
> I have no issue with Rand Paul speaking Spanish. He spoke to a specifically Hispanic crowd. If anything, it was appropriate to use a little Spanish.


Right on, a normal person would have seen respect where this guys sees condescension. They think because you are a "minority", you are thin skinned and easily offended and such they should come to your rescue every time a scary white conservative talks to you.

I wish I could give you a 100 +rep for this post

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Rand going into the liberal lion's den of academia is a brilliant move.  This is another front in the battle of ideas that we shouldn't concede to the socialist forces.  Not only do we have to defeat them at the ballot box, but I'd love to see more libertarians becoming high school teachers and college professors.  Take on the propaganda mills head on.

----------


## Zarn Solen

I'm not emotional about any of this. I'm just telling you straight up that your opinion on someone being condescending is wrong, because it flies in the face of the fact that people are not offended by someone trying to reach out to them as a target audience. The most important rule in public speaking is knowing the audience. If someone makes an attempt to speak Spanish towards Hispanics, it is taken as being nice. This is very well known.

----------


## jmdrake

> Haha, only time will tell.  You place far too much confidence in your fellow man's ability to a. give a $#@! about the Constitution and b. consider the intricacies of a position.


You place far too much confidence in your fellow man agreeing with your libertarian viewpoint.  Whether you realize it or not, most people who go to Howard University are not libertarians.  But as Howard does have an ABA accredited law school, there would be many in the crowd as familiar with the intricacies of the constitution than you or Rand Paul or even more so.

Really, when you put "and the crowd goes while" in your previous post, that displayed why libertarians have a hard time actually winning elections.  Even if that crowd did go "wild" by Rand effectively reversing himself again on the CRA and coming off as a smartass (which I doubt) the damage done in the larger electorate would be too great.  It's not the cheer of the crowd actually listening to the speech that determines the political outcome as it is the way the speech is sound bited and spun in the weeks and months following it.

Stop and think about it.  Was the main problem in the 1950s and 60s "We don't know who the racists are"?  Ummmm...*no*.  The majority of whites in much of the deep south were racist and proud of it.  How do I know?  Just look at the political career of George Wallace.  He lost his first bid for governor after the newspapers published a picture of his opponent palling around with the KKK.  That's right.  In 1950s Alabama a Klan endorsement was better than being endorsed by the NRA.  In fact you've just really made the argument *for* the civil rights act.  There were whites who pretended to be racist because of the crowd.  If you owned a store and had to risk losing the majority of your white customers just so that you could cater to black customers when blacks only made up 15% of the population or less, would that have made sense?  After the CRA passed, white store owners could honestly say to their racist white customers "I sympathize with you not wanting to buy that dress after some negress tried it on, but what can I do?  The law is the law."

The "Let's let racists discriminate so that we can know who they are" argument works for 2012, because most whites aren't racist.  Even David Duke no longer wants to be associated with the KKK.  The problem is that the position Rand has taken at this point is that he does *not* intend to repeal the civil rights act.  So he doesn't need to explain why the civil rights act is no longer necessary now.  He needs to explain why it was still problematic back in 1964 when most people who cared about ending racism thought it was necessary.  And that's best handled by a constitutional, rather than libertarian argument.

The takeaway point from my position is "While I sympathize with the goals of the civil rights act and understand why people wanted it, I am concerned that the contitutional underpinnings of it are shaky and are being erroded for reasons that having nothing to do for civil rights.  It just could have been written better."

The takeaway point from your position is "I'm smarter than all of those people who marched with Dr. King to get the civil rights act passed because I know how to identify racists and they didn't."  That's the way it would be spun.

What I'm talkinig about is not "How to win new converts to the libertarian view of the CRA" but rather "How to limit the damage already done by taking an unpopular position on an issue and then flip flopping on it."

----------


## MRK

> If your family still has conversations in German instead of a few curse words, than that is good. It is certainly atypical for most second generation Americans. However, I disagree. The language of America is English. All of our founding documents, literature and science are in English.
> 
> 
> Williams is a legit economist and Ron was naming only one guy. If he rattled off 4 people in a row, all black, then I'd call him out for it.
> 
> Ron's too old school for that. For Pete's Sake he said the following about TSA agents: Most of them are, well, you know, they just dont look very American to me. If Id have been looking, they look suspicious  I mean, a lot of them cant even speak English, hardly. Not that Im accusing them of anything, but its sort of ironic. http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/singleton/


http://usa.usembassy.de/germanamericans-language.htm :
"[There was an] attempt in Congress in 1794, based on a petition of German residents of Augusta Co., Virginia, to have "a certain proportion" of the laws of the United States printed in German as well as English. A year later, the petition was denied by Congress by a vote of 42 to 41."

Also, if you say the language of America is English, maybe you've never been to South Florida, or South Texas, where the dominant language in most places is Spanish.

My point is that just because there is a lingua franca, it doesn't mean the people whose primary language is not the lingua franca don't appreciate it when you speak that. I am fluent in both Spanish and German and you wouldn't believe the way people change around you when you speak their language. Using a person's language when attempting to reach out to them is a wonderful idea. They give you massive amounts of respect, which is key in politics.

----------


## jmdrake

> So, now you're going to pull the I'm "offending" you card? Sorry, this white dude don't feel bad about it. Having an opinion isn't condescension. What Rand Paul did was practically the definition of it. He was being patronizing through and through.
> 
> And, who here is talking about the blood of hispanic people? The Pope is Italian for Pete's sake and he's hispanic. No one questions that.


I tell you what.  In that speech Rand mentioned learning Spanish in high school.  Do you know of any high school in the U.S. that teaches ebonics for credit?  If so then let me know so I can verbally kick the school board's butt. A school board in Oakland tried that mess and even Jesse Jackson condemned them.  (He later sort of reversed himself, but did so by saying he "misunderstood" their proposal and later realized that the school district was trying to use ebonics to help inner city kids learn standard English.  That idea is still so stupid that it's worth an butt kicking.)  I have not seen such a level of disdaid among Latinos to Spanish being taught as a second language.  And your anecdotes of "most 2nd generation Spanish only know cuss words" doesn't prove that point.  It just shows that a lot of kids are lazy I guess.

----------


## BSU kid

It's funny...you know I thought we were trying to win elections for Liberty, apparently the way to do that is to make Rand Paul seem condescending for saying a few words in Spanish.  While we are at it, we should also discourage him from reaching out to African Americans...because you know, having 90%+ of them voting against the Republican Party has helped us out a lot.

----------


## abacabb

> You place far too much confidence in your fellow man agreeing with your libertarian viewpoint.  Whether you realize it or not, most people who go to Howard University are not libertarians.  But as Howard does have an ABA accredited law school, there would be many in the crowd as familiar with the intricacies of the constitution than you or Rand Paul or even more so.
> 
> Really, when you put "and the crowd goes while" in your previous post, that displayed why libertarians have a hard time actually winning elections.  Even if that crowd did go "wild" by Rand effectively reversing himself again on the CRA and coming off as a smartass (which I doubt) the damage done in the larger electorate would be too great.  It's not the cheer of the crowd actually listening to the speech that determines the political outcome as it is the way the speech is sound bited and spun in the weeks and months following it.
> 
> Stop and think about it.  Was the main problem in the 1950s and 60s "We don't know who the racists are"?  Ummmm...*no*.  The majority of whites in much of the deep south were racist and proud of it.  How do I know?  Just look at the political career of George Wallace.  He lost his first bid for governor after the newspapers published a picture of his opponent palling around with the KKK.  That's right.  In 1950s Alabama a Klan endorsement was better than being endorsed by the NRA.  In fact you've just really made the argument *for* the civil rights act.  There were whites who pretended to be racist because of the crowd.  If you owned a store and had to risk losing the majority of your white customers just so that you could cater to black customers when blacks only made up 15% of the population or less, would that have made sense?  After the CRA passed, white store owners could honestly say to their racist white customers "I sympathize with you not wanting to buy that dress after some negress tried it on, but what can I do?  The law is the law."
> 
> The "Let's let racists discriminate so that we can know who they are" argument works for 2012, because most whites aren't racist.  Even David Duke no longer wants to be associated with the KKK.  The problem is that the position Rand has taken at this point is that he does *not* intend to repeal the civil rights act.  So he doesn't need to explain why the civil rights act is no longer necessary now.  He needs to explain why it was still problematic back in 1964 when most people who cared about ending racism thought it was necessary.  And that's best handled by a constitutional, rather than libertarian argument.
> 
> The takeaway point from my position is "While I sympathize with the goals of the civil rights act and understand why people wanted it, I am concerned that the contitutional underpinnings of it are shaky and are being erroded for reasons that having nothing to do for civil rights.  It just could have been written better."
> ...


Well said, +rep

----------


## abacabb

> I tell you what.  In that speech Rand mentioned learning Spanish in high school.  Do you know of any high school in the U.S. that teaches ebonics for credit?  If so then let me know so I can verbally kick the school board's butt. A school board in Oakland tried that mess and even Jesse Jackson condemned them.  (He later sort of reversed himself, but did so by saying he "misunderstood" their proposal and later realized that the school district was trying to use ebonics to help inner city kids learn standard English.  That idea is still so stupid that it's worth an butt kicking.)  I have not seen such a level of disdaid among Latinos to Spanish being taught as a second language.  And your anecdotes of "most 2nd generation Spanish only know cuss words" doesn't prove that point.  It just shows that a lot of kids are lazy I guess.


Laziness transcends race, culture and religion. It unifies the human race, lol.




> It's funny...you know I thought we were trying to win elections for Liberty, apparently the way to do that is to make Rand Paul seem condescending for saying a few words in Spanish.  While we are at it, we should also discourage him from reaching out to African Americans...because you know, having 90%+ of them voting against the Republican Party has helped us out a lot.



As long as he speaks a clear message instead of meandering drivel, I think it's good for him to open dialogues with different people.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> They ARE a normal audience, and as such a speaker rightly chooses topics and language to reach that audience.
> 
> A politician's speech given in Iowa should be different than one given in NH, should be different than one given in San Diego. The message should be consistent and principled, but the form and the content should ALWAYS be tailored to the audience. San Diego doesn't want to hear about farm freedom and rural issues, and NH doesn't really want to hear about a principled approach to Mexican immigrants.
> 
> Rand would be right to capitalize on the anti-liberty actions that the Dems have done and show those at Howard how their families and self-selected cultures have been decimated by the policies that were sold to them as "help".


This.  +A Bunch

----------


## BlackTerrel

> You place far too much confidence in your fellow man agreeing with your libertarian viewpoint.  Whether you realize it or not, most people who go to Howard University are not libertarians.  But as Howard does have an ABA accredited law school, there would be many in the crowd as familiar with the intricacies of the constitution than you or Rand Paul or even more so.
> 
> Really, when you put "and the crowd goes while" in your previous post, that displayed why libertarians have a hard time actually winning elections.  Even if that crowd did go "wild" by Rand effectively reversing himself again on the CRA and coming off as a smartass (which I doubt) the damage done in the larger electorate would be too great.  It's not the cheer of the crowd actually listening to the speech that determines the political outcome as it is the way the speech is sound bited and spun in the weeks and months following it.
> 
> Stop and think about it.  Was the main problem in the 1950s and 60s "We don't know who the racists are"?  Ummmm...*no*.  The majority of whites in much of the deep south were racist and proud of it.  How do I know?  Just look at the political career of George Wallace.  He lost his first bid for governor after the newspapers published a picture of his opponent palling around with the KKK.  That's right.  In 1950s Alabama a Klan endorsement was better than being endorsed by the NRA.  In fact you've just really made the argument *for* the civil rights act.  There were whites who pretended to be racist because of the crowd.  If you owned a store and had to risk losing the majority of your white customers just so that you could cater to black customers when blacks only made up 15% of the population or less, would that have made sense?  After the CRA passed, white store owners could honestly say to their racist white customers "I sympathize with you not wanting to buy that dress after some negress tried it on, but what can I do?  The law is the law."
> 
> The "Let's let racists discriminate so that we can know who they are" argument works for 2012, because most whites aren't racist.  Even David Duke no longer wants to be associated with the KKK.  The problem is that the position Rand has taken at this point is that he does *not* intend to repeal the civil rights act.  So he doesn't need to explain why the civil rights act is no longer necessary now.  He needs to explain why it was still problematic back in 1964 when most people who cared about ending racism thought it was necessary.  And that's best handled by a constitutional, rather than libertarian argument.
> 
> The takeaway point from my position is "While I sympathize with the goals of the civil rights act and understand why people wanted it, I am concerned that the contitutional underpinnings of it are shaky and are being erroded for reasons that having nothing to do for civil rights.  It just could have been written better."
> ...


