Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit

[Sallow]

Wow, like this sounds so familiar..

Where did I hear this before??

Sen. Rand Paul once again put forward his desire for a truce with Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday afternoon, inviting the New Jersey politician for a beer so that they could “kiss and makeup” and discuss ideas.

“With Gov. Christie it’s gotten a little too personal, so we’re ready to kiss and makeup,” the Kentucky Republican said to Fox’s Neil Cavuto. “I think it’s time to dial it down. I think we’ve got enough Democrats to attack and maybe Republicans can quit attacking Republicans.”


Read more: Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit - Breanna Edwards - POLITICO.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Christie turned him down.

No beer summit for Christie, Paul - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

“At times people have said Chris Christie has some libertarian leanings so it’s actually a little ironic that we see him criticizing libertarians in the party for libertarian influences, because some libertarians actually had high hopes that he had some libertarian leanings,” Paul added, joking that maybe they could meet on neutral ground, like Philadelphia, if necessary.

Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit - Breanna Edwards - POLITICO.com

This was a bizarre claim by Rand though. I don't know of any libertarians who had any hopes whatsoever for Christie.

 

[Sallow]

Christie turned him down.

No beer summit for Christie, Paul - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

“At times people have said Chris Christie has some libertarian leanings so it’s actually a little ironic that we see him criticizing libertarians in the party for libertarian influences, because some libertarians actually had high hopes that he had some libertarian leanings,” Paul added, joking that maybe they could meet on neutral ground, like Philadelphia, if necessary.

Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit - Breanna Edwards - POLITICO.com

This was a bizarre claim by Rand though. I don't know of any libertarians who had any hopes whatsoever for Christie.

You are just now seeing that Rand is bizarre?

He's actually picking the worst fight he could possibly pick.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Christie turned him down.

No beer summit for Christie, Paul - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

“At times people have said Chris Christie has some libertarian leanings so it’s actually a little ironic that we see him criticizing libertarians in the party for libertarian influences, because some libertarians actually had high hopes that he had some libertarian leanings,” Paul added, joking that maybe they could meet on neutral ground, like Philadelphia, if necessary.

Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit - Breanna Edwards - POLITICO.com

This was a bizarre claim by Rand though. I don't know of any libertarians who had any hopes whatsoever for Christie.

You are just now seeing that Rand is bizarre?

He's actually picking the worst fight he could possibly pick.

My criticism of Rand goes back to him voting for sanctions against Iran and wanting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Not to mention his blatant attempts to pander to establishment Republicans which often come out as, yes, bizarre half-measures at best.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul thinks it is bad now.......wait until 2016

 

[Camp]

Rand got beach slapped. He tried to back peddle. Got beach slapped again. He's a slow learner. Gonna happen lots more. He ain't got what it takes. Tuff talker with a weak back. Can't take a punch. Not fast on his feet. Just another bs'er who has managed to fool the foolish.

 

[rightwinger]

Fucking Rand Paul voted against Hurricane Sandy disaster relief

I wouldn't have a beer with him either

 

[Sallow]

Christie turned him down.

No beer summit for Christie, Paul - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room



Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit - Breanna Edwards - POLITICO.com

This was a bizarre claim by Rand though. I don't know of any libertarians who had any hopes whatsoever for Christie.

You are just now seeing that Rand is bizarre?

He's actually picking the worst fight he could possibly pick.

My criticism of Rand goes back to him voting for sanctions against Iran and wanting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Not to mention his blatant attempts to pander to establishment Republicans which often come out as, yes, bizarre half-measures at best.

Oh so his bizarre ramblings about how he'd alter civil rights and his claim that the US was funneling arms through Turkey didn't strike you as at least odd?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are just now seeing that Rand is bizarre?

He's actually picking the worst fight he could possibly pick.

My criticism of Rand goes back to him voting for sanctions against Iran and wanting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Not to mention his blatant attempts to pander to establishment Republicans which often come out as, yes, bizarre half-measures at best.

Oh so his bizarre ramblings about how he'd alter civil rights and his claim that the US was funneling arms through Turkey didn't strike you as at least odd?

How he'd alter civil rights? I don't know what that even means, but can't say I've ever heard him say he wants to "alter" civil rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...ms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

Not sure why that would be an odd statement. Seems like standard operating procedure for the U.S., honestly.

 

[Sallow]

My criticism of Rand goes back to him voting for sanctions against Iran and wanting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Not to mention his blatant attempts to pander to establishment Republicans which often come out as, yes, bizarre half-measures at best.

Oh so his bizarre ramblings about how he'd alter civil rights and his claim that the US was funneling arms through Turkey didn't strike you as at least odd?

How he'd alter civil rights? I don't know what that even means, but can't say I've ever heard him say he wants to "alter" civil rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...ms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

Not sure why that would be an odd statement. Seems like standard operating procedure for the U.S., honestly.

