• 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]

joko104 said:
Rand Paul has come out criticizing Chris Christie for throwing temper tantrums and grandstanding.

Rand Paul to Chris Christie: Cool it With the Temper Tantrums & Grandstanding, Alright? | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...

With Governor Christie being responsible for addressing issues that affect his States's constituents, it is unlikely that he will listen to a distant politician who has little or no interest in New Jersey or its residents. He is a governor who, if necessary, fights for his constituents. He will attack obstacles to the interests of his constituents without regard for partisan considerations. As a result, it is unlikely that Governor Christie will heed Senator Paul's wishes. Governors need to produce results. Like any other governor, Christie does not have the luxury that Senator Paul enjoys where he is free to posture on issues as a substitute for producing tangible outcomes.

Indeed, Governor Christie has improved his State's finances with tough decisions. When it comes to the 2016 race, should both men seek the Republican nomination, Christie is in a position to challenge Paul on fiscal issue. He can ask Paul to identify which of his budget proposals were adopted into law to improve the nation's finances. Paul has none to date and would almost certainly suggest that he was unable to get sufficient support for his bills in the Senate, almost certainly highlighting the Democratic majority. Christie could then counter that he achieved results with a Democratic majority legislature. He could then make his case that his getting results is what separates the two on the issue of leadership. One introduces bills that have gone nowhere (barring changes from now to 2016). The other (Christie) gets things done and has a record of results to prove it.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm sure that you are a nice person, but the fact that a self-confessed Libertarian doesn't see anything wacky about some of the things said by Paul isn't the biggest shock I've ever had on this forum. I find almost everthing about the Libertarian philosophy objectionable.
 
Wiggen said:
Look, I'm sure that you are a nice person, but the fact that a self-confessed Libertarian doesn't see anything wacky about some of the things said by Paul isn't the biggest shock I've ever had on this forum. I find almost everthing about the Libertarian philosophy objectionable.
Click to expand...
Since you wont be specific, let me do it for you. Here is the very first zany quote by Rand paul listed in your link:

• “Addressing President Bush’s program of channeling government money through religious-based charities, Paul said on KET’s Kentucky Tonight on June 30, 2008, that ‘churches do charity work, and that is wonderful, but they shouldn’t be corrupted with government money.’

“He also said the initiatives ‘obscure the church-state separation that there really ought to be,’” the paper reports.

Sheer madness right? How about the next one:

“In an interview on May 15, 2009, Paul told the host of Antiwar Radio that he would have voted against going to war in Iraq and that he opposes a long-term occupation of Iraq or Iran.”

“In the same interview, he said, ‘I think torture is always wrong’ and that ‘our country should have a higher ideal than that.’”

Is that libertarian lunacy? How about this one:

“I think you don’t have a right to happiness — you have the right to the pursuit of happiness,” Paul, an ophthalmologist, said in a 2009 Kentucky town hall meeting. “f you think you have the right to health care, you are saying basically that I am your slave. I provide health care. … My staff and technicians provide it. … If you have a right to health care, then you have a right to their labor.”

I could go on, but is that necessary? In general, libertarians believe that you are a free man, with a right to live your own life for its own sake, and should be left free to make your own decisions. Honestly, what is 'objectionable' about that?
 
donsutherland1 said:
With Governor Christie being responsible for addressing issues that affect his States's constituents, it is unlikely that he will listen to a distant politician who has little or no interest in New Jersey or its residents. He is a governor who, if necessary, fights for his constituents. He will attack obstacles to the interests of his constituents without regard for partisan considerations. As a result, it is unlikely that Governor Christie will heed Senator Paul's wishes. Governors need to produce results. Like any other governor, Christie does not have the luxury that Senator Paul enjoys where he is free to posture on issues as a substitute for producing tangible outcomes.

Indeed, Governor Christie has improved his State's finances with tough decisions. When it comes to the 2016 race, should both men seek the Republican nomination, Christie is in a position to challenge Paul on fiscal issue. He can ask Paul to identify which of his budget proposals were adopted into law to improve the nation's finances. Paul has none to date and would almost certainly suggest that he was unable to get sufficient support for his bills in the Senate, almost certainly highlighting the Democratic majority. Christie could then counter that he achieved results with a Democratic majority legislature. He could then make his case that his getting results is what separates the two on the issue of leadership. One introduces bills that have gone nowhere (barring changes from now to 2016). The other (Christie) gets things done and has a record of results to prove it.
Click to expand...