Great post.

I do have to admit that you reasoned out exactly why I disagree with Rand and Ron on this law.  I've disagreed with it before on this forum but you laid it out better than I did.

Yes it is not necessary now and wouldn't change much if it was repealed.  Yes it was beneficial then and the country as a whole would be worse off it didn't pass.

----------


## Rudeman

> Do they? National Democrats don't even bother campaigning to minorities, their votes are taken for granted.


Obama has:

----------


## abacabb

> Obama has:


I stand corrected. I don't feel different about obama than rand, though with all the acorn stuff obama might be more cynical than Rand.

----------


## Matt Collins

Press release from Rand's office:





> ****MEDIA ADVISORY****
> WEDNESDAY: Sen. Paul to Speak at Howard University
> 
> *WASHINGTON, D.C. –* On Wednesday, April 10, Sen. Rand Paul will  deliver a speech at Howard University’s School of Business in Washington, D.C. 
> 
> Sen. Paul will focus on the importance of outreach to younger voters, as well as minority groups. He will also discuss issues such as school choice and civil liberties. 
> 
> Media: Please RSVP to the below address if you wish to attend.
> 
> ...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Is anybody going?  Might be worth streaming this.

----------


## Adrock

Whoever writes the speeches for Rand and Ron usually is excellent. I hope it is recorded and put on youtube.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Whoever writes the speeches for Rand and Ron usually is excellent. I hope it is recorded and put on youtube.


lolz, they don't have speechwriters.

----------


## jmdrake

> Great post.
> 
> I do have to admit that you reasoned out exactly why I disagree with Rand and Ron on this law.  I've disagreed with it before on this forum but you laid it out better than I did.
> 
> Yes it is not necessary now and wouldn't change much if it was repealed.  Yes it was beneficial then and the country as a whole would be worse off it didn't pass.


Thanks for the kind words.  For the record, I'm not against Ron and Rand's postion on the law.  Here's why.  When I learned about the history of the commerce clause it truly disturbed me that part of the Civil Rights Act was based on its misinterpretation.  There is a Supreme Court decision "Wickard v Filburn".  FDR had set up strict farming quotas during the depression.  Fillburn grew more grain than was allotted under the quota.  Instead of destroying it, he gave it to his family and livestock and was fined.  Fillburn argued that regulation of the consumption of grain was not covered by the commerce clause.  Back when the Supreme Court actually followed the constitution, he would have won.  But FDR bullied the Supreme Court into submission by threatening to pack the court with his loyalists.  You see, nothing in the constitution restricts the Court to 9 members.  FDR had the house and senate.  He could have added another 10 members or more to the court to get one to his liking.  So the court backed down and voted his way.

See: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_swi...hat_saved_nine

(Note: Danke correctly pointed out in another thread that Fillburn shot himself in the foot by agreeing to go along with the allotment plan in the first place.)

The ability of the federal government to tell farmers they have to destroy perfectly good crops and can't even eat the crops themselves is the same ability (that doesn't exist) that backs up two sections of the CRA.  One of the most fundamental rights you have is the right to provide for your family as you see fit as long as you aren't directly harming anyone else.  Do you remember this from the confirmation hearings of Elana Kagan?




As for what would have happened if the CRA had been written differently?  It's hard to say.  One thing that most people don't know is that, in Nashville at least, the famous "sit ins" ende thisd segregation at lunch counters *before* passage of the CRA.  And look at the Montgomery bus boycott.  Before it was called off, blacks had started private taxi services compete with the city run bus service.  (Note the CRA wasn't needed to end the bus segregation because Brown v. Board of Education had already ruled "separate but equal" unconstitutional, and indeed there was a ruling ending segregation on buses prior to the CRA).  Were the black citizens of Montgomery really better off without private black own taxi services?  Rarely do you see the black community come together like it did in the 60s.  Yet problems remain and some have been exacerbated.  People seem to think the EEOC is the solution to racism, yet it has been increasing impotent even with a black president.  I sometimes wonder if the extra-constitutional "short cut" the CRA took is like opening the cocoon of a butterfly to "help it out".  The butterfly never flies because the struggle of breaking through the cocoon is an essential part of the butterfly's development.

So in short, if I had to trade between the federal government not having the expansive power to even write laws to tell me what I can and can't eat because, somehow, that affects "interstate commerce", and the federal government having the power to tell some theater they must allow me to attend and sit where I want....well I can deal with a stupid theater owner easier than I can an out of control federal government.

----------


## abacabb

It's ironic, but the CRA came after all the important civil rights win occurred. The national guard already was desegregating schools and sit ins were overturning local laws.

Nevertheless, people were beating the crap out of people just for wanting to ride a bus for Pete's sake back then. The Constitution isn't perfect. The CRA might've been a temporary necessity, just like Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, _perhaps._ However, should temporary necessities be permanently codified in law? Hell no. Lincoln even said something to the effect of that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he had to, and he's willing to face the consequences. And he did, he got shot in the back of the head.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> It's ironic, but the CRA came after all the important civil rights win occurred. The national guard already was desegregating schools and sit ins were overturning local laws.
> 
> Nevertheless, people were beating the crap out of people just for wanting to ride a bus for Pete's sake back then. The Constitution isn't perfect. The CRA might've been a temporary necessity, just like Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, _perhaps._ However, should temporary necessities be permanently codified in law? Hell no. Lincoln even said something to the effect of that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he had to, and he's willing to face the consequences. And he did, he got shot in the back of the head.


I realize this guy is banned...but $#@! it.

The Civil Rights act was completely necessary. My grandparents were racist. My grandmother, even after she changed her opinion could ever quite change her language. She would talk about her favorite black baseball players as her favorite ******. (EDIT: I understand the need for a filter here, so I wont go around it. My following point regarding language and how it used is still my opinion)I I wont ever use that word to talk about a black person but I have no problem using the word to talk about the word. The fact is it took the civil rights act for them to actually interact with black people. To accept them and not judge off of skin color.

While their views didn't ever change completely, their slowly changing opinion affected the view points of my mother and in turn me. 

Rand was right to stand up for private property rights. Horrible timing but he was right. That being said, he was also right to say he would have voted for it regardless of his reservations on that one point.

Black people are not stupid. I have many black friends. Some of them are gang bangers and drug dealers, and some of them are upstanding citizens. I guess you could say they are just like my white friends in that respect.(EDIT: as in both white people and black people can be drug dealers or great citizens...isn't it funny, how a white guy like me who doesn't care about who insults whom...makes sure his point is completely and correctly understood when it comes to matters of race) Treat em with respect. Explain the position...and Rand will be fine. He might make progress just for his honesty.

If there is one racial stereotype I find to be true...its that black people can see through bull$#@! extremely well. 

But we do need outreach. Black people are not going to vote Republican unless you ask for their vote and stop treating them like idiots who follow Al Sharpton like the second coming of Jesus.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## jmdrake

> It's ironic, but the CRA came after all the important civil rights win occurred. The national guard already was desegregating schools and sit ins were overturning local laws.
> 
> Nevertheless, people were beating the crap out of people just for wanting to ride a bus for Pete's sake back then. The Constitution isn't perfect. The CRA might've been a temporary necessity, just like Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, _perhaps._ However, should temporary necessities be permanently codified in law? Hell no. Lincoln even said something to the effect of that he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he had to, and he's willing to face the consequences. And he did, he got shot in the back of the head.





> I realize this guy is banned...but $#@! it.
> 
> The Civil Rights act was completely necessary. My grandparents were racist. My grandmother, even after she changed her opinion could ever quite change her language. She would talk about her favorite black baseball players as her favorite ******. (EDIT: I understand the need for a filter here, so I wont go around it. My following point regarding language and how it used is still my opinion)I I wont ever use that word to talk about a black person but I have no problem using the word to talk about the word. The fact is it took the civil rights act for them to actually interact with black people. To accept them and not judge off of skin color.
> 
> While their views didn't ever change completely, their slowly changing opinion affected the view points of my mother and in turn me. 
> 
> Rand was right to stand up for private property rights. Horrible timing but he was right. That being said, he was also right to say he would have voted for it regardless of his reservations on that one point.
> 
> Black people are not stupid. I have many black friends. Some of them are gang bangers and drug dealers, and some of them are upstanding citizens. I guess you could say they are just like my white friends in that respect.(EDIT: as in both white people and black people can be drug dealers or great citizens...isn't it funny, how a white guy like me who doesn't care about who insults whom...makes sure his point is completely and correctly understood when it comes to matters of race) Treat em with respect. Explain the position...and Rand will be fine. He might make progress just for his honesty.
> ...


Good analysis SM.  And for the record, looking back at the post history I have *no idea* why abacabb got banned.

Anyhow, I think one of the weaknesses of the liberty movement is that people get so certain of the logic of their position, that they don't stop to consider that someone else may have logically come to a different conclusion.  For instance, abacabb's point that there [i]might[/b] have been some justification for Lincoln's suspension fo habeas is likely to be met by a derisive "Lincoln was a bloodthristy tyrant who just wanted to kill a bunch of southerners and proof of this is that every place else freed slaves without war through compensated emancipation"  Point out that Lincoln tried compensated emancipation with the border states, but couldn't broker the deal between them and congress and you get a change of subject with "Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks."  Point out that when compensated emancipation was carrie out in Washington D.C. that repatriation was voluntary and you get "Well...Lincoln was racist."

I know I seem like I'm ranting, but I have a point.  If we want others to consider our unconventional ideas (some of which I don't share personally) we have to be a better job of recognizing the legitimate concerns of others.

Back to the CRA, over the years (since I found out Ron's position in 2007 and then learned in 2009 or 2010 the constitutional underpinnings of it), I've wondered for a way to "have my cake and eat it too."  I wouldn't want to live in 1950s America.  I don't think most whites today would either.  Yet I hate what happened to the constitution under FDR.  And it's easy to say "What's done is done", but what about the next time?  I'm hopeful that medical marijuana may help reignite the state soverignty debate.  And I hope the black community can get beyond "We shall overcome" to "We will just stop tearing each other down."  

Lastly, I hope Rand's speech goes well.  We should know something in less than 24 hours.

----------


## jct74

> Is anybody going?  Might be worth streaming this.


this person who works at FreedomWorks says it is going to be streamed on live.freedomworks.org




> Watch @ http://live.freedomworks.org  MT @JulieOnJustice: @SenRandPaul will talk sentencing & more tmrw at Howard U @ 11am: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ra...enge-at-howard …


https://twitter.com/caitlynkorb/stat...14370336243713

----------


## supermario21

> Jeremy W. Peters ‏@jwpetersNYT 16m
> "Due to overwhelming interest" Rand Paul speech at Howard U will be on CSPAN, his press office says


Even more impresive

----------


## itshappening

That's good and as I pointed out the liberal press might even praise Rand due to guilt after the Hannity special exposing racism against black conservatives .

I expect this will be widely received and he will get praised,  Perfect.

----------


## jct74

> Even more impresive


I don't see it on the schedule, maybe it will be broadcast at a later time to be determined.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibr...ate=2013-04-10

----------


## jct74

I am seeing all over twitter that it will be on CSPAN though, here's a link to the event:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/216924

----------


## supermario21

Apparently there's not much of a crowd....and they consider Republicans to be close minded?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> this person who works at FreedomWorks says it is going to be streamed on live.freedomworks.org
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/caitlynkorb/stat...14370336243713


Woohoo! thanks for the link!

