83 votes

Rand Paul's SOTU Response


http://youtu.be/0E6YMdgGUY4

_____
Related: [Drudge] NJ: This Is Rand Paul's Moment ~ The Kentucky Republican struck out on his own in his response to the State of the Union. Here's why.

Comment viewing options

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

Zzz is that the IzUnReal firster who actually endorsed

Mitt Romney over his own father, Ron Paul, and sold out the liberty movement just at the critical moment before the national convention.

Turn coat/ traitor who can never be trusted.

sovereign

Anyone

Anyone who vehemently criticizes this speech or this guy's politics can't see the forest for the trees. I know he doesn't speak like a radical on street corner like a lot of mouth frothers in the movement want. But he's wise enough to know that that approach only leads to a dead end or violence. Diplomacy may still win the day. I for one will be making my Rand Paul 2016 shirt in my dining room this week. Ha.

Ron Paul

"Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

Yet Rand doesn't believe, I should be able, as an adult, to choose to smoke marijuana.

Anyone supporting Rand should ask themselves honestly if he will really stand firm against Republicans that support less freedom, or if he is willing to concede some freedoms in order to reach his political goals. I know marijuana reform may not be important to you, but either you support freedom or you don't.

I seriously doubt

That Rand doesn't support Marijuana legalization. No matter what sound bites people want to tie him down to.

Look, I get your point man,

Look, I get your point man, but seriously, on what single issue do you foresee Rand Paul doing the most good once his soft-spoken, moderate approach wins him the presidency?

Will he bring the troops home from Afghanistan even if "the Generals" he likes to speak of object?

Will he stand bold in the face of the Israel lobby and demand a halting of the settlement policy and end the concentration camp known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

Will he close Guantanamo?

Will he expose and end the NSA's unconstitutional programs? (assuming he would NEVER have the balls to actually CLOSE DOWN the NSA itself as being unconstitutional)

Will he open up full diplomatic relations with Iran and drop his lies about their "nuclear program?"

I'm just curious to know just what all you Rand enthusiasts think will really change in a Rand Paul presidency. All I can really see coming from him is a mere slowing of the decline, rather than a righting of the ship. Can you enlighten me?

Enlightenment

Do you want a slowed decline or speedy? Even if you're right does he take us in a direction that would give us a climate ready for someone to right the ship? Is there anyone who's going to "right the ship"? A president isn't God, despite what our current president believes. No one man can do it, we're hoping to slow the decline. Right? As for the dude who also commented below on what Rand has done as a senator, that's a good indication.

Thanks for the reply my

Thanks for the reply my friend. The only problem I have with this sort of lukewarm approach is that it ultimately accomplishes very little. I'm not interested in a slowed decline. I'm interested in a radical new direction. If a radical redirection is not in the cards (and I'm afraid it most certainly ISN'T in Rand's case) then I would prefer a fast and radical decline which will see the dissolution of the United States itself by means of peaceful secessionist movements.

If we continue to paint Rand as some sort of revolutionary, when he isn't, we throw our whole movement in the trash as far as I'm concerned, much like the branding of the Reagan years as a "conservative revolution," when he was really just a slightly toned-down fascist, destroyed whatever good name conservatism might've had.

Rand is a slightly more ideologically consistent conservative. He's no libertarian.

Wanna know what President Rand would do?

How about looking at what Senator Rand has already done? ;-)

He's introduced dozens and dozens of fine pieces of legislation since taking office, which we can assume he would pursue as President. Here's a small sampling:

S.209 The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013

S.1919 A bill to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

S.201 A bill to prohibit the sale, lease, transfer, retransfer, or delivery of F-16 aircraft, M1 tanks, or certain other defense articles or services to the Government of Egypt.

S.1016 Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013

S.1121 Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013

S.204 A bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.

S.1852 Economic Freedom Zones Act of 2013

...you can find details about each of these on his website

Finally, his budget (for which I cannot find the bill number at the moment), which cuts ~$500 billion in year 1. Details available in PDF here

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

Can I

up vote you 50 times?

Ha

It would be a first. Ha. Peace bro.

can someone tell me, if this

can someone tell me, if this "format" is typical, or if rand decided to do it, i mean, the podium, the office, the political speech, all that

That is an honest question, i dont know if this is normal as in the "traditional" aspect of it or if rand decided to do it

one is cringeworthy, the other is less cringeworthy, but at least it might not have been by choice

Im not saying anything bad/good about what he said, because that "cringe" made me "turn it off" the moment he spoke.....i did, and thats a problem, if someone has something worthy to say.........

i cant help associating those reasons that make me cringe, with the same folks who have been abusing their authority.......dont imitate, inovate, and i am sorry for it, but it is a very deep rooted thinking

Be informal, as well as formal, feel the appropriate times, rand for me, needs to be more "informal", but i get the feeling that hes not capable naturaly, and on his own.......im not discounting the chance possibility that he would in a better position then most, to grow wiser

