• 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]

I cannot be the only person here laughing at the toilet debate.

It is a water regulation issue, but let me move away from that because I think all arguments have been duly noted and there won't be any change of opinion.

People like to lump Rand in with his father, but he is more into the Republican party than his father ever was. Though both Paul's claim to be Libertarian minded...Ron was about 80% Libertarian while Rand seems to be more 50/50.

Ron Paul supporters are going to throw their supports towards Rand because of his last name. If you look at his voting record, and what he has said...it sounds more like a Republican than a Libertarian.

Though I disagree a lot with Chris Christie; I've grown to respect his up front attitude with people. I respect anyone who can stand in front of a crowd and say what they mean with passion and no fear. That is exactly what Christie has done throughout his political career. My opinion of his agenda aside...I respect that from him.

I think Rand Paul is correct on certain issues like the eliminating the TSA, Repealing the Patriot Act, Cut Defense Spending....but incorrect on others...Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, Homosexuals in the military.
 
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.

Keep teling yourself that - and continue to make up definitions that suit your inconsistancies.
 
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.

You actually think Obama handled the Gulf oil spill in an "exemplary" manner????

What, exactly, had Obama done that was "exemplary" about the hurricane damage at the moment Christy said that Obama is "doing an excellent job" - other than walking down a street with Christie (and then flying away to Las Vegas) ?

Did the president send in the national guard? No.
Did the president send in the Corp of Engineers for power and cleanup? No.
What did Obama do that was "exemplary" or "excellent?"
 
Keep teling yourself that - and continue to make up definitions that suit your inconsistancies.
What is the inconsistency? And what definition have I made up?
 
You actually think Obama handled the Gulf oil spill in an "exemplary" manner????

What, exactly, had Obama done that was "exemplary" about the hurricane damage at the moment Christy said that Obama is "doing an excellent job" - other than walking down a street with Christie (and then flying away to Las Vegas) ?

Did the president send in the national guard? No.
Did the president send in the Corp of Engineers for power and cleanup? No.
What did Obama do that was "exemplary" or "excellent?"
He hugged people, promised them the moon and pretended he cared.
 
You actually think Obama handled the Gulf oil spill in an "exemplary" manner????

What, exactly, had Obama done that was "exemplary" about the hurricane damage at the moment Christy said that Obama is "doing an excellent job" - other than walking down a street with Christie (and then flying away to Las Vegas) ?

Did the president send in the national guard? No.
Did the president send in the Corp of Engineers for power and cleanup? No.
What did Obama do that was "exemplary" or "excellent?"


You're correct that Obama did not do an "exemplary" job with the Gulf oil spill but as President he did a far better job than his successor's response to Katrina

Your other points are flat out wrong

Guard troops save lives in Hurricane Sandy recovery | Article | The United States Army

ARLINGTON, Va. (Nov. 1, 2012) -- Since Hurricane Sandy made landfall Monday, more than 9,100 National Guard troops across 12 states have been assisting local authorities with missions such as search and rescue operations, food and water distribution, debris removal and providing security and shelter for storm victims.

On Thursday, more West Virginia National Guard members were activated to help clean up snow dumped by the monster storm system.

Also Thursday, the first of 17 Air Force cargo planes hauling 69 repair vehicles and gear from Southern California Edison utility company for use in New Jersey and New York will arrive at Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, N.Y. That cargo will be used to reconstruct the battered electrical grid in those hard-hit areas.

"It's fair to say that the state police and NYPD and the National Guard saved hundreds of lives (Tuesday)," said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

In New York, "bucket brigades" of Guard members climbed up 11 stories of hospital stairways to ferry fuel to rooftop generators; others carried patients down those same flights.

USACE Response to Hurricane Sandy

November
November 03, 2012 - Corps of Engineers establishes Hurricane Sandy Public Affairs Support Team
November 03, 2012 - Army engineers speeds New York City recovery with dewatering mission
November 02, 2012 - Army engineers Hurricane Sandy response efforts underway

October

October 30, 2012 - New York District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers begins post-storm missions in region following Hurricane Sandy, supports FEMA, local and state authorities
October 30, 2012 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Atlantic Division takes action following Hurricane Sandy's landfall
October 28, 2012 - Army engineers ready to respond to Hurricane Sandy impacts
October 28, 2012 - Corps of Engineers team in New England prepares for impacts, storm surge from Hurricane Sandy
 
You're correct that Obama did not do an "exemplary" job with the Gulf oil spill but as President he did a far better job than his successor's response to Katrina

*Cough* Hurricane Sandy *Cough*
 
*Cough* Hurricane Sandy *Cough*

I hope you are seeing a doctor about that cough.