He said he would have allowed private business to refuse service on the basis of race. Did you miss that one? I mean..it was a pretty big deal.

And Rand Paul picked up the Turkey thing from right wing media. Even though it was at best specious and not sourced. It was one of the questions he asked Hillary Clinton during her Deposition at the Benghazi investigation. It was pretty far out of the scope of what they were trying to learn.

EDIT: Even the article you sourced basically puts on display this was nothing more, really, than a "proof of concept" the CIA was conducting. And had nothing to do with Benghazi.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh so his bizarre ramblings about how he'd alter civil rights and his claim that the US was funneling arms through Turkey didn't strike you as at least odd?

How he'd alter civil rights? I don't know what that even means, but can't say I've ever heard him say he wants to "alter" civil rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...ms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

Not sure why that would be an odd statement. Seems like standard operating procedure for the U.S., honestly.

He said he would have allowed private business to refuse service on the basis of race. Did you miss that one? I mean..it was a pretty big deal.

And Rand Paul picked up the Turkey thing from right wing media. Even though it was at best specious and not sourced. It was one of the questions he asked Hillary Clinton during her Deposition at the Benghazi investigation. It was pretty far out of the scope of what they were trying to learn.

EDIT: Even the article you sourced basically puts on display this was nothing more, really, than a "proof of concept" the CIA was conducting. And had nothing to do with Benghazi.

You said he'd "alter civil rights." As there is no right to violate anybody's private property, simply a government grant to do so, Rand's statement would in no way "alter" civil rights. One must respect the property rights of a racist the same way one respects their right to free speech. In fact, it's their property rights that give them a right to free speech in the first place.

I believe the point Rand was making was that the U.S. aided the rebels in Libya to disastrous results, and that doing the same thing in Syria would also have blowback against the U.S.

 

[martybegan]

Oh so his bizarre ramblings about how he'd alter civil rights and his claim that the US was funneling arms through Turkey didn't strike you as at least odd?

How he'd alter civil rights? I don't know what that even means, but can't say I've ever heard him say he wants to "alter" civil rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/w...ms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&

Not sure why that would be an odd statement. Seems like standard operating procedure for the U.S., honestly.

He said he would have allowed private business to refuse service on the basis of race. Did you miss that one? I mean..it was a pretty big deal.

And Rand Paul picked up the Turkey thing from right wing media. Even though it was at best specious and not sourced. It was one of the questions he asked Hillary Clinton during her Deposition at the Benghazi investigation. It was pretty far out of the scope of what they were trying to learn.

EDIT: Even the article you sourced basically puts on display this was nothing more, really, than a "proof of concept" the CIA was conducting. And had nothing to do with Benghazi.

As long as the government is neutral, I have no issue with private organizations discriminating based on anything. In this environment most of them would go out of business pretty damn quickly, and those that didnt would be located in areas where the population agreed with thier position.

 

[dblack]

Christie turned him down.

No beer summit for Christie, Paul - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room



Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit - Breanna Edwards - POLITICO.com

This was a bizarre claim by Rand though. I don't know of any libertarians who had any hopes whatsoever for Christie.

You are just now seeing that Rand is bizarre?

He's actually picking the worst fight he could possibly pick.

My criticism of Rand goes back to him voting for sanctions against Iran and wanting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Not to mention his blatant attempts to pander to establishment Republicans which often come out as, yes, bizarre half-measures at best.

Sadly, it's the kind of politicking that's all too commonplace for our 'leaders'. It only seems bizarre because it's coming from someone who we expect, or at least hope, would aspire to something better.

 

[Sallow]

You said he'd "alter civil rights." As there is no right to violate anybody's private property, simply a government grant to do so, Rand's statement would in no way "alter" civil rights. One must respect the property rights of a racist the same way one respects their right to free speech. In fact, it's their property rights that give them a right to free speech in the first place.

Yeah..and that was correct. The civil rights movement started because of institutional racism that was not only in government, but "private" businesses. These business are in a large part supported by public taxes. They are also the means to distribute goods and services. Denying people access to that, is denying people equality. So in enhances what Rand was talking about was a return to Jim Crow for the private sector.

I believe the point Rand was making was that the U.S. aided the rebels in Libya to disastrous results, and that doing the same thing in Syria would also have blowback against the U.S.

That's fine. He picked the wrong forum to do it in.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You said he'd "alter civil rights." As there is no right to violate anybody's private property, simply a government grant to do so, Rand's statement would in no way "alter" civil rights. One must respect the property rights of a racist the same way one respects their right to free speech. In fact, it's their property rights that give them a right to free speech in the first place.

