Christie not interested in making up with Rand Paul

[CaptLouAlbano]

Wow Rand comes out of this looking like the better man.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has no interest in making nice with fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/01/christie-not-interested-in-making-up-with-rand-paul/

[specsaregood]

I think Rand played this whole fake feud just right. And cemented the reminder in the minds of GOP voters that Christie is an Obama republican.

[Origanalist]

Howard Dean: Meh, Rand Paul isn’t really a libertarian, ’cause he’s pro-life snort


It’s fascinating to watch this. First of all, lesson number one, for Rand Paul, who is, by the way, not a libertarian. If you believe you ought to be able to tell women what to do with their reproductive rights you are not a libertarian. Lesson number one for Rand Paul, do not take on a guy from Jersey. Obviously this guy does not watch HBO, and, you know, you’re not going to win a fight like this with Chris Christie. That’s not the way it’s going to go.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/01/howard-dean-meh-rand-paul-isnt-really-a-libertarian-cause-hes-pro-life/

[Christian Liberty]

Howard Dean is an idiot. He is correct that Rand isn't a libertarian, but he doesn't know why.

*Snort* is indeed the right response.

As for Christie not wanting to make up... good. Rand SHOULDN'T want to play nice with you either.

[cajuncocoa]

Christie is desperate to redeem himself after this:

http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/obama-hugs-christie-450x337.png

....it's not working.

[jtstellar]

prime example of how a non-paul supporter views this

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/01/christie-not-interested-in-making-up-with-rand-paul/#comment-984411585


Thomas Conservator1
• 3 hours ago

What did you want Paul to say? Let's meet somewhere private and I'll give you a B.J.? I'm no big Paul fan, but he was the one being a man here.
11 1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

you can tell from the slight 'bj' banter that he's no paul fan and probably trashed him elsewhere on other articles

like i said if this fight dragged on much longer it would go sour for both paul and christie.. sure paul could take down christie as a potential 2016 candidate, but at the cost of this movement's current standard carrier? ted cruz or rubio will come out on top over this and hillary will gain as well just by doing nothing and watching these 2 start digging at each other's records. you guys don't wager your chips very well.

if paul had to spend his political capital, let him spend it on something meaningful like saying snowden did a great thing or trying to stop foreign aid. if he loses support over that, i have no qualms. not over a pile of fat known as christie kreme no thank you. also interesting to note that paul haters think he did the right thing here, while supporters think he shouldn't have apologized. i think this movement's first and foremost priority is to expand by drawing in new blood, and a lot of new blood were just beginning to make the switch from christie/neocon camp to us, many were just beginning to get on the fence departing from the neocon camp, people should remember that

[Peace&Freedom]

Rand has been tactically winning almost every battle this year to position himself for the '15-'16 primaries, and in this episode Christie lost a bit of altitude. Rand took a solid stand, hung in there for a few rounds of verbal sparring, and offered the truce. He is the one who exercised leadership, is in line with the polls on the issue, and was big enough to extend the olive branch, while Christie was not. This is a good set-up for the race to come.

[cajuncocoa]

miker5 (http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/01/christie-not-interested-in-making-up-with-rand-paul/#) • 5 minutes ago (http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/01/christie-not-interested-in-making-up-with-rand-paul/#comment-984698746)





Rand Paul may not be the "bigger man", but he's the better man. For some strange reason, Christie reminds me of our big, bloated federal government which would undoubtedly get even bigger under his reign.



LOL

[JCDenton0451]

Howard Dean: Meh, Rand Paul isn’t really a libertarian, ’cause he’s pro-life

I agree with Dean on this. The subject of abortion needs to be brought up every time a Republican politician tries to claim libertarian credentials.

[Christian Liberty]

Christie is desperate to redeem himself after this:

http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/obama-hugs-christie-450x337.png

....it's not working.

Does Christie support gay marriage?:p


LOL

LOL!!!!!

[jtstellar]

a post from hotair


You can win the 2016 nomination running as someone who’s less libertarian than Paul. (In fact, the eventual nominee almost certainly will be.) I don’t know if you can win it running as someone who’s contemptuous of libertarianism as a “very dangerous thought.” Like I’ve said before, that’s not just a philosophical difference, it’s an electability issue: The nominee will need some Paul sympathizers to hold their noses and vote for him against the Democrat. Hardcore libertarians will stay home if Paul doesn’t win the nomination, but not all people who agree with key parts of Paul’s platform are hardcore. They’re gettable in theory — provided you don’t imply that they’re nuts for worrying about the direction of the surveillance state. This is why I think Rubio/Walker/Ryan are the real winners in all this ultimately. They’ll be more hawkish than Paul but way, way less antagonistic towards his supporters than Christie is. They can play him and Christie off each other as both being too extreme in their respective ways.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/01/christie-hey-i-dont-have-time-to-have-a-beer-with-rand-paul-right-now/

seems to reiterate what i said. the longer this drags on the more that kind of view will coalesce

[CaptLouAlbano]

I agree with Dean on this. The subject of abortion needs to be brought up every time a Republican politician tries to claim libertarian credentials.

You mean like Ron Paul did?

[Peace&Freedom]

The 'Ryan is better than Rand or Christie' view will not coalesce, because Rand can in turn tie the unconstitutional stances of the defenders of the NSA to Christie or King etc, painting them all as hard core supporters of obliterating everybody's privacy. At bottom, everybody gets the point that they don't want spying of their every burp or comment. They get it emotionally, not just logically. And this is before more NSA disclosures come to light. Again, Paul has the unique marketing position as being the sole person in the race who is concretely opposed to this who's running for President. The others can flex the rhetoric, but Rand has the high ground.

[JCDenton0451]

You mean like Ron Paul did?

There is zero political benefit to Rand Paul in calling himself "libertarian" and libertarian movement will be better off without him. Ron Paul did enough damage already by making social conservatism seem acceptable.

[Origanalist]

There is zero political benefit to Rand Paul in calling himself "libertarian" and libertarian movement will be better off without him. Ron Paul did enough damage already by making social conservatism seem acceptable.

Heaven forbid! I mean, good grief. Can you imagine if being pro-life were acceptable? :eek:

[asurfaholic]

There is zero political benefit to Rand Paul in calling himself "libertarian" and libertarian movement will be better off without him. Ron Paul did enough damage already by making social conservatism seem acceptable.

What do you propose we do with all these communist/nazis/terrorists-Oops, I mean social conservatives?