After the cough is taken care of you might wish to look at news archives and read some of the articles about Republican Congress critters doing every thing possible to obstruct federal efforts to help the areas affected by Sandy.
 
I hope you are seeing a doctor about that cough.

After the cough is taken care of you might wish to look at news archives and read some of the articles about Republican Congress critters doing every thing possible to obstruct federal efforts to help the areas affected by Sandy.

/yawn it's like swatting flies with you

Obama Sandy aid bill filled with holiday goodies unrelated to storm damage - NYPOST.com

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s $60.4 billion request for Hurricane Sandy relief has morphed into a huge Christmas stocking of goodies for federal agencies and even the state of Alaska, The Post has learned.

The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.

It's classic Democrat Political Theatre. Stuff a "Relief Bill" filled with pork and handouts to their political cronies with taxpayer money, and anyone who objects is trying to make minorities starve or something. You lap it up.

Hurricane Sandy Victim Donna Vanzant Says Obama Broke Promise | The Philly Post

It had nothing to do with what I was asking him. It was a form letter. It thanked me for supporting the troops. He made a promise to rebuild on national television, and I can’t even get this money. It’s heartbreaking, really. I did reach out to Senator Whelan, and I got a response that they were forwarding my email to the person that Governor Christie put in charge of Sandy relief. But from President Obama, I got a form letter.

Once her political capital as a propaganda prop had been used up, under the bus she went.
 
/yawn it's like swatting flies with you

Obama Sandy aid bill filled with holiday goodies unrelated to storm damage - NYPOST.com

It's classic Democrat Political Theatre. Stuff a "Relief Bill" filled with pork and handouts to their political cronies with taxpayer money, and anyone who objects is trying to make minorities starve or something. You lap it up.

Hurricane Sandy Victim Donna Vanzant Says Obama Broke Promise | The Philly Post


Once her political capital as a propaganda prop had been used up, under the bus she went.

Which party tried to hold up Hurricane Sandy relief spending? Come on, you can say it!

Even a partisan like Chris Christie had to admit that the tea party occupation forces are toxic slime.
 
No, I understood his rant and its weirdness. And that's why it's ironic to hear this moron attack Christie for "ranting" about federal assistance for Hurricane Sandy assistance.
There's a difference between criticizing someone for being ignorant of a bill (which Christie was) and attacking policies that you are educated about (which Paul is about the EPA's policies)
Bottomline is, regulation has benefits and burdens. It addresses problems (like wasting water and higher water costs). Rand and the tea party occupation forces only talk about the burdens of regulation in a vaccuum. That's why he and other conservatives are intellectually bankrupt.
Agreed. There are benefits and burdens. Paul and some Tea Partiers understand this. However, when the burden outweighs the benefit, you will get push back about it. For instance, regulating the amount of water in a toilet does nothing to minimize water being used because it usually results in a person having to flush more than once when taking care of business. You lose the benefit when this happens. In addition, a new cost of having to have a plumber come out and fix your toilet frequently is passed on to the consumer. Passing regulations like this one are what is done in a vaccuum, not the fight against it. The fight against it sources from people that feel the burden of the regulation monetarily and the burden that is passed on to the market. It seems like the EPA has no concern for the effect their regulation has on the free market and passes their regulations "in a vaccuum".
 
Which party tried to hold up Hurricane Sandy relief spending? Come on, you can say it!

Even a partisan like Chris Christie had to admit that the tea party occupation forces are toxic slime.

I just can't take you seriously as a poster

So you're in favor of a pork filled bill with crony handouts and massive spending disguised as "Relief"

Good to know
 
I just can't take you seriously as a poster

So you're in favor of a pork filled bill with crony handouts and massive spending disguised as "Relief"

Good to know

We have liftoff: another conservative against disaster relief.

And you wonder why you guys keep losing elections!
 
