PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Christie Reconsidering


Chocolate Hog
09-23-2011, 04:30 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Christie-president-Romney-Perry/2011/09/23/id/412133


That should tell you how far Perry is about to fall.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 04:46 PM
Wow! So much for Saul's beloved and trustworthy polls.

But these are the billionaires and big donors—sounds like the same kind of folks that recruited Perry.

mikey23545
09-23-2011, 04:58 PM
:grovel: Please please please please please....

Bwana
09-23-2011, 05:04 PM
DO IT! They could put those debates on pay per view. Christie won't pull a punch.

Bewbies
09-23-2011, 05:54 PM
:rockon:

patteeu
09-23-2011, 06:04 PM
I'm as wary of Christie as I was of Perry. I expect him to be disappointing if he decides to get in. He's been impressive as the governor of a liberal state, but I bet he'll have similar flaws from the pov of the conservative purists that other northeasterners have had (Scott, Giuliani, Romney, etc.). Also, he has very little experience and no national organization as far as I know.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 06:15 PM
Only think I can think of is that Christie believes in global warming. But I could overcome it possibly. I don't know enough of his other views, the ones a president deals with such as FP. I know he's a cutter, but he doesn't have a Fed Reserve to print money for him as a governor so he has to do that. I mean Rick Scott cut and balanced our budget but I'd never want him for a president.

BillSelfsTrophycase
09-23-2011, 06:19 PM
Consider harder you fat fuck

This country could use uou

HonestChieffan
09-23-2011, 06:39 PM
I'm as wary of Christie as I was of Perry. I expect him to be disappointing if he decides to get in. He's been impressive as the governor of a liberal state, but I bet he'll have similar flaws from the pov of the conservative purists that other northeasterners have had (Scott, Giuliani, Romney, etc.). Also, he has very little experience and no national organization as far as I know.

Who doesnt have flaws to "conservative purists"? Neither party can run on the support from purists of any ilk.

mlyonsd
09-23-2011, 06:46 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 07:05 PM
Who doesnt have flaws to "conservative purists"? Neither party can run on the support from purists of any ilk.

That's just another one of his red herrings. I can vote for someone if I disagree with some of their views. It just depends on which ones they are. Most of the mainstream don't want a warmonger. Unfortunately, that's mostly what the GOP offers. Or a liberal.

Then again, Bachmann is right when she said conservatives, real ones, are told they always have to settle. That means we NEVER get someone who EVER trims govt.

patteeu
09-23-2011, 08:16 PM
Who doesnt have flaws to "conservative purists"? Neither party can run on the support from purists of any ilk.

Well that's true, lol. I wouldn't be surprised if the non-kooks who are dissatisfied with the degree of conservatism of Romney, Pawlenty, or Giuliani will end up liking Christie any better though.

Saul Good
09-23-2011, 08:50 PM
Wow! So much for Saul's beloved and trustworthy polls.

But these are the billionaires and big donors—sounds like the same kind of folks that recruited Perry.

I thought I was the guy who has been saying that the internet polls are worthless because Paul supporters have no lives and thus nothing better to do than spam them. Perry was the early leader. I expect scientific polls to show a drop in support for him, as he has performed poorly in the debates.

Saul has been right all along. I've compared Perry to Huckabee from day one. Mike burned hot and flamed out, and I expect Perry to do the same.

HonestChieffan
09-23-2011, 09:10 PM
Well that's true, lol. I wouldn't be surprised if the non-kooks who are dissatisfied with the degree of conservatism of Romney, Pawlenty, or Giuliani will end up liking Christie any better though.

The non kooks in the middle left and middle right will decide the ultimate winner.

go bowe
09-23-2011, 10:05 PM
The non kooks in the middle left and middle right will decide the ultimate winner.

ooooh ooooh...

i get to decide?

kewl...

ClevelandBronco
09-23-2011, 10:17 PM
The non kooks in the middle left and middle right will decide the ultimate winner.

