Rand Paul

Rand Paul Has Best Moment in Tense Debate with 9/11-Obsessed Chris Christie

Many conservatives agree with Rand Paul that NSA spying violates civil liberties.

|

Rand
MSNBC

Sen. Rand Paul might have reclaimed some of his lost libertarian luster during a heated exchange with Chris Christie over the constitutionality of the NSA's phone records collection program.

The fight started after Christie asserted that Paul was wrong to raise civil liberties concerns about NSA spying.

"I will make no apologies ever for protecting the lives and the safety of the American people," said Christie. "We need to give more tools to our folks to be able to do that, not fewer, and then trust those people and oversee them to do it the right way. As president, that's exactly what I will do."

Paul shot back immediately.

"I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans," said Paul. "The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over. John Adams said it was the spark that led to our War for Independence. I'm proud of standing for the Bill of Rights and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights."

Christie insisted that Paul had given a "ridiculous" answer, since there is no way to tell the terrorists apart from the innocent American citizens. Paul responded that the way to discern the difference is to ask a judge for a warrant.

"I'm talking about searches, without warrants, indiscriminately of all American's records, and that's what I fought to end," said Paul. "I don't trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead."

Christie cited 9/11 in response (for at least the second time).

"The hugs that I remember are the hugs I gave to the families who lost their people on September 11th," he said. "Those are the hugs I remember."

Paul could not help but roll his eyes.

Christie is a big government bully who is quick to play the 9/11 card—and he's not alone on the stage in that regard. Paul's best way to distinguish himself from the rest of the field is to shore up his credentials as a defender of the liberties of all Americans, and taking on Christie was an excellent way to do that. It's important to remember that plenty of Republican primary voters—and indeed, plenty of Americans, period—are extremely uncomfortable ceding unchecked surveillance powers to the federal government.

NEXT: Former law professor/blogger Russ Brown appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Paul could not help but roll his eyes.

    We’ll see how that plays.

    1. Was he not able to answer verbally? Rules and all?

      It’s a shame these two will never be able to debate one on one. Christie might drop (if he’s smart) and no matter how long Paul stays in, he’ll not get the time he needs.

  2. Why didn’t Paul talk about the “hugs” that TSA agents give travelers every day?

    1. Because Christie would turn the tables & “bear hug” him back and I couldn’t bear to see his flabby, fat bare-naked ass during prime time (family hour & all)

  3. It’s easy to tell who the terrorists are. Those are the guys who smash in your door, throw flashbangs in your baby’s face… you know, to “send a message”.

    1. They had to frag that baby to save it!

  4. Hopefully someone uploads a Paul highlights video to Youtube. I missed most of the debate, have the 1AM record set to record, but I don’t know if I can deal with watching the whole thing right now.

    1. No need for you to tune in Plopper, they didn’t discuss lowering the age of consent to 8.

      1. I guess no need for you to tune in either, since they didn’t discuss the art of fucking goats and other farm animals. 😉

        1. Although, I do agree that some of those goats are pretty damned sexy.

          Almost as sexy as dolphins.

        2. I have no problem with people fucking their own property if that’s their thing.

          1. Considering that’s how the state and most people treat children then I’d assume you’re okay with fucking infants then?

            1. I’m not a pedo like you Plopper.

              1. I have no interest in prepubescent children, Apatheist.

                Maybe we should discuss your fetish for fucking babies though?

                1. Planned Parenthood’ll pimp ya a preemie. Tax free until President Huckabee is sworn in.

            2. My, my, this turned negative and rather quickly.

      2. I really enjoy how the Reason “regulars” will just drop to direct insults once someone makes an argument or takes a position that isn’t popular here, then completely twist what that person’s position is, and go on to threaten them with thuggish sounding statements like “so and so is a respected commenter here and daring to question or insult them like they’ve insulted you will end badly.”.

        Oh and then go on to make up complete fabrications about that person, like saying they were convicted sex offenders when if anything I’d be considered a victim by their own statements.

        1. Pedos truly are the real victims.

          1. I don’t know why I’m bothering since it’s obvious you aren’t here to say or add anything of value.

            I’m not someone who has even ever had sex with anyone younger than myself, but someone who was touched sexually by a teenage girl (about 16) when I was 5 or 6 years old.

            And I would say some pedos are victims, that is, if they aren’t child rapists and were merely squashed and had their lives ruined by the state for what merely goes on inside their minds.

            1. Plopper|8.6.15 @ 11:46PM|#
              “I don’t know why I’m bothering”

              Others are wondering the same thing.

          2. What about Pedros?

        2. As long as you are happy, Popper.

          That’s all that counts.

          1. When I make a comment here, I genuinely am trying to add to the conversation and debate.

            Unfortunately I can’t even talk about any topic at all without one of the oh so wonderful Reason thugulars immediately moving the subject to pedophilia.

            Why don’t we talk about something else? Like free banking systems and why it’s completely asinine to call fractional reserve banking, “fraud”. I’m always blown away how this whole terrible cancer infected such a large portion of self-professed Austrians.

            It’s made me revile Austrians to the point I prefer to call myself a market monetarist that doesn’t believe in central banks. It’s a more accurate description anyway.

            1. Was that before or after you followed Peter Schiff’s advise and plowed all your money into gold even though Schiff always says to diversify? “I lost a ton of money following Schiff!”

              Also, no one I know calls fractional banking a “fraud”. The people that have a problem with it don’t like that deposits are backed up by the FDIC which creates excessive speculation. But keep going after that strawman. But I’m a thugular for call out your BS.

              1. The FDIC has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking.

                And you are entirely ignorant if you didn’t know Rothboard and many other Austrian economists consider banks merely loaning out a percentage of their deposits, “fraud”.

                Do I need to link proof?

                Peter Schiff has said on fucking TV (CNBC I believe), that he blames fractional reserve banking for a lot of our problems. Even Ron Paul has said so.

                The only one full of shit here is you.