What hell on earth has anyone with a pro- life view ever done to hurt another human being? Go ahead, say it. Nothing. Yet it is ok to kill little babies since they are in their mommies bellies and its the mommies choice. Go fuck yourself with all your hatred towards social conservatism. I don't agree with every law that is written by so-called "social conservatives" but you seem to forget that this is a huge demographic, I bet at least 40% of the voting population. Not to mention almost exclusively REPUBLICAN, which is where we are at right now.

If you really like rainbows and unicorns and killing unborn babies then go join the democrat party.

[matt0611]

There is zero political benefit to Rand Paul in calling himself "libertarian" and libertarian movement will be better off without him. Ron Paul did enough damage already by making social conservatism seem acceptable.

Social conservatism is completely compatible with libertarianism, especially being pro-life.

I never understood the assertion that libertarianism -> pro-choice only.

[CaptLouAlbano]

There is zero political benefit to Rand Paul in calling himself "libertarian" and libertarian movement will be better off without him. Ron Paul did enough damage already by making social conservatism seem acceptable.

So you must be referring to the "libertarian movement" that is 4 guys meeting at Denny's every third Thursday. The one that hasn't won a state house election on their own merit since 1984. Yeah that dynamic "movement" will be far better off without Rand or Ron.

[JCDenton0451]

Heaven forbid! I mean, good grief. Can you imagine if being pro-life were acceptable? :eek:

Harry Reid is pro-life. Rand Paul is a Social Conservative: he wants the government to restrict the behaviors (and medical procedures) he doesn't approve of. Don't you see the problem with this from the libertarian standpoint?

[fr33]

I wouldn't have offered him a beer.

[cajuncocoa]

I agree with Dean on this. The subject of abortion needs to be brought up every time a Republican politician tries to claim libertarian credentials.
It is possible to be libertarian AND pro-life. And I'm not interested in allowing Howard Dean to define libertarianism any more than I would want Glenn Beck to define it.

[Christian Liberty]

I still wanna know, does Chris Christie support gay marriage?

Because in that picture he looked like he wanted to get one;)

[matt0611]

Harry Reid is pro-life. Rand Paul is a Social Conservative: he wants the government to restrict the behaviors (and medical procedures) he doesn't approve of. Don't you see the problem with this from the libertarian standpoint?

So you want outlaw murder and restrict my right to murder people? Oh noes you're not libertarian! :rolleyes:

Libertarianism is the belief that people shouldn't initiate force against others.

Some libertarians believe abortion is initiating force against unborn babies, as I do. That doesn't mean they're not libertarian, it means they disagree with you about abortion.

[specsaregood]

I wouldn't have offered him a beer.

The smart reply by Christie would have been to invite Rand up to NJ to have a beer. NJ has a handful of really good microbreweries. I mean he is supposed to be campaigning. Why not make some national news and try to promote people coming to NJ to try out the beer?

[CaptLouAlbano]

I still wanna know, does Chris Christie support gay marriage?

Because in that picture he looked like he wanted to get one;)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/chris-christie-gay-marriage_n_3617201.html

[JCDenton0451]

It is possible to be libertarian AND pro-life. And I'm not interested in allowing Howard Dean to define libertarianism any more than I would want Glenn Beck to define it.

I see a fundamental conflict between a Christian and Libertarian worldview when it comes to abortion. If you want to restrict abortion becuase it's "immoral", "unethical" and "against the will of God", that simply means you Christian values trump your libertarian tendencies. From the libertarian standpoint, a woman's right to have control over her own body is paramount.

[PatriotOne]

I wouldn't have offered him a beer.

Rand should have offered to buy him a BLT instead.

[cajuncocoa]

I see a fundamental conflict between a Christian and Libertarian worldview when it comes to abortion. If you want to restrict abortion becuase it's "immoral", "unethical" and "against the will of God", that simply means you Christian values trump your libertarian tendencies. From the libertarian standpoint, a woman's right to have control over her own body is paramount.
I am a Christian, but I'm not bringing religious views into this argument. I believe life begins at conception from a scientific point of view (the new life has unique DNA at that point).

[CaptLouAlbano]

I see a fundamental conflict between a Christian and Libertarian worldview when it comes to abortion. If you want to restrict abortion becuase it's "immoral", "unethical" and "against the will of God", that simply means you Christian values trump your libertarian tendencies. From the libertarian standpoint, a woman's right to have control over her own body is paramount.

You mean (or at least you should mean) "from [your own] libertarian standpoint..."

There are libertarians on both sides of the issue. Those of us who are pro-life libertarians accept that. Oddly enough though, pro-choice libertarians like yourself can't seem to come to terms with the fact that people can differ on issues.

But that's OK. You have your little club and apparently Rand or Ron isn't part of it anyway, so the issue is moot.

[matt0611]

I see a fundamental conflict between a Christian and Libertarian worldview when it comes to abortion. If you want to restrict abortion becuase it's "immoral", "unethical" and "against the will of God", that simply means you Christian values trump your libertarian tendencies. From the libertarian standpoint, a woman's right to have control over her own body is paramount.

When I was an atheist I was STILL just as pro-life as I am now that I'm a Christian. Because I still recognized unborn babies as having a right to LIFE.

From a libertarian standpoint a woman has the right to control over her own body...unless she's using it to initiate force on another life.

Everyone's morals have to come from somewhere or else they're just arbitrary.

[mad cow]

The smart reply by Christie would have been to invite Rand up to NJ to have a beer. NJ has a handful of really good microbreweries. I mean he is supposed to be campaigning. Why not make some national news and try to promote people coming to NJ to try out the beer?

New Jersey was devastated by Hurricane Sandy and it will take hundreds of billions of dollars to get them back on their feet.
I doubt there is a single tavern left standing in the entire State.

[BuddyRey]

I see a fundamental conflict between a Christian and Libertarian worldview when it comes to abortion. If you want to restrict abortion becuase it's "immoral", "unethical" and "against the will of God", that simply means you Christian values trump your libertarian tendencies. From the libertarian standpoint, a woman's right to have control over her own body is paramount.

With all due respect, you're making a couple of hasty assumptions here, the foremost of these being that the whole of the pro-life debate is easily encapsulated in religious arguments.

There are secular and even atheist pro-lifers. I'm not an atheist, but I like to think my own opposition to abortion has more basis in a strict reading of the Non-Aggression Principle than in the Bible. I don't dislike it because it's "against the will of God" (in fact, I've never seen any Scriptural mention of the issue at all), but because it entails an act of aggression against a growing life with a beating heart, brainwaves, nervous system, etc.