I am definitely no Ron Paul fan whatsoever. BUT he does speak for a large segment of Republican voters.

People do not forget when you back-stab someone you came to the forefront to endorse and then attack you and everyone on your side. I do not think he will have a friendly reception from Republicans. Unlike Christie, most Republicans did NOT believe Obama is "doing a great job" and, unlike Christie, most Republicans do not believe it is the Republicans in Congress that are the cause of all the problems.

And it notable that NONE of the hardcore Republicans on this forum are praising Christie. It is the left, Democrats and so-called libertarians.
 
head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...

What "mene" is that?
 
Catawba said:
Rand Paul throwing his weight around against Christie! Now that is funny, I don't care who you are! :lamo
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Paul and Christie in a Sumo fight.
 
Fletch said:
Since you wont be specific, let me do it for you. Here is the very first zany quote by Rand paul listed in your link:

• “Addressing President Bush’s program of channeling government money through religious-based charities, Paul said on KET’s Kentucky Tonight on June 30, 2008, that ‘churches do charity work, and that is wonderful, but they shouldn’t be corrupted with government money.’

“He also said the initiatives ‘obscure the church-state separation that there really ought to be,’” the paper reports.

Sheer madness right? How about the next one:

“In an interview on May 15, 2009, Paul told the host of Antiwar Radio that he would have voted against going to war in Iraq and that he opposes a long-term occupation of Iraq or Iran.”

“In the same interview, he said, ‘I think torture is always wrong’ and that ‘our country should have a higher ideal than that.’”

Is that libertarian lunacy? How about this one:

“I think you don’t have a right to happiness — you have the right to the pursuit of happiness,” Paul, an ophthalmologist, said in a 2009 Kentucky town hall meeting. “f you think you have the right to health care, you are saying basically that I am your slave. I provide health care. … My staff and technicians provide it. … If you have a right to health care, then you have a right to their labor.”

I could go on, but is that necessary? In general, libertarians believe that you are a free man, with a right to live your own life for its own sake, and should be left free to make your own decisions. Honestly, what is 'objectionable' about that?
Click to expand...


Dress it up all you want, most of the garbage he spews is still Far Right Ayn Rand BS - the stuff most of us thought was really cool when we were college freshmen and then quickly outgrew it.

Is the son the one who thinks the wrong side won the Civil War and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was bad legislation, or is that his daddy, the equally bizarre Ron Paul?
 
Wiggen said:
Is the son the one who thinks the wrong side won the Civil War
Click to expand...

Bull****.

and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was bad legislation
Click to expand...

It was bad legislation based on Constitutional limits on congressional power, and that would be the position of both, as well as anyone who can read plain English.
 
Wiggen said:
Dress it up all you want, most of the garbage he spews is still Far Right Ayn Rand BS - the stuff most of us thought was really cool when we were college freshmen and then quickly outgrew it.

Is the son the one who thinks the wrong side won the Civil War and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was bad legislation, or is that his daddy, the equally bizarre Ron Paul?
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell one from the other, but Ron Paul had the neo-confederate as his chief of staff, Lou Rockwell, and he said that Lincoln was a war monger (or something to the effect) and all Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves from a helpful if slightly overproud southern aristocracy.

And this is why nobody takes libertarianism seriously.

Both are associated with the ludicrous Von Mises Institute, which is a bastion of neoconfederate garbage and racism.

THE TEA PARTY\'S NEO-CONFEDERACY FIGHTS THE CIVIL WAR (AGAIN) - T H E   L  E  F  T  -  W  I  N  G    N  O  I  S  E    M  A  C  H  I  N  E
 
I think maybe Rand Paul needs to talk to his own father first before he has any pull with Christie! He also may want to look in the mirror.
 
Wiggen said:
Dress it up all you want, most of the garbage he spews is still Far Right Ayn Rand BS - the stuff most of us thought was really cool when we were college freshmen and then quickly outgrew it.
Click to expand...
Any time you are up for a debate on that 'Ayn Rand BS' you let me know. I suspect you didnt read it as a college freshman, have no understanding of it now and are simply regurgitating lines you have heard someone else say. But the fact that you cannot pick out a single quote from Rand Paul from your own link and expose it as lunacy exposes your argument as name calling and nothing more.