This is not intended as an attack, its an observation of his, i dont know what to call it...?he's style, for lack of a shallower term, remember, i couldnt get past the few seconds, i dont know what he said, and unfortunatly it'll likely stay that way for a way, he might have said something good, but i want to stress this, i want to listen to what he says, but this thing he does, he's "style"(not the term thats on the tip of my tongue but the only description i can think to describe the thing that is on the tip of my tongue)

i want to listen, but i wont abandon my instincts on things, such as the views on "tradional politics", it wont happen, and i mean to say this, so that rand is given the opportunity to know why he doesnt have certain peoples support, they hopefully think he's just been given bad advice, and the real, real rand, IS the person they can get behind

thats not automatic support mind you, anyone who does so still has to earn it through all facets, and most important of all KEEP IT, which wont happen if they do something like ok a patriot act scenario, for example

There's a time for formal speeches...

...and a time for informal talks.

This was a time for a formal speech. The whole concept here was to make a counter-SOTU, so it needed to be in the form of a SOTU.

If you want to see Rand cut loose, there are plenty of examples.

For one, here's Rand with Mike Lee and ted Cruz at a CATO event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzqEyC1GFBo

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

this is how they should be

this is how they should be ALL the time, and that doesnt happen when things around you have an "official" noctation to it, i guess this is partly why i cringed with rands response, i detest traditional politics, because it stops them from being informal which is what ill listen to, look at that, think i made a conciense breakthrough, i associate "formality" to fakeness, i wont apoligise for that, can you really blame me, look at past examples

Informality, because at least i can trust you a little

However that is taken, i still appreciate the link, thanks

"i associate "formality" to fakeness"

So do I usually, but that makes us the exception.

Most people like this sort of thing.

I would get more enjoyment out of Rand speaking informally, but I don't need him to amuse me, I need him to convince the 'oi polloi to vote for him. If that means delivering speeches which I personally don't care for, so be it.

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

yuck

the pr folks are all over him in this video
look at the background - his marketers are trying to create the myth of 'Rand as President' already.

Rand is much better when he is he is just being himself

@ Rand please follow your father and reject the pr/spin master portion of Washington DC

I strongly disagree.

I think that this was professional; this shows seriousness. If I were Hillary, I'd be terrified.

"trying to create the myth of 'Rand as President' already"

Good. That works. Why do you think candidates for the Presidency all try to "look Presidential"? It's not for their health, it's because the public responds to it. Does that make the public stupid? Yes, but that's what we have to deal with. Stupid people vote too.

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

Not Impressed...


Rand Paul starts off well, by criticizing The privately controlled Federal Reserve.

But he does not at any point take on the Federal Reserve or confront the problem. He also does not take on The Wall Street Banksters phony derivative swap schemes, and their massive corruption -- which have little to do with any original loans that they might've been based on.

And then he just laspses into typical, status-quo right-wing "leave the fat cats and the wealthy alone" logic -- which ignores the whole plight of the American people (who have been robbed by them).

The Tax code simply is not fair today. The rich have their loopholes, while the working folks are stuck paying all the real taxes. Scores of wealthy Corporations (like Exxon-Mobile), make hundreds of billions of dollars of raw profit, and yet they pay no taxes whatsoever. It is a system that favors the rich, and screws the poor -- and it needs to be changed, and should change.

Finally, all this blathering about Ronald Reagan needs to end. Reagan was a pro-Empire, Warmonger who engaged in illegal covert operations, and quadrupled the Deficit on his watch. He was no "hero" (and certaintly no libertarian). The "greed is good" era that began during his watch has not served this Country well. We have become a Country that values only materialism, wealth hording, War, and attacks on poor people, and this totally bankrupt value system has sadly replaced the idealism that we once had from the 1960s and early-1970s.


"he does not at any point take on the Federal Reserve"

He said the Fed caused the housing bubble - a damning indictment.

What more do you want?

This wasn't a speech about the Fed, he wasn't going to spend the whole time talking about it.

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

Are you serious?


The Bank Monopoly has done a whole lot more than just simply cause "the housing bubble". This is like saying, after the mass murder and slaughter of over 1.5 Million Iraqis, that U.S. Foreign Policy has caused "unrest" in Iraq.

The Bank Monopoly is a totally crooked enterprise. Forget the "housing bubble", these Banks invented fraudulent derivative swap schemes that should have put a whole lot of people in jail for life. Where are the calls to put Wall Street in Jail for robbing the public? That's the point here.

But the whole concept of what the Fed does, charging public debt (government bonds) whenever money is created, and then granting loans on money that doesn't yet exist, needs to be taken on and confronted in a clear, direct way.

Auditing the Fed is a start (which Rand does not even call for here, although he has at other times), but the larger matter is to banish and terminate this private (for profit) Monopoly from having the control over our Nation's money to begin with, and corrupting the value of the U.S. Dollar each and every day.

So you see the Fed didn't just cause a "bubble". Over the last 100 years, they have caused the U.S. Dollar to be worth 2-cents of its original value, and caused multiple depressions and recessions. Their crooked money creation (debt-based), and fractional lending schemes have also caused the multi-trillion National Debt -- from which we can never escape from (no matter how much we punish poor people).