[specsaregood]

./

[JCDenton0451]

I am a Christian, but I'm not bringing religious views into this argument. I believe life begins at conception from a scientific point of view (the new life has unique DNA at that point).

Yeah, but life has no rights: bacteria are life too. A zygote is not equivalent to an actual living human person. Even then, why should any woman be forced to sustain its existence? Pregnancy and birth is a costly, punishing ordeal - why should any woman be subjected to this against her will?

[brushfire]

Devastating... :rolleyes:

[JCDenton0451]

With all due respect, you're making a couple of hasty assumptions here, the foremost of these being that the whole of the pro-life debate is easily encapsulated in religious arguments.

There are secular and even atheist pro-lifers. I'm not an atheist, but I like to think my own opposition to abortion has more basis in a strict reading of the Non-Aggression Principle than in the Bible.

The evidence is overwhelming: "pro-life" movement is rooted in the Evangelical community. The atheists and Jews are the most pro-choice groups in the US. Most people don't realise the extent to which their religion influences their entire worldview.

[BuddyRey]

The evidence is overwhelming: "pro-life" movement is rooted in the Evangelical community. The atheists and Jews are the most pro-choice groups in the US. Most people don't realise the extent to which their religion influences their entire worldview.

Well, since I don't consider myself religious (spiritual, but not religious), and know many atheists and agnostics who have similar ethical qualms with abortion, I think you're painting a pretty diverse range of opinions and arguments with a very broad brush.

[Origanalist]

Yeah, but life has no rights: bacteria are life too. A zygote is not equivalent to an actual living human person. Even then, why should any woman be forced to sustain its existence? Pregnancy and birth is a costly, punishing ordeal - why should any woman be subjected to this against her will?

Oh the horrors.:eek:

Where did you get this garbage drilled into your head at? Having kids is one of the greater things in life. Ask any mother here if she regrets any of it. I'm sick of this idea being pushed about how awful having children is. What utter nonsense, it is a beautiful thing.

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah, but life has no rights: bacteria are life too. A zygote is not equivalent to an actual living human person. Even then, why should any woman be forced to sustain its existence? Pregnancy and birth is a costly, punishing ordeal - why should any woman be subjected to this against her will?

Bacteria is not human life.

That said, trying to have a discussion/debate on abortion is a debate that nobody wins. I've never seen such a discussion where one side changes the opinion of anyone on the other. Either someone believes that life begins at conception or they don't. If they do, they will see the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby as a human life worth protecting; and if they don't, they won't.

[JK/SEA]

Moderates and liberals are not social conservatives for the most part. If you think ignoring this demographic will get you elected, just ask Mitt Romney how that worked out for him.

also, i suspect the big reason Ron Paul had big money bombs early on, was because of moderates and liberals.

[JCDenton0451]

Bacteria is not human life.

That said, trying to have a discussion/debate on abortion is a debate that nobody wins. I've never seen such a discussion where one side changes the opinion of anyone on the other. Either someone believes that life begins at conception or they don't. If they do, they will see the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby as a human life worth protecting; and if they don't, they won't.

You are in favor of gross restrictions on a freedom of individual, because of a belief that every zygote is worth protecting, even though it is not conscious, not self-aware, not intelligent, and doesn't feel anything. It's not a person...yet. It's a thing.

[JK/SEA]

You are in favor of gross restrictions on a freedom of individual, because of a belief that every zygote is worth protecting, even though it is not conscious, not self-aware, not intelligent, and doesn't feel anything. It's not a person...yet. It's a thing.

ok, so where is the compromise, because a 20 week abortion is murder.

[JCDenton0451]

Oh the horrors.:eek:

Where did you get this garbage drilled into your head at? Having kids is one of the greater things in life. Ask any mother here if she regrets any of it. I'm sick of this idea being pushed about how awful having children is. What utter nonsense, it is a beautiful thing.

I'm sure carrying your rapist's child isn't great. Social conservatives want to force a woman to do just that. This is barbaric. They are willing to trump over individual's freedom and dignity in the name of "morals". Nothing libertarian about that.

[matt0611]

I'm sure carrying your rapist's child isn't great. Social conservatives want to force a woman to do just that. This is barbaric. They are willing to trump over individual's freedom and dignity in the name of "morals". Nothing libertarian about that.

Killing the unborn child is even more barbaric if you ask me.

But even then you're focusing on a very very very small percentage of abortions. And the vast majority of pro-life people make exceptions to that anyway (even though I probably wouldn't).

[Origanalist]

Killing the unborn child is even more barbaric if you ask me.

But even then you're focusing on a very very very small percentage of abortions. And the vast majority of pro-life people make exceptions to that anyway (even though I probably wouldn't).

It's always the same talking points.

[Reece]

I've always thought of "libertarian" as a fairly open term. One issue doesn't change someone from being a libertarian to not a libertarian. Otherwise, there would be very, very few libertarians. Most people don't agree on every single issue.

Abortion has always been a topic that many libertarians disagreed on, anyway.

[alucard13mm]

You are in favor of gross restrictions on a freedom of individual, because of a belief that every zygote is worth protecting, even though it is not conscious, not self-aware, not intelligent, and doesn't feel anything. It's not a person...yet. It's a thing.

There is merit to that. First few days, it is just a blob of cells. I believe the progenietor cells for the beings nervous system does not form till days-a week after conception.

I believe ron accepts useof morning after pills within a few days of sex. Same premise that if it doesnt attach to uterus wall, it will fail to develop naturally.

It is a lose-lose battle. 49%vs51%. No side will win any time soon.

I think the one thing we can agree on is to stop using tax dollara to fund abortions or bomb brown kids.

[specsaregood]

I believe ron accepts useof morning after pills within a few days of sex. Same premise that if it doesnt attach to uterus wall, it will fail to develop naturally.


I don't think that is quite accurate. Ron believes life begins at conception; BUT said it would not be consistent to ban those devices as you cant scientifically prove that conception has occurred. I don't believe he actually "accepts" as in endorses their use.

[QuickZ06]

I other words, na-na na-na boo boo!

[FriedChicken]

There is zero political benefit to Rand Paul in calling himself "libertarian" and libertarian movement will be better off without him. Ron Paul did enough damage already by making social conservatism seem acceptable.

Is government control over home school and private school curriculum a libertarian idea? Just curious. Cause, like, I didn't think it was but ... you've argued in favor of it ... and are obviously the absolute definition of libertarian. So I'm just confused.

[FriedChicken]

I think the one thing we can agree on is to stop using tax dollars to fund abortions

I'm not sure JCDenton would actually agree with you on this. He might, I hope he does, but he surprises me quite often. He appears to be a person that believes in special exceptions for his pet peeves being enforced/funded by the government.

He is also an absolute authority on what being a libertarian is. Didn't you see him just school Ron Paul earlier? Wow!! That man is the Shizz!!!

[neoreactionary]

I'm not sure JCDenton would actually agree with you on this. He might, I hope he does, but he surprises me quite often. He appears to be a person that believes in special exceptions for his pet peeves being enforced/funded by the government.

He is also an absolute authority on what being a libertarian is. Didn't you see him just school Ron Paul earlier? Wow!! That man is the Shizz!!!

JCDenton0451 is in favor of mandatory taxpayer funding for abortions, he's argued in favor of this before.

[Warlord]

JCDenton0451 is in favor of mandatory taxpayer funding for abortions, he's argued in favor of this before.

He's a strange poster on RPF that's for sure.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm sure carrying your rapist's child isn't great. Social conservatives want to force a woman to do just that. This is barbaric. They are willing to trump over individual's freedom and dignity in the name of "morals". Nothing libertarian about that.

I don't think Ron Paul believes in the rape exception either.

[neoreactionary]

He's a strange poster on RPF that's for sure.

Yes, I'm also seriously troubled by his virulent anti-semitism. We get enough people falsely accusing Ron/Rand Paul and their supporters of that without having to deal with someone for whom the accusation is actually true.

[Origanalist]

I'm not sure JCDenton would actually agree with you on this. He might, I hope he does, but he surprises me quite often. He appears to be a person that believes in special exceptions for his pet peeves being enforced/funded by the government.

He is also an absolute authority on what being a libertarian is. Didn't you see him just school Ron Paul earlier? Wow!! That man is the Shizz!!!

Fo shizle!

[Christian Liberty]

I've always thought of "libertarian" as a fairly open term. One issue doesn't change someone from being a libertarian to not a libertarian. Otherwise, there would be very, very few libertarians. Most people don't agree on every single issue.

Abortion has always been a topic that many libertarians disagreed on, anyway.

I pretty much agree with this, although I think foreign policy at least sort of has to be the exception. If your one "blind spot" is that you want to bomb Iran, I don't think you'd qualify as being a libertarian.

[FrancisMarion]

Well then Christie is a baby.

[asurfaholic]

Bacteria is not human life.

That said, trying to have a discussion/debate on abortion is a debate that nobody wins. I've never seen such a discussion where one side changes the opinion of anyone on the other. Either someone believes that life begins at conception or they don't.....

especially the baby who got her head scraped off on the early round.

[asurfaholic]

I pretty much agree with this, although I think foreign policy at least sort of has to be the exception. If your one "blind spot" is that you want to bomb Iran, I don't think you'd qualify as being a libertarian.

Do you think Rand wants to bomb iran?

[FrancisMarion]

I just realized that this thread is on a tangent from its title. Christie is still a baby, though.

[cajuncocoa]

You are in favor of gross restrictions on a freedom of individual, because of a belief that every zygote is worth protecting, even though it is not conscious, not self-aware, not intelligent, and doesn't feel anything. It's not a person...yet. It's a thing.

That's YOUR belief...my belief, based on science, is that "it" is a human life.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't think that is quite accurate. Ron believes life begins at conception; BUT said it would not be consistent to ban those devices as you cant scientifically prove that conception has occurred. I don't believe he actually "accepts" as in endorses their use.

He equated them with birth control pills, and said he's prescribed birth control pills.

Draw your own conclusions, everybody.

[Reece]

I pretty much agree with this, although I think foreign policy at least sort of has to be the exception. If your one "blind spot" is that you want to bomb Iran, I don't think you'd qualify as being a libertarian.

Yeah, I'll agree there.

[Anti-Neocon]

Yes, I'm also seriously troubled by his virulent anti-semitism. We get enough people falsely accusing Ron/Rand Paul and their supporters of that without having to deal with someone for whom the accusation is actually true.
I have never seen him make an untrue comment about Zionist Jews. If telling the truth is "anti-Semitic" then I guess it's a good thing to sometimes be "anti-Semitic". I would hope that open discussion about important issues will not be hampered by political correctness in forums dedicated to liberty.

[neoreactionary]

I pretty much agree with this, although I think foreign policy at least sort of has to be the exception. If your one "blind spot" is that you want to bomb Iran, I don't think you'd qualify as being a libertarian.

lol

So by "I pretty much agree with this," you mean, "I do not agree with this"?

There are plenty of libertarian hawks. You don't encounter them much in Ron/Rand Paul circles, but they definitely exist, and it is certainly debatable whether they are any less libertarian than those with more non-interventionist leanings. The urge to issue blanket pronouncements ex-communicating people for holding various views should be resisted.

Just remember that for almost any widely-debated issue you can imagine, there exists at least one person who is much smarter than you, has thought about the issue more than you, and has reached a different conclusion. Have a little humility, for God's sake.

[Anti-Neocon]

The urge to issue blanket pronouncements ex-communicating people for holding various views...
Says the guy who screams "anti-Semite" when someone opposes Zionism, and more specifically the stranglehold that Zionist interests have over our country.

[neoreactionary]

I have never seen him make an untrue comment about Zionist Jews. If telling the truth is "anti-Semitic" then I guess it's a good thing to sometimes be "anti-Semitic". I would hope that open discussion about important issues will not be hampered by political correctness in forums dedicated to liberty.

A claim needn't be untrue in order to anti-Semitic, and I strongly disagree that it is always a good thing to tell the truth, regardless of consideration for political correctness.

Suppose I spent a large fraction of my posts pointing out that black people have an average IQ that is 15 points lower than white people and that this difference is largely due to genetic factors, that black people commit many orders of magnitude more violent crimes on a per-capita basis than white people, that we have actually found the gene that accounts for elevated aggression and hostility in black people, and that social science research shows that racially integrated communities have less social capital, more stress, less cohesion and tolerance, and overall less happy people than do racially homogenous ones.

All of these claims are true, but I would say that they are also racist and that people shouldn't go out of their way to point them out. Would you disagree?

[neoreactionary]

Says the guy who screams "anti-Semite" when someone opposes Zionism, and more specifically the stranglehold that Zionist interests have over our country.

