Right On, Governor Christie!

[RoadVirus]

A guy who's never even imagined what a treadmill or a responsible diet looked like, talking about lazy people.

What are you blathering about? Just because he doesn't look like a bodybuilder doesn't mean he's been lazy his entire life.

 

[G.T.]

A guy who's never even imagined what a treadmill or a responsible diet looked like, talking about lazy people.

What are you blathering about? Just because he doesn't look like a bodybuilder doesn't mean he's been lazy his entire life.

When you're the size he is, you're gluttonous and lazy about your own personal upkeep. There's no hiding it, either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not only are you a Leftist Liberal...but you are a fraud.

Wow, you are an absolute marvel to me, PC. You are able to pick out select phrases while completely avoiding even TRYING to understand the argument. Seriously, this must be some kind of high level autism we've never heard of.

When you get to actually addressing the point I made, get back to me.

1. "...to pick out select phrases..."

They were your phrases....you picked them, not I.

"...high level autism...."

2. Paint chips? High level autism?
Did you notice how I eviscerated your post without resorting to that level?
Another difference between Liberal and Conservative.

 

[JoeB131]

Not only are you a Leftist Liberal...but you are a fraud.

Wow, you are an absolute marvel to me, PC. You are able to pick out select phrases while completely avoiding even TRYING to understand the argument. Seriously, this must be some kind of high level autism we've never heard of.

When you get to actually addressing the point I made, get back to me.

1. "...to pick out select phrases..."

They were your phrases....you picked them, not I.

"...high level autism...."

2. Paint chips? High level autism?
Did you notice how I eviscerated your post without resorting to that level?
Another difference between Liberal and Conservative.

You did nothing of the sort. You picked out phrases without actually comprehending the argument. I guess there were just too many words for you.

Okay, Corkette, I will put it is a simple ONE SENTENCE format.

When you take away good paying jobs, you make people more dependent on government, and therefore, enable liberalism.

Care to debate that point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A guy who's never even imagined what a treadmill or a responsible diet looked like, talking about lazy people.

What are you blathering about? Just because he doesn't look like a bodybuilder doesn't mean he's been lazy his entire life.

Unless he has a legitimate medical condition causing his obesity, it can only be explained by the fact that he is a self-indulgent glutton.

If your message is going to be austerity, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, and belt tightening - even figuratively speaking -

you look silly choosing Christie as your messenger.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow, you are an absolute marvel to me, PC. You are able to pick out select phrases while completely avoiding even TRYING to understand the argument. Seriously, this must be some kind of high level autism we've never heard of.

When you get to actually addressing the point I made, get back to me.

1. "...to pick out select phrases..."

They were your phrases....you picked them, not I.

"...high level autism...."

2. Paint chips? High level autism?
Did you notice how I eviscerated your post without resorting to that level?
Another difference between Liberal and Conservative.

You did nothing of the sort. You picked out phrases without actually comprehending the argument. I guess there were just too many words for you.

Okay, Corkette, I will put it is a simple ONE SENTENCE format.

When you take away good paying jobs, you make people more dependent on government, and therefore, enable liberalism.

Care to debate that point?

"When you take away good paying jobs, you make people more dependent on government, and therefore, enable liberalism."

Debate it???

I can destroy it, as you are unable to compete with knowledge of history.

Watch:

"An interesting historical anomaly is the period 1945 through 1965, a golden age in many ways. This was the period after the war, when any of our potential competitors were rebuilding from the devastation, making it impossible for the United States economy not to thrive. Beneficiaries included the unions and blue collar high school graduates…who were assured of high paying jobs. That is no longer true, and probably won’t be again, short of a third World War."
H.W. Brands, “American Colossus: The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1865-1900.”


Geopolitical alterations removed the jobs.
Unions make folks like you think they would always be there.
Thus, removing the impetus to move, retrain, and use 'can do' ethic that made America the envy of the world.
Now you'd like to blame the Right.

Thanks, Liberals.

 

[JoeB131]

Geopolitical alterations removed the jobs.
Unions make folks like you think they would always be there.
Thus, removing the impetus to move, retrain, and use 'can do' ethic that made America the envy of the world.
Now you'd like to blame the Right.

Thanks, Liberals.

Yes, i'd like to blame the right for NAFTA, GTO, Free Trade, MFN with China and every other bit of "Free Trade" legistlation that made it easy to move those jobs.

