Here is Christie with governors in Aspen on YouTube
It is not a speech. He is speaking off the cuff with a group of men. Governor-types. Regular men and him. Chairs with plastic seats and metal tube legs, Christie is sitting on the end and it goes:
bink bink bink bink boink.
Bobby Jindal
Pat McCrory
Scott Walker
Mike Pence
Chris Christie
He looks good. Real good. The others are wearing sport jackets without ties, he is jacket-less showing off his new shape that is smaller than the previous shape and now barely hangs over the regular chair.
They should have better chairs. Come on, it's Aspen. Have you been there? I have better chairs than that in my dining room. Their chairs are a poor reflection on Aspen.
Glasses and pitchers of water on small glass tables by each seem to float in the air.
It is a confab. The audio is out of sync with lapses, extremely annoying to listen to, for its droning bullet point content as much as anything. Don't bother to watch.
They are reviewing what we already covered a dozen times, Christie is just being provocative
"This strain of Libertarianism that's going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought."
He evokes 9-11 in his challenge (This site has "invokes")
“These esoteric intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have. The next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering whether they put (mumble)
Are you referring to Rand Paul?
“You can name any number of people and he’s one of them. These esoteric, intellectual debates; I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.
The next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering whether they put…”
111 comments:
Dude, you're killing me. At first glance, Christie looks shirtless. Really, they couldn't find some armed chairs?
Paul and Ryan are too squirrely and Christie too bombastic,obnoxious, over-bearing, and snide. If Hilldog gets the nomination, she will chew them up and spit them out with her Elizabeth Warren Meemaw cum Maggie Thatcher gravitas.
From the group on that stage, I think Jindal or Walker would have the best chance.
Christie is basically a RINO, so, yeah, he doesn't like the Conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Partiers and sold out to Choom last year.
We've seen a lot of this and we'll see more.
Political junkies, we.
I got my driver's license photo taken the other day.
I entered the place and took a number from the number-tab-dispensing machine and then found myself waiting in a big waiting room, sitting on one of those metal-tubed chairs, same as a whole bunch of other ordinary people, some of them quite smelly.
It took like 45 or 50 minutes.
That was enough time for a question to pop into my head.
Does the Governor have to take a number at the DMV and sit around and wait his turn?
The answer is: "Of course not, the Governor rides in a chauffeured limousine!"
Christie should run for mayor of Camden.
Radio Derb this week thinks that cities run by majority blacks fail because the black IQ is too low, and there's not enough smart blacks to carry the stupid blacks. It's unstable downwards, in other words.
I think the inference is wrong. IQ depends on culture, and black culture sucks. It's imposed on blacks by MSM appointed black leaders. Never act white. Your dignity depends on it. Etc.
You wind up with Derbyshire's observation but not his path to doom if you get the cause right.
Who benefits from a huge stupid black population? Politicians and black leaders.
CC sounds like Obama. He hangs with him so much, it makes perfect sense for CC to sound like him.
Here's the thing: of all those politicians, Rand Paul is the only one who has any respect for our constitution.
I swear, you guys are as delusional as Ann:
Christie's state got hit by a natural disaster during an election and you're mad because he did the right thing - putting lives ahead of politics - you need to portray him as in Obama's pocket?
You're going to lose again. You're too sick in the heads to see clearly. For a second time in a row (or is it third?) no one will vote with you, because you still sound crazy.
"IQ depends on culture, and black culture sucks."
Good luck selling that one, guys.
Geez,...
Deborah said ...
... Hilldog ... with her Elizabeth Warren Meemaw cum Maggie Thatcher gravitas
Yee Gawd. Hillary is every bit as unqualified for office as Obama was, as Elizabeth Warren was, and so on...which is precisely why they were elected. They're grifters and play their audience like a fiddle.
It seems that is what we do these days...find the dolt, nominate them prince or princess, and make them royalty by default, then wonder why stuff goes south and little works.
I'm not sure what to think of Christie yet, but I will watch and listen. Two things I am sure of are A.) he did the right thing for the right reasons in his relationship with Obama, and B.) he has more experience and capability to lead in his left pinkie finger than Hildog or Warren, et al...the new breed of know-nothings who seem to dominate politics.
Mayvbe it is just me, but when you have the Hillaries, Warrens, Weiners, Filners, and Spitzers et al popping up in politics, some thing is wrong...where are the people with real skills and real character?
Oh no, I guess I'll never get out of trouble here, I agree with Crack and Christie.
Aridog,
I'm not sure what to think of Christie yet, but I will watch and listen.
I'm not crazy about the guy all the time, but he's better than the lies his detractors tell because he doesn't have to lie.
Mayvbe it is just me, but when you have the Hillaries, Warrens, Weiners, Filners, and Spitzers et al popping up in politics, some thing is wrong...
Or something's up,...
I don't recall Obama saving lives anywhere.
He tends to blow them off.
Does the Governor have to take a number at the DMV and sit around and wait his turn?
The answer is: "Of course not, the Governor rides in a chauffeured limousine!"
I've seen comments like this before at TOP, notably such as "Obama's children go to a gun-free school - so do you think the secret service don't have guns? Heh."
IMO that's elevating the concept of equality to a level that's absurd in the 21st c. Nobody wants to see our public servants or their children endangered by principled definitions of equality that seem clearly inappropriate. We want equality before the justice system, we want equal opportunities, we want to see corruption dealt with effectively and harshly.
It think it must be a fringe idea that "our public servants should be subjected to all the same inconveniences of modern living that the rest of us are; no special exceptions." Is that a libertarian idea? Am I mischaracterizing the point that's being made?
Christie did the right thing for his State, but WHAT he did to get the goods for his people shows just how terrible our political system really is. He had to suck up to the little tin despot of Obama. On your knees and suck it! or you get nothing. Turn yourself into a whore in order to get paid.
Now I'm not going to blame Christie for Obama getting re-elected, but he certainly did give Obama some sort of Creds at the right time that may have helped him to win/steal the election with a bit more ease.
The libertarian strain of thought....of local control of the essentials, crank the Feds back to the original powers and less government interference in every aspect of our waking and sleeping lives would at least make the suckage more on a local level instead of having to abase yourself to the Great and Powerful Ozymandias.
I have no respect for Christie as a national leader. OK. He helped "his" people. Just like Obama and Holder are helping "their" people. Myself.... evidently not being anyone's people..... I think they can all go suck themselves.
Christie was a willing stooge for the Obama machine. He could have stood up and demanded the money for Jersey. And he would have the support of the entire state. He could have said I respect the President and even been at the press conference but his over the top embrace of him was obviously a factor in the election.
Rhino have destroyed us in the last two election. Why go with liberalism light. You are never going to get the votes of the liberals and the people who depend on the government tit. That's why four people have gone on food stamps for every one that go a job during the Obama years. The Republicans can only win if they turn out their base and fight in the non-political media like "The Tonight Show" just as Obama corralled the low information voters.
Christie would just be another disaster for the Republicans.
Paul is an interesting case. He reminds me of Ross Perot. I can see him going third party and ensuring a Democratic victory.
It is much better to have him in the tent pissing out. Just sayn'
Also anybody who really believes in the Constitution is dangerous to professional politicians.
It think it must be a fringe idea that "our public servants should be subjected to all the same inconveniences of modern living that the rest of us are; no special exceptions." Is that a libertarian idea? Am I mischaracterizing the point that's being made?
I think it is the WIDE disparity between what we are being told that we the little people should do and the reality of how those who fancy themselves our leaders live.
No one wants to see Obama or Palin's or any other politican's children in danger. Of course there should be some protection.
However, it is the rank hypocrisy of being told that we all have to buck up and cut back. Grin and bear it. Enjoy those 'staycations' in your back yard, while Obama, Hillary, Kerry etc spend millions upon millions of tax dollars on multiple unnecessary vacations. The example go on an on.
Libertarians want to see a smaller central government that handles just the essentials and leaves local governments to also be smaller and less intrusive.
I don't think we do want our leaders to have SUPER special exceptions. I think we all understand that there will be some exceptions to create safety and expediency. I think we just want to see our leaders TRY to understand how the rest of us live and understand the ramifications of the rules and laws that they willy nilly pass. They can't do that when they spend their lives encased in a SUPER SPECIAL bubble of elitism.
If you haven't read it, you should read The Hunger Games. It is a very apt allegory of how our society is now and what it is becoming.
Look at the modesty and the humility of former Presidents like Truman and Eisenhower and how they handled being President. It is a far cry from what we have had with the Bush/Clinton/Obama crew.
It would be refreshing to have a humble man of the people as President.
I think it is the WIDE disparity between what we are being told that we the little people should do and the reality of how those who fancy themselves our leaders live.
I totally respect that idea. But the examples that I see given, such as Secret Service shouldn't be allowed guns at Obama's kids' school or there's something wrong that Christie doesn't have to go to the DMV and wait weaken those arguments.
Phx asked ...
Am I mis-characterizing the point that's being made?
Perhaps. I read the point as symbolic of the disconnect between lawmakers, regulators, and the rest of us...e.g., the senior policy executives who impact our lives have no taste of that impact...therefore they don't really set up efficient policies or processes.
In my time as a "Fed" I saw nothing in the senior executive activities that didn't support that concept. You don't have to be a welder to understand the chemistry and physics of welding, but if you've never worked with or studied welding, chemistry or physics, how could you design welding machines? Much of our government's processes are designed in such fashion.
Bad example, but... Do you think Lois Lerner really understands non-profit enterprise? Could she remotely know how political activity is measured....given a re-named campaign committee was certified as 501(c)(4) in less than a month when other organizations waited years?
I actually feel sorry for her in a way...she has been in the system so long that she is so used to lying and lying to defend lies, that she cannot help herself. Steven Miller was the exact same way. I shuddered when he testified because I knew so many just like him in government re-arranging you life and mine.
Phx said ...
But the examples that I see given ... weaken those arguments.
Said another way, then, do the legitimate exceptions prove the rules?
Said another way, then, do the legitimate exceptions prove the rules?
I don't think I'm ready to go there. What I say is that a lot of your arguments about corruption/ favoritism/ the spoils of the political class are valid, I feel them as strongly as most of you probably do.
But when they get reduced to the examples I questioned, which I frequently see made, they lose their punch, IMO. I don't want to associate with a party that is deeply offended by Secret Services agents carrying guns in Malia and Sasha's school. It sounds extreme to me, and I'm definitely not an extremist.
Perhaps. I read the point as symbolic of the disconnect between lawmakers, regulators, and the rest of us...e.g., the senior policy executives who impact our lives have no taste of that impact...therefore they don't really set up efficient policies or processes.
I get this. I'm on board. But no symbolism, please. We need to be clear at this point, in this time.
But the examples that I see given, such as Secret Service shouldn't be allowed guns at Obama's kids' school or there's something wrong that Christie doesn't have to go to the DMV and wait weaken those arguments.
Yes and no. Making petty arguments that Christie should have to stand in the DMV office just like the rest of us schlubs does trivialize the argument to some extent. SOME. Is Christie's time more valuable than mine or yours? Maybe. Probably. But maybe not. It is the idea that it is OK for some to fly through life. I don't mean just Christie, but those who consider themselves above the toils of common living. The reality is that some people do get special privileges and for purely mechanical reasons, for safety and to avoid disruptions. That is pretty much an accepted.
HOWEVER.....the issue of guns and safety is not in the least bit trivial. When you tell me that the safety of MY children or myself is less important than the safety of the children of the elite, you are now on dangerous ground. Why should we the little peons be deprived of the ability to protect ourselves? Lectured that we should not have guns or guards in our schools or elsewhere IF we feel the need, while our elites appropriate that right to safety for themselves. THIS IS NOT TRIVIAL.
The concept that the elites like Al Gore, can have gigantic mansions sucking up more energy than a normal family would use in their lifetime and that the rest of us should just huddle in the dark. The idea that it is fine for the Obama's to frivolously jet to remote parts of the world for fun, recreation and self serving photo ops, while the rest of us struggle to put $4.50 per gallon regular gasoline in our used vehicles so we can get to work at our part time minimal pay jobs. Obama and Michelle eat Kobe beef, and the rest of us hot dogs made out of beef assholes.
THESE are the things that you might consider trivial. However, these are the things that when added together will ultimately break the proverbial camel's back.
If we didn't have such a colossal government dictating everything in our lives. One that didn't require such enormous sums of money siphoned from the economy. One that adhered to the BASIC functions of government (and we can argue what those actually are), we would all be freer on ALL levels.
"Christie's state got hit by a natural disaster during an election and you're mad because he did the right thing - putting lives ahead of politics -.."
No he demonstrated exactly whats wrong with him. He believed the government was the answer, big federal Daddy riding in on a white horse. That thinking is precisely the basis of most of our problems, and having another believer only with an R after his name is not winning.
It's pretty similar to Blacks getting screwed royally by thinking the problem with government was the color of the President's skin. They voted for "their side" to win, and got clobbered by the policy that has no color.
The suicidal policy we are following is completely bipartisan. I want to win, but I'm not interested in just the participation trophy. I want someone with new ideas, or good old ones.
Christie only talks tough, he'll fold like the lawn chairs at a Christie barbecue.
DBQ said ...
I think we just want to see our leaders TRY to understand how the rest of us live and understand the ramifications of the rules and laws that they willy nilly pass. They can't do that when they spend their lives encased in a SUPER SPECIAL bubble of elitism.
A point I've made before, vis a vis the institutionalized, unelected, government senior executives is that once in Washington DC they stay in Washington DC by any means necessary. They may bob back and forth between agencies and contractors, but they remain none-the-less. For decades. They like the interior of the bubble. They lose track of what's what outside it.
And they all will lie. Catch them in one, they'll spin another. And then another. [see the IRS thing unraveling as we speak] The job requires it, to placate those above you and resist those below you who are ever eager to displace you. The bubble position is defended at all costs.
A few things that might break the bubble. A.) a prohibition on re-organization of any government agency, department or office more often than once in 10 years. No exceptions. B.) Cull 50% of all SES+ and flag rank officers [SES and above are flag rank too]...they are not doing anything constructive. C.) Prohibit any back and forth of executives between agency and contractor with less than 10 years hiatus in between. D.) Require all cuts to agencies, including DOD, to be from the top down, not vice versa.
When we have less "Principal Deputy Assistant Director Assistant Deputy for Water Cooler Deployment" positions things will get better.
Or something...aaggghhhh!.
Dust Bunny Queen,
Christie did the right thing for his State,...
Great - we're clear on that. It is not a mark against him.
But WHAT he did to get the goods for his people shows just how terrible our political system really is. He had to suck up to the little tin despot of Obama. On your knees and suck it! or you get nothing. Turn yourself into a whore in order to get paid.
Or, Or - OR - Chris Christie doesn't see it that way. Maybe he sees Americans as Americans and he's trying to do his best with what little he has to work with - and all while you guys bite his ankles for trying to do the right thing, acting as a patriot, and being a decent guy, too. Ever thought of that?
Now I'm not going to blame Christie for Obama getting re-elected, but he certainly did give Obama some sort of Creds at the right time that may have helped him to win/steal the election with a bit more ease.
"Steal"? Against the guy awaiting Heavenly Father's message, in Mitt's celestial palace, on his own planet?
C'mon, DBQ. Give the rest of us a *little* credit for maintaining some sanity around here, however distasteful.
I made the same decision, and used the same strategic calculation, when Prop 8 was being used by Gavin Newsom as a springboard to the governorship of California. I also didn't approve of how gays were playing their part.
No way, Jose.
The result was a win-win to me.
The libertarian strain of thought....of local control of the essentials, crank the Feds back to the original powers and less government interference in every aspect of our waking and sleeping lives would at least make the suckage more on a local level instead of having to abase yourself to the Great and Powerful Ozymandias.
Agreed.
I have no respect for Christie as a national leader. OK. He helped "his" people. Just like Obama and Holder are helping "their" people. Myself.... evidently not being anyone's people..... I think they can all go suck themselves.
That is so unfair. Christie's the governor of a state. Obama's the President. It's Obama who's not doing his job.
Christie's performing brilliantly.
Despite the Christie blowjob, the government was slow, ineffective, wasteful, and got in people's way as much or more than helping. People were prevented by policy and a bureaucratic swamp from helping themselves, and that's just the ones who tried to help themselves. The rest got screwed even worse by falling for the promise which was really just another graft party for the connected, and for a bonus it helped get the President reelected. A huge fucking fail, not a qualifying performance.
The Neville Chamberlain of New Jersey.
When you tell me that the safety of MY children or myself is less important than the safety of the children of the elite, you are now on dangerous ground.
Undoubtedly the safety of your children is just as important to you as the safety of the President's children is to him.
But the harsh truth is the safety of your children is not as important to the country as the safety of the President's children is. And that's regardless of who the President is or his party.
The people in the Rockaways and on Staten Island are still reeling from the damage that the storm did to them. But they are forgotten and it is covered up. You know why?
Because they are white.
We never heard the end of New Orleans and Katrina and some of these people have suffered just as much. But nobody gives a shit.
Christie is a typical NJ politician and there is a lot of dirt in his background that the Democrats are sitting on and waiting to bring out in an election.
He is a disaster waiting to happen.
All New Jersey Politicians are corrupt.
But the harsh truth is the safety of your children is not as important to the country as the safety of the President's children is. And that's regardless of who the President is or his party.
That is not a harsh truth at all. The safety of the President's children has nothing to do with the continuation of this country. His children are not important to me or to this country. Not important at all.
If the President's or any politician's children are blown up or whatever, as horrible and terrible as that would be, it would not affect the Nation.....other than we would all be told by the media that it is somehow our faults, we should give up our own safety and wear hair shirts.
BUT....those children are NOT any more important than mine or the child down the street. They are no more deserving of protection and the ability to be protected than any other child. To insist that some people are MORE important than others for no other reason than they are related to someone else or because they were able to become politically connected.......is exactly what is wrong with our system now.
THAT is the harsh fact.
The safety of the President's children has nothing to do with the continuation of this country.
Sure, a president in grief for his murdered children certainly would affect the efficient and secure continuation of this country, IMO. You have a different opinion. I don't think we'll persuade each other beyond this point.
Good discussing this with you though.
My favorite image of government and how it works. No matter who is elected, it still binds up...a drive train designed by in house unicorn trainers.
BUT....those children are NOT any more important than mine or the child down the street.
No one is arguing this. But, the president's children are clearly subject to a range of threats that most children are not. Even children of the extremely rich are not subject to as many threats as those of a sitting president.
No one is arguing this. But, the president's children are clearly subject to a range of threats that most children are not. Even children of the extremely rich are not subject to as many threats as those of a sitting president.
So... No one is arguing that they are not or that they shouldn't have protection.
What I am saying is that all of us...all children, all people.....should also be allowed the means and opportunities to protect ourselves.
The idea that the rich, powerful and connect are entitled to armed guards, security in the places that they go, such as schools, while the rest of us are to be denied the right to keep and bear arms is antithetical to the libertarian point of view.
Those who want to remove the right or restrict the rights of us to have armed guards in our schools IF we want them or the right to open carry, If you want to, or the right to keep certain types of guns and certain types of ammo in the amounts that we would like.....want to restrict us, but keep those same rights for themselves.
If you restrict the rights of some, but not others this is not freedom but rather oppression of the many by the few.
My right to defend myself, my family, my children or anyone else is not lessened because I'm not 'special' or connected. It is a RIGHT that extends to all.
rcommel
That would be a good point if I were arguing that the children don't deserve protection. They do.
However...>SO...DO....MINE.
Obama's son Trayvon sure made the news.
Surely you do not.
Surely you can read?
I said that the President's children and other children in similar circumstances should have protection. Point out to me where I said otherwise.
My contention is that while those people/children are deserving of protection....SO are the rest of us deserving of the ability to provide the same for ourselves.
To deny us that through restrictive and punitive gun laws while allowing those protections only to the rich and powerful is the issue.
Why should one group of people have protection (I'm not disputing that they need these protections), in this case armed security guards in schools or elsewhere, while the rest of us are denied the ability to provide the same protections for ourselves. ? Are you going to say that only some people are deserving and the rest of us are not?
Surely you can answer that question?
I really don't want to go into it rcommal but it concerned this chick he used to date in college. I hear she was crazy. Just sayn'
I don't think it is useful in the argument over guns near or in schools to bring up secret service protection for the kids of presidents. It may be a different type of squirrel, but it is a squirrel nonetheless
It is not a squirrel argument.
It is central to the whole premise that Obama and others in government want to limit guns and the ability of the common people to protect themselves, while retaining all those protections for themselves.
It is the CORE of the argument. If you can't recognize the hypocrisy in that stance then it is obvious, that you agree with the premise that some people are better and more deserving and the rest of us are not. SO much for equal opportunity. Not equal outcome, but opportunity.
Look I am against Christie because he is a dirty low down Rhino. But statistics show us that a Jersey Politician has to be corrupt.
Harrison Williams. Robert Toricelli. Jim McGreevy. Goldman Sachs Jon Corzine.
Just going by law of probability there has to be something there.
The only honest politician to come out of New Jersey was Millicent Fenwick and she married her gardener. And you know how that works out.
I don't think it is useful in the argument over guns near or in schools to bring up secret service protection for the kids of presidents. It may be a different type of squirrel, but it is a squirrel nonetheless.
That was my point (12:46pm). It weakens the argument. I feel certain it makes many moderates and independents feel uncomfortable being on the side of people who are extreme. It leads to caricatures of Second Amendment advocates. The second amendy advocates end up having to defend what's indefensible. Gun control advocates score easy points.
DBQ: You win. I can't read. At least not for comprehension, or whatever.
My recently adopted policy is that the minute someone--anyone--asks if someone else can read or brings up reading comprehension, my attention goes right out the door, deliberately. I've gotten 300% of my fill of that overused line of attack over the years, and it's an instant show-stopper for me.
Thanks for your thoughts. I will consider them.
That's all.
Dust Bunny Queen
Obama and others in government want to limit guns and the ability of the common people to protect themselves, while retaining all those protections for themselves.
But many of us common people want restrictions on guns, particularly around schools. 'Obama and others in government' are reflecting the views of a large constituency in the general population.
I'm still not arguing that we should disarm the secret service protecting the president or his children. You are projecting. The president doesn't have elitist beliefs on this issue, his views are the views of much of the hoi polloi.
"Invokes" is the correct usage. "9/11" is the equivalent of a mystical incantation; just utter the phrase and everything the government could want to do is magically transformed into a good idea. :)
As far as respecting the Constitution, and refusing to reach for the Ring of Power--but only for the sake of good, mind you!, I stand with Rand, not Christie.
It weakens the argument. I feel certain it makes many moderates and independents feel uncomfortable being on the side of people who are extreme.
Statistically speaking, the "moderate" position on gun control issues is "people should be allowed to own guns and use them for self-defense".
The Secret Service example is useful because it shows that gun controllers view some people as being more important than others. Obviously the President needs people protecting him, because there are people who want him dead. But that is true for many Americans who both (a) have no dedicated police protection and (b) are legally prevented from protecting themselves.
Obama's life is in danger, but it is in LESS danger than, say, a woman with a homicidal ex-boyfriend. But *she* gets to wait a few weeks for her gun, and even then won't be allowed to carry it. Disgusting.
Obama's life is in danger, but it is in LESS danger than, say, a woman with a homicidal ex-boyfriend.
Sure, because of the Secret Service. They're packing. And that's what Americans want.
Statistically speaking, the "moderate" position on gun control issues is "people should be allowed to own guns and use them for self-defense".
I think most moderates want that. The devil's in the details.
Some Americans.
Did you see that the new Pope decided to abandon the popemobiles in favor of ordinary jeeps?
There's a man of the people.
Well he has faith in God.
Not something you see in politicians.
At least not for real.
Oh hell I might as well out myself as a RINO.
Republicans can't afford to faction up.
I agree with Crack--you have a hard time making the sale when constantly talking about why someone is NOT a Conservative.
How about trying to tell them why they might have things in common with Republican values?
Then there is relativity.
Republicans can't afford to splinter up if they truly believe Democrats and/or Obama are really that bad.
Also you weaken all of the Obama is evil arguments (those all look trivial) when--you say --hell my one problem with Republicans "X" is something I cannot compromise on and it is better to let Democrats win yet again.
And then you forget that the Supreme Court--those appointments are for life.
the judicial appointments all the way down the federal system--all of the Appellate --Circuit Courts are for life.
IIRC --Clinton appointed some 300 judges.
And so that brings up another constantly made argument--
"There really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans!"
Oh yes there is--
See Scalia and compare him to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
However I do disagree with Crack--I think Christie can be ruined with one short video clip--
"the helo lift."
madawaskan said...
See Scalia and compare him to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Ginsburg was better looking when young.
"...you have a hard time making the sale when constantly talking about why someone is NOT a Conservative."
Yet we never nominate a a real conservative, and wonder why we lose. This same argument comes up every time, a real conservative can't win, so go with the RINO who then doesn't win. When was the last time we nominated a real conservative? That's right. When was the last policy in this country moved in the right direction? Yea I know.
Maybe if you never nominate a conservative, then you have no idea if one can win, and certainly can't expect to get conservative policy. It's a lose/lose strategy, and one without the real principles or balls to deserve to lead.
Christie will surrender on immigration. He will surrender on taxes. He will surrender on the size of government. He will surrender on abortion. On everything.
If you want that vote Democratic.
Let's get behind a real conservative without too much baggage. Oh and lets savage any Democrat like they would do to us.
Hillary will be a particular easy target. She will have to defend all the sins of the Obama administration without the benefit of being black.
Bags, what's a conservative anymore?
I used to know. Or I thought I did. Because I used to be one. Or thought I was. Then I found out I was a Libertarian. Then I found out I actually think hard drugs should be illegal and that porn shouldn't be on ABC at 7PM...so I can't be a Libertarian. So now I'm left with being a conservative, but I've been told everyone from Mitt Romney to Hitler are conservatives.
Hell, if you go to some places you'll find out that Obama is a conservative.
I still like Cruz. I think he's smarter than Rand Paul, who I also like.
Obama and others in government want to limit guns and the ability of the common people to protect themselves, while retaining all those protections for themselves.
"But many of us common people want restrictions on guns, particularly around schools"
And many others of us common people feel otherwise.
Here is the libertarian solution. YOU do what you feel best in YOUR school district, YOUR community and let us do what WE feel best in ours.
I won't interfere in your right to chose NOT to protect yourself and your children and you don't interfere in my choice to do so.
Deal?
@ rcommel
My recently adopted policy is that the minute someone--anyone--asks if someone else can read or brings up reading comprehension, my attention goes right out the door, deliberately.
And mine, long time policy, is that when people start to try to argue points that I haven't made or put words into my mouth, when I have CLEARLY written my thoughts in previous posts, I either assume, they can't read or haven't read.
I'm more than willing to debate points that I have made and positions that I have taken. I'm not about to debate positions and points that I haven't made. For example that the President's daughters should not have Secret Service protection. If you want to debate that...fine...find someone who holds that position. It isn't me.
AReasonableMan said...
madawaskan said...
See Scalia and compare him to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Ginsburg was better looking when young.
**************
Wow--absolutely gorgeous.
bagoh20 said...
"...you have a hard time making the sale when constantly talking about why someone is NOT a Conservative."
Yet we never nominate a a real conservative, and wonder why we lose. This same argument comes up every time, a real conservative can't win, so go with the RINO who then doesn't win. When was the last time we nominated a real conservative? That's right. When was the last policy in this country moved in the right direction? Yea I know.
Maybe if you never nominate a conservative, then you have no idea if one can win, and certainly can't expect to get conservative policy. It's a lose/lose strategy, and one without the real principles or balls to deserve to lead.
*************
No you are misunderstanding my point.
The Conservative base focuses on the wrong sales points.
They should say--this is how you might be similar or what you might have in common with our ideals and values--instead they try to look for lack of conformity as reasons to exclude people.
It's bad math and sort of a losing formula.
Let's get behind a real conservative without too much baggage. Oh and lets savage any Democrat like they would do to us.
********
Or just a guy that doesn't need a Chinook helo to get airborne...IYKWIMAITYD
"Maybe if you never nominate a conservative, then you have no idea if one can win, and certainly can't expect to get conservative policy. It's a lose/lose strategy, and one without the real principles or balls to deserve to lead."
Yes, that what makes it so frustrating. Here's another point: There's not one chance in hell that Christie will even carry NJ, much less New England. This "lets nominate a moderate" and we'll win the Blue states has been disproved time and time again. Same thing with endorsing Amnesty is a big vote-getter with Hispanics. Cf: McCain, Romney, Dole and the two Bushies.
So many smart Republicans seem to be "stuck on stupid" that it makes you wonder what the real reason is.
Only people who could get so excited about Romney, they'll delude themselves he had a chance, can turn down true political talent like this:
Christie has received generally favorable public opinion survey ratings during his term in office, as shown by the following examples:
Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind conducted in January 2010 found that he entered office with a 48–13% (approval-disapproval) rate.
Having announced deep cuts to the state budget, PublicMind released another study which showed that New Jersey voters split their opinions: 44% approving of Christie, 42% disapproving.
His approval ratings recovered by October 2010, when according to the FDU PublicMind poll, 51% of voters approved the way Christie was handling his job.
According to a January 2011 FDU PublicMind poll, Christie began the year with the highest approval ratings of his career, 53%.
According to a January 2012 poll conducted by FDU's PublicMind, with a sample of 800 registered voters, 53% approved of the way Gov. Christie was handling his job.
In January 2013, PublicMind found that 73% of registered voters approved of the job that Christie was doing as governor.
Go on - keep talking - meanwhile, I'll see if I can find a surviving member of Heaven's Gate to submit for your approval,...
Why doesn't a real Conservative ever win the Republican primary?
That's probably the better question.
Crack--
This is really stupid but--what about the weight issue?
And then--he takes that helicopter ride while preaching about the budget.
That short video would make one hell of an attack commercial.
The one thing I will give Christie is that he was a federal prosecutor ( the same position as Samuel Alito held) and he does have the gift of persuasion.
madawaskan,
Crack--
This is really stupid but--what about the weight issue?
What about it? Look, I know we're in the middle of a NewAge Nazi Eugenicsfest "Nudging" campaign (to go with the NewAge Nazi Environmentfest "Nudging" campaign) but can the rest of us at least, for once, use some common sense? (Plus Christie just had a band put in his gut, so it's not like he's unaware or not doing anything.) Genetics are genetics and, unless someone is sick, I say leave 'em alone.
Or go to work on the Tongan-Americans first (good luck).
And then--he takes that helicopter ride while preaching about the budget.
That short video would make one hell of an attack commercial.
Commercials don't mean much in the long term.
The one thing I will give Christie is that he was a federal prosecutor ( the same position as Samuel Alito held) and he does have the gift of persuasion.
He'll wipe the floor with Hillary in the debates and have us laughing while he does it.
It's about as clear of a no-brainer as the "Anybody But Romney" message was.
I mean, a 73% approval rating - against Hillary?
Man, these guys must really want to lose to turn THAT down,...
Crack--
(Plus Christie just had a band put in his gut, so it's not like he's unaware or not doing anything.)
*****
Oh holy crap I forgot about that.
*****
He'll wipe the floor with Hillary in the debates and have us laughing while he does it.
It's about as clear of a no-brainer as the "Anybody But Romney" message was.
I mean, a 73% approval rating - against Hillary?
Man, these guys must really want to lose to turn THAT down,...
******
Ya especially since the person that Hillary has gone up against lately is Katie Couric.
Christie v. Hillary would be a wipe-out!
One problem is--see upthread--he has to win the Republican primary.
He will not wipe the floor with Hilary. The media will crucify him as big fat bully beating on a poor little woman.
A big fat white guy can never win an argument with a woman. Trust me. I know.
I mean, a 73% approval rating - against Hillary?
***********
Wow I went cold turkey off of politics and polls...
so didn't know Chrisite was getting those numbers.
Plus there is the dirt.
I understand there was this toga party in journalism school with a whole bunch of cocaine. When cops came
because of the noise, Christie had to swallow a whole kilo.
The cops were suspicious but when he told them the residue was from a box of white frosted donuts they let it slide.
But one of the girls saved her letter sweater and it still has Christies DNA and the coke residue.
(PS that was a joke)
But I know someone who has naked pictures of him.
You can't see his junk because his gut covers it up.
Trust me. I know how that works.
Trooper York said...
He will not wipe the floor with Hilary. The media will crucify him as big fat bully beating on a poor little woman.
A big fat white guy can never win an argument with a woman. Trust me. I know.
********************
LOL!
It's true--we might think he mopped the floor with Hillary but there are two sets of rules one for Republicans and one for Democrats--with the media refereeing.