I don't scream "anti-Semite" when someone opposes Zionism or the stranglehold that Zionist interests have over our country. You are either confusing me with someone else, mentally incompetent, or purposely lying for some reason I don't understand.

Also note that I complained in this very thread about the fact that people often falsely accuse Ron/Rand Paul and their supporters of anti-semitism. So it seems a little ridiculous to then turn around and accuse me of screaming "anti-Semite."


We get enough people falsely accusing Ron/Rand Paul and their supporters of [anti-Semitism] without having to deal with someone for whom the accusation is actually true.

[Anti-Neocon]

Suppose I spent a large fraction of my posts pointing out that black people have an average IQ that is 15 points lower than white people and that this difference is largely due to genetic factors, that black people commit many orders of magnitude more violent crimes on a per-capita basis than white people, that we have actually found the gene that accounts for elevated aggression and hostility in black people, and that social science research shows that racially integrated communities have less social capital, more stress, less cohesion and tolerance, and overall less happy people than do racially homogenous ones.

All of these claims are true, but I would say that they are also racist and that people shouldn't go out of their way to point them out. Would you disagree?
I think people should definitely point these kind of things out if they are relevant to the discussion.

Fear of political incorrectness shrouds the truth more often than not. In your specific example, I don't see anything wrong at all with making those points, although IQ is a pseudoscience which shouldn't be used to judge anything, much less entire groups of people.

[Anti-Neocon]

I don't scream "anti-Semite" when someone opposes Zionism or the stranglehold that Zionist interests have over our country. You are either confusing me with someone else, mentally incompetent, or purposely lying for some reason I don't understand.

Also note that I complained in this very thread about the fact that people often falsely accuse Ron/Rand Paul and their supporters of anti-semitism. So it seems a little ridiculous to then turn around and accuse me of screaming "anti-Semite."
You talked about JCDenton's "virulent anti-semitism". Those are your own words. Explain his "virulent anti-semitism". Have at it.

[cajuncocoa]

So let's see: we have Howard Dean using abortion as a wedge issue from the Left and Chris Christie using 9/11 as a wedge from Dunkin' Donuts. Now we just need some knee-jerk neocon to drive the foreign policy wedge and we'll have our trifecta.

[neoreactionary]

I think people should definitely point these kind of things out if they are relevant to the discussion.

There is no objective metric by which "relevance" can be determined, though. Were I so motivated, I assure you that I could shoehorn these facts into a discussion of virtually any subject I chose. If I made the decision to do so, would you not suspect my motives of being somewhat impure?


Fear of political incorrectness shrouds the truth more often than not. In your specific example, I don't see anything wrong at all with making those points, although IQ is a pseudoscience which shouldn't be used to judge anything, much less entire groups of people.

I agree with your general point about political correctness. The ironic thing is that your dismissal of the correlation between IQ scores and important life outcomes as "pseudoscience" is a pillar of the PC police, and you wouldn't be so wrong about the issue if you hadn't imbibed a buttload of PC propaganda. And the idea that we shouldn't "judge . . . entire groups of people" is another prominent tenet of PC dogma.

In fact, I think it is entirely appropriate to make judgments on the basis of data rather than fairy tales about universal human equality. Are you opposed to allowing the police or TSA agents to use profiling tactics, racial or otherwise, to decide whom to target for investigation?

[neoreactionary]

You talked about JCDenton's "virulent anti-semitism". Those are your own words. Explain his "virulent anti-semitism". Have at it.

I really don't care to. Everyone who reads this forum regularly and has a decent memory recognizes a few things about JCDenton0451: He's extremely anti-Semitic, he loves abortion, and he hates Christians and social conservatives. It doesn't matter to me whether you agree or not - a brief perusal of his posting history would confirm my claim.

[neoreactionary]

So let's see: we have Howard Dean using abortion as a wedge issue from the Left and Chris Christie using 9/11 as a wedge from Dunkin' Donuts. Now we just need some knee-jerk neocon to drive the foreign policy wedge and we'll have our trifecta.

I think Peter King already laid claim to the third leg of that tripod. Says a lot about how what an unimportant little troll he is that you didn't even remember though. :D

[SchleckBros]

The evidence is overwhelming: "pro-life" movement is rooted in the Evangelical community. The atheists and Jews are the most pro-choice groups in the US. Most people don't realise the extent to which their religion influences their entire worldview.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI

[Reece]

There are plenty of libertarian hawks. You don't encounter them much in Ron/Rand Paul circles, but they definitely exist, and it is certainly debatable whether they are any less libertarian than those with more non-interventionist leanings. The urge to issue blanket pronouncements ex-communicating people for holding various views should be resisted.

If someone is advocating bombing Iran (assuming they're talking about a place where more than a few innocent people are going to be killed) I don't think that I would consider them a libertarian, even an inconsistent one. I don't see how it could possibly be excused along libertarian lines. This doesn't mean that there can't be interventionist libertarians. I would consider someone who wanted to "pinpoint" targets (like the Iranian leaders) libertarian if they held almost everything else along libertarian lines. Mass-killing innocent people is going too far for me; I wouldn't consider them libertarian, although I wouldn't likely argue with them if they said they were one (there isn't much point in arguing too much over a definition).

At some point the word "libertarian" just becomes useless if the definition is expanded too much.

[neoreactionary]

If someone is advocating bombing Iran (assuming they're talking about a place where more than a few innocent people are going to be killed) I don't think that I would consider them a libertarian, even an inconsistent one. I don't see how it could possibly be excused along libertarian lines. This doesn't mean that there can't be interventionist libertarians. I would consider someone who wanted to "pinpoint" targets (like the Iranian leaders) libertarian if they held almost everything else along libertarian lines. Mass-killing innocent people is going too far for me; I wouldn't consider them libertarian, although I wouldn't likely argue with them if they said they were one (there isn't much point in arguing too much over a definition).

At some point the word "libertarian" just becomes useless if the definition is expanded too much.

Suppose someone advocated bombing Iran and killing more than a few innocent people because they believed that doing so would result in more freedom and less innocent death in the long term than would refraining from bombing Iran and killing those innocent people. This seems to me like an excuse along libertarian lines - what say you? Hopefully the parallels between this hypothetical and the trolley problem are plain; if not, please say so.

I fear what you are doing without realizing it is assuming that all libertarians must be deontologists. I agree that there's little point in arguing too much over a definition, and so we can certainly drop the issue if you'd like, but I would dispute this assumption. However, if we do in fact take this for granted, then by my reckoning "libertarian" should be considered a derogatory slur. Virtually everything wrong with the world is a result of deontological ethics; if being a libertarian requires adherence to such a doctrine, then I want no part of it, and neither should anyone else.