Fact is, we didn't have a real middle class with it's immense buying powers until we had unions. YOu can track the rise and fall of American prosperity to the rise and fall of unions, and they'd track nearly perfectly.

Republicans used to get this, until MNC's shoved too much money under their noses.

 

[LilOlLady]

Christy? Is that the big fluffy fag with bad manners?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Geopolitical alterations removed the jobs.
Unions make folks like you think they would always be there.
Thus, removing the impetus to move, retrain, and use 'can do' ethic that made America the envy of the world.
Now you'd like to blame the Right.

Thanks, Liberals.

Yes, i'd like to blame the right for NAFTA, GTO, Free Trade, MFN with China and every other bit of "Free Trade" legistlation that made it easy to move those jobs.

Fact is, we didn't have a real middle class with it's immense buying powers until we had unions. YOu can track the rise and fall of American prosperity to the rise and fall of unions, and they'd track nearly perfectly.

Republicans used to get this, until MNC's shoved too much money under their noses.

So that's why you ignored this, from post #59...


"Results of a recent Rasmussen poll found that 9% of nonunion workers were interested in joining a union. For public school grads, that means that 91% have no such interest. In fact, maybe that means that 9% are public school grads who didn’t learn to read on their own. (Just 9% of Non-Union Workers Want to Join Union - Rasmussen Reports™)

Rasmussen found that even workers in companies who were in danger of losing their jobs, it was still only 9%. What do the 91% know about union membership that the 9% don’t?One can only conjecture."


"What do the 91% know about union membership that you don't?"

And, another characteristic of Liberals....they know what's best for folks better than the folks themselves.


November can't come soon enough, when you Libs will be sucked up into the mothership by a retractor beam.

 

[JoeB131]

Geopolitical alterations removed the jobs.
Unions make folks like you think they would always be there.
Thus, removing the impetus to move, retrain, and use 'can do' ethic that made America the envy of the world.
Now you'd like to blame the Right.

Thanks, Liberals.

Yes, i'd like to blame the right for NAFTA, GTO, Free Trade, MFN with China and every other bit of "Free Trade" legistlation that made it easy to move those jobs.

Fact is, we didn't have a real middle class with it's immense buying powers until we had unions. YOu can track the rise and fall of American prosperity to the rise and fall of unions, and they'd track nearly perfectly.

Republicans used to get this, until MNC's shoved too much money under their noses.

So that's why you ignored this, from post #59...

.

I ignore everything Rasmussen says, he's a lying sack of shit.

But in this case, let's pretend its true for a moment. I think that unions don't necessarily belong in all work places or professions. I think also, a lot of what they fought for is now being done by the government.

I also think the unions have done a very bad job at public relations.

Doesn't take away from my point that a decline in union membership has doubled the decline in the middle class in this country. If a lot of people are too dumb to see that, it doesn't surprise me.

Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class | Mother Jones

 

[Conservative]

why are there no dems spouting off about overweight Dems?

I know.. because only overweight Republicans are lazy, stupid, etc etc etc... right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. NEW YORK — Gov. Chris Christie today warned an audience of national Republicans that the country is in danger of becoming a "paternalistic entitlement society" where people sit on the couch, "waiting for the next government check."

2. ...brought up national policy toward the end. He said it is the least optimistic period he’s ever seen for the nation.

"It’s because government’s now telling them, stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you. We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally," Christie told Bush, Henry Kissinger and an assortment of Republican governors in a theater at the New York Historical Society.

3. "When the American people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check," Christie said."
Gov. Christie: Nation turning into 'people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check' | NJ.com


Of course, such a warning flies in the teeth of the policies of the current food-stamp, class warfare President....

....but, then there's this:



"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address. FDR feared this self-reliant people might come to depend permanently upon government for the necessities of their daily lives. Like narcotics, such a dependency would destroy the fiber and spirit of the nation.
theblogprof: FDR on welfare 1935: "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is

Pity – however unrealistic, there was some hope Christie would refrain from drinking the Kool-Aide of conservative idiocy. Such is the power of the radical right in the GOP.

 

[G.T.]

why are there no dems spouting off about overweight Dems?

I know.. because only overweight Republicans are lazy, stupid, etc etc etc... right?

I made the overweight comment so I'll respond.