There's a difference between criticizing someone for being ignorant of a bill (which Christie was) and attacking policies that you are educated about (which Paul is about the EPA's policies)

As the energy department witness pointed out (after wading through Paul's ridiculous "abortion" meme), there are some fine low flow toilets available at Home Depot. It appears Paul decided to keep his bad 1980s low flow for 30 years on the off chance that he could complain about it at a Senate hearing.

Agreed. There are benefits and burdens. Paul and some Tea Partiers understand this. However, when the burden outweighs the benefit, you will get push back about it. For instance, regulating the amount of water in a toilet does nothing to minimize water being used because it usually results in a person having to flush more than once when taking care of business. You lose the benefit when this happens. In addition, a new cost of having to have a plumber come out and fix your toilet frequently is passed on to the consumer. Passing regulations like this one are what is done in a vaccuum, not the fight against it. The fight against it sources from people that feel the burden of the regulation monetarily and the burden that is passed on to the market. It seems like the EPA has no concern for the effect their regulation has on the free market and passes their regulations "in a vaccuum".

Pssst: they don't understand that there are benefits and burdens since they don't attack the prudence of particular regulations; they attack the principle of regulating. Thus their position is intellectually dishonest.

But nice try to salvage the lunacy that is conservatism.

(by the way, the EPA, like all agencies, has a process for proposing regulations, evaluating the cost and benefits, taking public comments; so your cartoon version -- which is Paul's -- of a deranged EPA imposing low flow toilets for the hell of it is counterfactual).
 
We have liftoff: another conservative against disaster relief.

And you wonder why you guys keep losing elections!

OMG I'm against disaster relief!

How dare anyone be against massive pork and fraud disguised as "disaster relief"! If you're against massive fraud and pork YOU ARE AGAINST DISASTER RELIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

clown_dance.gif
 
As the energy department witness pointed out (after wading through Paul's ridiculous "abortion" meme), there are some fine low flow toilets available at Home Depot. It appears Paul decided to keep his bad 1980s low flow for 30 years on the off chance that he could complain about it at a Senate hearing.
So now we have to buy new toilets all of the time to keep up with regulations? More cost passed on to the consumer that the EPA could care less about. My point is proven.
Pssst: they don't understand that there are benefits and burdens since they don't attack the prudence of particular regulations; they attack the principle of regulating. Thus their position is intellectually dishonest.
When regulations have reached the point of "lunacy" of course the principal is attacked. Liberals and progressives believe that regulations occur in a "vaccuum" as you like to say with no effect on the market. That is ludicrous and you know it.

(by the way, the EPA, like all agencies, has a process for proposing regulations, evaluating the cost and benefits, taking public comments; so your cartoon version -- which is Paul's -- of a deranged EPA imposing low flow toilets for the hell of it is counterfactual).
Congress passes the laws that govern the United States, but Congress has also authorized EPA and other federal agencies to help put those laws into effect by creating and enforcing regulations.
Basics of the Regulatory Process | Laws and Regulations | US EPA
So, we have 2 options.
A) We abolish the EPA. Yeah right. Even if the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, I don't think that would happen. Nor should it.
B) Dems and sometimes the GOP await a time where they either have the majority and the Presidency or a time where the Dems/GOP has a bill they want passed extremely bad and attach a objective for the environment. Then, the EPA goes about enforcing said objective. They do so by regulating. However, when writing regulations the urgency to meet the new objective far outweighs the effect on the market place, consumer, etc. It's a law after all. They have to follow it. So the EPA sets ridiculous regulations and very rarely back tracks on them because that's not their job. They were given an objective to meet. Screw everything else. That's the Congress's worry. But getting Congress to repeal the objective is also not going to happen. Heck, we can't even meet the middle on the "fiscal cliff", much less an environmental regulation. The entire system's broken and we both know it. Someone fighting against it should be no surprise.
 
OMG I'm against disaster relief!

How dare anyone be against massive pork and fraud disguised as "disaster relief"! If you're against massive fraud and pork YOU ARE AGAINST DISASTER RELIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

clown_danfwefefwfece.gif

And this is why conservative are going extinct. Pretending disaster relief is pork. Keep it up -- you make my day.
 
So now we have to buy new toilets all of the time to keep up with regulations? More cost passed on to the consumer that the EPA could care less about. My point is proven.