----------


## Brett85

It doesn't look like it will be on C-Span.  They're covering the Toomey-Manchin press conference.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Looks like CSPAN is only carrying it online.  They usually play recorded appearances on tv at later dates though.

----------


## georgiaboy

anyone seeing a stream anywhere yet?  i got nuthin' @live.freedomworks.org or the cspan link.

----------


## jct74

> I am seeing all over twitter that it will be on CSPAN though, here's a link to the event:
> http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/216924


I don't see anything on this feed yet but click on the thumbnail of Rand on the front page of c-span.org and I'm getting a stream

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> anyone seeing a stream anywhere yet?  i got nuthin' @live.freedomworks.org or the cspan link.


me either

----------


## jct74

getting introduced right now

----------


## jct74

just took the podium, go to front page of c-span.org

----------


## jct74

just brought up his comments on the Civil Rights Act

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Got it now

----------


## jct74

here's a direct link to working stream
http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?sr...334.515&end=-1

----------


## jct74

talking more about Civil Rights Act...

----------


## georgiaboy

big history lesson

----------


## georgiaboy

"most of the founders of the NAACP were Republicans"

----------


## FSP-Rebel

some kid just got tossed out by security

----------


## FSP-Rebel

kinda made a scene

----------


## Virgil

Did you see what he's sign said?

----------


## supermario21

"Howard University doesn't stand for white supremacy!"


F these people, they don't even deserve our time.

----------


## hillertexas

> I don't see anything on this feed yet but click on the thumbnail of Rand on the front page of c-span.org and I'm getting a stream


thanks...this worked.

----------


## jct74

applause for repealing mandatory minimums

----------


## georgiaboy

finally got some applause!

----------


## Nirvikalpa

Sounds good from the past 3 minutes (I started listening late)...

----------


## jct74

end speech, Q&A time

----------


## Nirvikalpa

That's it?  DAMN.

----------


## TaftFan

I think I see Jack Hunter.

----------


## georgiaboy

Q&A time

----------


## jct74

direct link in case anyone still looking for it:
http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?sr...334.515&end=-1

----------


## Nirvikalpa

... kid's an idiot.

----------


## familydog

Rand's pandering history lessons are painful to watch.

----------


## S.Shorland

Your link works.His facebook page's link was dark,i was waiting for it to load for 20 minutes!


> direct link in case anyone still looking for it:
> http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?sr...334.515&end=-1

----------


## radiofriendly

C-SPAN iink - it's been good, what I've seen: http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?id=10737439198

----------


## wormyguy

> Rand's pandering history lessons are painful to watch.


Ugh, it's stomach-turning.

----------


## jct74

hemp!

----------


## Nirvikalpa

Good applause on keeping non-violent criminals out of jail...

----------


## georgiaboy

I think Rand is scoring some good points here.

----------


## jmdrake

Rand just asked about law proposed by democrats and signed by Obama that gave judicial immunity to Monsanto.  Good question and good answer from Rand!  Now he's being asked about the death penalty.  Again he's handling the question great.  I missed the CRA question so I'll have to watch that later.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

This answer here may make or break him.  Civil rights act.

*Edit:*  Ouch, didn't like that answer...

----------


## Tod

skipped addressing the q about bush and obama being charged for going to war w/o a declaration

----------


## jmdrake

Rand just said he was never against the Civil Rights Act with respect to race but was against the broader applications with regards to smoking and calories on menus?  WTF?  I know what Rand is trying to say.  The broad interpretation of the commerce clause, which the Civil Rights Act is based on, applies to all federal mandates on private business.  But the Civil Rights Act itself has never been applied to smoking.  Come on Rand.  Your audience is smarter than that.  That's a bad soundbite.  But not a total loss.

Rand just did a good job on a question about impeachment.  Now he's being asked about the EPA and free markets.  He's using the "You can't polute on your neighbor's property" argument and spoke positively about the clean water act, but pointing out how it's gone to far by calling "dirt" a pollutant and "your back yard" a navigable stream.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

Yeah, that Civil Rights question/answer was just horrid.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

God damnit, this question...

----------


## Brett85

I missed his response to the death penalty question.  What is his position on that?

----------


## wormyguy

Don't personalize it, Rand...

And talk about the education bubble!

----------


## jmdrake

Rand did a great job explaining positives on Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan while rejecting the idea of a separate nation for African Americans.  Now dealing with someone who says "I don't want a government that leaves me alone."  Rand is doing great explaining the negative effect of using debt to help everyone with everything.  "It does you no good if you graduate from Howard with 60K in debt from student loans and you can't get a job because we borrowed so much money from China."  That's a t-shirt worthy quote.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I missed his response to the death penalty question.  What is his position on that?


That on an emotional side, if someone was to murder his wife he would probably want him dead, but he also recognizes the courts have made mistakes.  He basically ended his response by saying he does not support the federal courts handling the life of death of someone, and would rather it be in the hands of state courts.

----------


## jct74

well that was pretty interesting!

----------


## jmdrake

> I missed his response to the death penalty question.  What is his position on that?


He's conflicted.  If someone was trying to kill his wife he would have no problem executing the person on the spot in her defense.  And, in his humanness, he would probably want to see them executed if they got caught sometime later.  But he realizes there have been a lot of false positives.  He's for repeal of all federal death penalties except maybe treason.

----------


## Tod

> I missed his response to the death penalty question.  What is his position on that?



I came away not knowing the answer to that.  He does think that it should be a state issue except maybe for stuff like treason.

----------


## Brett85

I didn't hear what he said in regards to the Civil Rights Act question, but I wish that Rand would just say that he would've supported repealing the state level Jim Crow laws that caused the private businesses to discriminate in the first place.

----------


## jmdrake

> skipped addressing the q about bush and obama being charged for going to war w/o a declaration


Ok.  I was typing while he was talking so I didn't quite get it.  I heard him say "Yes...no...yes..yes..no.." etc to the series of questions on that subject, but I guess I missed the overall gist.  So it was a punt?

----------


## Tod

I have to say, I think his dad would have come away winning more of the audience than Rand did.

----------


## hillertexas

I though he did a great job.

----------


## itshappening

There were a few students who asked questions and were just reading from their phone i.e straight from the Democrat National Committee.

----------


## supermario21

I don't think so. They'd go after him about the newsletters and the other stuff. Ron's race baggage is worse than Rand's. They don't even care about the good things both of the Pauls have to offer. They just think "racist!"

----------


## Tod

> Ok.  I was typing while he was talking so I didn't quite get it.  I heard him say "Yes...no...yes..yes..no.." etc to the series of questions on that subject, but I guess I missed the overall gist.  So it was a punt?


I think he tried to avoid it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't hear what he said in regards to the Civil Rights Act question, but I wish that Rand would just say that he would've supported repealing the state level Jim Crow laws that caused the private businesses to discriminate in the first place.


It wasn't a question.  It was a statement.  A professor said "I know that you were against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, so I want to know when do you think the government should be involved in these matters."  Rand's immediate answer was "That's a micharecterization of my position.  I've never been against the Civil Rights Act."  There was a pause and some laughter.  Then he clarified and said "There was an extended interview where I expressed some concern about parts of the Civil Rights Act, but it's not with regards to race, but how it's been applied in other areas."  (smoking, calorie counts on menus ect.)  Basically he flubbed the question and missed an opportunity to make a great point.  He can't retreat to "I would have only repealed the Jim Crowe laws" territory, because he went against that position on Wolf Blitzer back in 2010.  But he could explain better precisely what his concerns are regarding the commerce clause and how that is connected to the Civil Rights Act.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't think so. They'd go after him about the newsletters and the other stuff. Ron's race baggage is worse than Rand's. They don't even care about the good things both of the Pauls have to offer. They just think "racist!"


Yup, the Q&A would've been 20 racist newsletter questions.  Who, What, When, Why, How, and everything in between.

----------


## georgiaboy

I'm thankful that this happened.  I'm sick and tired of Republicans being painted as racist.  I want more of this kind of dialogue to occur.  The walls must come down.  Less government, free markets, etc., is truly the best message for all of us.


Next time, Rand should bring Ben Carson along with him.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'm thankful that this happened.  I'm sick and tired of Republicans being painted as racist.  I want more of this kind of dialogue to occur.  The walls must come down.  Less government, free markets, etc., is truly the best message for all of us.
> 
> 
> Next time, Rand should bring Ben Carson along with him.


They would make a tremendous team.

----------


## supermario21

I'll say this. The more outreach like this Rand does, the more intolerant the minorities look. I think people are quick to label the Republicans as intolerant but then Rand comes here to speak genuinely on issues they care about like less war and not ruining the lives of nonviolent drug offenders and people bring in white supremacist posters as protest symbols and a professor complains about him...I think the black community has to share some of the blame.

----------


## tsai3904

Video:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/312014-1

----------


## Brett85

> That on an emotional side, if someone was to murder his wife he would probably want him dead, but he also recognizes the courts have made mistakes.  He basically ended his response by saying he does not support the federal courts handling the life of death of someone, and would rather it be in the hands of state courts.


Don't the states set murder laws rather than the federal government anyway?  Why would you ever have death penalty cases in federal courts?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll say this. The more outreach like this Rand does, the more intolerant the minorities look. I think people are quick to label the Republicans as intolerant but then Rand comes here to speak genuinely on issues they care about like less war and not ruining the lives of nonviolent drug offenders and people bring in white supremacist posters as protest symbols and a professor complains about him...I think the black community has to share some of the blame.


I thought the majority of the questions where thoughtful and respectful.  I applaud both the crowd and Rand for doing a superb job.  I think this "us versus them" mentality that you seem to be slipping into is not at all helpful.  Ron has been treated much worse by white republicans than Rand was by these (mostly) black democrats.

Edit: Just browsed the transcript of Rand's speech.  He clearly said he was for the civil rights act and voting rights protection.  So the professor's statement that he (Rand) was against the civil rights act and the voting rights act was clearly out of line.  Either that or the professor wasn't listening to the speech.  I'll watch the entire thing again once it's put up on YouTube.  That said, I still think the entire speech was respectful on both sides.  I like how Rand took up for the right of the Nation of Islam leader to be heard when some in the crowd groaned about him asking for the files on the death of Malcolm X to be reopened.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Don't the states set murder laws rather than the federal government anyway?  Why would you ever have death penalty cases in federal courts?


For one, serial murders that cross state lines.

----------


## supermario21

> I thought the majority of the questions where thoughtful and respectful.  I applaud both the crowd and Rand for doing a superb job.  I think this "us versus them" mentality that you seem to be slipping into is not at all helpful.  Ron has been treated much worse by white republicans than Rand was by these (mostly) black democrats.



I'm not trying to create that image. I was unable to watch the video and only catch twitter reaction to it, which might be the reason why I felt that way. There were plenty of AA tweets basically bashing Rand, calling him stupid, hoping Howard would throw him out, etc...

----------


## mad cow

> For one, serial murders that cross state lines.


I think that they are all just extradited and tried in State Courts.It has happened many times.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not trying to create that image. I was unable to watch the video and only catch twitter reaction to it, which might be the reason why I felt that way. There were plenty of AA tweets basically bashing Rand, calling him stupid, hoping Howard would throw him out, etc...


Oh.  Okay.  Yeah there is a lot of blind and mis-targeted hatred in the world.

----------


## VoteRandPaul2016

And of course they brought up Dr. Ron Paul's newsletters....

----------


## familydog

It's unfortunate that Rand's speech was more about defending the Republican party than defending philosophy. You can't do that and expect to win over people in an audience that is still very much locked in a R vs. D mindset.

----------


## georgiaboy

baby steps

----------


## Brett85

> It's unfortunate that Rand's speech was more about defending the Republican party than defending philosophy. You can't do that and expect to win over people in an audience that is still very much locked in a R vs. D mindset.