                1. Of course fractional reserve is a problem in their eyes when you have the govt putting in regulations to prevent bank runs. If a bank were to be open about lending out more in excess of their reserves and the bank were to shoulder all of the risk for such a situation, it in no way is fraud by any Austrian standard. You are free to deposit in any bank you wish as long as the risk isn’t forced upon the public or taxpayer. You miss the argument as usual.

                  1. Ohh.. Straffinrun, how incredibly wrong you are…

                    “[B]anks have habitually created warehouse receipts (originally bank notes and now deposits) out of thin air. Essentially, they are counterfeiters of fake warehouse-receipts to cash or standard money, which circulate as if they were genuine, fully backed notes or checking accounts. Banks make money by literally creating money out of thin air, nowadays exclusively deposits rather than bank notes. This sort of swindling or counterfeiting is dignified by the term ‘fractional-reserve banking,’ which means that bank deposits are backed by only a small fraction of the cash they promise to have at hand and redeem.”

                    Murray Rothbard, “Fractional Reserve Banking.”

                    1. http://www.alt-m.org/2012/07/12/reply-to-salerno/

                      Just search “fractional reserves” and “fraud” on Google and you will see the vast harvest of misunderstanding that this Mises-Institute fractional-reserves = fraud campaign has yielded. Even Congressman Paul has been taken in.

                      (Damn Reason’s 3 url limit per post)

                      Anyway, do I need to waste hours of my time going through old Peter Schiff videos on Youtube to find a quote of him blaming fractional reserve banking too?

                    2. Who is arguing the definition of “Fractional Reserve Banking”? Yes, Rothbard describes it exactly correctly. You think Rothbard would have a problem with an individual freely depositing his money in a bank were the bank to shoulder the risk of a bankrun all by itself? You think Rothbard would say, “No, we need a law against Fractional Reserve banking by the private enterprises”? For the last time, Austrians don’t want Fractional Reserve Banking if it has the taxpayer as a backstop. Your saying that Austrians are against leverage, which is flat out wrong.

                    3. His above quote clearly implies that he does indeed have a problem with that.

                      Especially so if one considers the history of banking where nearly every single time in history there was something at least close to a free market in banking has created a system where deposits are loaned out and only a fraction are held in reserve.

                      This sort of swindling or counterfeiting is dignified by the term ‘fractional-reserve banking.

                      Rothbard can’t have it both ways, either he believes in the free market or he believes the voluntary actions of individuals in the market is akin to “swinding or counterfeiting”.

                      Of course not all Austrians take this view, but a great many of them do. Especially the chest beating “internet austrian” types. Rothboard and De Soto are just two examples of Austrian economists that believed this.

                    4. Most Austrians say bankruns are absolutely necessary to weed out banks that act recklessly. No Austrian should say that individuals should be limited to depositing only in banks that have 100% reserve standing. You’re conflating cause and effect. When Austrians rail against Fractional Reserve Banking they are do so in the era of central banking. If you believe only the individual knows what is best for themself and that they act to achieve those goals, it is absurd to say that an individual can’t try to get higher yield by despositing their funds in a bank that doesn’t hold full reserves. They don’t say that. You’re misrepresenting them and I’m getting bored.

                    5. Then why do so many of them conflate it with “swindling” and “fraud”?

                      If it is fraudulent, then that would be a form of theft and would imply a non-voluntary transaction which if it were should very much be illegal.

                      How am I misrepresenting them when I’ve directly quoted Rothbard calling people who participate in fractional reserve banking thieves?

                      Let me quote it one more time for you.

                      Essentially, they are counterfeiters of fake warehouse-receipts to cash or standard money, which circulate as if they were genuine, fully backed notes or checking accounts.

                      (Even though they never claimed to be warehouse receipts.) See: http://www.alt-m.org/2012/07/1…..-receipts/

                      Rothbard knew his history, he knew damned well the market produced such systems, so if he’s calling it fraud then he did indeed believe it should be prevented.

                      Did you google for “fractional reserves” and “fraud” yet? You’ll find plenty of posts on mises.org that equate the practice with theft.

                      There is no strawman here.

            2. Regulars subtract from the conversation. To great amusement.

              Get with the program.

            3. “Unfortunately I can’t even talk about any topic at all without one of the oh so wonderful Reason thugulars immediately moving the subject to pedophilia.”

              Why is that ?

              I have only been here a year or so and don’t recognize you name.

              If everyone here thinks you are a pedophile, why is that ?

              1. OneOut,

                Because I have controversial views on AoC and child pornography laws.

                Plus, I once dared to suggest to Heroic Mulatto and Irish that it wasn’t lack of such laws (or rather, the lack of enforcement of them) in Thailand that lead to the abuse of children so much as an attitude that children are owned and more or less treated like property.

                We later went on to agree that better economic conditions and greater wealth reduced this phenomenon.

                Then, somewhere down the line someone started saying I was a convicted sex offender who was convicted of statutory rape and was whining about it on here. Although, this is entirely untrue and I never implied such a thing ever.

                Basically though, it stemmed from me offending the sensibilities of certain regulars who then made certain to try to trash me any time I posted, and then would complain whenever I would try to engage them about ANYTHING. Even if it was perfectly fine for them to engage me with personal attacks almost anytime I posted.

                That and the fact many of them have the maturity of high school boys who have the attitude that if someone is angry for being called ‘x’, that it must be true.

                1. Plopper|8.7.15 @ 1:17AM|#
                  “Because I have controversial views on AoC and child pornography laws.”

                  Plopper’s a goddam pedophile who tries to justify it by pedantry.

                  1. And I doubt I’ve ever seen a single comment from Sevo with any sort of substance at all.

                    I also get the feeling no one gives a fuck what you think either.

                    1. That may be true. But at least he’s not a member of NAMBLA.

                  2. I shouldn’t have even tried. Explained what he’s missing 3 different ways and, whooosh, just goes back to his original and mistaken assertion.

                    1. I guess reading comprehension isn’t straffinrun’s strong suit.

                      There are indeed Austrians who do not believe fractional reserve banking is fraud, or that it is even bad.

                      The problem is there are quite a few who do, and the majority of the mouthy types who call themselves Austrians on the internet seem to have the view it is indeed akin to theft.