The fucking nonkooks who voted for Obama? Those nonkooks? Fucking swell.

HonestChieffan
09-23-2011, 10:20 PM
The ****ing nonkooks who voted for Obama? Those nonkooks? ****ing swell.

If they help vote Obama out, they get un-kook points.

BucEyedPea
09-23-2011, 10:31 PM
I thought I was the guy who has been saying that the internet polls are worthless because Paul supporters have no lives and thus nothing better to do than spam them.

Where did I say "internet" before polls. I just said polls. You're always saying how Paul polls, and that Romney is polling better etc. etc.
You were not addressing internet polls and so I was not referring to those. I was referring to polls like CNN, Gallup, RCP etc.


Perry was the early leader. I expect scientific polls to show a drop in support for him, as he has performed poorly in the debates.

Saul has been right all along. I've compared Perry to Huckabee from day one. Mike burned hot and flamed out, and I expect Perry to do the same.

You missed by point. You were for Romney because he was electable because he was the front runner. BTW Perry was not the early leader. Romney was.

Chiefshrink
09-24-2011, 09:24 AM
Only think I can think of is that Christie believes in global warming. But I could overcome it possibly. I don't know enough of his other views, the ones a president deals with such as FP. I know he's a cutter, but he doesn't have a Fed Reserve to print money for him as a governor so he has to do that. I mean Rick Scott cut and balanced our budget but I'd never want him for a president.

He is nil on illegals as well;)

Chiefshrink
09-24-2011, 09:34 AM
I'm as wary of Christie as I was of Perry. I expect him to be disappointing if he decides to get in. He's been impressive as the governor of a liberal state, but I bet he'll have similar flaws from the pov of the conservative purists that other northeasterners have had (Scott, Giuliani, Romney, etc.). Also, he has very little experience and no national organization as far as I know.

Yes, he is a RINO dressing up and talking like Randy "Macho Man" Savage and it is a breath of fresh air for sure. But we'll see how 'real his rubber is' when it meets the 'real road of national and global issues'.

Bottom line: It's much much easier pickens to talk and do sh** as a state governer than on a national and global level. If it happens, we'll just see hoooooooooooooooow conservative he really is:rolleyes: But as the going line of the day continues, "anybody in the GOP will be better than O'Marxist".

Chiefshrink
09-24-2011, 09:37 AM
I'm as wary of Christie as I was of Perry. I expect him to be disappointing if he decides to get in. He's been impressive as the governor of a liberal state, but I bet he'll have similar flaws from the pov of the conservative purists that other northeasterners have had (Scott, Giuliani, Romney, etc.). Also, he has very little experience and no national organization as far as I know.

Christie is just the 'city version' of Rick Perry. They both support illegals and believe in global warming.

suzzer99
09-24-2011, 10:55 AM
Chris Christie believes in man-made global warming. That has to hurt.

CoMoChief
09-24-2011, 11:29 AM
Chris Christie believes in man-made global warming. That has to hurt.

I believe in that we need to find cleaner alternative energy sources. I believe that in certain parts of the world where there is heavy industrialism, the air needs to be cleaner and the output of toxins/chemicals some factories produce out into the earth's atmosphere is damaging, but just not on the level as some of these bought/paid for liberal scientists and al gore supporters think.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 12:42 PM
He is nil on illegals as well;)

I don't understand what you're saying here? He is nothing [nil] on illegals?

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 12:45 PM
Okay I just saw you other post #21 which answers my question to you Sportshrink.

What is it with these Republican, even so-called Conservative governors, being soft enough on illegals that a free college ed is handed out. when Americans who have been here don't even get a free college ed? That's just OVER the TOP!

It looks to me that Paul and Bachmann are the closet to a conservative that are running. Although, I did like Huntsman on FP and some other issues, he's another governor on the GW bandwagon.

HonestChieffan
09-24-2011, 12:50 PM
Okay I just saw you other post #21 which answers my question to you Sportshrink.