Yeah, I think he should've just skipped all of that and focused entirely on philosophy.

----------


## Brett85

Is there a tube of this?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> It's unfortunate that Rand's speech was more about defending the Republican party than defending philosophy. You can't do that and expect to win over people in an audience that is still very much locked in a R vs. D mindset.


I think Rand could stress the philosophy of liberty more to an audience that is locked into the R vs. D paradigm as you say, but this was only the first speech of many in the future.

----------


## supermario21

The problem is you have to break the ice first before you get into the good stuff. This wasn't a YAL crowd. This was a crowd that probably contained many people that can't stand Rand.

----------


## jmdrake

> And of course they brought up Dr. Ron Paul's newsletters....


Sure.  But they'll have an impossible time tying Rand to the newsletters despite her stupid "Well he wasn't a little kid and could comment" comment.  

She was also quite dishonest at the end when she said "You're either for the government desegregating schools and lunch counters in Little Rock Arkansas or you're against it."  Really?  So this BSNBC commentator doesn't understand the difference between public and private segregation?

----------


## familydog

> I think Rand could stress the philosophy of liberty more to an audience that is locked into the R vs. D paradigm as you say, but this was only the first speech of many in the future.


If this was only the "first speech of many," he needs a better speech adviser. He spoke to a very politically charged audience and the best strategy is to frame your philosophy in a way they don't expect. Making liberty about Republicans vs. Democrats is exactly what was expected.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

It was a good speech and Q&A to give him an idea on what concepts work and those that can be either ditched or rephrased. His universal defense of republicans was something that needs to be said with a caveat. What he could do is say what direction he's trying to move the GOP into and that if the general GOP actually is serious about growing then they'll have to adopt a more libertarian/constitutional streak to have cross-appeal. Cause as it stands, it's pretty much just him and a few of his House and Senate colleagues that actually and seriously operate in this fashion and none of the establishment seems to be leaning into softening the stances on civil liberties, foreign policy nor spending for that matter.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> *I thought the majority of the questions where thoughtful and respectful.  I applaud both the crowd and Rand for doing a superb job.  I think this "us versus them" mentality that you seem to be slipping into is not at all helpful.  Ron has been treated much worse by white republicans than Rand was by these (mostly) black democrats.*
> 
> Edit: Just browsed the transcript of Rand's speech.  He clearly said he was for the civil rights act and voting rights protection.  So the professor's statement that he (Rand) was against the civil rights act and the voting rights act was clearly out of line.  Either that or the professor wasn't listening to the speech.  I'll watch the entire thing again once it's put up on YouTube.  That said, I still think the entire speech was respectful on both sides.  I like how Rand took up for the right of the Nation of Islam leader to be heard when some in the crowd groaned about him asking for the files on the death of Malcolm X to be reopened.


I agree with the bolded part.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The problem is you have to break the ice first before you get into the good stuff. This wasn't a YAL crowd. This was a crowd that probably contained many people that can't stand Rand.


That crowd was probably 90% democrat and caricatures of Rand run rampant in that segment of society so this was a great ice breaker.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> It was a good speech and Q&A to give him an idea on what concepts work and those that can be either ditched or rephrased. His universal defense of republicans was something that needs to be said with a caveat. What he could do is say what direction he's trying to move the GOP into and that if the general GOP actually is serious about growing then they'll have to adopt a more libertarian/constitutional streak to have cross-appeal. Cause as it stands, it's pretty much just him and a few of his House and Senate colleagues that actually and seriously operate in this fashion and none of the establishment seems to be leaning into softening the stances on civil liberties, foreign policy nor spending for that matter.


Spot in.  Rand is one of the liberty reformers.  This ain't the GWB republican party anymore.  Needs to be stressed over and over again.

----------


## eleganz

I missed it, waiting on the tube now

----------


## supermario21

Seems like the left is pounding Rand. TPM, Mother Jones, and Ari Melber of The Nation are all saying Rand's speech was essentially a giant lie, ignorant, and naive.

----------


## itshappening

> Seems like the left is pounding Rand. TPM, Mother Jones, and Ari Melber of The Nation are all saying Rand's speech was essentially a giant lie, ignorant, and naive.


They do not like the spotlight being on the Democrats racist history. 

Do they say why it was a lie?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Seems like the left is pounding Rand. TPM, Mother Jones, and Ari Melber of The Nation are all saying Rand's speech was essentially a giant lie, ignorant, and naive.


How dare this libertarian have the audacity to try and siphon minorities outside off the democratic plantation. Freak out time

----------


## MRK

Holy cow, I had no idea this would happen so early in the day. I was up until 7:30 am last night working and just woke up now. Can't wait to see the tube.

----------


## Koz

The video link does not work for me, anyone else?

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

"Obama is doing a great job" gets more applause than most of Rand's speech.. lol

----------


## MRK

> The video link does not work for me, anyone else?


I think the video posted in the OP was a live stream. There's been no recording posted yet on this thread as far as I know.

----------


## MRK

> I think the video posted in the OP was a live stream. There's been no recording posted yet on this thread as far as I know.


Actually, I just tried to open the video in Firefox instead of Chrome and now the cspan video is playing a recording. Go figure!

----------


## jct74

> I think the video posted in the OP was a live stream. There's been no recording posted yet on this thread as far as I know.


no it was working link for a recording of the entire speech, but it's not working for me now either.

----------


## jct74

> Actually, I just tried to open the video in Firefox instead of Chrome and now the cspan video is playing a recording. Go figure!


not working in firefox, chrome, or IE for me.

----------


## mello

Not working on my iPhone. Need the tube.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> not working in firefox, chrome, or IE for me.


I just finished watching it.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Seems like the left is pounding Rand. TPM, Mother Jones, and Ari Melber of The Nation are all saying Rand's speech was essentially a giant lie, ignorant, and naive.



If they were not saying that, I would be worried.  They are simply partisans, and are not paid to be reasonable or thoughtful.

----------


## MRK

..
I'm going to download and convert youtube in the meantime

EDIT: its posted now below

----------


## jtstellar

> It wasn't a question.  It was a statement.  A professor said "I know that you were against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, so I want to know when do you think the government should be involved in these matters."  Rand's immediate answer was "That's a micharecterization of my position.  I've never been against the Civil Rights Act."  There was a pause and some laughter.  Then he clarified and said "There was an extended interview where I expressed some concern about parts of the Civil Rights Act, but it's not with regards to race, but how it's been applied in other areas."  (smoking, calorie counts on menus ect.)  Basically he flubbed the question and missed an opportunity to make a great point.  He can't retreat to "I would have only repealed the Jim Crowe laws" territory, because he went against that position on Wolf Blitzer back in 2010.  But he could explain better precisely what his concerns are regarding the commerce clause and how that is connected to the Civil Rights Act.


slavery isn't the issue of 2013 and certainly won't be in 2016, when country at worst would have moved on to "women's issues" or feminism.  don't bring attention to what you don't intent to address or have others focus on to become a distraction.  not every moment has to be a 'wow' factor just to constantly 'woo' the libertarian audience because they're like 3 year old kids with attention deficit, STILL trying to make up their mind whether rand is past that 90% to 91% threshold

if he wanted to "address" his "concerns" there are astronomical amount of other more commonsensical, no-brainer issues he could use to channel his concerns.  drones, ring any bell?  that is the rand way.  that's how he operates, he picks his battles, makes sense in a stable footing then push forward from that issue.  if he simply wanted to address fed's limit on what they can do to tell restaurant owners what to do or what not to do, there are countless ways without mentioning sensitive subjects that remind some of race.  ron always spoke as if he was reciting from a book he recently read--great for educational purposes, but he often speaks as if there's no one in front of him, that there isn't a real person he is communicating with.  

rand is much smarter than many in the movement and that shouldn't be news at this juncture

----------


## jct74

Rush Limbaugh just got done talking about this for a few minutes, he praised Rand's efforts but took exception to one thing that was said during the speech.

----------


## tsai3904

Tube:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzwwZFU6_yk

----------


## Brett85

> Rush Limbaugh just got done talking about this for a few minutes, he praised Rand's efforts *but took exception to one thing that was said during the speech.*


The part about reducing drug sentences?

----------


## jct74

> The part about reducing drug sentences?


no, something Rand said about how the Republican Party has a long ways to go in reaching out to black people.  Rush said it is up to black people to see the light.

----------


## Brett85

I just listened to Rand's answer to the Civil Rights Act question, and I thought it was a pretty good answer.  He basically just said that he's always supported the Civil Rights Act but just has reservations about the ramifications of one provision.  That's the best way for him to answer the question, and he really couldn't have answered the question any better, in my opinion.

----------


## TheTyke

Seemed great to me! Rand answered in his usual calm and even way, and none of it came across as pandering or unusual to me. His articulation and poise is a great asset to the liberty movement.

----------


## itshappening

Those student questions were a joke and they were regurgitating Democrat talking points and reading from their phones.  Fakers.

That crowd was a rabidly partisan crowd.

You can tell the Democrats are well organized on that campus.

Breaking that matrix is impossible. I doubt he convinced any of them.

----------


## Zarn Solen

He did well overall. He did have respect from many there. Only a few for looking for a fight. Some had concerns, and you could tell these concerns were their own feelings. The phone guy at the end was not legit. He was trying to provoke Paul, but he didn't get his way.

----------


## jtstellar

> Those student questions were a joke and they were regurgitating Democrat talking points and reading from their phones.  Fakers.
> 
> That crowd was a rabidly partisan crowd.
> 
> You can tell the Democrats are well organized on that campus.
> 
> Breaking that matrix is impossible. I doubt he convinced any of them.


huh?  was i watching a different cspan video or did the fact that student body/audience totally eased up near the latter half and the way the tension inside the room completely died toward the end all somehow escaped you?  people were laughing and joking and many even sided with rand when the howard alumuni stood up and asked a silly malcom X question, when people made fun of its silliness.  not sure how anyone can interpret this as a failure.  even if it didn't convert everyone of them in one fell swoop, it certainly did it in terms of breaking ice

people also clapped loudly when he mentioned his opposition to undeclared war, when questioner that brought up this issue specifically mentioned obama being as guilty as bush in that department.  person who asked this question made sure the entire audience heard and understood his intent to imply obama-- 'war criminal' i believe was the word he used for bush, and he swiftly named obama, clearly implying him in the same category, if bush were to be indicted.  rand said he was against the entire notion of undeclared war, and audience fully aware of obama being implied under this charge, still applauded rand loudly.  useless waste of breath because it wouldn't 'break the matrix' you say?

----------


## twomp

> Those student questions were a joke and they were regurgitating Democrat talking points and reading from their phones.  Fakers.
> 
> That crowd was a rabidly partisan crowd.
> 
> You can tell the Democrats are well organized on that campus.
> 
> Breaking that matrix is impossible. I doubt he convinced any of them.


I hope Rand Paul didn't just come there with the intention of "Breaking that Matrix", Rand Paul has a different message and he is trying to get that message out there. He succeeded in that today. A few days, months, and years from now there will be students who were there in attendance who will at least say that, he's a different kind of Republican and there are some parts of what he said that makes sense. 

Lighting those brush fires. Great job by Rand Paul today.

----------


## itshappening

Please... they were pretty radically leftist and organized Democrats..

One guy who asked a question was the head of an Obama PAC!  Haha!  You think you'll convince him?

----------


## georgiaboy

BTW, I thought the greatest moment was the whole setup about the two kids of privilege - one black, one white - who smoke a little dope, get their wrists slapped instead of jailtime, because they can beat the system.  Laws regarding mandatory sentencing need to change.

Punchline -- the two kids were one Barack Obama and one George W. Bush


Audience loved it.