I don't think too many voters actually watch the debates and then they just sit back and listen to the media declare the winner.
The cops were suspicious but when he told them the residue was from a box of white frosted donuts they let it slide.
But one of the girls saved her letter sweater and it still has Christies DNA and the coke residue.
*******************
LOL--Cops. I hear they can be pretty understanding about the donuts.
Yet we never nominate a a real conservative, and wonder why we lose.
1964: Barry Goldwater, Real Conservative, 38.5% of vote; Lyndon Johnson, 61.1% of vote.
Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with John Anderson stealing 5 of Vote . He won in a landslide in 1984. Bush I won in 1988 by running as Reagan Part II, he lost in 1992 running as Bush I. Ford lost, Dole lost, McCain lost, Romney lost.
Bush II only won because he ran as a social conservative.
RINO's always bring up Goldwater. They've been doing it for almost 50 years now.
Lydia, Reagan did OK...twice.
John Anderson was RINO who couldn't stand conservatives, so he ran 3rd party in 1980, and got almost 5% of the vote. Lots of moderates and RINO's couldn't bring themselves to vote for a "Right-wing extremist".
Reagan won anyway.
The guys are easy, but you gotta win the girls today to win overall, so don't ask me. I have no idea what they want. I just know you can't have a binder of women or some other shit you know damned well won't make sense to the rest of us.
Reagan did OK...twice.
Yeah, but Reagan had his well-established and beloved Hollywood persona going for him. That meant more than his conservative bona fides for many people -- hence the term Reagan Democrats.
Ritmo, I don't know any Democrats that I would consider for the job. Knowing I'm a Tea Party wingnut, who do you think is closest to me among the Dems?
The deletions in this thread are dedicated to Trooper, in memory of his constant insisting, for years, that all I do is delete, that all I have to say is only mockworthy, and that never should an idea or question of mine be taken seriously, much less be addressed with at least some respect.
Hat tip and cheers, Troop, thankyousoverymuch.
I am sorry rcommal. I didn't mean to disrespect you but the fact is in fact Chris Christie is just a joke.
Sorry if that hits a sore spot.
I mean just because you knew somebody back in the day doesn't mean he is the same person now or that you should trust him.
I mean shit. I knew Joey Gallo back in the day but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a crook.
Christie is the Rhinoest of Rhinos. If that's what you want then go for it. The last two elections shows us that running Rhino's gets us nowhere.
It's time to try something different.
LOL, Trooper. You have betrayed that you never even bothered to actually notice my position re: Chris Christie running for president (or vice president, for that matter), much less when. What you do is 1) assume, 2) project and 3) mock. (I acknowledge, in advance, that those numbers very well might be out of order.)
I do get that and how all of that works, including for you.
---
LMAO, BTW, re: the guy you knew. You've known many people over a lifetime. So have I. Oh, BFD, dude, both ways, BFD.
Here's the thing, Trooper: You are an insular m'f'r and I have come to question whether you know it.
I, on the other hand, am a way less nice person than you. Have far fewer friends, no doubt, not just on line but also off. Etc. Etc. Etc.
But what I am not is *insular.* It took me a while to realize and acknowledge to myself that I am far more in touch with every day people--of so many different sorts! from all different walks of life! from various parts of the country! in which I have lived! Or my relatives do, and I visit them! Or my friends do, and I visit them!--than you are, broad-speakingly.
You just act as as if you speak for "everyman[/woman]. I've come to believe you don't actually know all that many, IRL, all across this great country of ours. Or, if you do, that you pay them little mind, as a courtesy, or sump'n.
At least I have the humility to say that I can be wrong and that I have a lot to learn.
You have rather a lot in common with another someone else who has not the same ability, much less the willingness, that I have. That is a striking thing. It only surprises me that it's not more strikingly obvious to more folks.
r,
l
Y'all have words, and followers, and friends, and commenters, and talent in and cheering at mocking, and insularity, and persistent at-ready trained fists, and dot dot dot so on so on and so on.
You're welcome to it, God bless you.
Fair enough. I meet people from all over the country and all over the world in the store. And in New York in general. And I do listen to what they have to say. I don't always agree. In fact most of the time I don't. But that doesn't mean I am not exposed to it. It is just that I am a simple man. I believe in right and wrong. Yes and no. Left and right. Not all viewpoints and cultures are equal. Ours is better. Best actually. Nuance is for nancy's. Ambiguity is for pussies.
I can admit when I am wrong. It happens quite often. I know I am not wrong about Chris Christie. He is a Rhino of the first water and would be a disaster as a candidate. Not just in the Presidential election but in the primary session. He will suck all the air out of the process and the press will pump him up and pretend that all these moderates and disappointed liberals will vote for him because he is a "reasonable Republican." Just like they did with Mitt. Then they will turn on him and savage him. That is how it works.
We won't be fooled again.
Post a Comment