Don't Mess with Christie - Fires entire commission

I like Chris. I think he might be an excellent choice for POTUS.

I like him for it too. For no other reason than he's humble enough to know, and admit, that he isn't ready for the job, yet.:clap2:

Yea, that's what Obama said before he announced. :lol:


Don't see him running for next year for a couple of reasons:

1. I think he really wants to fix New Jersey.

2. Running next year wouldn't give him enough time in office to accomplish what he needs to do. Basically he would soon have to start going into campaign mode which would distract him from being a Governor. That would hurt. By the time 2016 comes around though he will have had time to build a large resume of accomplishments that will make him a powerhouse then.

3. It is very, VERY difficult to challenge an incumbent President. In 2016 there will be a clear field. He will be facing a range of Republicans on an even footing and (if he wins the nomination) would be going against the Democratic candidate on an equal footing.​


Running now against an incumbent President is a very shaky proposition. If the economy stays in the state of a very slow recovery and unemployment is still around 9% next year at election time - then there would be a good shot as Obama will not be popular. However if the economy picks up and unemployement drops to the 5-6% range, then expect to see Obama capitalize on that and be difficult to defeat.

>>>>
 
I can't think of a better guy to turn that shit hole state around.

Jersey might be the most doo-doo state I've been to. And I've been EVERYwhere in NY.

Plus their highway system seems like it was made by someone with uh, special needs. (tbh imo fwiw iow)
 
I like him for it too. For no other reason than he's humble enough to know, and admit, that he isn't ready for the job, yet.:clap2:

Yea, that's what Obama said before he announced. :lol:


Don't see him running for next year for a couple of reasons:

1. I think he really wants to fix New Jersey.

2. Running next year wouldn't give him enough time in office to accomplish what he needs to do. Basically he would soon have to start going into campaign mode which would distract him from being a Governor. That would hurt. By the time 2016 comes around though he will have had time to build a large resume of accomplishments that will make him a powerhouse then.

3. It is very, VERY difficult to challenge an incumbent President. In 2016 there will be a clear field. He will be facing a range of Republicans on an even footing and (if he wins the nomination) would be going against the Democratic candidate on an equal footing.​


Running now against an incumbent President is a very shaky proposition. If the economy stays in the state of a very slow recovery and unemployment is still around 9% next year at election time - then there would be a good shot as Obama will not be popular. However if the economy picks up and unemployement drops to the 5-6% range, then expect to see Obama capitalize on that and be difficult to defeat.

>>>>

That's a good assessment. I see O getting beat if unemployment stays at it's current levels. By next February if unemployment is still around 9, O's probably done. It's always the economy.
 
3. It is very, VERY difficult to challenge an incumbent President. In 2016 there will be a clear field. He will be facing a range of Republicans on an even footing and (if he wins the nomination) would be going against the Democratic candidate on an equal footing.

You seem awfully sure Obama will be President for 8 years. I think his time in Washington is more limited and it will be clear field in 2012.
 
I like Chris. I think he might be an excellent choice for POTUS.

I like him for it too. For no other reason than he's humble enough to know, and admit, that he isn't ready for the job, yet.:clap2:

Yea, that's what Obama said before he announced. :lol:

And he was right!:eusa_whistle:

Something about Christie makes me believe that he means it. I hope he does because currently he is setting a helluva an example for others.
 
3. It is very, VERY difficult to challenge an incumbent President. In 2016 there will be a clear field. He will be facing a range of Republicans on an even footing and (if he wins the nomination) would be going against the Democratic candidate on an equal footing.

You seem awfully sure Obama will be President for 8 years. I think his time in Washington is more limited and it will be clear field in 2012.


Not really, I'm a Republican and didn't vote for the man. I'd love to see him defeated in 2012. I'm hoping that a Republican house, with a Republican President, and with a Senate that is either Republican or an even smaller Democratic majority will be able to take some serious action to curb the spend, spend, spend situation we've been in for a number of years. If Republicans can remain focused on the economy, jobs, and reducing the extended reach of government they will have a shot. How much depends on how much the economy recovers over the next year and the change (if any) in employment rates.

If Republicans run that type of campaign they will be very attractive to the moderate voters. If on the other hand they loose that focus and instead try to cater to the social authoritarian base, then they will not be as attractive to the moderates. If the economy is good and the social authoritarian rhetoric is high - that will tend to drive moderates left. If the social authoritarian rhetoric is low abd the economy is low - that will tend to drive moderates to the right.

In Presidential elections we Moderates are the key. 35% of the voting block are Left Threaded Wing Nuts - they will vote for any candidate with an "D" next to their name. 35% of the voting block are Right Threaded Wing Nuts - they will vote for any candidate with an "R" next to their name. The 20% in the middle are the ones that decide elections. (If you add that up you get 35+35+20 which is 90%, the other 10% vote Liberarian+Green+The Rent is to Damn High Parties.)



Of course that's just my opinion and I've been known to be full of shit. :razz:


>>>>
 
Last edited:
It does not matter what the politicos do, if oil prices continue to rise to above $95 a barrel our economy is cooked.
 
Wrong. It's got the most beautiful beaches on the east coast and mountains and lakes and shopping and restaurants... And me!

I love this state. Except for the govt.
 
I like him for it too. For no other reason than he's humble enough to know, and admit, that he isn't ready for the job, yet.:clap2:

Yea, that's what Obama said before he announced. :lol:

And he was right!:eusa_whistle:

Something about Christie makes me believe that he means it. I hope he does because currently he is setting a helluva an example for others.

I remember, when I was digging for information on Obama right at the beginning, I found a couple of articles dated 2004 that referred to him as the 'Kenyan born' and I thought 'that can't be right'.... and I found a quote from him.... in response to someone asking him about being born in Kenya, and he replied that he only needed to be a "natural born American if he was running for President, which I am not". :confused::lol:
 
Yea, that's what Obama said before he announced. :lol:

And he was right!:eusa_whistle:

Something about Christie makes me believe that he means it. I hope he does because currently he is setting a helluva an example for others.

I remember, when I was digging for information on Obama right at the beginning, I found a couple of articles dated 2004 that referred to him as the 'Kenyan born' and I thought 'that can't be right'.... and I found a quote from him.... in response to someone asking him about being born in Kenya, and he replied that he only needed to be a "natural born American if he was running for President, which I am not". :confused::lol:

The article referring to him as Kenyan Born, which was widely touted in the Birthers' ring, has been debunked.
 
It does not matter what the politicos do, if oil prices continue to rise to above $95 a barrel our economy is cooked.

Yet hardly a peep this time around about the skyrocketing fuel prices. :confused:

That's another mystery. When Bush was pres, the screams and gnashing would usually reach a blood curdling crescendo every time gas approached 3 bucks a gallon. But now the silence is eery.
 
And he was right!:eusa_whistle:

Something about Christie makes me believe that he means it. I hope he does because currently he is setting a helluva an example for others.

I remember, when I was digging for information on Obama right at the beginning, I found a couple of articles dated 2004 that referred to him as the 'Kenyan born' and I thought 'that can't be right'.... and I found a quote from him.... in response to someone asking him about being born in Kenya, and he replied that he only needed to be a "natural born American if he was running for President, which I am not". :confused::lol:

The article referring to him as Kenyan Born, which was widely touted in the Birthers' ring, has been debunked.

This was prior to the birth of the birthers.
 
I remember, when I was digging for information on Obama right at the beginning, I found a couple of articles dated 2004 that referred to him as the 'Kenyan born' and I thought 'that can't be right'.... and I found a quote from him.... in response to someone asking him about being born in Kenya, and he replied that he only needed to be a "natural born American if he was running for President, which I am not". :confused::lol:

The article referring to him as Kenyan Born, which was widely touted in the Birthers' ring, has been debunked.

This was prior to the birth of the birthers.

Well, yea, the article pre-dates anyone ever even hearing of Obama. I forget the reasoning but I looked pretty well into it and the article was done by some hack-job guy who was found to be lying. You can find all of the info on it and any links to references that you need at factcheck.org who put it all together neatly and referenced it in case you wanted to pick it apart and didn't trust them
 
This is written by fact-check and the article itself is all sourced right on the page where it's written:



The Rocky Mountain News did in fact run an online article asserting that Barack Obama holds both American and Kenyan citizenship. The article was incorrect, and the paper removed the item from the article and ran a correction. The paper's editor, John Temple, formally apologized for the error in an Aug. 15, 2007, column. Neither the correction nor the apology has prevented the column from circulating across the Internet as part of the latest set of baseless rumors that Obama is ineligible to run for president.

There was a grain of truth to what the Rocky Mountain News reported, though understanding why requires a brief history lesson.

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:


British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:


1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.

But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
 
The article referring to him as Kenyan Born, which was widely touted in the Birthers' ring, has been debunked.

This was prior to the birth of the birthers.

Well, yea, the article pre-dates anyone ever even hearing of Obama. I forget the reasoning but I looked pretty well into it and the article was done by some hack-job guy who was found to be lying. You can find all of the info on it and any links to references that you need at factcheck.org who put it all together neatly and referenced it in case you wanted to pick it apart and didn't trust them

I always fact check factcheck.... it's a habit. More than once I have found them to be 'off' with their 'facts'. Not necessarily deliberately but 'off' is 'off'.
 
This was prior to the birth of the birthers.

Well, yea, the article pre-dates anyone ever even hearing of Obama. I forget the reasoning but I looked pretty well into it and the article was done by some hack-job guy who was found to be lying. You can find all of the info on it and any links to references that you need at factcheck.org who put it all together neatly and referenced it in case you wanted to pick it apart and didn't trust them

I always fact check factcheck.... it's a habit. More than once I have found them to be 'off' with their 'facts'. Not necessarily deliberately but 'off' is 'off'.

Yea, they aren't off here.
 
This is written by fact-check and the article itself is all sourced right on the page where it's written:



The Rocky Mountain News did in fact run an online article asserting that Barack Obama holds both American and Kenyan citizenship. The article was incorrect, and the paper removed the item from the article and ran a correction. The paper's editor, John Temple, formally apologized for the error in an Aug. 15, 2007, column. Neither the correction nor the apology has prevented the column from circulating across the Internet as part of the latest set of baseless rumors that Obama is ineligible to run for president.

There was a grain of truth to what the Rocky Mountain News reported, though understanding why requires a brief history lesson.

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:


British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:


1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.

But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1984.


FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?

I'm aware of that article.... and I have never taken the issue to be a 'serious concern', mainly because the SS vet candidates. So, in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary, I accept what the SS say.

It didn't influence my decision not to vote for Obama. That, I based on the man. Not his color, but his politics.....and his connections. You lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
 

Forum List

Back
Top