                      Rothbard and De Soto are just two examples of exalted Austrian economists who have very clearly said it is the same as theft.

                    2. Rothbard only believes it’s theft under the conditions I laid out, but you just wave your hand and pretend like nothing was said. And you accuse me of poor reading comprehension. Fer fuck sake.

                    3. straffinrun,

                      When Austrians rail against Fractional Reserve Banking they are do so in the era of central banking.

                      This is demonstrably false as Rothbard and De Soto have both indeed called fractional reserve banking before the era of central banking fraud.

                      Both have specifically referred to examples in history where no central bank was present and declared that it was fraud.

                    4. In my view, issuing promises to pay on demand in excess of the amount of goods on hand is simply fraud, and should be so considered by the legal system.

                      Source: https://mises dot org/library/case-100-percent-gold-dollar-2

                      In an article published in The Review of Austrian Economics (Dec. 1988), “The Myth of Free Banking in Scotland,” Rothbard quoted this passage directly in footnote 18. (Note: he cited page 443. He was using the third edition published by Regnery in 1966, It appears on page 440 of the 1949 Yale University Press edition.) What is significant for this discussion is the single sentence in Rothbard’s essay which referred to the issue of fiat money. Here is that sentence: “The answer to fraud, then, is not administrative regulation, but prohibition of tort and fraud under general law.”

                      So Scotland had a central bank in the 1700s now?

                      Source (includes links to Rothbard’s own writings to support the above statements): http://www.garynorth.com/public/9714.cfm

                      The nineteenth-century English economist Thomas Tooke correctly stated that “free trade in banking is tantamount to free trade in swindling.”

                      (And he certainly wasn’t referring to the Bank of England here)

                      Source: archive dot lewrockwell dot com/rothbard/frb.html

                    5. Fractional reserve wharehousing and banking are NOT the same thing. Time deposits are not anti Rothbardian.

                      ” under free competition, and without government support and enforcement, there will only be limited scope for fractional-reserve counterfeiting. Banks could form cartels to prop each other up, but generally cartels on the market don’t work well without government enforcement, without the government cracking down on competitors who insist on busting the cartel, in this case, forcing competing banks to pay up.”

                    6. straffinrun,

                      You like to selectively ignore things, don’t you?

                      Rothbard very clearly stated he believes that fractional reserve banking should be prohibited and illegal if a state exists.

                      What you’re quoting is him describing how he also believes that free competition wouldn’t allow for fractional reserve banking, but the problem with this view is that history proves this incorrect. See: free banking in Scotland, Canada, Australia and more.

                      This doesn’t change the fact that Rothbard very clearly calls for prohibition fractional reserve banking, even without a central bank.

                      prohibition of tort and fraud under general law

                      He specifically mentions this in the context of free banking in Scotland before they were under the control of any central bank.

                    7. He’s talking about counterfeiting and you know it. The term “Fractional Reserve Banking” where depositors are tricked into thinking their money is in a vault is what Rothbard is getting at. You ignore my time deposit argument, free association argument, and the fact that I laid strict qualifications on what type of banking Rothbard would allow. All in the name of screaming, “Rothbard hates Fractional Reserve Banking!”. Good. I agree and tried to show where Austrians would support a bank lending in excess of reserves. Yet, whoosh, “See, Rothbard hates FR Banking, here and here and here”. This is pointless.

                    8. He calls it “fractional-reserve counterfeiting” because he believes loaning out deposits is inherently fraud.

                      Show me proof that customers were being lied to by the banks serving them in Scotland, Canada, Australia or the US during their free banking periods that any of their deposits weren’t being loaned out.

                      Considering the sheer number of competing banks in some of these systems, it could not have possibly been kept a secret this is what banks were doing and did.

                      Whether or not the deposit is a “time deposit” or not is irrelevant, and limiting their ability to loan out any deposit constrains the bank’s ability to meet the current demand for bank notes.

                      And yes, in a way Rothbard is right. That under free competition they can’t over extend themselves because the more conservative banks will drain the reserves of the banks overextending themselves. Because when it came time to settle the banks overextending themselves could end up owing other banks a huge clearing debt.

                      The problem is you’re dismissing the rest of context and the obvious contempt he has for fractional reserve banking in that passage you quoted.

                      There is no reason a bank should be banned by law from loaning out ANY deposits it wants, and Rothbard clearly implies that at least normal deposits shouldn’t be loaned out. However, this is exactly how the banks operated in a free market and it was no secret this is exactly what the banks were doing.

                    9. *were doing and still do.

                    10. The error Rothbard makes is that he pretends that bank notes are like warehouse receipts when they were never claimed to be as such, at least not in the systems I’ve mentioned.

                      He confuses a warehouse receipt with a liability. The notes created by the bank represent liabilities. It means they OWE you the amount of specie, it’s not a guarantee they have 100% of every note or loan they make available at any given time.

                      The time deposit thing is a red herring created as an afterthought to patch up a completely incoherent position.

                      If I have a normal checking account, leave $30,000 in it, deposit $2,000 a month and spend maybe $1700 a month, why shouldn’t the bank loan out a portion of the unused funds?

                      If I didn’t want them to I’d buy a safety deposit box and put the cash in there!

                      Yes it could come back to bite them if they loan out too much, but banking is about managing liabilities and risk so they can provide credit when it is demanded.

                    11. Plopper’s whole argument boils down to a complaint about the fact that Rothbard didn’t think two 12 year olds are fractionally equivalent to a 24 year old.

                    12. Exactly. The usual language on a bank note says nothing of its being a receipt for a deposit. It’s a bearer note, an IOU, where the “U” is the bearer.

                    13. Even Gold Standard Corp., w their gold checking acc’ts (denominated in gold) admitted to running a fractional reserve system at least part of the time by operating on float. At any given time they were probably 90+% backed, however.

                    14. Even Gold Standard Corp., w their gold checking acc’ts (denominated in gold) admitted to running a fractional reserve system at least part of the time by operating on float. At any given time they were probably 90+% backed, however.

                2. Yeah, but what about goats? I doubt very much your Nanny goat likes having your dick up her ass.

            4. Unfortunately I can’t even talk about any topic at all without one of the oh so wonderful Reason thugulars immediately moving the subject to pedophilia.