Obama has protected the Wall Street criminals.
Rand Paul wants to do exactly the same, and just simply disapprove of its "bubble" policy is giving them a pass.

At what point is there ever going to be true accountability here?
Who will Jail the Banksters, and Wall Street, and finally take away their giant, corrupt casino game?

That is the key test of political integrity here.



M'kay...

(a) You don't need to explain the Fed to me, I fully understand.

(b) Let's see if I got this straight: you want Rand to explain all the problems with the Fed in detail in every speech, even when the speech is not about the Fed? You realize there are...um, other issues...right? :-?

(c) Your claim that Rand wants to "protect the Wall Street criminals" is ridiculous. Rand's position on the Fed is the same as Ron's. They both understand the problem and know that abolition of the Fed and a return to gold is the solution -- but that doesn't mean they need to spend 100% of their time talking about it, as you seem to demand.

(d) From how agitated you are, I get the impression you're somewhat new to this -- am I right? Like..."OMFG, THIS is what the Fed does!? Something has to be done NOW NOW NOW!!!!!" Well, lol, a bunch of us, including Ron and Rand, have known about this for a little while now. ;-) And I assure you, sensible people have come to the conclusion that yelling "END THE FED" as loud as possible at every conceivable opportunity is not the best way to actually end the Fed. So just because Rand, or whoever, is not out their jumping up and down with "End the Fed" Turrets, doesn't mean he's not trying to do precisely that. So, take a chill pill.

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

Chill...


Maybe just chilling out is part of the problem here.

It has been 6 years since the 2008 meltdown, and who has gone to jail over that?

The point I was making is that Rand has never addressed the criminality of Wall Street. Just talking about "bubbles", isn't going to change anything or result in new political momentum or action.

When Wall Street is in Jail is perhaps the better time to "chill out".

SteveMT's picture

For those who were not impressed with this speech:

Remember that Rand isn't talking to us. He's talking to the sheeple, those same dumbed-down people who voted for Romney, McCain and Obama. Rand had to repeat himself and he had to speak at a very low level to these people. It was boring for us, but he had to do that way. He has to try and connect with these people. Like it or not, it's a political reality.

Indeed

Why do you think Obama's SOTU address was at a 9th grade level?

Rand has to address the same people.

If you're at the Daily Paul, you're not his target audience.

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

I agree 100%. The game has

I agree 100%. The game has changed. Ron Paul's campaign was a long Hail Mary pass in the 4th quarter but it planted an important seed and kept the torch burning.

Rand Paul is starting at the opposing 30 yard line and is going to drive down the field with superior tactics and strategy. This is not a hope and a whim but a real hard fought war. He is in prime position too, he is bridging the gap and is actually fairly palatable to even Liberals who are fleeing Obama like rats from a sinking ship. Hard line conservatives like him too because he has not pandered or known for corruption like the other RINO's.

Bush screwed the country and made us distrust the GOP, Obama screwed the country even more and made us distrust also the Democratic Party. Rand is far enough removed from the mess to present a new option but is also mainstream enough to not look like a fringe candidate.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Agree...his father had to do the same to wake-up...

some Republicans with the Libertarian ideology.

Making liberty palatable to those who feed on neo-prog-con slop

Agreed! So little is understood of basic liberty, and self-governing maxims, that Rand had to serve it up in simpler terms. Great take on it, Steve.

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

I just don't buy this argument anymore,

coming from Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or others. While there might be reasons for wanting businesses, i.e., corporations, to keep more of their profits and also have less regulations to deal with - no one could actually believe it would induce corporations (including global corporations) to keep or bring their money HERE, to America, and therefore create ***MORE JOBS*** Well, not unless and until 1) we stripped away ALL laws protecting workers, consumers, and the environment AND 2) would accept sub-standard living conditions for millions of workers, that is, on a par with the poverty conditions in India http://www.givewell.org/files/indiatrip2010/pictures/IMG0051... or ant-colony-like communal living of the Chinese. http://i.imgur.com/xU1BD.jpg

I mean, is that the goal? To lower our standard of living to a point that would induce corporations to keep their money here, instead, and pay workers even less than the current minimum wage of $7.25? "The average hourly wage for Chinese manufacturing workers is less than a tenth that of their average U.S. counterparts..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/average-cost-factor...

IF corporations continue to bring money & other resources overseas in order to generate greater profit, there is no reason to think we'll EVER lower the unemployment rate, especially since now the agriculture industry has been increasingly outsourced, along with others.

Re jobs, I'm sick of the hackneyed cliches on the left and right. We need a paradigm shift in thinking.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

If interested

new Party with unique idea:

dignifying the prerogative of individual choice through public Trusts

http://www.facebook.com/FreeDominionPoliticalParty

I see what you're saying but

I see what you're saying but it is true that Americans are way over payed. But I suppose it has to make up for inflation. Seems a vicious circle.