Yep, and water saved, reducing water costs. See benefits and burdens. Like I said you only pretend to understand. You actually think like Paul that EPA officials sat around and came up with low flow toilets for no reason at all.

And that's why nobody takes conservatism seriously.

When regulations have reached the point of "lunacy" of course the principal is attacked. Liberals and progressives believe that regulations occur in a "vaccuum" as you like to say with no effect on the market. That is ludicrous and you know it.

False premise. Typical of tea baggery. We have one of the best processes in the world for making regulations, the most transparent, with the most public input. You just don't like regulations and don't like the modern world that requires it. You can fess up and stop the pretense.

Congress passes the laws that govern the United States, but Congress has also authorized EPA and other federal agencies to help put those laws into effect by creating and enforcing regulations.
Basics of the Regulatory Process | Laws and Regulations | US EPA
So, we have 2 options.
A) We abolish the EPA. Yeah right. Even if the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, I don't think that would happen. Nor should it.
B) Dems and sometimes the GOP await a time where they either have the majority and the Presidency or a time where the Dems/GOP has a bill they want passed extremely bad and attach a objective for the environment. Then, the EPA goes about enforcing said objective. They do so by regulating. However, when writing regulations the urgency to meet the new objective far outweighs the effect on the market place, consumer, etc. It's a law after all. They have to follow it. So the EPA sets ridiculous regulations and very rarely back tracks on them because that's not their job. They were given an objective to meet. Screw everything else. That's the Congress's worry. But getting Congress to repeal the objective is also not going to happen. Heck, we can't even meet the middle on the "fiscal cliff", much less an environmental regulation. The entire system's broken and we both know it. Someone fighting against it should be no surprise.

A false narrative with a false premise. There is a third option: Congress can pass a law tomorrow restricting the regulatory procedure. In fact Congress does that all the time. Congress barred NIH from researching the causes of gun deaths for instance. Congress prescribed that under the Endangered Species Act, economic costs to local communities would have to be taken into consideration (a dumb law).

Why are you posting this counterfactual nonsense?
 
Just to be clear, I removed your adolescent name calling and rhetoric from my post.
Yep, and water saved, reducing water costs. See benefits and burdens. Like I said you only pretend to understand. You actually think like Paul that EPA officials sat around and came up with low flow toilets for no reason at all.
That's the point, you don't save water. When you flush more due to weak flow and a lack of water, you use more making up for it with multiple flushes. So it all equals out anyway. Add that to the increased costs of having to constantly purchase products that perform despite the regulations placed upon them and it ends up costing more. Not to mention the fact that if you own an older home, your plumbing isn't equipped for the higher concentration of waste.
False premise. We have one of the best processes in the world for making regulations, the most transparent, with the most public input. You just don't like regulations and don't like the modern world that requires it.
Most public input huh? When was the last time you voted for a member of the EPA? I'm all for sensible regulations. Even ones that may go against my principles of small gov't and low regulation. But it has to be worth it. It can't be willy nilly regulation with what seems to be little to no investigation into the impact it has upon citizens. The fact of the matter is that the progressive way of doing things is doing nothing to this country but putting it further into debt, reducing its ability to bring itself out of debt, and doing nothing that would remotely signify that progressives could give a crap about it.
A false narrative with a false premise. There is a third option: Congress can pass a law tomorrow restricting the regulatory procedure. In fact Congress does that all the time. Congress barred NIH from researching the causes of gun deaths for instance. Congress prescribed that under the Endangered Species Act, economic costs to local communities would have to be taken into consideration (a dumb law).
So bringing up 2 instances (one of which has nothing to do with the EPA) means "it happens all the time"? Where exactly did you get your concept of "all the time"? Your statement that it's a dumb law to have to take into consideration the economic costs of EPA regulations further reveals your true feelings on the matter and your lack of understanding of the effects something as simply as saying a bird is endangered has on citizens.
 
Just to be clear, I removed your adolescent name calling and rhetoric from my post.

That's the point, you don't save water. When you flush more due to weak flow and a lack of water, you use more making up for it with multiple flushes. So it all equals out anyway. Add that to the increased costs of having to constantly purchase products that perform despite the regulations placed upon them and it ends up costing more. Not to mention the fact that if you own an older home, your plumbing isn't equipped for the higher concentration of waste.