              /tries to look innocent

  5. Chris Christie is the same as Rudy Giuliani but with a worse accent and BMI

    1. In this font, I thought you’d written “a worse accent and BM!”.

  6. For fucks sake.

  7. “Jesus told me to bomb the living shit out of Iran.”

  8. “John Adams said I was the spark that led to our War for Independence.”

    I think this look at how patriotic I am stuff has gone to far. I don’t think John Adams knew about Paul.

    1. That’s a typo.

      1. But I’m guessing this was sarcastic.

  9. Rand’s closing statement wasn’t that bad.

    1. it was short and to the point!

  10. If I had to vote for a candidate because I was being forced to by Republican Jeebus I’d probably cast it for Donald trump. I thought the dumbest person on stage was ben Carson. Anyway, the candidate I’m voting for doesn’t mouth platitudes about sending illegals back to Mexico or about whether or not abortion should be available to someone who was raped so I thank Jeebus anyway that I don’t have to pick amongst this bunch of goons.

    1. You prefer goons who mass murder adults instead of course.

      1. Bernie sanders murdered someone? I didn’t know about that– is this like obama’s birth certificate? For the record, I’d condemn socialism and communism in the United States if they didn’t end up being right about basically everything in this country in the 20th century.

        1. so, so true American Socialist.

          It only we had had the sense to liquidate our kulaks.

        2. Hi AmSoc!

          Why won’t you help me earn my STALIN America badge? If I promise to kill another 100 million will you help?

          Thanks!

        3. If only the rest of the world’s central planners hadn’t poisoned the well for you. That must sting.

        4. “I’d condemn socialism and communism in the United States if they didn’t end up being right about basically everything in this country in the 20th century.”

          LMAO

          1. If the 20th century proved anything, it’s how great collectivism and central planning work out! pfft

            Such a clich?, the unemployable dipshit socialist lol

        5. Could you regale us with tales of the joys of Stalinism?

          1. Stalin was a dictator in the Soviet Union so I don’t know exactly what he had to do with communism in the United States. Around the time of stalin’s death there were people in the United States getting their asses kicked by cops and shot at by racists in the American South. You probably shouldn’t read too deeply about their political motivations lest we get off the subject of how bad it was in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. That’s really the only historical lesson worth learning and deeply relevant to the likes of someone like bernie sanders, who has a record of questioning the extent of police and military power. Guys like you probably shouldn’t think too hard.

            1. american socialist|8.7.15 @ 1:02AM|#
              “Stalin was a dictator in the Soviet Union so I don’t know exactly what he had to do with communism in the United States.”

              Hey, shitbag! I’m still waiting for the lefty solution to the reality of ending WWII! ZLet’s hear it.
              I’m sure it’s just wonderful with feelz and nobody hurt, right.
              Still waiting, you slimy pile of shit.

              1. Yeah, because the way to save lives against a country looking for someone to surrender to is to drop two nuclear bombs on its cities. If you don’t know about the alternatives–readily available to Truman– then it’s up to you to read about them. To Truman’s credit he accurately described the bombing victims that lived in that city as military targets. Like this girl…

                http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2…..tifact.jpg

                1. “a country looking for someone to surrender to”

                  Excuse me? Even after dropping the bombs the Emperor had to put down a coup from his military because they didn’t want to surrender to the US. Only 200 Japanese soldiers, out of 21,000 men surrendered. The Japanese lost over 100,000 men on Okinawa without surrendering. I see no willingness to surrender here. I believe your understanding of history and the Japanese culture of Bushido is less than perfect.

                  Besides, your feigned horror at the loss of life in those two cities is only driven by your world view and not based on any concern for life. Because if it was you would be much more upset by the fire bombing of Tokyo. A city whose population lived in wooden and paper homes for the most part. Over 200,000 died in one night. Burned alive. But hey….since that doesn’t carry the connotation of anything “nuclear”, which everyone knows equals “bad”, then we won’t mention it huh?

                  Pssst….you owe me 2.50 for the history lesson boy.

                  1. Only 200 Japanese soldiers, out of 21,000 men surrendered. At Iwo Jima. My bad

            2. Oh, and:

              american socialist|8.7.15 @ 1:02AM|#
              “…Around the time of stalin’s death there were people in the United States getting their asses kicked by cops and shot at by racists in the American South…”

              So, see, Stalin isn’t so bad, killing 50 million or so, ’cause, uh, well, some guys in the south!
              What a fucking lame bastard.

            3. 100 million dead for the win, why do you hate your proletariat, you fucking moron.

              1. Because in the much worse American south scenario, literally tens of people were killed by racist cops in the 30s and 40s. Duh!

                1. That was a reply to Migrant above.

            4. Yeah, good ok’ Bernie. Let’s have the socialist lecture us about the extent of police abuses. Because socialist societies never have much use for police.

        6. nobody is saying bernie sanders personally murdered anyone. this comment probably doesnt deserve a real response, but im bored. the point is that he supports policies that get people killed. his opposition to immigration, for instance, would mean more enforcement, which would mean more interactions between private citizens and police which, as we’ve seen over and over again, gets people killed on occasion. in your perfect world, where socialism might actually work, more interactions with police dont necessarily mean more people get killed, but here in the real world, as they say, that’s exactly what it means.

          1. The thing about interacting with AmSoc is that he’s a troll who comes here to post in bad faith, and he brings people who respond down to his level. You can try posting thoughtful, intelligent responses for the benefit of onlookers, but generally it’s best to just ignore him.

        7. How have communists not been wrong?

          Communism took hold in agrarian Russia rather than industrialized Germany. Thanks to the heroic friekorps.

          -1 Rosa Luxembourg

          Fascism was not the last stage of capitalism. Rather, the capitalist west incinerated fascism and most of its adherents. Liberal democracy became the ubiquitous form of government.

          -1 Lenin

          Third, Deng Xiaoping singlehandedly transformed red China into a vibrantly capitalist Asian tiger, consigning Mao’s legacy to the ash bin of history.

          +1 Chiang Kai-Shek.