[Anti-Neocon]

I agree with your general point about political correctness. The ironic thing is that your dismissal of the correlation between IQ scores and important life outcomes as "pseudoscience" is a pillar of the PC police, and you wouldn't be so wrong about the issue if you hadn't imbibed a buttload of PC propaganda. And the idea that we shouldn't "judge . . . entire groups of people" is another prominent tenet of PC dogma.
I don't dismiss the correlation between IQ scores and important life outcomes. I dismiss the concept of IQ scores being a stationary quality and not themselves influenced by many factors. If one can improve one's IQ score simply by playing a lot of Tetris (which has been shown in scientific studies if I recall), the idea of using test scores to judge the innate capability of an entire race of people is, to say the least, a bit unfair, especially given the vastly different environmental factors experienced by people of different races, even those living in the same country. This has nothing to do with "PC dogma", but rather that IQ is simply a shaky foundation to build any argument on, as you don't "have an IQ", but rather the ability to score a certain distribution of IQ scores at a particular point in time.

In fact, I think it is entirely appropriate to make judgments on the basis of data rather than fairy tales about universal human equality.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with this. It's just wise to not prematurely jump to conclusions.

Are you opposed to allowing the police or TSA agents to use profiling tactics, racial or otherwise, to decide whom to target for investigation?
And I'm not opposed at all to profiling tactics, as long as stubborn committal to them doesn't lead to a security breach in the long term. Simplified example: if we only check guys who appear "Islamic" in the airports, Islamic terrorist organizations will catch on and only get people who don't look "Islamic" to carry out their attacks.

[jtstellar]

i think richer neighborhoods/more successful people will naturally have fewer incidents of abortion and have a very natural inclination to place value in their heirs..

the only solvable way i see this is really just the cliche solution repeated a thousand times over--let localities decide. seems to me more successful people will be the ones tending to leave more offspring and it will be a natural crowding out and natural selection against those who don't. the low expectation and low outlook on life that enables killing off their own offspring, whether it be the causation or aftermath of poor economic productivity and lack of success, in either case it will have higher correlation with people who should be natural selected out of human progress in any event, it would seem

[JCDenton0451]

@Neoreactionary/Federico/spladle/whatever he calls himself now

You are pathetic. There is not nearly enough PC enforcers on this board to make your "virulent antisemetism" charge stick.

And didn't you proudly admit to being a racist? Didn't you call the Muslims (and rednecks) subhuman? Didn't you admit that you enjoy and crave power?

Seriously, creating a new account after you've been banned should be a bannable offence. This person is obnoxios troll and he just wouldn't stop.

[Anti-Neocon]

I really don't care to. Everyone who reads this forum regularly and has a decent memory recognizes a few things about JCDenton0451: He's extremely anti-Semitic, he loves abortion, and he hates Christians and social conservatives. It doesn't matter to me whether you agree or not - a brief perusal of his posting history would confirm my claim.
LOL, this is just beyond pathetic. You make a claim (JCDenton is "virulently anti-Semitic"), and instead of backing it up, simply say that everyone recognizes a few things about him. I read this forum regularly and have never seen any anti-Semitism from him, proving your "everyone" claim false.

Learn to differentiate between opposition to a philosophy and opposition to a people. I'm willing to bet that he doesn't give a rat's ass if non-Zionists are Jewish or not.

[JCDenton0451]

Attention everyone: neoreactionary is spladle (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?29621-spladle) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/statusicon/user-offline.png

You should check out his posts in this thread:
Zionist rabbi: 'Rand Paul is the single greatest danger to Israel’s standing in the U.S.' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421715-Zionist-rabbi-Rand-Paul-is-the-single-greatest-danger-to-Israel%E2%80%99s-standing-in-the-U-S)
This guy is completely insane.

[neoreactionary]

I don't dismiss the correlation between IQ scores and important life outcomes. I dismiss the concept of IQ scores being a stationary quality and not themselves influenced by many factors. If one can improve one's IQ score simply by playing a lot of Tetris (which has been shown in scientific studies if I recall), the idea of using test scores to judge the innate capability of an entire race of people is, to say the least, a bit unfair, especially given the vastly different environmental factors experienced by people of different races, even those living in the same country. This has nothing to do with "PC dogma", but rather that IQ is simply a shaky foundation to build any argument on, as you don't "have an IQ", but rather the ability to score a certain distribution of IQ scores at a particular point in time.

It's true that temporary boosts to IQ scores can result from particular forms of training and study, but long-term testing demonstrates that these effects fade out over time. In fact, the fade-out effect is so large and strong that by age 30, gaps resulting from being raised in differing socioeconomic circumstances almost completely disappear.

It's true that IQ scores are influenced by many factors, but general intelligence ("g") is a very stable trait in adults and is a very strong predictor of various outcomes for both individuals and groups. The scientific literature on this issue is so overwhelmingly one-sided that the only possible way you could doubt it is as a result of ingesting mass quantities of PC propaganda.

Environmental factors play a much smaller role than genetics in determining adult IQ. Fair or not, it is factually true that black people are, on average, less intelligent and more violent than white people, and the vast majority of these differences are the result of genetics, which we know of no way to change. In other words: on average, black people are less suited to life in civilized societies than white people, and their inclusion in a population that was formerly racially homogenous produces a rise in crime, fear, distrust, inequality, and other social ills. Similar comments could be made about mestizos, to a lesser extent.

The denial that intelligence is very much an innate and largely immutable trait is arguably the most important tenet of PC dogma. It is only after denying this obvious truth that the rest of the PC doctrine falls into place. So it's pretty silly to see you pretend to be an opponent of political correctness. You are so completely enveloped in its womb that you can't even see out. You imagine yourself fighting against it when in fact you are its ardent defender.


As I said, there's nothing wrong with this. It's just wise to not prematurely jump to conclusions.

Agreed. It's similarly wise not to refrain from reaching conclusions merely because they make us uncomfortable.


And I'm not opposed at all to profiling tactics, as long as stubborn committal to them doesn't lead to a security breach in the long term. Simplified example: if we only check guys who appear "Islamic" in the airports, Islamic terrorist organizations will catch on and only get people who don't look "Islamic" to carry out their attacks.

Also agreed. I took Schneier's side in his debate with Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile). Hopefully my reasons for asking were obvious.