What is it with these Republican, even so-called Conservative governors, being soft enough on illegals that a free college ed is handed out. when Americans who have been here don't even get a free college ed? That's just OVER the TOP!

It looks to me that Paul and Bachmann are the closet to a conservative that are running. Although, I did like Huntsman on FP and some other issues, he's another governor on the GW bandwagon.


Where do they get free college?

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 12:50 PM
Where do they get free college?

Apparently, you didn't watch the debate.

patteeu
09-24-2011, 01:03 PM
Apparently, you didn't watch the debate.

I didn't watch the debate. Where do they get free college?

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Watch it on YouTube.

patteeu
09-24-2011, 01:26 PM
Watch it on YouTube.

You must be wrong.

ClevelandBronco
09-24-2011, 01:28 PM
You must be wrong.

If she's breathing.

HonestChieffan
09-24-2011, 01:30 PM
You must be wrong.

What was your first clue?

patteeu
09-24-2011, 01:32 PM
If she's breathing.

Your avatar is just wrong, lol.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 01:34 PM
...but the first I heard of it for Texas was in the Florida debate. Then here regarding Christie. That's what I was operating on.


Several states -- Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Maryland (community colleges), Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Kansas -- have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens who have attended high school in the state for three or more years. Similar legislation is pending in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. (Connecticut also passed such a law, but the governor vetoed it. [ Looks like someone has some sense of justice to its citizens.) The Nevada system of higher education does not consider immigration status for in-state tuition, but does require it for a state-sponsored scholarship. Also, some schools in Georgia provide in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The Texas law also allows illegal aliens to receive state student financial aid.

Financial Aid for Undocumented Workers
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/undocumented.phtml

Looks like I'm gonna have to jump on Florida now that I googled this. There are more details in the links.

ClevelandBronco
09-24-2011, 01:34 PM
Your avatar is just wrong, lol.

DaFace's poll got me thinking. I'll wear this for a week.

ClevelandBronco
09-24-2011, 01:36 PM
Several states -- Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Maryland (community colleges), Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Kansas -- have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens who have attended high school in the state for three or more years. Similar legislation is pending in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. (Connecticut also passed such a law, but the governor vetoed it.) The Nevada system of higher education does not consider immigration status for in-state tuition, but does require it for a state-sponsored scholarship. Also, some schools in Georgia provide in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The Texas law also allows illegal aliens to receive state student financial aid.

Financial Aid for Undocumented Workers
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/undocumented.phtml

Yeah. That's not free college. Maybe you can find a better link.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 01:39 PM
I am wrong? Go ahead and make fools and Flying Monkeys out of yourselves, again.

How 'bout you just watch the same debate thousands saw where Romney brought it up about Perry in Texas supporting this idea?.
Where Romney said these illegals got $100,000 over 4years of college. The Texas public tuition rate is roughly $9,500 with R&B around $10k. That sounds like a free ride for an illegal to me.

Perry responded that it wasn't the kid's fault for being here and if you didn't give it to them, you "did not have a heart." (exact words)
Santorum responded that no one was saying they could not go to college but giving them a scholarship was another matter.

HonestChieffan
09-24-2011, 01:39 PM
I wanna know about this free college thing.

patteeu
09-24-2011, 01:43 PM
It's funny that BEP doesn't even realize that she's wrong.

ClevelandBronco
09-24-2011, 01:44 PM
I am wrong? Go ahead and make fools and Flying Monkeys out of yourselves, again.

How 'bout you just watch the same debate thousands saw where Romney brought it up about Perry in Texas supporting this idea?.
Perry responded that it wasn't the kid's fault for being here and if you didn't give it to them, you "did not have a heart." (exact words)
Santorum responded that no one was saying they could not go to college but giving them a scholarship was another matter.

Don't deflect. We're not talking about what Romney said. We're not talking about what Perry said. We're talking about what you said, you dishonest cunt.

go bowe
09-24-2011, 01:45 PM
really?

free college?

can i reserve one of those spots for my granddaughter?

she's 4...

and for those wondering, she's legal...

well, not that kind of legal, i meant she's a citizen...

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 01:50 PM
Here's a video on that moment but does not have Romney's remarks to Perry.
BTW Romney vetoed a similar bill in Mass as did the Conn governor of that time.

This is titled:

Perry: If You Don’t Favor Scholarships For Kids Of Illegals You Haven’t Got A Heart
But you can't see it on the embed here. It is on the linked page.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/105839" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://www.breitbart.tv/gop-debate-perry-if-you-dont-favor-scholarships-for-kids-of-illegals-you-havent-got-a-heart/

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 01:51 PM
Now when are you guys going to challenge Sportshrink for not proving Christie being soft on the same thing.

go bowe
09-24-2011, 01:51 PM
It's funny that BEP doesn't even realize that she's wrong.

that might require being less out of touch with reality, which doesn't happen too often...

but she's lovable...

well, maybe not so much...

but she is entertaining in an injured bug sort of way...

HonestChieffan
09-24-2011, 01:52 PM
I think shes playing a funny on us

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 01:54 PM
Here's another report about it on the debate:


"If you say we should not educate children who come into our state by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," Perry said.

"We need to educate these children or they will be a drag on society."

Romney, who vetoed a similar bill as Massachusetts governor, said Perry's plan was "like a magnet that draws people into this country." Romney noted that children of undocumented immigrants in Texas would pay roughly $100,000 less over four years to attend the University of Texas than Americans from other states.

"That doesn't make sense to me," Romney said to applause. "That kind of magnet draws people into this country ... to get that education, to get that 100k tuition break." Perry responded that no one on the stage has done more to fight illegal immigration by spending $400 million on enforcement measures at the border.

Santorum jumped in. "I would say he's soft on illegal immigration," he said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/22/125022/perry-defends-his-record-in-gop.html#ixzz1YtvBYzQT

The word scholarship was used in the debate.

ClevelandBronco
09-24-2011, 01:55 PM
Now when are you guys going to challenge Sportshrink for not proving Christie being soft on the same thing.

Did he say something about free college as well?

HonestChieffan
09-24-2011, 01:55 PM
No, I think she is serious.

go bowe
09-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Now when are you guys going to challenge Sportshrink for not proving Christie being soft on the same thing.

challenge sporty?

no way, he's way out of my league...

that man can mount the most persuasive logical argument...

or was he mounting something else?

HonestChieffan
09-24-2011, 01:57 PM
Christy is soft on free college?

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 01:57 PM
Now that I think of it, I do recall while at my daughter's orientation in June, that there were these Hispanic scholarhips as well as on the university's website. I just assumed it was for legal Hispanics while still thinking why should an ethnic qualification be a reason for a scholarship. I sat next to a lady at lunch who could barely speak English who had a daughter there on full free-ride. It po'd me.

Chocolate Hog
09-24-2011, 01:58 PM
I thought I was the guy who has been saying that the internet polls are worthless because Paul supporters have no lives and thus nothing better to do than spam them. Perry was the early leader. I expect scientific polls to show a drop in support for him, as he has performed poorly in the debates.

Saul has been right all along. I've compared Perry to Huckabee from day one. Mike burned hot and flamed out, and I expect Perry to do the same.

Uhh what? Huckabee was baring polling and didn't get hot til right before Iowa. He did far better than anyone expected. A good example would be Fred Thompson who once led in the polls and ended up not winning a state. It'll be interesting to see if Perry falls that far.

Chocolate Hog
09-24-2011, 02:00 PM
Christie seems legit in what he believes Perry never did. I'd probably vote for Christie in the general.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 02:03 PM
Christy is soft on free college?