    2. I thought the dumbest person on stage was ben Carson.

      More virulent racism from a leftist. Shocker.

      1. Saying a particular Black person is dumb is racism? I hope you are around the next time the subject of Jesse Jackson comes up. That discussion should get real interesting.

        1. You, of course, are a much more accomplished brain surgeon. Where’s your MD from?

          1. You, of course, are a much more accomplished brain surgeon. Where’s your MD from?

            Cracker Jack Box University

            1. Absorbine Jr. College

          2. He got his MD from playing Doctor with Plopper.

        2. I don’t think Jesse Jackson is “dumb”.

        3. There’s a difference between saying someone is “dumb” and saying someone is “wrong.”

        4. Only you would be stupid enough to call a neurosurgeon dumb, Amsoc. What do you do for a living?

      2. Ben Carson is a doctor. A pretty impressive one from what I’ve heard. But the guy has the policy knowledge of Trump and the charisma of McCain.

    3. You should consider Chris Christie. He just used the exact same argument that your gun-control friends employ. “I hugged a victim’s family, that gives me justification to revoke Constitutional rights.”

      He’s a thuggish, statist bully. The kind of guys your team loves.

    4. the candidate I’m voting for doesn’t mouth platitudes about sending illegals back to Mexico or about whether or not abortion should be available to someone who was raped

      Instead he mouths platitudes about not needing so many different kinds of deodorant because INEKWALITY!!!!!11!!!1!!!! That and FREE COLLEGE!!11!!!!!!1!!!!!

      Go suck Stalin’s mummified dick you commie fuckwit.

  11. There is no way the preponderance of right wing opinion will be that Rand Paul won that exchange. In fact overall, he had a fairly lackluster performance. If anyone is in danger now of getting bumped, it’s him and maybe Walker.

    1. Charles Krauthammer certainly thought Christie got the best of that exchange. The bolts in Charles’ neck were practically glowing.

      1. Oh, for fuck’s sake. Paul could have given the Gettysburg Address and Christie’s response could have been “Derp!” and Krauthummer would have given the exchange to Christie.

        I don’t look to a guy who said he’d vote for Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul to assess Paul’s relative debate performance.

      2. Yeah, but it wasn’t just Krautsy.

        Brit Hume and all the other jack asses on the post-debate show also agreed that Fatso got the best of Rand.

        My kids were all looking at me funny because I was cheering Rand on like Christian Ponder had just thrown a deep TD pass to Benard Barrian. Then the post show guys all thought Fatso won.

        WTF?

        I know I was pretty drunk, but WTF? Is it time I start looking into moving to Korea or Japan (my wife has fast track to citizenship in either).

        1. Again, though, we’re talking Brit Hume. Another reliable hyper-interventionist. What was the audience reaction. My impression is that they were a lot more impressed with Paul’s “Obama hug” comment than anything Fat Bastard had to say. This is what Fox (and the rest of the media) does. They get a bunch of reliable talking heads to repeat the same interpretation of facts to get people to believe that they saw something other than what they just saw.

          1. The group I was with thought the non-substantive retorts from Christie and Trump were really biting and funny. If you are not a libertarian then it is entirely possible that wrapping yourself in the 9/11 dead and saying “you’re having a tough night” count as cutting rejoinders to you.

            As a strong opponent of the USA PATRIOT act I thought Paul killed Christie in that exchange. In fact, I thought that Christie pretty much eliminated himself from any contention for president by falling in line behind the notion that any invasion of privacy is OK in the name of protecting us from evil-doers. But I don’t represent the majority of voters. I’m fairly sure the majority don’t understand what Rand Paul was talking about and thing that Christie is a strong leader who will defend us from terrorists based on that exchange.

            1. As one who hopes Paul mops the floor with that windbag, I still felt Christie won that exchange.

              The fact is, understanding the difference between bulk data collection and a specific search for data based on a warrant requires a little background knowledge on these programs and Christie exploited that. people didn’t get what Paul meant by the fourth amendment references. All they heard were a bunch of sound bites. Christie argued from a position of authority- as a former FISA prosecutor while Paul played into his characiture of a naive idealist.

              And Paul only looked petty by bringing the hug thing out of left field.

              1. In all, Paul’s line about not trusting Obama with his phone data was the most cogent and persuasive. However it wasn’t enough. He needs to practice educating people on these nuanced distinctions between mass dragnets of data and targeted use of warrants. And he needs to do it in two sentences- 15 seconds. If he can’t do that, people like Christie will continue to conflate concepts like this and just paint him as weak on foreign policy.

                1. I thought Christie’s take on that very issue was terrifying. He basically said that he was very conscientious about how he used those powers, and he trusted that his minions would be equally as trustworthy with even more power. Basically the exact opposite philosophy of everyone on HnR.

                  It was clear to me just how tiny of a minority we are by the reaction of the Fox analysts to this exchange. Even though they are definitely familiar with the libertarian take on these issues, none of them saw it as even a little bit troubling. It went beyond the fact that they were mostly calling the horse race, they really didn’t seem to see Christie’s “I’ll trade every bit of your freedom if I can enhance your security even a tiny amount” philosophy as any sort of problem at all.

                  1. I think the problem is that republicans have heard that “people who trade freedom for security” trope so many times since 9/11 that it doesn’t cause the least bit of introspection. They think it is hyperbole and people like Christie nurture that sentiment.

              2. I didn’t. Christie immediately went to the “I hugged a victim” defense. That is how gun control types justify their destruction of a right.

                Paul should have pointed that out.

          2. “What you saw” is dependent upon what you know. If you know the origins of the 4th Amendment, if you know that no terrorist plot was ever uncovered by mass surveillance, if you know that you can’t “connect the dots” when you have billions of dots then you clearly saw Rand Paul get the best of Christie.

            If you believe that security can be enhanced by detailed dossiers on everyone in the country, if you believe that the power these dossiers provide will never corrupt those who have it, then you believe Christie won even if all he did was make a fact free, emotional appeal using dead victims’ families.

        2. “…Korea or Japan (my wife has fast track to citizenship in either).”