Is the son the one who thinks the wrong side won the Civil War and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was bad legislation, or is that his daddy, the equally bizarre Ron Paul?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, libertarians look at everything from the viewpoint of liberty; as in, will a specific law or act enhance or restrict personal freedom. What you should find troubling about your own position and your own perspective is that you find such people a nuisance. It is your freedom that people like Rand Paul seek to defend, it is kind of odd that that bothers you. There are plenty of places you can go on this planet where liberty is a joke. Maybe you should check one of them out, come back and see if you still find liberty unnecessary.
 
Henrin said:
Can I buy the toilet I desire? Yes or no. If the answer is no, you are wrong.
Is wasting water somehow violating your rights?
Click to expand...

Perhaps nothing better shows why libertarianism is so niche and will never be a mainstream party.

For all the talk of other folks being 'takers' there are none so fixated in that for themselves as libertarians.

No matter the greater good, no matter being good stewards of the land, no thought to leaving the land better than you found it.

You guys can't buy a vehicle that runs on leaded gas, and for a damn good reason.

You can buy toilets that flush properly with low flow. A few toilets in the beginning didn't flush well but good ol' market forces pushed them out of the market as better models began to dominate the market.

I SERIOUSLY doubt Rand's toilets don't do well, he is repeating a very old critic as if he has first hand experience. Typical political stunt.

Now where I live a continued drought has caused many periods of water rationing. Some of you may have water to waste, we don't. But for you people it isn't wasting as much as overtaxing the waste water treatment plants. The more water you run through the plant the more it costs- and that is tax dollars.
 
joko104 said:
People do not forget when you back-stab someone you came to the forefront to endorse and then attack you and everyone on your side. I do not think he will have a friendly reception from Republicans. Unlike Christie, most Republicans did NOT believe Obama is "doing a great job" and, unlike Christie, most Republicans do not believe it is the Republicans in Congress that are the cause of all the problems.
Click to expand...

This is where Christie's critics lose perspective. Christie did not give President Obama a blanket endorsement for his performance as President. His reference concerned the narrow area of how the President was handling the Sandy disaster. In the context of the Katrina debacle and the President's own performance during the Gulf oil leak, Obama's performance was exemplary. Governor Christie put his consituents ahead of electoral considerations. It is not unreasonable that he put providing for the needs of his State's residents ahead of campaign appearances.

In terms of his criticism of Speaker Boehner and the House, one should have expected exactly that kind of reaction when the Speaker decided to pull the delayed relief bill without giving any notice whatsoever to the Governors of the impacted States. At the very minimum, the Speaker should have informed the governors why he decided to pull the bill and what his envisioned path forward was. He did none of that. That leadership failure belongs to the Speaker, not Governor Christie. Indeed, had Governors Christie and Cuomo, not to mention Congressmen from disaster-stricken areas e.g., Peter King, not made it a national issue, the House might well have continued to delay the funding.

Many of those in the House who opposed the funding never paid a visit to the storm-affected areas. They see damage figures, but have little idea about the damage that was inflicted. Moreover, they have little understanding that the Jersey Shore is economically important to the State, not to mention the hardship displaced residents have experienced.
 
Fletch said:
Generally speaking, libertarians look at everything from the viewpoint of liberty; as in, will a specific law or act enhance or restrict personal freedom. .
Click to expand...

You mean like a woman's right to choose an abortion? What's the Paul position on that? Libertarians are all about personal freedom, unless the exercise of it happens to conflict with their own personal beliefs.

Libertarians are nothing more than social darwinists, one small step up from anarchists.

Ayn Rand? Jesus!

Oh wait, probably the wrong thing to say, given it is wacky Ayn we're talking about.
 
notquiteright said:
Perhaps nothing better shows why libertarianism is so niche and will never be a mainstream party.
Click to expand...

I noticed you didn't answer either question asked.

For all the talk of other folks being 'takers' there are none so fixated in that for themselves as libertarians.
Click to expand...

Really? What are we asking from you against your will? Not a damn thing. Thanks for noticing.

No matter the greater good, no matter being good stewards of the land, no thought to leaving the land better than you found it.
Click to expand...

Government has a certain function and everything else is societies job to do outside of it.