----------


## jtstellar

> Please... they were pretty radically leftist and organized Democrats..
> 
> One guy who asked a question was the head of an Obama PAC!  Haha!  You think you'll convince him?


you have zero people read ability.. there were a number of audience as well as some who remained later for Q&A, who later asked him some questions who were clearly closet libertarian leaning voters.  there will always be monetarily incentivized voters who work for the DNC but that's not the issue, because it's not the majority, and the majority of this conference's audience will be internet audience, not howard U audience either.

the haha also makes you sound like some stupid college freshman

----------


## twomp

> you have zero people read ability.. there were a number of audience as well as some who remained later for Q&A, who later asked him some questions who were clearly closet libertarian leaning voters.  there will always be monetarily incentivized voters who work for the DNC but that's not the issue, because it's not the majority, and the majority of this conference's audience will be internet audience, not howard U audience either.
> 
> the haha also makes you sound like some stupid college freshman


I think he just wants Rand Paul to spend all his free time begging Mark Levin to be on his show.

----------


## CMoore

Kudos to Rand for going there and speaking to them.  Sounds like he may have made some inroads.  But if not, then how can you blame them? Who can resist Obama's Hope and Change thing?  It is working so well.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> Please... they were pretty radically leftist and organized Democrats..
> 
> One guy who asked a question was the head of an Obama PAC!  Haha!  You think you'll convince him?


It's not about convincing the person you're arguing with it's about convincing the people who are listening.

----------


## supermario21

I'd like to see him go back in a year or two. Maybe after sentencing reform gets done or something. Tapper's piece seemed to conclude that Rand at least got people thinking about him and his ideas, which is good because many of the left wing publications said he made zero inroads.

----------


## itshappening

> you have zero people read ability.. there were a number of audience as well as some who remained later for Q&A, who later asked him some questions who were clearly closet libertarian leaning voters.  there will always be monetarily incentivized voters who work for the DNC but that's not the issue, because it's not the majority, and the majority of this conference's audience will be internet audience, not howard U audience either.
> 
> the haha also makes you sound like some stupid college freshman


I will have to watch it again as I only had it on in the background while doing something else but I was rolling my eyes during the q&a.

----------


## twomp

> Kudos to Rand for going there and speaking to them.  Sounds like he may have made some inroads.  But if not, then how can you blame them? Who can resist Obama's Hope and Change thing?  It is working so well.


It's hard to argue against Hope and Change when the alternative was John McCain and Mitt Romney.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

This was a victory for Rand. He showed he could speak to an audience that isn't the norm for a Republican, plus he was spreading the message of Liberty. 

I would love to see Marco Rubio try this.

----------


## T.hill

Rand did a good job breaking the ice and explaining his positions, but does Rand not believe in a laissez faire capitalist society? He did talk about using property rights to curtail pollution like Ron always said, but it was interesting to hear he was okay with some environmental regulations. I've heard him say this more than once too.

----------


## georgiaboy

> This was a victory for Rand. He showed he could speak to an audience that isn't the norm for a Republican, plus he was spreading the message of Liberty. 
> 
> I would love to see Marco Rubio try this.


Completely agree.  Other GOP'ers would've been boo'd out of the room.  I smell brushfire smoke.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Rand did a good job breaking the ice and explaining his positions, *but does Rand not believe in a laissez faire capitalist society?* He did talk about using property rights to curtail pollution like Ron always said, but it was interesting to hear he was okay with some environmental regulations. I've heard him say this more than once too.


Not sure where you got that from the speech.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Completely agree.  Other GOP'ers would've been boo'd out of the room.  I smell brushfire smoke.


The moss-covered tyrants who's time has passed.

----------


## twomp

> Completely agree.  Other GOP'ers would've been boo'd out of the room.  I smell brushfire smoke.


Other GOP'ers wouldn't have even dared enter the room. And I agree, he lit some brush fires today. Maybe not as many as some on this forum would like but he did it. Just need some time to fan that fire. BURN BABY BURN!

----------


## T.hill

> Not sure where you got that from the speech.


Rand said he was okay with some environmental regulations, does he mean at a local and state level or at the federal level? Maybe I misunderstood him ,idk

----------


## jct74

interview with the "white supremacy" protesters




http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3yeybMYfykU

----------


## itshappening

***** people! 

Nice inclusive language there.

That guy would be a perfect guest on Al Sharpton's race baiting show.  Come to think of it, keep an eye on Weird Al.  He said he would be covering it. Should be hilarious.

----------


## mello

Here's the Daily Mail's reporting of Rand's speech:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...niversity.html

----------


## Brett85

> Please... they were pretty radically leftist and organized Democrats..
> 
> One guy who asked a question was the head of an Obama PAC!  Haha!  You think you'll convince him?


The only way you'll have any chance at all to convince people like that is at least showing up and treating them with respect.  There's nothing to lose by simply showing up and engaging in conversation and debate.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand did a good job breaking the ice and explaining his positions, but does Rand not believe in a laissez faire capitalist society? He did talk about using property rights to curtail pollution like Ron always said, but it was interesting to hear he was okay with some environmental regulations. I've heard him say this more than once too.


Unfortunately, we just have to put up with Rand watering down the message a bit in order to make it more popular and mainstream.  The American people aren't ready for hardcore libertarianism, and Rand understands that.  He's an incrementalist, which means that he's not going to advocate completely abolishing the EPA and having no regulations at all.  The thing about it is that even if he supported abolishing the EPA and having no environmental regulations, he would never be able to accomplish that as President anyway.

----------


## T.hill

> Unfortunately, we just have to put up with Rand watering down the message a bit in order to make it more popular and mainstream.  The American people aren't ready for hardcore libertarianism, and Rand understands that.  He's an incrementalist, which means that he's not going to advocate completely abolishing the EPA and having no regulations at all.  The thing about it is that even if he supported abolishing the EPA and having no environmental regulations, he would never be able to accomplish that as President anyway.


Well, yeah as long as he takes steps to forward the Ron Paul message, which may not mean advocating to completely abolish the EPA, but he can advocate to reduce the size of it and he can use that same approach for other areas that hes not already trying to completely abolish.  

I really don't think propagating a free-market approach to environmental issues will hurt him all that much. There are some issues he could easily use the same exact approach Ron did, because it would help him more than hurt him.

----------


## misean

> Rand did a good job breaking the ice and explaining his positions, but does Rand not believe in a laissez faire capitalist society? He did talk about using property rights to curtail pollution like Ron always said, but it was interesting to hear he was okay with some environmental regulations. I've heard him say this more than once too.


Most libertarians support some environmental regulation. No one owns the air.  If you are going to use the property rights argument that is going to mean a carbon tax.

Rand isn't giving speeches as a libertarian philosopher. He's giving speeches to show people that he isn't a bad guy and his ideas will make their lives better, so they can vote for him.

----------


## Brett85

"but he can advocate to reduce the size of it and he can use that same approach for other areas that hes not already trying to completely abolish."

I thought that's what he did today when he was addressing the issue.  He said that many of the EPA regulations go too far and hurt property owners and should be repealed.

----------


## jmdrake

> slavery isn't the issue of 2013 and certainly won't be in 2016, when country at worst would have moved on to "women's issues" or feminism.  don't bring attention to what you don't intent to address or have others focus on to become a distraction.  not every moment has to be a 'wow' factor just to constantly 'woo' the libertarian audience because they're like 3 year old kids with attention deficit, STILL trying to make up their mind whether rand is past that 90% to 91% threshold
> 
> if he wanted to "address" his "concerns" there are astronomical amount of other more commonsensical, no-brainer issues he could use to channel his concerns.  drones, ring any bell?  that is the rand way.  that's how he operates, he picks his battles, makes sense in a stable footing then push forward from that issue.  if he simply wanted to address fed's limit on what they can do to tell restaurant owners what to do or what not to do, there are countless ways without mentioning sensitive subjects that remind some of race.  ron always spoke as if he was reciting from a book he recently read--great for educational purposes, but he often speaks as if there's no one in front of him, that there isn't a real person he is communicating with.  
> 
> rand is much smarter than many in the movement and that shouldn't be news at this juncture


Rand may be, but you aren't.    Seriously, the Rand worship is sickeningly stupid.  I have nothing against Rand.  I have plenty against sycophants who can't stomach someone simply saying "He could have said that better."  And the truth is....he could have.  The Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with smoking or calorie counts on menus.  That was a "Sarah Palin" moment, as in an unnecessary soundbite that might bite him in the butt later.  I *sincerely* hope it doesn't.  But I'm not going to turn my brain off just to avoid any slight criticism of Rand or to avoid offending those who can't seem to take any slight criticism of Rand.

Edit: And for the record, who said anything about "slavery?"    The question was about the Civil Rights Act and the role of the federal government.  And that *will* be an important issue going forward.  You think the country will have "moved on" to "women's issues?"  Do you not understand the Civil Rights Act also covers women?  Do you not understand that Rand's vote against the latest version of the "violence against women" act is based on the same issues as his earlier criticism of the Civil Rights Act?  This isn't about whether or not Rand should pick his battles.  Clearly he should.  It's about how well he does in those battles *when they are brought to his doorstep*!  Rand knew the Civil Rights Act would come up.  Hell *he brought it up in his speech*!  And it will come up again....and again....and again.  Hopefully his answers will improve each time he deals with the subject.

----------


## Brett85

> The Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with smoking or calorie counts on menus.


Yes it does.  If the federal government has the authority to tell a business owner that he has to allow certain people into his restaurant, then the federal government has the authority to tell a business owner that he can't allow smoking in his restaurant.  Rand was saying that it's a slippery slope, which is true.  Rand gave a good answer to that question.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes it does.  If the federal government has the authority to tell a business owner that he has to allow certain people into his restaurant, then the federal government has the authority to tell a business owner that he can't allow smoking in his restaurant.  Rand was saying that it's a slippery slope, which is true.  Rand gave a good answer to that question.


No it doesn't.  *The expansion of the commerce clause which happened under FDR decades before the Civil Rights Act is what gives the Federal Government that authority!  The Civil Rights Act could be repealed tomorrow and the federal government would have the same authority with regards to smoking and calorie menus!*

----------


## Brett85

> No it doesn't.  *The expansion of the commerce clause which happened under FDR decades before the Civil Rights Act is what gives the Federal Government that authority!  The Civil Rights Act could be repealed tomorrow and the federal government would have the same authority with regards to smoking and calorie menus!*


What do you think Rand should've said to answer the question?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> "Obama is doing a great job" gets more applause than most of Rand's speech.. lol


I had to chuckle and asked,  "Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?" during that moment.

----------


## BSU kid

Copy From Other Thread:

Rand's speech was a flop in my opinion, he spent way to much time talking about Jim Crow Laws and how bad democrats were in the 1950s and 60s. This is a young audience, what happened in the 1950s and 60s is relevant to them but not necessarily important. He couldn't remember the name of Massachusetts Black GOP Senator, who happened to be an alumni of Howard...he didn't own the fact that the hemp legislation in Kentucky was mostly him and Massie's doing, instead letting others take his credit. Instead of branding himself the leader of a New Republican Party, he instead declared he is a member of Reagan's party. What gets me the most is that he let those Democratic questioners bait him into looking like an establishment figure.

I was extremely frustrated when he indirectly said he supported ID checks at polling places, that was his chance to be like..."I don't want people to be forced to hold IDs, that only leads to more government and more institutional racism." Instead he was like, "Compared to Jim Crow, an ID check isn't that bad". When I compare this to when Ron took part in that African American presidential debate a few years back, Ron was energetic and had a great message. Today, Rand just sounded like another bumbling Republican trying to talk to black people. I still like Rand, but this was not one of his better performances in my opinion.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Copy From Other Thread:
> 
> Rand's speech was a flop in my opinion, he spent way to much time talking about Jim Crow Laws and how bad democrats were in the 1950s and 60s. This is a young audience, what happened in the 1950s and 60s is relevant to them but not necessarily important. He couldn't remember the name of Massachusetts Black GOP Senator, who happened to be an alumni of Howard...he didn't own the fact that the hemp legislation in Kentucky was mostly him and Massie's doing, instead letting others take his credit. Instead of branding himself the leader of a New Republican Party, he instead declared he is a member of Reagan's party. What gets me the most is that he let those Democratic questioners bait him into looking like an establishment figure.
> 
> I was extremely frustrated when he indirectly said he supported ID checks at polling places, that was his chance to be like..."I don't want people to be forced to hold IDs, that only leads to more government and more institutional racism." Instead he was like, "Compared to Jim Crow, an ID check isn't that bad". When I compare this to when Ron took part in that African American presidential debate a few years back, Ron was energetic and had a great message. Today, Rand just sounded like another bumbling Republican trying to talk to black people. I still like Rand, but this was not one of his better performances in my opinion.


Perhaps. But he is trying. Black people will respect that. They may not agree with him. But they will respect him for trying. And if he keeps doing it, he will get better at it.

Slutter McGee

----------


## trey4sports

oh. my. god.

that was a trainwreck.... and it just. kept. getting. worse.

----------


## jmdrake

> What do you think Rand should've said to answer the question?


I don't have a perfect answer.  I *really* don't have a perfect answer that cleans up everything Rand has ever said on the issue.  I do think it's important not to give your enemies a soundbite that they can put up on some "fact check" sight and make you look like you don't know what you are talking about.  Here's one possible answer.

"I am concerned about the absolute expansive power the Federal government has taken over our lives.  The power of the Federal government under the commerce clause was originally seen as very limited.  Now, perhaps for good intentions, it has become very expansive.  Should the Federal government usurp state power when it comes to medical marijuana for instance and possibly put cancer patients in prison?  Ways to keep Federal power in check while still accomplishing the good we want to accomplish in society is something we must continue to wrestle and come to grips with.  Some in my own party are angry at me for saying that there should be some limit as to who the president can order killed under any circumstance even in time of war.  They argue rightly that we need protection from terrorism.  But I believe we can be protected from terrorism without violating the constitution.  Similarly, while I support the Civil Rights Act both in word and deed, I do think it's worth considering just how much power the Federal government should have in every aspect of our lives and when it may be possible to achieve similar results in different ways."

----------


## supermario21

"Rand Paul depression" is trending on yahoo, and apparently "the consensus" is that Rand's speech was incredibly ignorant.


http://www.idigitaltimes.com/article...n-american.htm





> Rand Paul Depression comments are already drawing a flurry of criticism after the senator's speech at Howard University on Wednesday. Rand Paul gave a quickly divisive lecture about race and Republicans, and why the party of Lincoln is now complete anathema to 95% of a group of people the party sparked a war to save. The speech has already drawn criticism for deliberate amnesia of the harm Republicans have wrought upon particular demographics, driving them for perfectly legitimate reasons out of the arms of the party. The largely poor reception of Paul's speech comes in the wake of more recent successful engagements that improved the senator's popularity.
> 
> The Rand Paul Depression remarks took place Wednesday at Howard University, a D.C. university historically predominantly attended by a minority that voted 95% for Barack Obama in the latest presidential election. During Rand Paul's 52 minute lecture, the Kentucky senator primarily tried to argue that the particular minority group should vote predominantly with the Republican Party, rather than the Democratic Party with which they have been closely aligned since the 1960s.
> 
> The Rand Paul Depression argument came during a long discussion of the Republican Party's relationship with that minority group, starting with the Republican Abraham Lincoln. Senator Paul correctly explained that Lincoln and the 1860s Republican Party led the effort to abolish slavery, and championed Reconstruction and civil rights for minorities throughout the 19th century and beyond, while Southern Democrats were a deeply discriminatory and segregationist party for much of the same period. Rand Paul asked, "How did the Republican Party, the party of the great emancipator, lose the trust and faith of an entire [minority group]?" The Party received less than 5% of the votes of the group in the 2008 presidential election, and less than 7% in 2012.
> 
> That's where Rand Paul's Depression comments come in, and where they get controversial. According to the Senator, the Republican Party lost the faith and votes of the minority group during the Great Depression, when the group "languished below [majority] Americans in every measure of economic success." According to Paul, the solutions to that problem drove the minority from the party's wings:
> 
> The Democrats promised equalizing outcomes through unlimited federal assistance while Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible: the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets... Democrats still promise unlimited federal assistance and Republicans promise free markets, low taxes and less regulations that we believe will create more jobs.
> ...

----------


## Brett85

> Copy From Other Thread:
> 
> Rand's speech was a flop in my opinion, he spent way to much time talking about Jim Crow Laws and how bad democrats were in the 1950s and 60s. This is a young audience, what happened in the 1950s and 60s is relevant to them but not necessarily important. He couldn't remember the name of Massachusetts Black GOP Senator, who happened to be an alumni of Howard...he didn't own the fact that the hemp legislation in Kentucky was mostly him and Massie's doing, instead letting others take his credit. Instead of branding himself the leader of a New Republican Party, he instead declared he is a member of Reagan's party. What gets me the most is that he let those Democratic questioners bait him into looking like an establishment figure.
> 
> I was extremely frustrated when he indirectly said he supported ID checks at polling places, that was his chance to be like..."I don't want people to be forced to hold IDs, that only leads to more government and more institutional racism." Instead he was like, "Compared to Jim Crow, an ID check isn't that bad". When I compare this to when Ron took part in that African American presidential debate a few years back, Ron was energetic and had a great message. Today, Rand just sounded like another bumbling Republican trying to talk to black people. I still like Rand, but this was not one of his better performances in my opinion.


Yeah, Rand should oppose voter ID laws when 85% of Americans support it, and it's a completely reasonable requirement.  You have to have an ID to fly on a plane for goodness sake.

----------


## Brett85

> oh. my. god.
> 
> that was a trainwreck.... and it just. kept. getting. worse.


You obviously didn't watch it then.

----------


## Rudeman

Maybe the media's consensus, here's another article with comments from the people there:




> Talking to students after the event revealed audience members pleased that he came to Howard, but reflected the steep climb Rand Paul and the GOP has with African Americans and other minority voters.
> 
> Howard student John Crawford said Paul's explanation of why black voters historically should be Republicans was "some revisionist history going on," but he said he does think he will be able to woo some voters "just because he had the courage and integrity to come here."
> 
> "I just hope the next school or conference he goes to he doesn't pull a Mitt Romney (and say), 'If you want free stuff or if you want makers or takers vote for Democrats,' because I feel like that's What Mitt Romney did ..and I hope Rand Paul doesn't pull that because all of the good will Rand Paul got from coming here will be gone."
> 
> Crawford is referring to Romney's "47 percent" video where he was secretly recorded at a private fundraiser saying 47 percent of Americans are "dependent on the government," as well as Romney blaming his loss on "gifts" President Obama and Democrats gave to minority voters on a conference call after the election.
> 
> Kwanda Trice, a Howard graduate student from Paul's native Kentucky, asked a question during the event about drug sentences and state hemp laws. She said although she didn't get a full answer to her question she said she has "to give him props" for coming to Howard.
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-reac...-politics.html

----------


## jtstellar

> Rand may be, but you aren't.    Seriously, the Rand worship is sickeningly stupid.  I have nothing against Rand.  I have plenty against sycophants who can't stomach someone simply saying "He could have said that better."  And the truth is....he could have.  The Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with smoking or calorie counts on menus.  That was a "Sarah Palin" moment, as in an unnecessary soundbite that might bite him in the butt later.  I *sincerely* hope it doesn't.  But I'm not going to turn my brain off just to avoid any slight criticism of Rand or to avoid offending those who can't seem to take any slight criticism of Rand.
> 
> Edit: And for the record, who said anything about "slavery?"    The question was about the Civil Rights Act and the role of the federal government.  And that *will* be an important issue going forward.  You think the country will have "moved on" to "women's issues?"  Do you not understand the Civil Rights Act also covers women?  Do you not understand that Rand's vote against the latest version of the "violence against women" act is based on the same issues as his earlier criticism of the Civil Rights Act?  This isn't about whether or not Rand should pick his battles.  Clearly he should.  It's about how well he does in those battles *when they are brought to his doorstep*!  Rand knew the Civil Rights Act would come up.  Hell *he brought it up in his speech*!  And it will come up again....and again....and again.  Hopefully his answers will improve each time he deals with the subject.


rather than worship it's more like telling people who haven't done $#@! to stfu =-\  or match his effort--no, not even that, it's results, rather than yapping

Not trying to prove i'm smarter than most of you either, though i suspect i am

----------


## Brett85

I think in the future Rand should forget about talking about the history of the Republican Party and blacks and just talk about his political ideology and why blacks should support it.  Rand did really good in his speech and in the question and answer session when he was trying to sell his ideology.

----------


## trey4sports

> This answer here may make or break him.  Civil rights act.
> 
> *Edit:*  Ouch, didn't like that answer...


felt like he was pandering and condescending at the same time. 




> I have to say, I think his dad would have come away winning more of the audience than Rand did.


Probably not. His father would have probably had more vitriol headed his way, but at the end of the day his answers would have been unequivocally from the heart.




> I don't think so. They'd go after him about the newsletters and the other stuff. Ron's race baggage is worse than Rand's. They don't even care about the good things both of the Pauls have to offer. They just think "racist!"


its tough being in the lions den. i appreciate Rand trying, but the speech was hard to watch. he was visibly uncomfortable. In my opinion not only was he making a tactical error talking about the republican party of the last century but then even worse he made some kind of comparison of todays GOP to the party of Abraham Lincoln. Stating the party never really changed. He should have REFUTED the GOP of old and made the case that there is a new, fresh brand of conservatism.

Not only that but he came off as somewhat condescending at times. Not on purpose of course but condescending nonetheless. 




> It's unfortunate that Rand's speech was more about defending the Republican party than defending philosophy. You can't do that and expect to win over people in an audience that is still very much locked in a R vs. D mindset.


i agree.




> Seems like the left is pounding Rand. TPM, Mother Jones, and Ari Melber of The Nation are all saying Rand's speech was essentially a giant lie, ignorant, and naive.


naive and misguided for sure.




> Those student questions were a joke and they were regurgitating Democrat talking points and reading from their phones.  Fakers.
> 
> That crowd was a rabidly partisan crowd.
> 
> You can tell the Democrats are well organized on that campus.
> 
> Breaking that matrix is impossible. I doubt he convinced any of them.


no but he might of convinced some of the thousands at home who caught a glimpse of him on cspan.




> Completely agree.  Other GOP'ers would've been boo'd out of the room.  I smell brushfire smoke.


well, i don't smell anything, but i think you're right that just about ANY gop candidate would have been boo'd outta there. 




> You obviously didn't watch it then.


I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any positive media of this event outside of our own little Ron Paul Forums bubble that we live in.

----------


## Rudeman

> I think in the future Rand should forget about talking about the history of the Republican Party and blacks and just talk about his political ideology and why blacks should support it.  Rand did really good in his speech and in the question and answer session when he was trying to sell his ideology.


Hopefully he's using this to help him perfect his message for the Presidential election. Learn what works now and avoid what doesn't later. I agree with you that he should focus more on ideology and why it would be beneficial to <insert group he's talking to>.

----------


## Brett85

> I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any positive media of this event outside of our own little Ron Paul Forums bubble that we live in.


1)  Most of the students who were interviewed either had neutral or positive impressions of Rand's speech.
2)  Rand did poorly when he was talking about the history of the Republican Party and blacks, but did well when he was talking about how his ideology would be better for blacks.

----------


## jmdrake

> rather than worship it's more like telling people who haven't done $#@! to stfu =-\  or match his effort--no, not even that, it's results, rather than yapping
> 
> Not trying to prove i'm smarter than most of you either, though i suspect i am


You could be smarter.  But you've just shown yourself to be woefully ignorant by your comments.  People who "haven't done $#@!"?  Who is that precisely?  For the record Rand Paul knows who I am because I was one of the introductory speakers when he spoke at the Nashville rally in 2008.  And I actually know what I'm talking about with regards to the history of the Civil Rights Act and what Rand's particular concerns with them are.  He didn't do the best job articulating those concerns.  That's fine.  We live and learn when we can admit our mistakes.  We don't live and learn when we try to change to subject to slavery or women's issues and think the people we are talking to are too stupid to notice.  Rand thankfully didn't do that.  You did.