          A libertarian with an Asian wife, imagine that!

      3. “The bolts in Charles’ neck were practically glowing.”

        Most of you people on here make me sick, but I have to admit this was pretty goddamn funny.

    2. Brit Hume was going out of his way to suggest that Christie damaged Paul and that any damage to Christie over this was because Christie made himself look too good during the exchange.

      1. If I had to pick who I thought did themselves the most good tonight, it would be Kasick and Christie. Paul and Walker the most harm. Everyone else OK.

        1. Nah Paul held his ground ok. His biggest problem was that he wasted precious seconds giving one liners like “I’m like Reagan” when he should have been using that time to state basic principles.

          Trump was the biggest loser I think, and that will help people like Paul who run the maverick ticket.

          I thought Cruz looked like a smarmy bozo up there- he has a Kerry’s-like inability to connect with the audience. Rubio availed himself quite well, and I see him getting the best gain from trump’s collapse.

          1. Though I’ll add Christie’s remarks on entitlement reform will be extremely well received and his willingness to dive into details on it will score him points as well he’ll have a good move in the polls as well.

            1. Christie want to raise the retirement age 1 month every year for 25 years. That would raise the retirement age to 68 by the year 2041. Social security is already putting out more money than it’s taking in. Means testing it can help but just 2 years won’t do anything if it takes 25 years to get there.

              Privatizing it is the only way to go in the long run. Chile did it and it worked well.

    3. Doubtful, if anything he strengthened his support among libertarian leaning types in the polls thanks to this exchange. Much like Ron Paul who appeared to lose the exchange with Giuliani in 08 but ended up trouncing him in the polls, the same will likely happen this time around with Sen. Paul likely regaining support among his libertarian base. What he didn’t gain was any new support from other factions in the party which is what he desperately needs to do to win the nomination.

      1. ???

        Who thought Paul lost the exchange with Rudy in 2012?

        1. The audience that booed Ron Paul and cheered Giuliani at the time. The same goes for Charles Krauthammer, Chris Wallace, etc. The only folks who thought Ron Paul won that exchange at the time were libertarians, anti-war liberals, and paleoconservatives. It’ll be the same thing this time around except for the fact that the anchors on Fox can’t call Paul “A blame America First candidate!” Nor can they accuse him of being an “undercover liberal democrat” they’ll save that for Donald Trump.

        2. Count me in on your poll.

          Why don’t you give us a bunch of dials or something to make it real “sciency” and then get your ass on Fox for the post show, robc?

          Don’t you own a suit jacket that doesn’t fit? (I know it is superficial, but Fat Frank Lunz, kept waving around his arm with his jacket sleeve about 8″ thick – I know it was that short because it was about 4″ shorter than my dick*)

          * Not really. It was really 5″ shorter than my dick, but superstition always makes me downgrade my 13″ inch cock to 12″

      2. Bypassing who won that exchange, I’ve given up on Rand Paul. I also think that he does great work in the senate and brings many important issues to light.
        I also agree with those who say he is too socially conservative, although I would still vote for him in a heartbeat.
        But he’s not gonna win the nomination. My least evil choice is Scott Walker, and I actually think he’s the Republican’s best bet to beat Shillary, too.

        1. I lived in Wisconsin for a couple of years, including Walker’s gubernatorial win, and the recall. He has to be the blandest, most milquetoast politician ever. Which makes the throne of bones and flesh he sits upon while he drinks the blood of those he’s vanquished from a chalice had of an upturned skull all the more impressive. He does not inspire the sort of rabid devotion in his supporters that Obama or Hillary do, and he sends Wisconsin progressives into spittle-flecked hissing.

          I would vote for him in a heart beat if/when Rand doesn’t make the cut.

    4. Jackand Ace|8.6.15 @ 11:27PM|#
      “There is no way the preponderance of right wing opinion will be that Rand Paul won that exchange. ”

      Jack, you have to understand that an opinion from a lefty ignoramus like you is NWS.
      BTW, I’m still waiting to hear from you when the Rapture is due? C’mon, brother, TELL IT!

    5. You are a troll and a an idiot so who cares, joe, fuck off.

    6. Every conservative i know posted to facebook about how great Christie was and how lackluster Paul was. Seems like Christie won even though he was wrong.

  12. I couldn’t make out anything Rand Paul said after Donald Trump ate him.

    1. Say what they will about you, you’ve never said directly positive things about communism.

      Or at least that I’ve never seen it.

      1. He just never calls it communism.

      2. “Or at least that I’ve never seen it.”
        Or you’ve ignored it.

  13. Chris Christie, running to be Big Brother.

    Rand Paul should send him some flowers for setting him up so well. That’s exactly the kind of exchange Rand Paul can get some mileage from.

  14. If you thought the debate was a shitshow stick around for this thread. NOT!

    1. Dude, don’t drop a NOT. Wayne’s World references are just fucking lame.

      1. This is true.

        1. When monkeys fly out my butt!

  15. Bonus points to Trump for taking Megyn Kelly’s question about his comments on women and using it to troll the shit out of Rosie O’Donuts again.

    1. My thoughts exactly. And then when Rosie tweeted, “try explaining that to your kids,” i just thought, his daughter is a smoking hot 34 year old. I’m sure she’s seen a picture of Rosie O’Donnell.

  16. Who came out ahead in the exchange will depend entirely on one’s own ideological perception. Personally I found Senator Paul’s responses to be better, but of course Christie was given the last word. I don’t think Sen. Paul hurt himself in the debate, but I don’t think he helped himself too much either. Huckabee and Rubio came out of this looking the best. So did Jeb and Kaisch to lesser degrees. And Trump if anything had his balloon deflated a bit.

  17. Apparently quite a few people think Christie won the exchange. A lot of comments like “He looked like a tough guy” etc etc. Pretty sad, his entire argument was emotional appeal to 9/11. It reminded me of the Family Guy episode when Lois ran for mayor.

    1. Although I will say Rand should have hit him at the end with something more substantive than “you hugged Obama.” I understand he’s trying to play the GOP base, but he could have finished with a much stronger, more logic-based argument.

      1. Cali- totally agree. It was like Paul had been saving that one up all night, and it was obvious Christie had been ready for it and probably had numerous retorts in his pocket. It was an amateur move on Paul’s part and his handlers better get their shit together.

        As I said above, Paul could have spent a few words expanding on the difference between mass data collection and warrants. Instead he trotted out that weak sauce. With so little time to talk, he needs to use those opportunities better.

    2. They are insane. Giuliani’s exchanges with Ron never helped him at all and Christie is just Giuliani is 2.0 with even less credibilitiy.

      1. Granted. But I don’t think Giuliani’s failure had anything to do with the exchanges with Paul. While I do agree that Paul won that exchange from an objective, logic-based POV, I don’t think the average Republican at the time would have agreed with that. As someone else said, other than libertarians, anti-war liberals and moderates, and paleocons, most people would have thought Rudy got the better of Paul.

    3. Part of the problem is Christie was given the last word in the exchange. Not allowing Senator Paul to respond to the fundraising barb, Christie threw, created the effect of making him look like the loser in the exchange. Fox’s moderators were very slick in the way they organized this debate to maximize its entertainment value. They tried to create similar tension between Jeb and Rubio, Christie and Huckabee, etc. Which had the effect of making all four look rather good.

      1. Oh, come on. The media doesn’t manipulate stories to make them more interesting. I mean, Christ-on-a-cracker, do you wear a tinfoil hat?

        1. So you don’t think the debate moderators framed the “debate” in way to create the most entertainment and soundbites? Seriously? If that weren’t true then instead of asking Rubio why JEB is wrong on Common Core, they would ask what his actual plans are for education policy. Same goes for asking Huckabee turn to Christie and tell him why he’s wrong rather than asking him explain his policy proposals. They were totally trying getting to get these guys to argue with each other for the entertainment value. You don’t need to wear a tin foil hat to see that much. Yeesh.

          1. Your sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.

    4. Ick, Giuliani times four. We must burn the constitution because 9/11. Eagle tear.

      1. Look at me, agreeing with Tony.
        Years ago, I saw people ragging on you, Tony, and I said something like “he’s not completely wrong, why don’t you guys try to change his mind?”
        And then I saw you post the stupidest drivel, with, every now and then, a valid point.
        This post of yours, once again, makes me feel like you are not a lost cause.
        Come, Tony, join the Darkside.

        1. How is that supposed to be capitalized? Or is it not? Spaces? Any SciFi guys here?
          the Darkside
          the Dark Side
          the dark side

        2. I can’t take much credit considering how easy it is to spot a morbidly obese fascist.

          1. Tony|8.7.15 @ 1:14AM|#
            “I can’t take much credit”

            Correct. Idiot lefties really can’t.

          2. Come on Tony, you recognized a statist piece of shit trying to use a one-off to justify unconstitutional acts. Good for you. Own it. Be proud.
            We are corrupting you, Tony, little by little. Actually, I think that you’ve already been converted: i.e. you know we are right, you agree with us, but you can only get people to talk to you by posting the stupidest shit you can think of.
            Tony, join the dark side, and I promise that DenverJ, at least, will respond to your posts.

    5. Watching it, I would say that Christie won the exchange *as a debate* ?the two men where arguing past each other on what (if one listened closely) were really two different-but-related points. However, the exchange was heated and the moderators (as Megyn Kelly admitted afterwards) allowed it to continue past the normal time limits to see how the exchange would develop. Yet, on both this and the later Social Security exchange with Huckabee, Christie had good command of his data in those two individual exchanges of the evening, effectively coming out “ahead” on “points” in a place in his campaign where only three days ago he’d been being asking in a candidate forum whether his time to run for President had passed.

      Paul’s done an excellent job at many times in the past on warantless searches, but this was not such a time (his best moment(s), I would argue were the point throughout needling Trump on the issue of cronyism, which led to Trump’s slipping on his pay-for-pay with Hillary Clinton on national television) ?if anything, once again, I think that Chris Christie did a better job of defending his position from a debating perspective, whether or not one agrees with him.

      1. What “facts” did Christie bring to bear? All he trotted out was “the feelz”, as Caldisident points out.

        1. As a debate, I think Paul won on logic, although since I’m posting on a libertarian website, and not a troll, I might be biased.

          It’s probably a tie polling wise. Christie playing the 9/11 card is going to get real old real fast.

          Rand Paul picking a fight with Christie makes sense. The people in favor of Christie’s Panoticon because of 9/11 probably aren’t about to become Rand Paul supporters, and Rand Paul supporters aren’t about to support Christie. So they both probably get a slight boost in poll numbers.

          Watching Christie debate Huckabee was just sad. Christie just demolished Huckabee on Social Security reform.

      2. his best moment(s), I would argue were the point throughout needling Trump on the issue of cronyism, which led to Trump’s slipping on his pay-for-pay with Hillary Clinton on national television

        Dude, I’ve got to see that.
        Not a believer in conspiracies, but still willing to admit that Bill might have steered Trump into running, I’m wondering, if that’s true, if Bill finally out-clevered himself, and it just backfired by bringing up Hillary’s problems and tying her to Trump.

        1. That entire second paragraph was one sentence, but crafted so well that, technically, it was not a run-on sentence (incidentally, I’m typing all of this on the biggest piece of shit phone I’ve ever had the misfortune to meet, and yes, it’s a windows phone).
          The above paragraph is also one sentence.

    6. I don’t see who thought Christie got the better of the exchange. The support for him, at least from the audience, was perfunctory. Paul got a genuine applause round. It seems to me like the only ones calling Christie the winner on that were hyper-interventionists dead set against Paul in the first place. The only real risk is that the lie will be repeated enough to become conventional wisdom.

      1. I’m going off of various comment threads and from what various talking heads are saying. It doesn’t seem to be a consensus opinion by any means, but I’ve seen it a lot.

        1. Yeah, I see it even here. I just don’t get it. If you watch the exchange and listen to audience reaction, Paul got more of a response from the crowd. I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a little bit of repeating an interpretation until everyone believes it going on.

      2. Since most of the media including Fox News Anchors support interventionism and NSA spying I think its probably more of a reality than a risk. The only way Paul was gonna be seen as the winner in an exchange like this is if he took the conservative side on an economic issue rather than the libertarian side on national security or he some how morphed into Ronald Reagan.

      3. The only real risk is that the lie will be repeated enough to become conventional wisdom.

        Understanding that truth, that the media controls the subject of the debate, is the first step to political wisdom.

    7. What the fuck was Christie talking about? He wasn’t Governor in 2001. I lived in NJ and had never heard of him at that point.

      So he gave some people a fat-guy hug and that makes it okay to shit on the Fourth Amendment? Fuck him.

  18. “Terrible man who hates immigrants is right on government surveillance”

    OK.

  19. Complete side thought =

    I didn’t watch the debates, and just followed the tweeting

    Did moderators even say the word, “Iraq”? Was there any question re: that clusterfuck at all?

    1. One incident about Iraq was when Donald trump said that he was the only person who opposed the Iraq war at its inception. He got booed for that response.

      I just want to know from guys like you where I can get my jeb bush/Scott walker lawn jockey. I figured that you would know. It’s pretty important for me as a libertarian that we give paul wolfowitz and Daniel pipes another chance at governing.

      1. Hey, shitbag!
        Still waiting for the lefty solution to WWII.
        Got to be harmless to all and just great feelz, right?
        Let’s hear it, shitbag!

        1. Still waiting for the lefty solution to WWII.

          Wasn’t the lefty solution to WWII to beg the west for supplies and pile up a mountain of bodies so high that the nazis couldn’t climb over it?

          -jcr

      2. “One incident about Iraq was when Donald trump said that he was the only person who opposed the Iraq war at its inception.”

        Donald Trump says lots of things that aren’t true.

        “I think there’s a consistent theme here that every candidate should be asked, and that is is it a good idea to go into the Middle East,” Paul continued. “I think, even at the time invading Iraq was a mistake and I thought the war, even at the time, was a mistake given the intelligence.”

        —-Rand Paul

    2. Trump forced it in. To his credit, he called it right.

  20. Christie’s story about the hugs doesn’t even make any sense. He was a random lobbyist in Trenton on 9/11… not seeing how the victims’ families would have been seeking him out for hugs.

    1. It doesn’t matter, it was an effective soundbite that likely played well with conservatives on an emotional level.

    1. 40% say Trump won.

      Makes me ill.

      Why vote for Trump when you can just register as a Democrat and vote for Hillary instead?

      1. Never trust an internet poll on the Drudge Report. It is definitely not one person, one vote and his highly selective. I too am disgusted though.

      2. The same could be said for Jeb Bush, but I think Trump resonates with a lot of people who are simply fed up with politicians (especially Republicans) and the Media.

        Republicans are constantly being pussies. Even the supposed tough guy Christie was all too happy to fellate Obama during the hurricane aftermath. The only time Republicans ever get tough is when they are going after Paul, Cruz or anyone else that makes waves within the party. Most Republicans seem to think that the base (and Tea Party) is their biggest enemy, not the Democrats.

        Trump is not like that. He attacks Democrats and the media.

    2. Checked out the poll. At this hour Trump showing with 48% of the vote. I know drudge skews tinfoil hat right, but really guys? I hope that’s because Trump funded a bunch of SEO companies clicking away on various online polls.

  21. “I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans,” said Paul. “The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over. John Adams said it was the spark that led to our War for Independence. I’m proud of standing for the Bill of Rights and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights.”

    Say whatever else you want about him, but Rand Paul is certainly the most libertarian candidate running in the two major parties.

    I’ll support him right up until the moment he loses. I guess that’s one thing I have in common with Trump: if Rand Paul doesn’t win the nomination, I won’t guarantee I’ll vote for the Republican nominee either.

  22. Trump could have done some real good, and provided far more entertainment, by running as a democrat. Just watching Hillary have a conniption over his existence would have been hilarious.

    -jcr

  23. US Politics, best politics money can buy lol.

    http://www.Goin-Anon.tk

  24. there is no way to tell the terrorists apart from the innocent American citizens.

    I mean, is there any difference anyway?

    1. As a former US Attorney, Christie knows full well how the evidentiary process works and his failure to acknowledge that shows just how much of a dishonest statist fuck he has become.

      1. his failure to acknowledge that shows just how much of a dishonest statist fuck he has become.

        Become? I highly suspect he was always a dishonest statist fuck

        1. I wonder how many of the “terrorists” that Christie prosecuted were FBI stings? In any other crime the setups that the FBI uses to catch terrorists would be considered to be entrapment.

          It’s not that these people weren’t dangerous in some way. The question is whether they would have engaged in a terrorist plot if the FBI hadn’t provided them the opportunity to acquire weaponry?

          Many federal prosecutors are looking for scalps to put on their belts as a ticket to political office. Christie, Spitzer and even Giuliani have done that. The only qualification for a scalp is notoriety, not guilt.

          1. One of the people in those stings actually reported the FBI informant to the FBI.

            Doesn’t matter, still found guilty.

  25. The best way to judge Rand Paul was what he does under pressure. When pushed, pseudo-libertarians go full neo-con, They start defending every dollar spent on the military and every invasion of privacy in the name of security. RP didn’t. Under attack he went to defending the Constitution and the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches. He defended the individual against the state. Who else has done that?

    Could he have been more effective? Maybe. Did he crawl on his knees and insist that he was misquoted? Did he try to weasel his way out of it?

    RP is the only candidate that seems to understand the corrupting power of power.

  26. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  27. For anyone who thought that Christie’s spiel on Social Security made sense see the Wikipedia entry on Life Expectancy at Birth (I can’t post the link, it has more than 50 letters)

    Christie said that we should increase the retirement age one month for every year for the next 25 years. That’s two years and one month. Human lifespans even in developed countries are increasing faster than that.

    Means testing would cut Social Security except that everyone with means will put the “means” in trust for their children. They’ll get to pay rent of $100 a month to live in their $5 million home now owned by their children.

    Privatize Social Security or wait for it to swallow everyone including Christie.

  28. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.