• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul tells Christie to stop his temper tantrums and grandstanding [W:53]

Fletch said:
Do you ever think in the abstract, or on the basis of principles? The Founders did. And if you ever hope to understand what they 'fought for' you will have to first pull your head out of the concrete.
Click to expand...

That's why the Founders set up the supreme court to decide constitutional issues, as opposed to appointing knownothings on the internet for that function.

Now what has the SC decided about regulating commerce? Come on, you can say it
 
head of joaquin said:
Yeah, those are the only two choices. It's not like we might want to conserve water and protect the reproductive rights of women.

And this is why nobody take consevatism seriously.
Click to expand...

"We" might not care about what "we" wants.

Freedom of the individual.

What's next, limits on flushes per day? That would be more effective in preserving water.
 
head of joaquin said:
That's why the Founders set up the supreme court to decide constitutional issues, as opposed to appointing knownothings on the internet for that function.

Now what has the SC decided about regulating commerce? Come on, you can say it
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS is about as relevant as your opinion. They have no power of judicial review.
 
head of joaquin said:
What was funny (if that's the right word) is this moronic Senator started out the hearing by asking an official of the energy department about what she thought about abortion, and then weirdly claimed that if she was pro-choice on abortion she should be pro-choice for water wasting toilets.

That's what conservatism is now reduced to.
Click to expand...

and the buffoon doesn't realize that since he's pro-choice on toilets, he should be pro-choice on abortion
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
"We" might not care about what "we" wants.

Freedom of the individual.

What's next, limits on flushes per day? That would be more effective in preserving water.
Click to expand...

Pssst: federal and state law, determined by elected representatives. Get used to democracy. It isn't going away.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
The SCOTUS is about as relevant as your opinion. They have no power of judicial review.
Click to expand...

I love it when rightwingers demand that we adhere to the constitution, except for the part that grants SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutionality of our laws
 
head of joaquin said:
Pssst: federal and state law, determined by elected representatives. Get used to democracy. It isn't going away.
Click to expand...

I don't care. I don't have to follow toilet regulations if I don't want to.
 
sangha said:
I love it when rightwingers demand that we adhere to the constitution, except for the part that grants SCOTUS the power to decide the constitutionality of our laws
Click to expand...

A part that doesn't exist.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
The SCOTUS is about as relevant as your opinion. They have no power of judicial review.
Click to expand...

So you think regulating commerce and environmental laws haven't been addressed by the SC? No, wait, you're actually claiming the 200+ years of SC jurisprudence is invalid!

BWHAHHAHAHHAHAHH!

One more reason to ignore the lame arguments of conservatives
 
head of joaquin said:
So you think regulating commerce and environmental laws haven't been addressed by the SC?

One more reason to ignore the lame arguments of conservatives
Click to expand...
Sure they have, there is just no authority backing their opinions.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I don't care. I don't have to follow toilet regulations if I don't want to.
Click to expand...

No you have to follow the laws of the US, or you will be prosecuted or you can leave. Poor conservatives, they just despise the rule of law.
 
head of joaquin said:
No you have to follow the laws of the US, or you will be prosecuted or you can leave. Poor conservatives, they just despise the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Put me in jail for my toilet. I dare you!
 
sangha said:
Yes, everyone just listens to them because.....

well, just "because" :doh
Click to expand...

Because they think they have the authority because that is what they learned in school.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Put me in jail for my toilet. I dare you!
Click to expand...

I don't quite know why your fixating, like Rand Paul, on your toilet, but if you are going to break laws about water use then you can expect to be prosecuted and should be.

Do you think you're above the law?
 
head of joaquin said:
I don't quite know why your fixating, like Rand Paul, on your toilet, but if you are going to break laws about water use then you can expect to be prosecuted and should be.

Do you think you're above the law?
Click to expand...

No, the law is illegal so it is below me. (and the Constitution)
 
Let us all hope and pray Rand Paul is the GOP presidential nominee in four years.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I can read the Constitution. You can't.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Honestly, post this stuff at Hannity.com. You'll find an audience of knownothings who love this meme. The rest of us will stick with 200 years of US jurisprudence.
 
Fletch said:
Well, that doesnt really answer my question now does it. You called him a buffoon, I ask why you called him that and your reply is to ask him. THATS buffoonery. So rather than name calling, why dont you give me a specific example of a 'wacked out position' he has taken and I will take a shot at defending it and see if I can make it make sense to you.
Click to expand...

Since I consider almost every Libertarian position to be wacked out, I think not.

Oh well, if you insist, here's one:

Rand Paul Is Really Crazy | The New Republic

Hell, here's another one:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...d-social-security-is-a-ponzi-scheme-video.php

As I said, a buffoon.
 
sangha said:
because everyone knows the Founding Fathers fought for powerful indoor plumbing
Click to expand...

If we look at the principles they stood for its pretty clear what I said is in line with it.
 
Wiggen said:
Since I consider almost every Libertarian position to be wacked out, I think not.

Oh well, if you insist, here's one:

Rand Paul Is Really Crazy | The New Republic

Hell, here's another one:

Rand Paul In The ’90s: Medicare Is Socialism And Social Security Is A Ponzi Scheme (VIDEO) | TPMDC

As I said, a buffoon.
Click to expand...

Here is a list of all of his supposedly 'buffoonish' statements as compiled from your link:

S**t My Rand Says: A Compendium Of Paul’s Wacky Quotes | TPMDC

Can you grab one or two of those and tell me what is wrong with them? Cause Im not seeing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom