Posted on 07/26/2013 11:50:27 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In a preview of the debate to come within the Republican Party ahead of the 2016 presidential election, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie denounced Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and other libertarians as having "dangerous" views on foreign policy.
At a Republican governors forum in Aspen, Colo., Christie railed against opposition to the National Security Agency surveillance programs. On Wednesday, the House narrowly voted to defeat an amendment that would have curtailed the NSA's ability to collect data on telephone calls.
Lumping Paul in with those House members, Christie suggested that Paul and other libertarians should explain their positions to widows and children of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought," Christie said at the forum......
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I certainly agree with that.
Ask Christie how the Boston Bombers did not get caught by an NSA that had been forewarned by the Russians and were using the phones regularly.
While the subject is different, this sort of argument--playing to the grief of widows, rather than actually addressing the legal & philosophic questions involved, is cut from the same cloth as the mass media effort to lynch George Zimmerman, or the constant use of tragedy by those who would disarm the American people.
Christie is not enhancing his credibility by using obviously fallacious arguments--or, here, an avoidance of the real issue.
William Flax
Lets get each of them a flamethrower and a box of grenades.
We can let them duel this out in an old storm cellar.
The only rational response to 911 would've been for the US to get very fussy about whom is granted residency and citizenship in the US. Instead, it was used to terrorize....us.
Fat Ass should explain to the families of those that were raped and killed in Benghazi as to why his jabba the hut butt hasn’t demanded his black brother obama assign an Independent Council to investigate hillary and the entire communist state department.
You said: “While the subject is different, this sort of argument—playing to the grief of widows, rather than actually addressing the legal & philosophic questions involved,...”
Which reminded me of this: I have a postit on my monitor of the “four D’s” Discount, Discredit, Distract, and Declare. You may find this site of interest because it discusses the kind of argument techniques you mention...
http://cliffsofinsanity2010.blogspot.com/2013/01/information-ideology.html
Amen!
Rand Paul thinks we should have a great military primarily geared for defense, that we should quit sending money to nations that hate us, we should help defend our allies, and nation building through war (Iraq) is not the right thing to do. Rand Paul thinks that if we have to go to war, we strike hard, using our power to defeat quickly rather than have a war designed to make defense contractors rich.
All Christy wants to do is bear hug jug ears and eat more donuts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.