[neoreactionary]

@Neoreactionary/Federico/spladle/whatever he calls himself now

You are pathetic. There is not nearly enough PC enforcers on this board to make your "virulent antisemetism" charge stick.

You don't need to be a PC enforcer to find virulent anti-Semitism offensive, do you? I'm certainly no fan of PC, but I find your seemingly endless crusade against and obsession with Jews to be deeply abhorrent.


And didn't you proudly admit to being a racist?

No. I said that there were certain widely-used definitions of racist according to which it would be fair to call me a racist. However, I do not employ those definitions nor do I think of myself as a racist. I prefer to ignore race whenever possible and deal with people according to their characteristics as individuals.


Didn't you call the Muslims (and rednecks) subhuman?

No, I implied that Muslims who violently objected to our exchanging pleasantries with Zionists and rednecks in the South who had a similar reaction to black men exchanging pleasantries with white women were sub-human, and I stand by that judgment. People who get very angry over the fact that other people are enjoying the company of one another have something wrong with them, in my opinion. Calling them "sub-human" may be a bit of a stretch, but it's not a huge one imo.


Didn't you admit that you enjoy and crave power?

Yes, but only insofar as that power allows me to resist the power of others. I have little interest in bending others to my will. But it takes power to forge your own path. Without power, you will become a tool of others. This is unavoidable.

[neoreactionary]

LOL, this is just beyond pathetic. You make a claim (JCDenton is "virulently anti-Semitic"), and instead of backing it up, simply say that everyone recognizes a few things about him. I read this forum regularly and have never seen any anti-Semitism from him, proving your "everyone" claim false.

Learn to differentiate between opposition to a philosophy and opposition to a people. I'm willing to bet that he doesn't give a rat's ass if non-Zionists are Jewish or not.

I didn't back up my claim because you seem pretty dumb, so I don't care what you think. If you were smarter, and I valued your opinion more, I might take the trouble of linking to various posts where JCDenton0451 has made countless comments that, taken as a whole, paint a very vivid picture of anti-Semitism. But you aren't, and I don't, so I won't.

If you don't think he's anti-Semitic, this is reasonably strong evidence that you are yourself anti-Semitic, though.

When a philosophy is overwhelmingly identified with a people, opposition to one often overlaps with opposition to the other. However, I'm not a Zionist, and I certainly don't think of myself as an anti-Semite. I'm sure there are tons of people who oppose Zionism without having anything against Jews per se. But JCDenton0451 is not one of those people. He has a problem with Jews, and that fact makes me dislike him.

[neoreactionary]

Attention everyone: neoreactionary is spladle (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?29621-spladle) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/statusicon/user-offline.png

You should check out his posts in this thread:
Zionist rabbi: 'Rand Paul is the single greatest danger to Israel’s standing in the U.S.' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421715-Zionist-rabbi-Rand-Paul-is-the-single-greatest-danger-to-Israel%E2%80%99s-standing-in-the-U-S)


This guy is completely insane.

You really shouldn't be so rude to your superiors, kiddo. It's unbecoming.

Also, I believe I already demonstrated to you that it literally takes me three minutes to make a new account. Quit being such a whiny little bitch and learn to deal with my presence. At first I was going to just stop coming here if I got banned, but I've since changed my mind. Watching you descend into hysterics is just too much fun to pass up.

[neoreactionary]

It's true that temporary boosts to IQ scores can result from particular forms of training and study, but long-term testing demonstrates that these effects fade out over time. In fact, the fade-out effect is so large and strong that by age 30, gaps resulting from being raised in differing socioeconomic circumstances almost completely disappear.

It's true that IQ scores are influenced by many factors, but general intelligence ("g") is a very stable trait in adults and is a very strong predictor of various outcomes for both individuals and groups. The scientific literature on this issue is so overwhelmingly one-sided that the only possible way you could doubt it is as a result of ingesting mass quantities of PC propaganda.

Environmental factors play a much smaller role than genetics in determining adult IQ. Fair or not, it is factually true that black people are, on average, less intelligent and more violent than white people, and the vast majority of these differences are the result of genetics, which we know of no way to change. In other words: on average, black people are less suited to life in civilized societies than white people, and their inclusion in a population that was formerly racially homogenous produces a rise in crime, fear, distrust, inequality, and other social ills. Similar comments could be made about mestizos, to a lesser extent.

The denial that intelligence is very much an innate and largely immutable trait is arguably the most important tenet of PC dogma. It is only after denying this obvious truth that the rest of the PC doctrine falls into place. So it's pretty silly to see you pretend to be an opponent of political correctness. You are so completely enveloped in its womb that you can't even see out. You imagine yourself fighting against it when in fact you are its ardent defender.

btw, just in case someone feels like interpreting these comments in an uncharitable way, please recall that earlier in the thread I said this:


I strongly disagree that it is always a good thing to tell the truth, regardless of consideration for political correctness.

Suppose I spent a large fraction of my posts pointing out that black people have an average IQ that is 15 points lower than white people and that this difference is largely due to genetic factors, that black people commit many orders of magnitude more violent crimes on a per-capita basis than white people, that we have actually found the gene that accounts for elevated aggression and hostility in black people, and that social science research shows that racially integrated communities have less social capital, more stress, less cohesion and tolerance, and overall less happy people than do racially homogenous ones.

All of these claims are true, but I would say that they are also racist and that people shouldn't go out of their way to point them out.

My point being is that political correctness - or perhaps more accurately, simple politeness and a preference for avoiding certain controversial topics - can be a good thing. It is generally advisable to avoid talking about racial or sex differences, the heritability and relative immutability of intelligence, and other such issues, even though most people hold seriously flawed views about them and talking might correct some of their misconceptions.

[Original_Intent]

Rand should have offered to buy him a BLT instead.

Or better yet, a quadruple bypass burger at the Heart Attack Grill.

[Anti-Neocon]

It's true that temporary boosts to IQ scores can result from particular forms of training and study, but long-term testing demonstrates that these effects fade out over time. In fact, the fade-out effect is so large and strong that by age 30, gaps resulting from being raised in differing socioeconomic circumstances almost completely disappear.
Obviously there is a genetic component to someone's puzzle-solving ability, and as people settle into their routine, mundane boring lives, the environmental factors balance out so that those who have more natural inclination to puzzle-solving tend to demonstrate that innate ability more as the years pass on.