You need to follow what I was responding to of Sportshrink. However, if you have a problem with this claim you need to direct it to Sportshrink.
Remember, I addressed it generally as in Republican and Conservative governors, that supported this type of thing.

go bowe
09-24-2011, 02:08 PM
Christie seems legit in what he believes Perry never did. I'd probably vote for Christie in the general.

let my get this straight...

perry never did seem legit in what he believes, is that right?

what kind of belief that he didn't seem legit in?

can you give us an example?

ClevelandBronco
09-24-2011, 02:09 PM
Was there really a sportsshrink free college post, or is it a concept you introduced?

Okay I just saw you other post #21 which answers my question to you Sportshrink.

What is it with these Republican, even so-called Conservative governors, being soft enough on illegals that a free college ed is handed out. when Americans who have been here don't even get a free college ed? That's just OVER the TOP!

It looks to me that Paul and Bachmann are the closet to a conservative that are running. Although, I did like Huntsman on FP and some other issues, he's another governor on the GW bandwagon.

Where do they get free college?

Apparently, you didn't watch the debate.

suzzer99
09-24-2011, 02:15 PM
I believe in that we need to find cleaner alternative energy sources. I believe that in certain parts of the world where there is heavy industrialism, the air needs to be cleaner and the output of toxins/chemicals some factories produce out into the earth's atmosphere is damaging, but just not on the level as some of these bought/paid for liberal scientists and al gore supporters think.

Bought and paid for liberal scientists? When the only real opposition to them comes from shill scientists who we *know* are funded by Exxon, the Koch Brothers etc.? And in many cases the same actual group who shilled for the tobacco industry for 30 years? Ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Connections_to_the_tobacco_lobby

Several journalists have argued that efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the campaign by tobacco lobbyists, after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer, to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian discussed similarities in the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.[10]

Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz, who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned about US$585,000 in the 1970s and 1980s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,[44] went on to chair groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute alleged to have made efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate." Seitz authored the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall Institute and Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ... We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.[10]

George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), that now campaigns against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to manufacture the appearance of a grass-roots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation," Monbiot states that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body."[10]

These guys are running the FUD playbook and conservatives fall for it hook line an sinker (because it fits their world view). All they have to do is create an illusion that there's an actual debate, or the false dichotomy that their shill scientists are somehow on the same level as those grant-whore mainstream scientists - and they win.

I mean scientists have always tried to get grant money, this is nothing new. To say that a grant-funded scientist is evne the same species as an Exxon-funded shill is ridiculous. It's like comparing a scientist to a professional courtroom science "expert". One is seeking the truth, the other is just seeking to find any science whatsoever that sounds like it supports his cause.

I know you guys hate Al Gore with a blind passion. But to assume that an entire wing of science has somehow been corrupted just by being associated with him is living in fantasy world. And you're the ones who run around calling people moonbats.

The other problem with your theory is also that if we make the air cleaner global warming only gets worse due to more sunlight getting through. Irony is ugly sometimes.

BigOlChiefsfan
09-24-2011, 02:15 PM
"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor." - Ronald Reagan

ABO (Anybody But Obama)

KILLER_CLOWN
09-24-2011, 02:33 PM
He should reconsider his reconsidering.

mikey23545
09-24-2011, 02:34 PM
"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor." - Ronald Reagan

ABO (Anybody But Obama)

Great quote, BigOl', but I doubt any Paulite will be able to understand it...

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 02:42 PM
Great quote, BigOl', but I doubt any Paulite will be able to understand it...

I doubt any shill for the Establishment will ever realize that most of these Rs running are progressive lefties at about 80% and only conservative about 20%.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-24-2011, 02:44 PM
I doubt any shill for the Establishment will ever realize that most of these Rs running are progressive lefties at about 80% and only conservative about 20%.

They have conservative values, we just can't see them!

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 02:45 PM
They have conservative values, we just can't see them!

We have to be pragmatic even if the Republican socialism is less pure and slower to implement! Anyone, who thinks otherwise is a KOOK!

mikey23545
09-24-2011, 02:46 PM
Great quote, BigOl', but I doubt any Paulite will be able to understand it...

