[Video] At Home with Rand Paul - The Brody File 4/4/13

[itshappening]

30 minute profile of Rand Paul from Bowling Green, Kentucky:

http://www.cbn.com/tv/2277502933001


tube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u17Cx9SAU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u17Cx9SAU0

[GOP]

Mentions Bastiat :)

[Restore America Now]

Oh great, CBN. :rolleyes: I'll watch anyway. :p

[american.swan]

Cool. Available in 720p or is it 720i? Anyways, I'll download the big version.

[anaconda]

Hope he connected with the demographic. Sounded painfully trite and scripted to me. Rand seemed like he would have preferred to be a million miles away.

[TheTyke]

lol! Pretty sure they got the wrong "Amy" Allen.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That was some pretty good coverage. Rand is lucky to have Kelly by his side.

[jct74]

//

[NY-Dano]

Hope he connected with the demographic. Sounded painfully trite and scripted to me. Rand seemed like he would have preferred to be a million miles away.

Yeah, it was painful to listen to that interview. He did not seem comfortable and slipped up in a few places.

[GOP]

Tube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u17Cx9SAU0

[Inkblots]

Yeah, it was painful to listen to that interview. He did not seem comfortable and slipped up in a few places.

Rand will need to learn to pander to evangelicals ahead of 2016. I suppose it's good he's starting to practice now, but yeah, he didn't sound real sincere when talking about his faith. It can be uncomfortable to talk about something so private for political reasons, but he needs to get that "personal testimony" thing down.

[itshappening]

Tube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u17Cx9SAU0

Did you cut the ads out?

[GOP]

Did you cut the ads out?

Yes, they're gone.

[T.hill]

Yeah, it was painful to listen to that interview. He did not seem comfortable and slipped up in a few places.

I thought it was pretty good, where did he slip up?

[GOP]

I really do hope he speaks about his faith more often and more openly.

[Pisces]

Yeah, it was painful to listen to that interview. He did not seem comfortable and slipped up in a few places.

I don't think he slipped up but he does need to reduce the frequency of the "ums" and "ahs" and "you knows". This isn't the only interview that's had too many of these so it's hard to know if he was uncomfortable or not. Overall, it was really good coverage. I'm not a big CBN fan but I don't know that any other network would have devoted a whole show to positively cover Rand Paul and his family.

[brandon]

Just watched it...and save your time. Definitely not worth watching. Poorly produced, boring, and half of the 30 minutes is just commercials.

[BlackTerrel]

Maybe I missed it but Rand strikes me as pretty sincere and I have no doubt he's a Christian.

[Sola_Fide]

Maybe I missed it but Rand strikes me as pretty sincere and I have no doubt he's a Christian.

It didn't come across to me like that (not that I care...I would vote for an atheist or a Muslim if I thought they would promote liberty). But he won't truly connect with any true Christian with that presentation.

[Brett85]

It didn't come across to me like that (not that I care...I would vote for an atheist or a Muslim if I thought they would promote liberty). But he won't truly connect with any true Christian with that presentation.

I'm a "true Christian," and I would vote for an atheist if I thought they would uphold the Constitution and promote the principles that I believe in.

[BlackTerrel]

It didn't come across to me like that (not that I care...I would vote for an atheist or a Muslim if I thought they would promote liberty). But he won't truly connect with any true Christian with that presentation.

Pretty sure Rand won the majority of the Christian vote in Kentucky.

[NY-Dano]

I thought it was pretty good, where did he slip up?

Idk, maybe just little things. It seemed forced, dodged they gay marriage question (do you ever see yourself supporting...), also said that his faith was, "one of the most important things in his life, if not most important". I think the demographic would like to hear that his faith IS the most important aspect of his life and that his other beliefs stem from his faith. I think Rand just needs to take a few pointers from his dad, and he needs a good story he can tell to sort of explain his faith.

[compromise]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjezuKG1jW0

Pretty cool.

[Brett85]

Rand kind of goes back and forth on whether he supports traditional marriage or supports getting the government out of marriage depending on the audience. That could become an issue that people could accuse him of flip flopping on if he's not careful. It would be better to just take one position and stick to it.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand kind of goes back and forth on whether he supports traditional marriage or supports getting the government out of marriage depending on the audience. That could become an issue that people could accuse him of flip flopping on if he's not careful. It would be better to just take one position and stick to it.