Yeah..and that was correct. The civil rights movement started because of institutional racism that was not only in government, but "private" businesses. These business are in a large part supported by public taxes. They are also the means to distribute goods and services. Denying people access to that, is denying people equality. So in enhances what Rand was talking about was a return to Jim Crow for the private sector.

I believe the point Rand was making was that the U.S. aided the rebels in Libya to disastrous results, and that doing the same thing in Syria would also have blowback against the U.S.

That's fine. He picked the wrong forum to do it in.

Give us an example of how private businesses are supported by public taxes. I'm not saying you're wrong, because there are plenty of examples. The bailouts come to mind, but those were specific cases. How are private businesses, in general, supported by public taxes?

It's your opinion that he picked the wrong forum. That the hearing was regarding blowback for U.S. involvement in one civil war seems as good a place as any to point out that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results might not be the best policy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are just now seeing that Rand is bizarre?

He's actually picking the worst fight he could possibly pick.

My criticism of Rand goes back to him voting for sanctions against Iran and wanting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Not to mention his blatant attempts to pander to establishment Republicans which often come out as, yes, bizarre half-measures at best.

Sadly, it's the kind of politicking that's all too commonplace for our 'leaders'. It only seems bizarre because it's coming from someone who we expect, or at least hope, would aspire to something better.

What I find sad is that I was chided and laughed at for this post for worrying about Rand's position on actual issues, rather than dumb talking points about him.

 

[dblack]

My criticism of Rand goes back to him voting for sanctions against Iran and wanting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Not to mention his blatant attempts to pander to establishment Republicans which often come out as, yes, bizarre half-measures at best.

Sadly, it's the kind of politicking that's all too commonplace for our 'leaders'. It only seems bizarre because it's coming from someone who we expect, or at least hope, would aspire to something better.

What I find sad is that I was chided and laughed at for this post for worrying about Rand's position on actual issues, rather than dumb talking points about him.

Well, that gets down to the main difference between Rand and his dad. Rand is embracing the role of 'politician', whereas Ron never quite fit in that suit. I guess the idea is that libertarians will forgive Rand his equivocation and demagoguery if it results in a presumably libertarian candidate being elected.

That's more or less the game Obama played with progressives. But then, how did that work out for the progressives?

 

[Defiant1]

Christie should just change parties and be done with it.

His 15 minutes of Republican fame are up.

 

[Sallow]

Give us an example of how private businesses are supported by public taxes. I'm not saying you're wrong, because there are plenty of examples. The bailouts come to mind, but those were specific cases. How are private businesses, in general, supported by public taxes?

One? I can give you multiple examples.

Take the lunch counter at Woolworth's where the civil rights movement essentially started. The street that the Woolworth's was located on was built and maintained by public taxes. The electrical and water delivery infrastructure was built by public taxes. The court that trademarked Woolworth's name and brand is maintained by public taxes. The police, fire department and sanitation department that provide services for Woolworth's is maintained by public taxes. The highways which trucks haul goods to Woolworth's was built and maintained by public taxes. The employees that populate Woolworths and have basic reading, writing and math skills, have them because they went to public schools, built and maintained by public taxes. I could go on...

It's your opinion that he picked the wrong forum. That the hearing was regarding blowback for U.S. involvement in one civil war seems as good a place as any to point out that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results might not be the best policy.

It's more than my opinion..the Benghazi hearing was meant to find out what happened at a specific event, not engage in hypotheticals. Which is part of the problem with this sorts of hearings. They become fishing expeditions and forums to introduce issues that are outside the scope of the investigation.

In essence they become a farce.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Give us an example of how private businesses are supported by public taxes. I'm not saying you're wrong, because there are plenty of examples. The bailouts come to mind, but those were specific cases. How are private businesses, in general, supported by public taxes?

One? I can give you multiple examples.

Take the lunch counter at Woolworth's where the civil rights movement essentially started. The street that the Woolworth's was located on was built and maintained by public taxes. The electrical and water delivery infrastructure was built by public taxes. The court that trademarked Woolworth's name and brand is maintained by public taxes. The police, fire department and sanitation department that provide services for Woolworth's is maintained by public taxes. The highways which trucks haul goods to Woolworth's was built and maintained by public taxes. The employees that populate Woolworths and have basic reading, writing and math skills, have them because they went to public schools, built and maintained by public taxes. I could go on...

It's your opinion that he picked the wrong forum. That the hearing was regarding blowback for U.S. involvement in one civil war seems as good a place as any to point out that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results might not be the best policy.

It's more than my opinion..the Benghazi hearing was meant to find out what happened at a specific event, not engage in hypotheticals. Which is part of the problem with this sorts of hearings. They become fishing expeditions and forums to introduce issues that are outside the scope of the investigation.

In essence they become a farce.

Alright, so the very same thing can be said regarding my house. Should I be forced to open my house to anybody who wants to come in?

I would agree that these hearings are a farce.