Seriously, of all of the people who have criticized Rand in this thread, what made you decide to harp on me?  Not that I mind.  I welcome intelligent discussion.  I just didn't see that in your comments.  Going off on tangents about stuff not being discussed (slavery and women's issues) or saying "You can't criticize Rand because he's so great and you aren't" doesn't pass muster IMO.

----------


## Brett85

Overall I would still say that Rand and the Republican Party in general has a much better chance to win over Latinos than to win over blacks.

----------


## supermario21

> Overall I would still say that Rand and the Republican Party in general has a much better chance to win over Latinos than to win over blacks.


Them and Asians. We have real ground we can make up with Asians.

----------


## RabbitMan

I thought we thought of people as individuals here, not parts of a collective?  [/sarcasm]

----------


## jmdrake

> "Rand Paul depression" is trending on yahoo, and apparently "the consensus" is that Rand's speech was incredibly ignorant.
> 
> 
> http://www.idigitaltimes.com/article...n-american.htm


Interesting.  The last question (comment really) directed at Rand kind of proves his point.  That was the student that said that he disagreed with Rand because he *wanted* the government to interfere with his life.  Part of the reason that George Wallace was so popular among blacks once they got the vote is that despite his overt racism (which was really just a ploy to get white votes), he was generous with the handouts.  There is a documentary about George Wallace's political career called "Setting the woods on fire" that documents this.  A black civil rights lawyer commented on how his mother told him she was voting for George Wallace.  He said "Ma!  You can't tell people that!  It's embarrassing, especially considering my background."  She said "Son.  All I know is I'm a teacher.  And Wallace gave us a pay raise and a pension and health insurance and....."  

Also this from the article you posted is incorrect.  (I'm sure you already know this, but I'm harping on it to make a point).

_The Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation in the South, passed in a Democratic environment and drove Southern Democrats out of the party and into the Republican party permanently._

The Civil Rights Act did *not* end segregation in the South.  The 1954 Brown v Board of education ruling, which came out 10 years prior to the CRA, made segregation in the public square illegal.  Yes it took a while to implement Brown, but by the time the CRA passed many schools, libraries, public parks etc had already been desegregated.  Nor did the CRA end segregation is all private spheres.  You can still create a segregated country club if you want.  The CRA ended segregation in private institutions that are open to the public.  Yet many such institutions had already been desegregated or were on their way.  The famous lunch counter "sit ins" in Nashville led to a deal on desegregation of the downtown Nashville lunch counters based on economic and media pressure alone.  Also, what does "a democratic environment" even mean?  Yes a democrat was president.  But more republicans voted for the CRA than democrats.  And what was the CRA followed up with?  Lyndon B. Johnson's "great society" and super expansion of the welfare state.  Many democrats and republicans would also be shocked to learn that Richard Nixon started the first federal affirmative action programs.  (See: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20649393.html)

Anyhow, overall I don't think it was a trainwreck.  I think he could have handled the CRA questions a bit better and not left himself open so much.  But the most important thing is there weren't a lot of vectors for attack.  Not honest attack anyway.

----------


## Brett85

> I thought we thought of people as individuals here, not parts of a collective?  [/sarcasm]


Unfortunately you have to look at people as parts of a collective if you want to win elections.  Obama figured that out.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, Rand should oppose voter ID laws when 85% of Americans support it, and it's a completely reasonable requirement.  You have to have an ID to fly on a plane for goodness sake.


So how far do we take that argument?  "You have to get body scanned to get on a plane so of course you have to get body scanned to vote."  Yeah, that's a bit out there, but not much.  While I don't see the voter ID issue as a biggie, it does bother me that everyone having an ID is becoming more and more of a "requirement" just to live in this country.  "Your papers please."  Waiting for the day when I can't buy or sell unless I have the mark of the beast a federally approved ID.

----------


## angelatc

> Yeah, Rand should oppose voter ID laws when 85% of Americans support it, and it's a completely reasonable requirement.  You have to have an ID to fly on a plane for goodness sake.


I thought he nailed it with his response to the follow up question, when he said that comparing asking for a driver's license to a literacy test demeaned the whole Jim Crow struggle.

----------


## Brett85

> So how far do we take that argument?  "You have to get body scanned to get on a plane so of course you have to get body scanned to vote."  Yeah, that's a bit out there, but not much.  While I don't see the voter ID issue as a biggie, it does bother me that everyone having an ID is becoming more and more of a "requirement" just to live in this country.  "Your papers please."  Waiting for the day when I can't buy or sell unless I have the mark of the beast a federally approved ID.


These laws include a provision that if you don't have an ID, the government will actually come to your house and deliver one to you.  The idea that voter ID laws are "oppressive laws" is just an absolute joke.  Rand had it right here; it's a reasonable requirement.  If the Republican Party has to take a position as absurd as opposing voter ID laws in order to win the black vote, they might as well just forget about even trying.

----------


## angelatc

Amy - the WSJ has the complete text: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...rd-university/

If you get that stupid paywall thing, type "Rand Paul Delivers Speech At Howard University" into Google, and that should bring it up.

----------


## jmdrake

> These laws include a provision that if you don't have an ID, the government will actually come to your house and deliver one to you.  The idea that voter ID laws are "oppressive laws" is just an absolute joke.  Rand had it right here; it's a reasonable requirement.  If the Republican Party has to take a position as absurd as opposing voter ID laws in order to win the black vote, they might as well just forget about even trying.


Again, I object, in general, to the expansion of the idea that I must have a federally approved ID for anything under the sun.  For me it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with concern over the expansion of government power.  Next thing you know I won't be able to get a job without a government approved idea.  Wait a minute...that's already in the works!

----------


## No Free Beer

> "Thar gonna put ya'll back in chains!" - Biden


"We'll have the n***ers votes for the next 200 years." - LBJ

----------


## jtstellar

results.  get results, or shut up.  rand paul is showing results.  no, stop talking, please stop flapping that lip.  there's been too much talking.

----------


## J_White

Very good Q&A session.
he answered some quite nicely but not as convincingly in some others.
how come he didn't know about the Monsanto protection act ?
CRA and voting rights act strikes again ! still got some Paulians clapping !
good question on Presidents being impeached or considered war criminals for going to war w/o declaration - the good thing is he included Obama along with Bush.
good way connecting environmental stuff to private property.
interesting question on Malcolm X and separate Af-Am nation.
and then the lefty who read out the question straight from his phone ( DNC?) wanting more Govt !

----------


## jct74

> oh. my. god.
> 
> that was a trainwreck.... and it just. kept. getting. worse.


it wasn't a homerun but you are being way overdramatic, nothing close to a trainwreck here and no one on the left is even claiming it is, just picking it apart plenty in the usual ways.





> I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any positive media of this event outside of our own little Ron Paul Forums bubble that we live in.


and you expected differently?

----------


## anaconda

What happened at 11:49 when Rand remarked about "entertainment?'

----------


## jmdrake

> interview with the "white supremacy" protesters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3yeybMYfykU


You know, I'm glad I spent 2:21 minutes watching that.  It was a couple of very articulate young men using big words to say absolutely nothing.  Nothing they said had anything to do with Rand Paul or the civil rights act or even racism.  "Research the tea party and where they get their funding.  They're a bunch of old white people who don't like black people.  Some young white people too.  Republicans, democrats, their all messed up.  Capitalism is the problem.  Look at the big universities, Yale, *Howard*, they all have huge endowments and what's it based on?  Slave labor you know?"

Really, the brother with the "skull t-shirt" jumped the shark with that last one.  He freaking *attends* Howard.  If the "slave labor" funded endowment (whatever that is supposed to me) bugs him so much then what is he doing there?

----------


## Rudeman

> You now, I'm glad I spent 2:21 minutes watching that.  It was a couple of very articulate young spend using big words to say absolutely nothing.  Nothing they said had anything to do with Rand Paul or the civil rights act or even racism.  "Research the tea party and where they get their funding.  They're a bunch of old white people who don't like black people.  Some young white people to.  Republicans, democrats, their all messed up.  Capitalism is the problem.  Look at the big universities, Yale, *Howard*, they all have huge endowments and what's it based on?  Slave labor you know?"
> 
> Really, the brother with the "skull t-shirt" jumped the shark with that last one.  He freaking *attends* Howard.  If the "slave labor" funded endowment (whatever that is supposed to me) bugs him so much then what is he doing there?


I didn't watch the video before reading your post and the first thing I thought was no way he included Howard as part of the big universities with huge endowments, it had to be Harvard. Then I decided to watch the video and sure enough it sounds like he said Howard. Talk about discrediting your message.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't watch the video before reading your post and the first thing I thought was no way he included Howard as part of the big universities with huge endowments, it had to be Harvard. Then I decided to watch the video and sure enough it sounds like he said Howard. Talk about discrediting your message.


Yeah.  I wen't back and listened to it 5 times at least before making that post.  I kept thinking "He's got to be saying Harvard...he's got to be saying Harvard."

----------


## Rudeman

> Yeah.  I wen't back and listened to it 5 times at least before making that post.  I kept thinking "He's got to be saying Harvard...he's got to be saying Harvard."


haha I did the same thing, I still can't believe it. It's just one of those things that defy logic.

----------


## itshappening

Watching the Q&A again I was surprised Rand didn't know much about the Monsanto Protection Act. Seems he's not reading InfoWars or other alternative media (or listening to Alex Jones). 

I know he's busy but he should have been on that issue and after a recent break I'm a little surprised he knew nothing about it when asked!

This is an issue where liberals are disappointed with Obama and where WE have the correct position.

Rand voted against the bill it was in so he could have proudly said he voted against it so suck on that! 

But he didn't know anything about it.

----------


## itshappening

> You know, I'm glad I spent 2:21 minutes watching that.  It was a couple of very articulate young men using big words to say absolutely nothing.  Nothing they said had anything to do with Rand Paul or the civil rights act or even racism.  "Research the tea party and where they get their funding.  They're a bunch of old white people who don't like black people.  Some young white people too.  Republicans, democrats, their all messed up.  Capitalism is the problem.  Look at the big universities, Yale, *Howard*, they all have huge endowments and what's it based on?  Slave labor you know?"
> 
> Really, the brother with the "skull t-shirt" jumped the shark with that last one.  He freaking *attends* Howard.  If the "slave labor" funded endowment (whatever that is supposed to me) bugs him so much then what is he doing there?


The gentleman also called gays '***** people'. That's not the best use of language for them.

----------


## green73

Drudge


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...niversity.html

----------


## itshappening

> Drudge
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...niversity.html


Drudge likes that picture. I think there's better ones.

----------


## VoteRandPaul2016



----------


## itshappening

Barbara Lee is still there! 

The only congressman to vote against the Authorization of Military force against Terrorists on Sept 14th 2001.  

She might be a hero to those at Daily Paul.

----------


## VoteRandPaul2016

and another hit piece by MSNBC on Rand Paul....

----------


## thoughtomator

Having had a chance to listen to the whole thing, I think Rand did an excellent job representing. Go Rand!

----------


## July

Finally got a chance to watch the video, overall I think it was an excellent speech. 

There were a couple of sticky spots, like for instance the part about the founders of the NAACP being Republican didn't seem to go over as smooth with the audience. I think he's right, though, a lot of mainstream voters probably wouldn't know that (that audience obviously did), and Republicans should do a better job showcasing more positive aspects of the history of the party...and I know he's talked about this before at Republican gatherings, but I don't think that audience wanted to hear about Republican strategy, so much as they wanted to hear about why they should consider Republicans ideas.

I disagree with some others about the CRA answer. I thought it was ok. 

