On Guard for Thee Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 All things considered, I'd much rather see Chris Christie win the nomination than a freak like Ted Cruz or the next flavor of the month from the Tea Party's Roulette Wheel of Retards. Unless they find a proverbial "smoking gun" that proves Christie knew what his flunkies were up to, I don't think this means the end of his presidential aspirations. It will certainly give his future opponents a lot of ammo, though. It will all come down to how credible his denial is. The New Jersey state legislature has been digging into this issue for months, and Chris Christie has been mocking the accusations of political motives behind this for months. "I was working the cones myself," he laughed at one point. It's hard to imagine that this issue has been in the news for several months without Chris Christie once mentioning it to either his chief of staff or his personal friend at the Port Authority. He's asking us to believe that his flunkies came up with this idea on their own without telling him, and then lied directly to him about what actually transpired. How likely does that seem? I suspect that peoples' answer will probably depend on how much they like Chris Christie to start with. -k The comparisons between these two scandals i.e. Christie and Harper, are certainly hard to miss: " I knew nothing about what was going on in my office, but it's probably a good idea to throw somebosy under the bus" The only small contrast I can see is that Christie did make an apology, while he continued for two hours saying "I know nothing" We will see where the chips fall but it sure hasn't worked for Harper. And I like that description of yours about the " Tea Party Roulette wheel of Retards" One of them was on the radio in Canada lately telling us the US is a Republic, not a democracy. I bet there are a lot of Americans that didn't know that. Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 To be fair, people died as a result of Christie's actions. No one died because of Harper's scandal. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
sharkman Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 So just what exactly was Christie caught doing here? The title of the thread is a surprise to me... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 So just what exactly was Christie caught doing here? The title of the thread is a surprise to me... Traffic jam on the GW bridge back in September. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 To be fair, people died as a result of Christie's actions. No one died because of Harper's scandal. That is true and that is sad. All the Harper thing did was cause pain to the ears of anyone who tuned into QP in the last few months. Quote
sharkman Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 Traffic jam on the GW bridge back in September. He didn't build that(hehe) it was his aides, was it not? Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 11, 2014 Author Report Posted January 11, 2014 To be fair, people died as a result of Christie's actions. No one died because of Harper's scandal. That's a good point. You'd have to be spectacularly stupid not to recognize jamming up traffic like that could cause some serious issues. Even if Christie really knew nothing (a big if, in my view), it has to call into question his ability as a leader. At the very least, he made some really bad choices in his senior people and didn't seem to know what was going on in his office. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
sharkman Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 He didn't build that(hehe) it was his aides, was it not? Furthermore, he asked his staff specifically a month prior if anyone had been involved or knew anything, and they lied to him and said no. So he didn't do it and he had no knowledge of who did until this story broke. However, the buck does stop with him, and it'll be up to voters to decide whether he has to pay with his job. Quote
Shady Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 To be fair, people died as a result of Christie's actions. No one died because of Harper's scandal. More spreading of lies. Nobody died as a result of this incident. Quote
Shady Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 He didn't build that(hehe) it was his aides, was it not? Exactly. "Somebody else made that happen." Quote
Argus Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 So to use an American analogy - it doesn't matter if your Happy Meal contains 3 insect parts or 3 million. America still has one of the most corruption-free governments in the world, but things rot from the top down so all of us should brush our teeth regularly, not just after eating McDonalds. America does NOT have one of the most corruption free governments on earth. Quite the contrary. Hundreds of American politicians are arrested every year for corruption, that is, corruption which is illlegal under American law. Most corruption in the US is legal, however. And in that respect, corruption defines American politics. Almost every politician is on the take, his or her vote for sale to the highest bidder. But since the sale comes in the form of donations to campaigns and unspoken understandings and agreements they tend not to get thrown in prison. Members of congress spend two thirds of their time in office soliciting money, not governing, and when they leave office they, coincidentally, of course, tend to find themselves in VERY high paying jobs working for organizations which always got their vote while they were in office. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 The wording is fine. I refer to Obama as a retard on a regular basis. Even more so in regards to the biggest retard, Joe Biden. I think that's where the term going full retard came from. Of course, there is a difference between saying something like "the tea party's wheel of retards" and calling Biden and Obama a retard. The difference being the former doesn't get you suspended from this forum. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 11, 2014 Report Posted January 11, 2014 More spreading of lies. Nobody died as a result of this incident. An elderly woman did die before emergency services could get to her, and it took emergency services twice as long to get to her as it normally would have. Would she have died anyway? That isn't known. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ReeferMadness Posted January 11, 2014 Author Report Posted January 11, 2014 All things considered, I'd much rather see Chris Christie win the nomination than a freak like Ted Cruz or the next flavor of the month from the Tea Party's Roulette Wheel of Retards. -k I have to believe that even Americans aren't crazy enough to elect a degenerate like Cruz. The theory is that as long as the republicans put forth unelectable candidates, the Dems will win. Doesn't really matter that much, though. Seeing Obama in action, I'd have to say he's only moderately less destructive than many of the Republicans. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
kimmy Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Well, maybe "retards" was inappropriate, but when we look at folks like Ted Cruz or the Tea Party favorites from the last election cycle-- Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Santorum... to say nothing of non-presidential candidates that the Tea Party managed to get on ballots, like Todd Akin or Joe Walsh or Christine O'Donnell... the word "retarded" was wrong, more like deranged or disconnected from reality. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
kimmy Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Furthermore, he asked his staff specifically a month prior if anyone had been involved or knew anything, and they lied to him and said no. So he didn't do it and he had no knowledge of who did until this story broke. If you believe Christie, at least. Here's a question, though. He said he rounded up his staff last month and asked them about this. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Spend a moment and think about the timing of that meeting. The bridge lane closures happened 4 months ago. In September, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In October, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In November, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In December, Christie rounds up his staff and demands that they come clean with him about whether they knew anything about the lane closures. Wait, what? These accusations have been in the news for 3 months already, and he's just having this meeting now? The state legislature has had a committee investigating the lane closures for 2 months already, and he's just having this meeting now? That doesn't strike you as odd? Not even a little bit? Riddle me this, Shark Man: why did Chris Christie decide to ask his staff about this in December? Why not at some point in the 3 previous months? What changed in December that made Christie decide it was time to find out more about this? Any ideas? Any at all? Give up? Bueller? Bueller? You know what happened in December? David Wildstein got subpoenaed. That's what happened. That's when (as the kids say) "Shit Got Real". All of a sudden it's an emergency for Chris Christie because his inner circle has to turn over their communications relating to the bridge lane closures. Then Chris Christie has this big meeting and David Wildstein and Bill Baroni (the two executives appointed by Christie who implemented the lane closures) both resign their Port Authority jobs within a week of each other. I'm sure that people who wish to believe Chris Christie knew nothing don't see it as odd that Chris Christie had this meeting in December when the subpoenas arrived instead of in September when the accusations were made. I suspect that's probably because they don't actually want to think about it. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
kimmy Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 I have a hard time coming up with a motive as to why Christie would go along with such a scheme. A popular governor, not to mention former New Jersey state attorney, up 30 points in his re-election campaign would have no logical reason for doing so. He may be fat, rude, and straight forward, but he's not stupid. If it's hard to see a motive for Chris Christie to order it... then what motive do you see for his staff to do this? Do you suppose that Bridget Kelly just decided it would be hilarious to turn Fort Lee into a parking lot for a week? Don't you find it odd that when David Wildstein got the email that said "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" he responded "Got it" instead of "What the hell are you talking about?" -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
ReeferMadness Posted January 12, 2014 Author Report Posted January 12, 2014 Exactly. "Somebody else made that happen." Just keep right on telling yourself that. You and a few believers will keep the faith right up until the bitter end. If Christie didn't know what was going on, it's because he didn't want to know. Just like Harper, another slimy right winger who pretended to be above it all is shown to be in the thick of it. Pathetic. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
sharkman Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Kimmy, when people got subpoenaed, wouldn't it be prudent to go to your staff and make double triple sure they knew nothing about it? Also, after a couple of months of it being out there, a sharp guy like Christie would realize that there's a chance it wasn't just some random event. But here's the thing for me. Christie has been carefully stalking the presidential nomination for a few years now, I'm sure you'd agree. Do you really think he'd risk it all to exact some traffic snarl revenge? It just doesn't add up, not after all of the carefully planned photo ops with the president, etc. It's much more likely that it was his underlings as the email trial suggests. I could be completely wrong here, but usually, if it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck. BTW, I'm not a big Christie fan. His willingness to suck up to Obama shows me he'll do anything to win the office, and I'd rather see someone who'd live or die by their principles. That kind of person is getting awfully rare. Quote