Here is the way to be a pro-traditional marriage libertarian, @ 5:15:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YePa-B7TY8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[GOP]

Rand kind of goes back and forth on whether he supports traditional marriage or supports getting the government out of marriage depending on the audience. That could become an issue that people could accuse him of flip flopping on if he's not careful. It would be better to just take one position and stick to it.

I don't see it as flip flopping. He believes in traditional marriage and the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to be involved in marriage, which Rand has proposed it getting out of and he's supported states' Constitutional right to be involved in marriage. He personally thinks it would be best if the states as well would get out of marriage, but he recognizes that they have the Constitutional authority to decide that themselves. I believe Ron has the same position.

Ron also has the same position on drugs. He believes the federal government has no authority, that state's do, but that it would be best (from a philosophical point of view) to decriminalize them and allow consenting adults to engage in non-violent behavior that may not be the best use of judgement as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

[misean]

Here is the way to be a pro-traditional marriage libertarian, @ 5:15:




Rand has an almost identical explanation.

[T.hill]

I don't see it as flip flopping. He believes in traditional marriage and the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to be involved in marriage, which Rand has proposed it getting out of and he's supported states' Constitutional right to be involved in marriage. He personally thinks it would be best if the states as well would get out of marriage, but he recognizes that they have the Constitutional authority to decide that themselves. I believe Ron has the same position.

Ron also has the same position on drugs. He believes the federal government has no authority, that state's do, but that it would be best (from a philosophical point of view) to decriminalize them and allow consenting adults to engage in non-violent behavior that may not be the best use of judgement as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

I understand a states right to determine whether or not they want to be involved with marriage. If a state were to get involved and offer tax breaks and other benefits to those who are married, don't they have to make it available to everyone? I don't think states have the authority to determine who is legally married and who gets the benefits, doing so would violate the right to legal equality.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand has an almost identical explanation.

I don't know...I agree with TC, it sounds to me like Rand has vacillated between two positions. It would be better for him to take the freedom position.

[GOP]

I understand a states right to determine whether or not they want to be involved with marriage. If a state were to get involved and offer tax breaks and other benefits to those who are married, don't they have to make it available to everyone? I don't think states have the authority to determine who is legally married and who gets the benefits, doing so would violate the right to legal equality.

Homosexuals have exactly the same legal rights as heterosexuals when it comes to civil marriage. A straight man cannot marry another man, just as a homosexual man cannot marry another man. A homosexual man can marry a woman and so can a heterosexual man.

[Brett85]

Personally I don't even have a problem with having marriage defined as between a man and a woman at the state level, but

1) I think that it's important for Rand to take a consistent position on the issue and stick to it.
2) I'm afraid my position on the issue has become so unpopular that it might be impossible to win a general election while taking that position. The marriage privatization position would appeal to more people in a general election. But, if he takes the position that the states should define marriage as between a man and a woman in the GOP primary, and then in the general takes the position that there should be no government involvement in marriage even at the state level, he could be accused of flip flopping. That's what I'm concerned about.

[misean]

I don't know...I agree with TC, it sounds to me like Rand has vacillated between two positions. It would be better for him to take the freedom position.


He hasn't. I've watched a lot of Rand Paul interviews, as well as Ron Paul interviews.

And it's interesting that you are even criticizing Rand Paul's presentation style. How many times have you critiqued Ron Paul's ability to present something?

[GOP]

He hasn't. I've watched a lot of Rand Paul interviews, as well as Ron Paul interviews.

And it's interesting that you are even criticizing Rand Paul's presentation style. How many times have you critiqued Ron Paul's ability to present something?

He critiques Rand because Rand speaks in a way that doesn't turn off voters. He'd rather some guy telling the blunt, un-sugarcoated truth and turn voters away than someone choose their words wisely and attract new voters.

[Sola_Fide]

He hasn't. I've watched a lot of Rand Paul interviews, as well as Ron Paul interviews.

And it's interesting that you are even criticizing Rand Paul's presentation style. How many times have you critiqued Ron Paul's ability to present something?

I've critiqued Ron before. Anyone can search my posts and find it.

[ctiger2]

Not sure if this was posted yet? I watched it last night.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u17Cx9SAU0

[axiomata]

new to me!

[axiomata]

I love how his "please come back after the commercial" tease is always, Kelly Paul, next!