I don't think the argument about restaurants menus, calories, etc, is a bad argument...but it needs work. If he can expand it into a discussion about unintended consequences of well intentioned laws and give examples, that might work. I don't think Democrats who believe in strong regulations on the food industry get why the government forcing restaurants to change their menus and list calories would be a bad thing in the first place...so they don't see the analogy. And yet, there is growing concern on the left about GMOs and Monsanto...he could tie the two issues together and point out how the government is not always up to date with current science or good about giving healthful nutritional advice, and sometimes what we think is healthy at first turns out not to be. That's why it's important for people to be free to choose when it comes to restaurants, food manufactures, and how our food is grown and prepared, and not rely solely on government regulation. It was the government that forced hydrogenated vegetable oils/trans fats into the fast food industry in the first place back in the 70s. It's the government that causes overproduction of corn and cheap high fructose corn syrup, etc....so there is a tie back to the economic argument as well.

I had trouble following Rand's answer on that Lincoln/Reagan question. On the one hand he was saying before that the party changed and lost the trust of African Americans, and asking how that happened, and on the other he was saying the party didn't change... I get what he meant, that there is a wing of the party that still believes in civil liberties, and that those ideas are still represented in the party, but that was kind of confusing. 

Other than that I liked the speech a lot. I liked how he explained equality under the law, natural rights and protecting all forms of minorities, including political and intellectual...that our rights can't and shouldn't be voted away by a majority, etc...he tied all that together nicely.

----------


## jtap

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-oeJXGkqPY


Why do these US networks have showed hosted by people from the UK? (Piers Morgan, Martin Bashir)

This seems to be a new trend that I'm not understanding. No qualified Americans for these jobs?

----------


## itshappening

> Why do these US networks have showed hosted by people from the UK? (Piers Morgan, Martin Bashir)
> 
> This seems to be a new trend that I'm not understanding. No qualified Americans for these jobs?


That's racist.

----------


## randfan7

> Why do these US networks have showed hosted by people from the UK? (Piers Morgan, Martin Bashir)
> 
> This seems to be a new trend that I'm not understanding. No qualified Americans for these jobs?


If pomposity is a requirement for the job; then there really is no substitute for a qualified brit.

----------


## bbjaylive

> I think in the future Rand should forget about talking about the history of the Republican Party and blacks and just talk about his political ideology and why blacks should support it.  Rand did really good in his speech and in the question and answer session when he was trying to sell his ideology.


Seriously, is that conservatives/libertarians answer to every problem? Just ignore something you can't talk about without using revisionist history (or to be more accurate completely skipping history) and hoping your audience is too dumb to realise it?

Pathetic.

If you want a good summary of what was wrong with Rand's speech click the link below:

http://blanksslate.blogspot.co.uk/20...rd-speech.html

----------


## whippoorwill

I saw the MSNBC hit job 1st. Rand nailed this one....Btw the woman at the end, next to the door......mmmmm

----------


## July

> Seriously, is that conservatives/libertarians answer to every problem? Just ignore something you can't talk about without using revisionist history (or to be more accurate completely skipping history) and hoping your audience is too dumb to realise it?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> If you want a good summary of what was wrong with Rand's speech click the link below:
> 
> http://blanksslate.blogspot.co.uk/20...rd-speech.html


I don't think his joke was at the beginning was that bad, if anything I think it was meant to be an ice breaker, and almost seemed more directed at the media...who is always a secondary audience. 

As for the rest of your article, I don't disagree with talking more about unintended consequences. That is a major philosophical underpinning, that libertarians seem to have a lot of trouble explaining, IMO. It would help though in addressing other areas like the FDA, EPA, environmental regulations, GMO labeling, and all these other similar issues that always come up. I think because libertarians see the world as being so interconnected, we sometimes say things that seem random or strange to people who don't. This gets me into hot water all the time in debates, where I'll forget to explain why I'm bringing something up and will just assume the other person sees the same connection/relationship that I do. 

Anyway I still think Rand did good overall, and will improve the more he does speeches like this.

----------


## jmdrake

> 


Just watched that.  So....how is her new jobs plan better than the one *black democratic* predident Obama passed his first year in office?  How is it better than the stimulus plan Pelosi passed when Bush was president?  And if these jobs packages keep leading to hire unemployment among blacks.....?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The gentleman also called gays '***** people'. That's not the best use of language for them.


You are apparently unfamiliar with the sort of terminology employed by _academe_ in areas such as ***** studies and ***** theory.

----------


## bbjaylive

> I don't think his joke was at the beginning was that bad, if anything I think it was meant to be an ice breaker, and almost seemed more directed at the media...who is always a secondary audience. 
> 
> As for the rest of your article, I don't disagree with talking more about unintended consequences. That is a major philosophical underpinning, that libertarians seem to have a lot of trouble explaining, IMO. It would help though in addressing other areas like the FDA, EPA, environmental regulations, GMO labeling, and all these other similar issues that always come up. I think because libertarians see the world as being so interconnected, we sometimes say things that seem random or strange to people who don't. This gets me into hot water all the time in debates, where I'll forget to explain why I'm bringing something up and will just assume the other person sees the same connection/relationship that I do. 
> 
> Anyway I still think Rand did good overall, and will improve the more he does speeches like this.


Um...what?

Do you not see the irony in you completely ignoring my point about conservatives and libertarians ignoring issues they don't want to address and skipping history, a point that is corroborated in the article? 

Do you have anything to say that Rand did the typical Republican thing when addressing black Democrats of talking about the "Republican party freed the slaves yada yada yada, civil rights in 1950, yada yada yada, now it's 2013 why aren't you in our party? What's wrong with you people? Don't you know that it's the Democrats who are the party of the KKK yada yada yada?"

Hint: What happened after 1950?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Um...what?
> 
> Do you not see the irony in you completely ignoring my point about conservatives and libertarians ignoring issues they don't want to address and skipping history, a point that is corroborated in the article? 
> 
> Do you have anything to say that Rand did the typical Republican thing when addressing black Democrats of talking about the "Republican party freed the slaves yada yada yada, civil rights in 1950, yada yada yada, now it's 2013 why aren't you in our party? What's wrong with you people? Don't you know that it's the Democrats who are the party of the KKK yada yada yada?"
> 
> Hint: What happened after 1950?


Living in the South and being old enough to have seen first-hand the transition of my state from Democrat-only to GOP-only, I can't help but recognize that what you say is true.  I've heard the argument Rand made before, by Rush Limbaugh not long after Trent Lott put his foot in his mouth at Strom Thurmond's birthday party back in 2002...I wondered if Rush could possibly be that ignorant.

----------


## twomp

> Um...what?
> 
> Do you not see the irony in you completely ignoring my point about conservatives and libertarians ignoring issues they don't want to address and skipping history, a point that is corroborated in the article? 
> 
> Do you have anything to say that Rand did the typical Republican thing when addressing black Democrats of talking about the "Republican party freed the slaves yada yada yada, civil rights in 1950, yada yada yada, now it's 2013 why aren't you in our party? What's wrong with you people? Don't you know that it's the Democrats who are the party of the KKK yada yada yada?"
> 
> Hint: What happened after 1950?


Please point to me what other Republican addressed black Democrats and did the "typical Republican thing"? I don't see many Republicans if any addressing black Democrats at all? Please tell me where Rand Paul said "What's wrong with you people?" You are making these things up.

----------


## July

> Um...what?
> 
> Do you not see the irony in you completely ignoring my point about conservatives and libertarians ignoring issues they don't want to address and skipping history, a point that is corroborated in the article? 
> 
> Do you have anything to say that Rand did the typical Republican thing when addressing black Democrats of talking about the "Republican party freed the slaves yada yada yada, civil rights in 1950, yada yada yada, now it's 2013 why aren't you in our party? What's wrong with you people? Don't you know that it's the Democrats who are the party of the KKK yada yada yada?"
> 
> Hint: What happened after 1950?


I guess because I didn't get the impression he was blaming the audience. I think he tried to show that some ideas and elements of the past, which are thought to be extinct in the party, are still alive. It sounds like you would have preferred he spend more time giving equal criticism to the Republicans, and I can understand why, but if he did that, he would have been crucified.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hint: *What happened after 1950?*


Republican president Richard Nixon created the first federal affirmative action set aside program.  Tough to bring that one up since Rand certainly doesn't agree with that.  But it is a part of "forgotten history."  Something that Rand did bring up that was important and most people don't know is that many lunch counters got desegregated prior to the 1964 CRA through direct action.  He stuck that factoid in there but didn't flesh it out well.  The point is that there are ways to desegregate that don't involve the federal government stretching the true intent of the commerce clause.

----------


## jmdrake

> Living in the South and being old enough to have seen first-hand the transition of my state from Democrat-only to GOP-only, I can't help but recognize that what you say is true.  I've heard the argument Rand made before, by Rush Limbaugh not long after Trent Lott put his foot in his mouth at Strom Thurmond's birthday party back in 2002...I wondered if Rush could possibly be that ignorant.


One of the most interesting stories from that era is that of George Wallace.  Wallace began life as a progressive...and he really was always a progressive.  At first he had conciliatory things to say about blacks and race relations.  Then he lost his first bid for governor because his oponent was seen riding around with the KKK and that made the front page news.  (Yes.  Back the in Alabama KKK association was a net plus).  Wallace vowed "I will never be out n***ered again."  He kept that vow.  But he kept progressive policies that included handouts to whites and blacks.  When segregation ended he got the votes from both groups.  Former klansman and democratic U.S. senator Robert Byrd had the same "conversion."  It's funny how guys like this got a pass while guys like Strom Thurman were alwas assumed to be "real deal racists".  (FWIW Thurman had a black daughter.)  

The key problem for the GOP is how to breach the idea that even though, with the exception of Nixon (who never got credit for starting affirmative action), most republicans jumped off the Civil Rights bandwaggon when it became further and further removed from just ending Jim Crowe without being associated with those who always supported Jim Crowe.

----------


## AuH20

Sugar daddy politics will never die. 

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...o_help_me.html




> Howard University student to Sen. Rand Paul: "Good afternoon, Senator. My name is Keenan Glover, Im an administration of justice major from Rochester, New York. A freshman, as well. *You say you want to provide a government that leaves us alone. Quite frankly, I dont want that. I want a government that is going to help me. I want a government that is going to help me fund my college education. I want a government that wont define me by my FAFSA or by my familys income.* Im a dollar sign with a heartbeat in this nation. This society is a mirror image of Capitol Hill. Do you, Senator Rand Paul, have a solution to come up with new American values so that the citizens of this nation have a worth of more than dead presidents and Ben Franklin?"

----------


## bbjaylive

> Sugar daddy politics will never die. 
> 
> http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...o_help_me.html


I stopped the video after he said "I'm a dollar sign with a heartbeat in this nation". I thought he was gonna start rapping. Absolutely cringeworthy.

Obviously someone didn't tell him that this wasn't Def Jam Poetry.

----------


## BenIsForRon

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176880...ith-minorities

Ugh, I hope Rand learned a lesson or two. Probably didn't though, given how little he learned about how to articulate his position on the CRA.

----------


## Eddie Burke

I'm AA, let me help:  that CRA provision gave me the opportunity to eat at some bigot's diner.  Now why would I want to eat food prepared by some racist is a mystery.

----------


## Brett85

> Ugh, I hope Rand learned a lesson or two. Probably didn't though, given how little he learned about how to articulate his position on the CRA.


How should he explain his position on the CRA?

----------


## Brett85

> Seriously, is that conservatives/libertarians answer to every problem? Just ignore something you can't talk about without using revisionist history (or to be more accurate completely skipping history) and hoping your audience is too dumb to realise it?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> If you want a good summary of what was wrong with Rand's speech click the link below:
> 
> http://blanksslate.blogspot.co.uk/20...rd-speech.html


I think we have a troll on our hands.

----------


## jmdrake

> How should he explain his position on the CRA?


He did a pretty good job at the Louisville HBCU.  "I'm happy with the results of the civil rights act.  I just have some concerns about private property rights."

----------

