Chris Christie: I didn't vote for Obama, he doesn't lead

[Yurt]

Personal attacks, Yurt, merely demonstrate you have nothing to offer.

Yes, your refusal to give up your allies mentioned above clearly demonstrate with whom you identify.

Sad that.

(1) You are not a Pub. (2) You got caught out on partisan hackery about CC. (3) You need to use accurate terms and definitions to be taken seriously, which is not the case for you.

what is that about personal attacks

Do as he says, not as he does!!!!!!

that is our little jakey

 

[JakeStarkey]

You going to stay the topic, Yurt?

 

[Oddball]

Oddball, #1 applies to you. #2 is wrong; Christie took care of his people. #3 No one takes you seriously; this is a message board. #4 You are talking to yourself in the mirror.

Not only are you a phony-baloney poseur, you're stupid enough to believe that politicians like Christie are sincere! Rube.

Your cynicism simply poisons your critical thinking skills, Oddball, which is a shame for someone as bright as you.

My critical thinking skills have led to my cynicism, rube.

Christie is looking out for his own fat ass...Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are entitled to your own opinion, for sure.

But you are wrong: he took care of his people.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not only are you a phony-baloney poseur, you're stupid enough to believe that politicians like Christie are sincere! Rube.

Your cynicism simply poisons your critical thinking skills, Oddball, which is a shame for someone as bright as you.

My critical thinking skills have led to my cynicism, rube.

Christie is looking out for his own fat ass...Period.

I really does not matter why he did anything, particularly as you cannot know a person’s motivation – that is literally impossible until we learn to read minds. What does matter is his actual actions. That is what you need to find fault with.

So far, it appears that you have found fault with his actions solely because it does not promote partisan hackery. I find insurmountable problems with that position.

 

[Oddball]

Your cynicism simply poisons your critical thinking skills, Oddball, which is a shame for someone as bright as you.

My critical thinking skills have led to my cynicism, rube.

Christie is looking out for his own fat ass...Period.

I really does not matter why he did anything, particularly as you cannot know a person’s motivation – that is literally impossible until we learn to read minds. What does matter is his actual actions. That is what you need to find fault with.

So far, it appears that you have found fault with his actions solely because it does not promote partisan hackery. I find insurmountable problems with that position.

The actions lead me to believe that he's out for himself...As in a politician who will do just about anything to raise his stock.

As for the hackery, he signed up to be a republican, a party man if you will...You didn't need to have Rove or Carville on hand to know that what he did was damaging his own party's candidate at the worst possible time....As a politician -and make no mistake about it, Christie is a politician first- you don't do such things without first making some sort of political calculation as it relates to yourself.

The whole "he did the right thing for his constituents" thing is an Olympic pool full of hogwash, no matter which way you want to slice it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The subversive slime are those who would rise against We the People, the Constitution, and the principles of Old Glory that have given such people the opportunity to succeed in the greatest country in the history of the world.

Oddball, typically trying to ignore the OP, says my quote, "Those who rise against America should not have trials, simply put against the wall" is subversive. Of what may I ask? The Constitution he despises, our way of life he despises. He talks as if he is a jihadist, for patriot's sake.

 

[Pogo]

My critical thinking skills have led to my cynicism, rube.

Christie is looking out for his own fat ass...Period.

I really does not matter why he did anything, particularly as you cannot know a person’s motivation – that is literally impossible until we learn to read minds. What does matter is his actual actions. That is what you need to find fault with.

So far, it appears that you have found fault with his actions solely because it does not promote partisan hackery. I find insurmountable problems with that position.

The actions lead me to believe that he's out for himself...As in a politician who will do just about anything to raise his stock.

As for the hackery, he signed up to be a republican, a party man if you will...You didn't need to have Rove or Carville on hand to know that what he did was damaging his own party's candidate at the worst possible time....As a politician -and make no mistake about it, Christie is a politician first- you don't do such things without first making some sort of political calculation as it relates to yourself.

The whole "he did the right thing for his constituents" thing is an Olympic pool full of hogwash, no matter which way you want to slice it.

Only if you believe that (a) all rhetoric in a political campaign must be negative, and (b) it's more important to look after one's party than one's constituents. You're basically complaining Christie wasn't sufficiently negative and that "credit where credit is due" is out of the question. That's pretty much why we have the political environment we do --hyperpartisanship.

But Christie's simply never been a hyperpartisan, even long before Sandy. If that's a bad thing, we need more bad all around. Hyperpartisanship is the kind of robotic mind-lock that creates gridlock. What we need is fewer lockstep parrots and more creative independent thinkers.

 

[Oddball]

I really does not matter why he did anything, particularly as you cannot know a person’s motivation – that is literally impossible until we learn to read minds. What does matter is his actual actions. That is what you need to find fault with.

So far, it appears that you have found fault with his actions solely because it does not promote partisan hackery. I find insurmountable problems with that position.

The actions lead me to believe that he's out for himself...As in a politician who will do just about anything to raise his stock.

As for the hackery, he signed up to be a republican, a party man if you will...You didn't need to have Rove or Carville on hand to know that what he did was damaging his own party's candidate at the worst possible time....As a politician -and make no mistake about it, Christie is a politician first- you don't do such things without first making some sort of political calculation as it relates to yourself.

The whole "he did the right thing for his constituents" thing is an Olympic pool full of hogwash, no matter which way you want to slice it.

Only if you believe that (a) all rhetoric in a political campaign must be negative, and (b) it's more important to look after one's party than one's constituents. You're basically complaining Christie wasn't sufficiently negative and that "credit where credit is due" is out of the question. That's pretty much why we have the political environment we do --hyperpartisanship.

But Christie's simply never been a hyperpartisan, even long before Sandy. If that's a bad thing, we need more bad all around. Hyperpartisanship is the kind of robotic mind-lock that creates gridlock. What we need is fewer lockstep parrots and more creative independent thinkers.

Pffft....Christie is a politician first.

What I'm "complaining" about is the fools, like you, suckered in by his grandstanding and media whoring that helped nobody else but himself....FEMA and the federal disaster bailout were going to be there no matter what he did....Besides that, there's nothing creative at all in going begging to the feds for money.

 

[Ropey]

Smart ass that he is.... he wants the best of both worlds. He fools nobody!

The electorate is nobody.

 

[Pogo]

The actions lead me to believe that he's out for himself...As in a politician who will do just about anything to raise his stock.

As for the hackery, he signed up to be a republican, a party man if you will...You didn't need to have Rove or Carville on hand to know that what he did was damaging his own party's candidate at the worst possible time....As a politician -and make no mistake about it, Christie is a politician first- you don't do such things without first making some sort of political calculation as it relates to yourself.

The whole "he did the right thing for his constituents" thing is an Olympic pool full of hogwash, no matter which way you want to slice it.

Only if you believe that (a) all rhetoric in a political campaign must be negative, and (b) it's more important to look after one's party than one's constituents. You're basically complaining Christie wasn't sufficiently negative and that "credit where credit is due" is out of the question. That's pretty much why we have the political environment we do --hyperpartisanship.

But Christie's simply never been a hyperpartisan, even long before Sandy. If that's a bad thing, we need more bad all around. Hyperpartisanship is the kind of robotic mind-lock that creates gridlock. What we need is fewer lockstep parrots and more creative independent thinkers.

Pffft....Christie is a politician first.

What I'm "complaining" about is the fools, like you, suckered in by his grandstanding and media whoring that helped nobody else but himself....FEMA and the federal disaster bailout were going to be there no matter what he did....Besides that, there's nothing creative at all in going begging to the feds for money.

No, what you're doing is whining that you didn't see enough negativity.
"damaging his own party's candidate" -- yet what you're talking about wasn't a negative comment at all; it was a positive comment where you think there should have been only negative. You didn't see enough dirt, "dirt" being the desired value. You've defined it yourself: a positive comment is "damaging". Up is down.

All of which can only logically mean that the ideal candidate is one who successfully tears his opponent to shreds rather than one who brings positive ideas. It wants a destroyer rather than a builder. It wants The Dick Cheney. Rather than the feel of the fresh new car off the dealer lot, it wants the demolition derby to see who survives with the least damage. A destructive rather than constructive value.

"Creativity" doesn't refer to dealing with FEMA money; it refers to having enough intestinal fortitude to go one's own path even when that path is at variance with the party. It's a legacy, not a single event.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The actions lead me to believe that he's out for himself...As in a politician who will do just about anything to raise his stock.

As for the hackery, he signed up to be a republican, a party man if you will...You didn't need to have Rove or Carville on hand to know that what he did was damaging his own party's candidate at the worst possible time....As a politician -and make no mistake about it, Christie is a politician first- you don't do such things without first making some sort of political calculation as it relates to yourself.

The whole "he did the right thing for his constituents" thing is an Olympic pool full of hogwash, no matter which way you want to slice it.

Only if you believe that (a) all rhetoric in a political campaign must be negative, and (b) it's more important to look after one's party than one's constituents. You're basically complaining Christie wasn't sufficiently negative and that "credit where credit is due" is out of the question. That's pretty much why we have the political environment we do --hyperpartisanship.

But Christie's simply never been a hyperpartisan, even long before Sandy. If that's a bad thing, we need more bad all around. Hyperpartisanship is the kind of robotic mind-lock that creates gridlock. What we need is fewer lockstep parrots and more creative independent thinkers.

Pffft....Christie is a politician first.

What I'm "complaining" about is the fools, like you, suckered in by his grandstanding and media whoring that helped nobody else but himself....FEMA and the federal disaster bailout were going to be there no matter what he did....Besides that, there's nothing creative at all in going begging to the feds for money.

Stop your whining. CC did the right thing for his people, and you are whining that he got positive results from most of the thinking nation. Tough that.

 

[basquebromance]

/thread