[MRK]

Homosexuals have exactly the same legal rights as heterosexuals when it comes to civil marriage. A straight man cannot marry another man, just as a homosexual man cannot marry another man. A homosexual man can marry a woman and so can a heterosexual man.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwgmnaIoxb1qdu8imo1_500.jpg

[T.hill]

Homosexuals have exactly the same legal rights as heterosexuals when it comes to civil marriage. A straight man cannot marry another man, just as a homosexual man cannot marry another man. A homosexual man can marry a woman and so can a heterosexual man.

Well, that's a pretty distorted perception of legal equality.

[presence]

Mentions Bastiat :)

14:05

[Brett85]

Well, that's a pretty distorted perception of legal equality.

It seems to be the same view that Rand has. But apparently his position isn't a deal breaker for you, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to support him.

[T.hill]

Well, that's a pretty distorted perception of legal equality.

A logical fallacy at that though an ad-hoc reasoning of the concept.

[T.hill]

I'm not sure it is and I would be critical of Rand if it were. Maybe not a deal-breaker, but logically inconsistent nonetheless.

[abacabb]

It didn't come across to me like that (not that I care...I would vote for an atheist or a Muslim if I thought they would promote liberty). But he won't truly connect with any true Christian with that presentation.
I have a feeling even Ron doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith alone.

"I get to my God through Christ" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv23rI68vwU), Ron Paul says. His God? How about the only one true God?
Ron knows Scripture, heck two of his brothers are pastors and he shows real humility. But like his son Rand, he seems to try to "live" the message and never acts terribly interested in it. If Christ died in our place, how can we practically never on the public record ever get excited about it?

Doesn't make either man bad. I suppose a lot of "Christians" religious lives are just going with the motions.

[Sola_Fide]

I have a feeling even Ron doesn't believe in salvation by grace through faith alone.

Most people who call themselves "Christians" today (Roman Catholics, Arminians of all denominations, cultists like Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists, etc) do not believe in salvation by grace through faith alone...so it wouldn't surprise me. Most people who go to church today reject salvation by grace through faith alone.



"I get to my God through Christ" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv23rI68vwU), Ron Paul says. His God? How about the only one true God?
Ron knows Scripture, heck two of his brothers are pastors and he shows real humility. But like his son Rand, he seems to try to "live" the message and never acts terribly interested in it. If Christ died in our place, how can we practically never on the public record ever get excited about it?

Doesn't make either man bad. I suppose a lot of "Christians" religious lives are just going with the motions.


The one thing that I think is different about Ron is that he represents more of a Christian worldview than most other "Christian" sounding politicians. This is directly because he was persauded by free-market Calvinists like Francis Scheaffer, John Robbins, and Gary North. It is because of Reformed theology that Ron Paul represents more of a freedom worldview as opposed to other so-called Christian worldviews (like Santorum).

[abacabb]

Most people who call themselves "Christians" today (Roman Catholics, Arminians of all denominations, cultists like Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists, etc) do not believe in salvation by grace through faith alone...so it wouldn't surprise me. Most people who go to church today reject salvation by grace through faith alone.





The one thing that I think is different about Ron is that he represents more of a Christian worldview than most other "Christian" sounding politicians. This is directly because he was persauded by free-market Calvinists like Francis Scheaffer, John Robbins, and Gary North. It is because of Reformed theology that Ron Paul represents more of a freedom worldview as opposed to other so-called Christian worldviews (like Santorum).
True. Ron Paul seems saturated in it. What converted my wife to our side was watching how in "For Liberty," Paul turned the other cheek when being attacked on national television. I swear, you'd think you were reading one of the psalms. But, maybe I'm just too much into the fundamentals. Unless one acknowledges God by His grace saves men through faith in Christ, that man cannot be a Christian. Even a great man like Ron, who seems to have a cultural relativist worldview (that he gets to his personal God "through Jesus Christ.") It seems like a very calculating way of avoiding saying, "I believe in the one true God and He has died for my sin on the cross.


Apparently, a lot of people believe God is Buddha, God is Allah, God is animism...but that's just new age hog wash. God is not Athena. God is not Molech. God is not Baal. A lot of people were syncretists back then. Being a "Christian" but believing the other religions can be true too is like being any Israelite before the Babylonians took them away that would pay homage at the temple one day and then go to the Asherah outside the Jerusalem the next.