Science has proven that low-flo toilets save water, though I realize that's not good enough for the magical thinking of rightwingers or those whose droppings are far above avg. Or those, who like Rand Paul, don't know how to shop for a toilet

Most public input huh? When was the last time you voted for a member of the EPA? I'm all for sensible regulations. Even ones that may go against my principles of small gov't and low regulation. But it has to be worth it. It can't be willy nilly regulation with what seems to be little to no investigation into the impact it has upon citizens. The fact of the matter is that the progressive way of doing things is doing nothing to this country but putting it further into debt, reducing its ability to bring itself out of debt, and doing nothing that would remotely signify that progressives could give a crap about it.

Every year we vote for the people who appoint and approve of those members of the EPA

So bringing up 2 instances (one of which has nothing to do with the EPA) means "it happens all the time"? Where exactly did you get your concept of "all the time"? Your statement that it's a dumb law to have to take into consideration the economic costs of EPA regulations further reveals your true feelings on the matter and your lack of understanding of the effects something as simply as saying a bird is endangered has on citizens.

So now you don't understand the figure of speech "all the time"??
 
Curious who thinks it be Rand Paul and the tea party that leads the 2014 campaign, and who thinks it will be Chris Christy and the moderate wing of the party that leads the 2014 campaign.
 
That's the point, you don't save water. When you flush more due to weak flow and a lack of water, you use more making up for it with multiple flushes. So it all equals out anyway. Add that to the increased costs of having to constantly purchase products that perform despite the regulations placed upon them and it ends up costing more. Not to mention the fact that if you own an older home, your plumbing isn't equipped for the higher concentration of waste.[q/uote]

RIGHTWING FRAUD ALERT!

Every study shows your claim is wrong. Stop pretending anecdotes = knowledge and you may overcome your conservatism.

Most public input huh? When was the last time you voted for a member of the EPA? I'm all for sensible regulations. Even ones that may go against my principles of small gov't and low regulation. But it has to be worth it. It can't be willy nilly regulation with what seems to be little to no investigation into the impact it has upon citizens. The fact of the matter is that the progressive way of doing things is doing nothing to this country but putting it further into debt, reducing its ability to bring itself out of debt, and doing nothing that would remotely signify that progressives could give a crap about it.

RIGHTWING FRAUD ALERT!

1. You vote for presidents and senators and they appoint and confirm EPA heads.

2. Regulations are passed only after a process involving public input.

NEXT discredited meme.

So bringing up 2 instances (one of which has nothing to do with the EPA) means "it happens all the time"? Where exactly did you get your concept of "all the time"? Your statement that it's a dumb law to have to take into consideration the economic costs of EPA regulations further reveals your true feelings on the matter and your lack of understanding of the effects something as simply as saying a bird is endangered has on citizens.

Pssst: there are more examples. Second, even one example shows your claim was false. Typical conservative memes.
 
Yep, and water saved, reducing water costs. See benefits and burdens. Like I said you only pretend to understand. You actually think like Paul that EPA officials sat around and came up with low flow toilets for no reason at all.

And that's why nobody takes conservatism seriously.



False premise. Typical of tea baggery. We have one of the best processes in the world for making regulations, the most transparent, with the most public input. You just don't like regulations and don't like the modern world that requires it. You can fess up and stop the pretense.



A false narrative with a false premise. There is a third option: Congress can pass a law tomorrow restricting the regulatory procedure. In fact Congress does that all the time. Congress barred NIH from researching the causes of gun deaths for instance. Congress prescribed that under the Endangered Species Act, economic costs to local communities would have to be taken into consideration (a dumb law).

Why are you posting this counterfactual nonsense?

Typical of the HoJ meme is to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of, blanket generalizations.
 
Is Paul demonizing Christie because Christie did what is best for his New Jersey constituency, the people of New Jersey, and not the Republican National constituency, the 1%? I think he should clean his shoes or check his underwear for lumps.
 
Typical of the HoJ meme is to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of, blanket generalizations.

Exactly bro. That's why its useless to debate him. I must be deranged to have tried lol. He states no facts, offers no sources for anything, and simply says MEME or RIGHT WING or TEA PARTY OCCUPIER and thinks that's a counter point.
 
Back
Top Bottom