kimmy Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Christie has a bit of a reputation for getting revenge on people who cross him, so it wouldn't exactly be out of character. But supposing Christie didn't order this attack on Fort Lee, and his staffers hatched the plan on their own, what was their motive? You know one of the most frequent motives for employees to do things? They want to impress the boss. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
GostHacked Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Well, maybe "retards" was inappropriate, but when we look at folks like Ted Cruz or the Tea Party favorites from the last election cycle-- Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Santorum... to say nothing of non-presidential candidates that the Tea Party managed to get on ballots, like Todd Akin or Joe Walsh or Christine O'Donnell... the word "retarded" was wrong, more like deranged or disconnected from reality. -k Mentally unstable is a good term to describe these people. Quote
sharkman Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Christie has a bit of a reputation for getting revenge on people who cross him, so it wouldn't exactly be out of character. But supposing Christie didn't order this attack on Fort Lee, and his staffers hatched the plan on their own, what was their motive? You know one of the most frequent motives for employees to do things? They want to impress the boss. -k That's a good question, what was their motive. In looking at the situation from a Christie-revenge angle, in his past his acts of revenge have been up close and personal. Here's another good question, how would a traffic jam be up close and personal to the mayor in question? That being said, maybe Christie is capable of doing this, I just don't think he's that stupid. His other revenge acts have been nothing like this. Quote
Shady Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 If you believe Christie, at least. Here's a question, though. He said he rounded up his staff last month and asked them about this. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Spend a moment and think about the timing of that meeting. The bridge lane closures happened 4 months ago. In September, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In October, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In November, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In December, Christie rounds up his staff and demands that they come clean with him about whether they knew anything about the lane closures. Wait, what? These accusations have been in the news for 3 months already, and he's just having this meeting now? The state legislature has had a committee investigating the lane closures for 2 months already, and he's just having this meeting now? That doesn't strike you as odd? Not even a little bit? Riddle me this, Shark Man: why did Chris Christie decide to ask his staff about this in December? Why not at some point in the 3 previous months? What changed in December that made Christie decide it was time to find out more about this? Any ideas? Any at all? Give up? Bueller? Bueller? You know what happened in December? David Wildstein got subpoenaed. That's what happened. That's when (as the kids say) "Shit Got Real". All of a sudden it's an emergency for Chris Christie because his inner circle has to turn over their communications relating to the bridge lane closures. Then Chris Christie has this big meeting and David Wildstein and Bill Baroni (the two executives appointed by Christie who implemented the lane closures) both resign their Port Authority jobs within a week of each other. I'm sure that people who wish to believe Chris Christie knew nothing don't see it as odd that Chris Christie had this meeting in December when the subpoenas arrived instead of in September when the accusations were made. I suspect that's probably because they don't actually want to think about it. -k He did ask his staff about it in previous months. He was told it was part of a traffic study. You'll have to search for your white whale (pun intended) somewhere else.Regardless, it would have been nice to see the same curiosity over the IRS scandal. But that was just a few "rogue" staffers that acted inappropriately. Nobody higher up could have known. And those individuals wouldn't have been acting in a way they felt their bosses would approve of. *rolls eyes* Yes, the affirmative action president strikes again! One standard for him, another standard for everybody else, especially a Republican. Quote
Shady Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 Of course, there is a difference between saying something like "the tea party's wheel of retards" and calling Biden and Obama a retard. The difference being the former doesn't get you suspended from this forum. Fair enough. How about the Democrat's wheel of retards then? Allthough it's not so much of a wheel as it is a contest. I honestly can't figure out which person is dumber, Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. Either way, we're talkin single digit IQs. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 12, 2014 Report Posted January 12, 2014 So it's official then ? We can circumvent forum rules with "wheel of retards" or other such generalized insults for politicians ? Or does this only apply to American politicians ? Moderators, can we get a ruling on this please ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.