It's true that IQ scores are influenced by many factors, but general intelligence ("g") is a very stable trait in adults and is a very strong predictor of various outcomes for both individuals and groups. The scientific literature on this issue is so overwhelmingly one-sided that the only possible way you could doubt it is as a result of ingesting mass quantities of PC propaganda.
What do you mean by "general intelligence"? Obviously, as people settle in more as adults and become mentally mature, their mental makeup won't change to the degree of developing children. I don't know if you're accusing me of doubting that this has a correlation to life outcomes because I have never doubted the correlation between puzzle-solving ability (IQ) and life outcomes. However, puzzle-solving ability is just one aspect, and an aspect that isn't entirely genetic. Different groups of people have evolved to adapt to their surroundings, and the differences extend beyond simply "race". I have never once doubted that American blacks as a whole are less adept at this puzzle-solving aspect.


Environmental factors play a much smaller role than genetics in determining adult IQ. Fair or not, it is factually true that black people are, on average, less intelligent and more violent than white people, and the vast majority of these differences are the result of genetics, which we know of no way to change. In other words: on average, black people are less suited to life in civilized societies than white people, and their inclusion in a population that was formerly racially homogenous produces a rise in crime, fear, distrust, inequality, and other social ills. Similar comments could be made about mestizos, to a lesser extent.
I'd hesitate to say "less intelligent", but if you determine intelligence purely on puzzle-solving aptitude (IQ tests), then sure. And the rest is definitely scientific fact, no matter how "racist" it may be to state. It's the direct consequence of bringing a group of people evolved and adapted to "uncivilized life" into a "civilized" land. It's the one consequence of slavery which is taboo to mention, but if it were, the quality of life of all people could potentially increase. Of course, that would require popping the PC bubble which I'm all for.


The denial that intelligence is very much an innate and largely immutable trait is arguably the most important tenet of PC dogma. It is only after denying this obvious truth that the rest of the PC doctrine falls into place. So it's pretty silly to see you pretend to be an opponent of political correctness. You are so completely enveloped in its womb that you can't even see out. You imagine yourself fighting against it when in fact you are its ardent defender.
Once again, I don't know if you're attributing these beliefs personally to me, or not.

But what I ask you is: for someone who sees through PC dogma, why do you resort to slinging charges of "virulent anti-Semitism"?

As you see, my main gripe with the pseudoscience of being able to supposedly determine "intelligence" through puzzle-solving ability on a test, is just that. It's going to show correlation, sure, but you're wading into very dangerous territory when you start to say "person X is intellectually superior to person Y" simply based on their ability to perform some timed puzzle-solving exercises. The correlation will always be there, but "intelligence" as it is commonly used in modern society extends far beyond what can be measured with an IQ test. And you said that you don't find me intelligent in an earlier post, so that further proves my point as I can score extremely high on IQ tests.

[neoreactionary]

What do you mean by "general intelligence"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29


But what I ask you is: for someone who sees through PC dogma, why do you resort to slinging charges of "virulent anti-Semitism"?

Because I think JCDenton0451 is a virulent anti-Semite. Based on the things he says in this forum, I have concluded that he is hostile to Jews and would like to see bad things happen to them. This sentiment disgusts me. I am perfectly comfortable with saying a wide variety of politically incorrect things, but I am deeply disturbed by Actual Racism of the sort that I see JCDenton0451 put on display.


As you see, my main gripe with the pseudoscience of being able to supposedly determine "intelligence" through puzzle-solving ability on a test, is just that. It's going to show correlation, sure, but you're wading into very dangerous territory when you start to say "person X is intellectually superior to person Y" simply based on their ability to perform some timed puzzle-solving exercises. The correlation will always be there, but "intelligence" as it is commonly used in modern society extends far beyond what can be measured with an IQ test.

I think you should read the wiki article on "g factor" that I linked to above. It is true that no single test allows us to perfectly quantify a person's intelligence. It does not follow that intelligence testing is a pseudoscience or that intelligence is not a real thing. Some people are intellectually superior to other people, and it is often possible to render this judgment solely on the basis of their ability to perform timed puzzle-solving exercises. The larger the difference between two scores, the more likely the difference is to represent a real difference in intellectual capacity.

So while I would agree that intelligence extends beyond what can currently be measured with an IQ test, I would not say that it extends "far" beyond, and I am convinced that this gap will continue to shrink. Our ability to identify, measure, and quantify intelligence is growing with time.


And you said that you don't find me intelligent in an earlier post, so that further proves my point as I can score extremely high on IQ tests.

Technically, I said only that "you seem pretty dumb;" that impression has since faded. The adeptness with which you communicate renders "pretty dumb" an indefensible summary of your intellectual abilities. Nevertheless, I maintain the belief that you have some blind spots in your worldview that couldn't exist if you were significantly smarter. "Extremely high" means different things to different people.

[asurfaholic]

Why don't you guys get a room..

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Who the fuck...christ, I observe a posting sabbatical and all of a sudden, my RPFs are filled with dum-dums posting about whether or not abortion is or is not something Libertarians can support, and now this crap on page three...Here, let me give you people some help:Chris Christie is a big fat rolly-polly of a man that took a stand against the Teachers' Union in NJ, and helped out the state economy there (I think. If I'm wrong, fuck it I don't care) and because he had a few Youtube worthy encounters with idiots two years ago, he's the great white GOP hope, and we should listen to him because yack yack yack or so says the media.Rand Paul will scratch Chrispy Creme off his nads like a minor case of crotch crickets, and by Halloween, no one will be talking about Chris Christie other than the NJ papers and whoever else gives a shit about local politics back east.Rand will still be a Senator, still taking stands for liberty, still taking body blows from the media, and damn well may end up coming out on top. Cool. /thread

[jtstellar]

You are in favor of gross restrictions on a freedom of individual, because of a belief that every zygote is worth protecting, even though it is not conscious, not self-aware, not intelligent, and doesn't feel anything. It's not a person...yet. It's a thing.

the fuck is your problem? it is a life at its primal stage.

it contains genetic material foreign to the maternal body, so it's not even a part of woman's body since half of it is foreign.. if it were a clone like most bacteria and viruses, you could argue it is somehow a part of the woman's body. ever learn biology? the only question here is whether a woman at her inconvenience should have the ability to decide to terminate a life at its primal stage. many of us think nobody has the power to decide that, men or women, according to this nation's founding principles. such an attempt to sidetrack the argument and reverse-psychology whether it is life.. the fuck else do you describe heterogenetic cells that came together on their own and automatically self divides into completely self functioning brains and organs? magic?

[Natural Citizen]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has no interest in making nice with fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul.



So? Phhht. Tell him to hit the bricks.