You guys can't buy a vehicle that runs on leaded gas, and for a damn good reason.
Click to expand...

I swear you guys have three examples that you feel can work to your advantage and constantly use them.

You can buy toilets that flush properly with low flow. A few toilets in the beginning didn't flush well but good ol' market forces pushed them out of the market as better models began to dominate the market.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I still can't find one that works more than 50% of the time. I also think its strange how the market can cause this effect but it can't cause the toilets to leave the market. How does that work exactly?

Now where I live a continued drought has caused many periods of water rationing. Some of you may have water to waste, we don't. But for you people it isn't wasting as much as overtaxing the waste water treatment plants. The more water you run through the plant the more it costs- and that is tax dollars.
Click to expand...

It works the same way everywhere. :D Water doesn't just disappear.
 
Wiggen said:
You mean like a woman's right to choose an abortion? What's the Paul position on that?
Click to expand...

Why, to support liberty and personal freedom of course. By which I mean, of course, to prevent the violation of the natural human right to life.

Not sure how you ever thought that personal freedom meant being allowed to kill another human being, but I'm glad I could help correct your error. You're welcome.
 
Wiggen said:
You mean like a woman's right to choose an abortion? What's the Paul position on that? Libertarians are all about personal freedom, unless the exercise of it happens to conflict with their own personal beliefs.

Libertarians are nothing more than social darwinists, one small step up from anarchists.

Ayn Rand? Jesus!

Oh wait, probably the wrong thing to say, given it is wacky Ayn we're talking about.
Click to expand...
If name calling is all you have, then there is not much for the two of us to discuss. If you have a 'wacky' position Rand has taken, lay it out there. If you dont, then it might be time to quit the name calling. It is a poor substitute for debate.

As to abortion and liberty and Rand, Rand supported abortion, so maybe you might want to reconsider your attacks, or educate yourself on what people believe before you attack them. But abortion is not a clear cut issue for a lot of people, myself included. Those who believe that life begins at conception--a logical argument--then one is not at liberty to terminate that life. But that does not show an inconsistency in libertarian thought that you pretend it does.
 
Henrin said:
I noticed you didn't answer either question asked.



Really? What are we asking from you against your will? Not a damn thing. Thanks for noticing.



Government has a certain function and everything else is societies job to do outside of it.



I swear you guys have three examples that you feel can work to your advantage and constantly use them.



Interesting. I still can't find one that works more than 50% of the time. I also think its strange how the market can cause this effect but it can't cause the toilets to leave the market. How does that work exactly?



It works the same way everywhere. :D Water doesn't just disappear.
Click to expand...

The question of being able to buy the obsolete toilet was silly, you can find plenty of 5 gallon flush toilets in salvage yards and 'antique' stores. You just don't look.

I love it when 'against my will' gets used. Could say that about anything from speed laws to high sulfur diesel. lots of 'freedoms' are 'taken', from burning trash in the backyard to no junk cars in the front yard.

I understand the libertarian position, 'society' rarely does the best thing for itself, no 'invisible hand' at work. But to use your 'logic' society decided certain land should not be clear cut and the Gubmint stepped in to make it so. Society decided clear air and water is a good thing and the Gubmint stepped in to make it so. Gubmint is the enforcement arm of society's will... thank you very much for noticing!

There are many more examples of restrictions our society has to help protect the environment, the lead gas one is just one of the best. ;)

Don't know where or what you have to flush, I have a 13 year old low flush toilet made by WC, it works very well and is low end on the price range. I travel quite a bit, stay in nice to pretty bad hotels, they all work very well. Perhaps you should seek advice from a plumbing outlet store/plumber. THAT is how the market works, those guys have to provide a good solution or their rep/business suffers. I'll bet they can laundry list a bunch of toilets that would work for you and Rand! Seek professional help- what a concept! Good luck!

Water does disappear in many ways. From lakes where towns draw their drinking water- Walters, Ok and Wichita Falls Tx are having to pump from other sources now- to polluted sources we can no longer draw from. The Ocean is full of water- we can't use.

It can't be any ol' water, it has to be drinkable water. THAT needs to be husbanded for the continued growth of the nation. Some wonks think WWIII won't be over oil but over water. In WWII rationing was considered patriotic, these days Presidents encourage us to go out and spend, and consume as if there is no need to worry about the future.

wadda country
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom