Rand Paul calls for Chris Christie beer summit

Good move by Rand. Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment

Mama Cass Christie looks more and more like he's Hillary's VP pick
 
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.

First? On your private dwelling. No. Again, we have a economic system where private entities are allowed to profit, privately, from the trade of goods and services. That's entirely different than your home. And if that is not equitable to all members of society, then it's either up to government, who regulates commerce, to address that by compelling private firms to service citizens regardless of what they look like or take over that function.
 
Nutter Paul bit off more than he could chew.

EEEUUUUWWWWWWWWWWWWW


Get your popcorn folx - the pubs are running for office and its gonna be fun watching their giant circular firing squad. yeah, its a rerun of the last several elections and a preview of many elections to come but these bozos deserve everything they don't get.
 
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 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.

First? On your private dwelling. No. Again, we have a economic system where private entities are allowed to profit, privately, from the trade of goods and services. That's entirely different than your home. And if that is not equitable to all members of society, then it's either up to government, who regulates commerce, to address that by compelling private firms to service citizens regardless of what they look like or take over that function.

That's a distinction without a difference. I profit from being "allowed" to live in my home. My home is located on the corner of two publicly funded roads, and the fire hydrant that the publicly funded fire department in my city would use to put out any theoretical fire is located right in my front yard. Why do I have the right to discriminate in who may enter my home but businesses do not, when their situations are exactly the same as mine?
 
I liked Mike Barnical's comment that Ayn Paul never watched HBO, and if he had, he'd know not to mess with guys from Jersey. (-:

Plus, can a very short guy win? Rand is 5'5". Rubio is 5'7" from what I understand. Can't you just see these guys behind a podium with Christie behind another one??
 
I liked Mike Barnical's comment that Ayn Paul never watched HBO, and if he had, he'd know not to mess with guys from Jersey. (-:

Plus, can a very short guy win? Rand is 5'5". Rubio is 5'7" from what I understand. Can't you just see these guys behind a podium with Christie behind another one??

Candidates are commonly given step-stools so that they appear to be the same height.
 
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.

First? On your private dwelling. No. Again, we have a economic system where private entities are allowed to profit, privately, from the trade of goods and services. That's entirely different than your home. And if that is not equitable to all members of society, then it's either up to government, who regulates commerce, to address that by compelling private firms to service citizens regardless of what they look like or take over that function.

That's a distinction without a difference. I profit from being "allowed" to live in my home. My home is located on the corner of two publicly funded roads, and the fire hydrant that the publicly funded fire department in my city would use to put out any theoretical fire is located right in my front yard. Why do I have the right to discriminate in who may enter my home but businesses do not, when their situations are exactly the same as mine?

There is a difference..and it's in the Constitution.

Section 8.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's a relatively clear distinction.
 
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.

First? On your private dwelling. No. Again, we have a economic system where private entities are allowed to profit, privately, from the trade of goods and services. That's entirely different than your home. And if that is not equitable to all members of society, then it's either up to government, who regulates commerce, to address that by compelling private firms to service citizens regardless of what they look like or take over that function.

That's a distinction without a difference. I profit from being "allowed" to live in my home. My home is located on the corner of two publicly funded roads, and the fire hydrant that the publicly funded fire department in my city would use to put out any theoretical fire is located right in my front yard. Why do I have the right to discriminate in who may enter my home but businesses do not, when their situations are exactly the same as mine?

Don't waste your breath on Shallow.

I agree with you. If a business doesn't want to serve someone or conduct business with them thats they're perogative. They can ask them to leave. No law of the land says a business has do business with someone they don't want to do business with.

Notice Shallow doesn't mention the taxes those businesses pay every year. Taxes that are used for roads, bridges, police, fire and anything else a Town or City is responsible for. Those businesses will be paying way more in taxes than any person will ever be paying.
 
First? On your private dwelling. No. Again, we have a economic system where private entities are allowed to profit, privately, from the trade of goods and services. That's entirely different than your home. And if that is not equitable to all members of society, then it's either up to government, who regulates commerce, to address that by compelling private firms to service citizens regardless of what they look like or take over that function.

That's a distinction without a difference. I profit from being "allowed" to live in my home. My home is located on the corner of two publicly funded roads, and the fire hydrant that the publicly funded fire department in my city would use to put out any theoretical fire is located right in my front yard. Why do I have the right to discriminate in who may enter my home but businesses do not, when their situations are exactly the same as mine?

There is a difference..and it's in the Constitution.

Section 8.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's a relatively clear distinction.

So a clause relating to free trade, and the Fourth Amendment which says people shall be secure in their own property. Kind of makes the opposite argument from what you're claiming they do.
 
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

:lol:
Rand Paul, and his followers and supporters are nothing but a big JOKE. Let's see how long he lasts. I don't predict much longer.
 
The more Rand Paul pokes a stick at democrats the more popular he becomes. Christie on the other hand is less palatable the more he kisses up to the demonrats.
 
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

:lol:

I'll take a wild stab it reminds you of Barry's beerfest his first summer, I think, in the White House. It was after he publicly stated he didn't know the facts in that particular case, but was nonetheless able to conclude the cops acted stupidly. What a guy, huh?
 
I liked Mike Barnical's comment that Ayn Paul never watched HBO, and if he had, he'd know not to mess with guys from Jersey. (-:

Plus, can a very short guy win? Rand is 5'5". Rubio is 5'7" from what I understand. Can't you just see these guys behind a podium with Christie behind another one??

Nope. (imho)

But then I didn't expect a black guy to win the presidency and I sure didn't expect him to mess it up so bad either.

"Trayvon could have been me" <-- President Obama the narcissist.

Obama.png



Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Obama addressed the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin for the first time since 2012, when he declared that if he had a son, he&#8217;d look like Martin. This time, Obama said, &#8220;Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.&#8221;

Just what the Office of the Presidency needs.

Obama: 'I Have the Potential of Bringing People Together'

Bringing them together 'to attack others' is not what I thought he meant.

Still, it looks like that what he did mean.
 
The more Rand Paul pokes a stick at democrats the more popular he becomes. Christie on the other hand is less palatable the more he kisses up to the demonrats.

Today's republican party has it's lowest % of supporters since before Reagan, and just over half of them want the party to be more conservative. Stick with it, it's working great for you. So great we had a landslide election for a guy named Hussein, with 2% growth and 8% unemployment, and requiring we all buy insurance from for profit corporations.
 

Forum List

Back
Top