1 - I'm not a Dem, appreciate some mutual respect in not chucking a label at me that is not true.

2 - Because it's not "insult random fat people day," to answer your question. A severly (deathly) obese guy should not be publicly opining about Laziness when he's lazy himself. It's just not a good look, at all, and def. worth pointing out tbh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, i'd like to blame the right for NAFTA, GTO, Free Trade, MFN with China and every other bit of "Free Trade" legistlation that made it easy to move those jobs.

Fact is, we didn't have a real middle class with it's immense buying powers until we had unions. YOu can track the rise and fall of American prosperity to the rise and fall of unions, and they'd track nearly perfectly.

Republicans used to get this, until MNC's shoved too much money under their noses.

So that's why you ignored this, from post #59...

.

sack of shit.

But in this case, let's pretend its true for a moment. I think that unions don't necessarily belong in all work places or professions. I think also, a lot of what they fought for is now being done by the government.

I also think the unions have done a very bad job at public relations.

Doesn't take away from my point that a decline in union membership has doubled the decline in the middle class in this country. If a lot of people are too dumb to see that, it doesn't surprise me.

Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class | Mother Jones

"I ignore everything Rasmussen says, he's a lying....blah, blah, blah..."

You are astoundingly representative of all Liberals...
...here you are again, denying facts.

Rasmussen: number one in accuracy:
1." The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**"
http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

2. "Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[12][13][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[14] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[15]

In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)".[16] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing Rasmussen's by 10 points.[17] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.[18]"
Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Once again you are consistently wrong....but you manage to insert the Leftist 'ant-Rasmussen' slant.

I am, pleased, that you both reveal yourself as a seminar-poster, and as an actual Liberal.
This series of posts mark you an not only wrong...nothing nefarious about that.....but also dishonest in your claim not to be a Liberal.


To review....
"Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter not a bit in informing belief."

BTW...I wrote that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. NEW YORK — Gov. Chris Christie today warned an audience of national Republicans that the country is in danger of becoming a "paternalistic entitlement society" where people sit on the couch, "waiting for the next government check."

2. ...brought up national policy toward the end. He said it is the least optimistic period he’s ever seen for the nation.

"It’s because government’s now telling them, stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you. We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally," Christie told Bush, Henry Kissinger and an assortment of Republican governors in a theater at the New York Historical Society.

3. "When the American people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check," Christie said."
Gov. Christie: Nation turning into 'people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check' | NJ.com


Of course, such a warning flies in the teeth of the policies of the current food-stamp, class warfare President....

....but, then there's this:



"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address. FDR feared this self-reliant people might come to depend permanently upon government for the necessities of their daily lives. Like narcotics, such a dependency would destroy the fiber and spirit of the nation.
theblogprof: FDR on welfare 1935: "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is

Pity – however unrealistic, there was some hope Christie would refrain from drinking the Kool-Aide of conservative idiocy. Such is the power of the radical right in the GOP.

Torte-boy....why bother to link the OP since you were impotent in finding any error in same?

Felt the need to re-establish your Liberal creds?


Know what....bet you didn't read the entire OP....you'd have seen that FDR, your idol, backed up what Christie said!!


Let's see how that would have looked:

" ... however unrealistic, there was some hope Franklin Delano Roosevelt would refrain from drinking the Kool-Aide of conservative idiocy. Such is the power of the radical right in the GOP."


Guess who looks like he absorbed a large dose of 'idiocy'????



Oh, man....I love it when you guys step in it!

In the future, only open your mouth to change feet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

why are there no dems spouting off about overweight Dems?

I know.. because only overweight Republicans are lazy, stupid, etc etc etc... right?

No, it's because the Democrats don't have any 350 lb whales on their short list of rising presidential material stars.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you take Mike Huckabee,

put him in a fat suit, and then remove every ounce of couth, class, courtesy, and humility you can find...

...you end up with Chris Christie.

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn.... Rasmussen is a right wing hack and always has been.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yawn.... Rasmussen is a right wing hack and always has been.

C'mon out of the Left-wing closet....
....c'mon....we have cookies.....

 

[bripat9643]

If you take Mike Huckabee,

put him in a fat suit, and then remove every ounce of couth, class, courtesy, and humility you can find...

...you end up with Chris Christie.

My, my, my. The libturd hate for fat people is positively stunning!