I doubt any shill for the Establishment will ever realize that most of these Rs running are progressive lefties at about 80% and only conservative about 20%.

They have conservative values, we just can't see them!

Didn't take long for the proof to pop up!

LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
09-24-2011, 02:49 PM
Didn't take long for the proof to pop up!

LMAO

Get your Obama/Romney care, pay more in taxes to save mother earth from the icky pooh humans, yup surely conservative.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 02:49 PM
Didn't take long for the proof to pop up!

LMAO

Kook—an angry kook too!

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 02:51 PM
Get your Obama/Romney care, pay more in taxes to save mother earth from the icky pooh humans, yup surely conservative.

Add tuition breaks and scholarships for illegal alien children, ongoing implementation of Obamacare funding by a Republican congress who could de-fund it, bailouts for big banks and corporate welfare for Koch Brothers and GE, money for the Palestinian Authority and the UN which you know these dudes all support.

Not a dimes worth of difference. Ostriches.

Chocolate Hog
09-24-2011, 02:52 PM
let my get this straight...

perry never did seem legit in what he believes, is that right?

what kind of belief that he didn't seem legit in?

can you give us an example?

Yes Rick Perry was a Democrat who switched parties to get elected. He's changed his positions on things like health care and immigration. Christie hasn't changed positions to get elected.

HonestChieffan
09-24-2011, 03:39 PM
It's funny that BEP doesn't even realize that she's wrong.


Let me know if she ever figures this out. Amazing. Must be a moon phase. or something.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2011, 03:42 PM
Let me know if she ever figures this out. Amazing. Must be a moon phase. or something.

What? I only saw one post of his and it was that I was wrong. About what? What I saw and heard on the debate the he didn't see?
Sounds like a communication problem and/or someone is parsing fine hairs when they knew what I meant.

banyon
09-24-2011, 04:03 PM
What? I only saw one post of his and it was that I was wrong. About what? What I saw and heard on the debate the he didn't see?
Sounds like a communication problem and/or someone is parsing fine hairs when they knew what I meant.

It's a pretty simple mistake really. In state tuition doesn't equal "free".

Not that you usually admit mistakes of even the simple variety.

It's obvious just glancing at the thread.

banyon
09-24-2011, 04:05 PM
Well that's true, lol. I wouldn't be surprised if the non-kooks who are dissatisfied with the degree of conservatism of Romney, Pawlenty, or Giuliani will end up liking Christie any better though.

Christie is just the 'city version' of Rick Perry. They both support illegals and believe in global warming.

Well patteeu, there's your kook vote weighing in as you foresaw.

Chocolate Hog
09-25-2011, 10:45 AM
Thanks for chiming in Banyon but nobody gives a shit about what you have to say.

patteeu
09-25-2011, 10:53 AM
Well patteeu, there's your kook vote weighing in as you foresaw.

:thumb:

banyon
09-25-2011, 11:04 AM
Thanks for chiming in Banyon but nobody gives a shit about what you have to say.

Oh, billay, what a clever retort.

I'm so sorry I blasted your kooky vaccine threads from before. I didn't know it would make you so angry and hateful.

Will you ever forgive me?

Chocolate Hog
09-25-2011, 11:22 AM
Oh, billay, what a clever retort.

I'm so sorry I blasted your kooky vaccine threads from before. I didn't know it would make you so angry and hateful.

Will you ever forgive me?

When did I make a vaccine thread? Much like your vote for Obama you are waaaaaay off.

banyon
09-25-2011, 11:31 AM
When did I make a vaccine thread? Much like your vote for Obama you are waaaaaay off.

Ok. Maybe I'm confusing you with Killer Clown on something.

So what is your problem?

BucEyedPea
09-25-2011, 12:00 PM
When did I make a vaccine thread? Much like your vote for Obama you are waaaaaay off.

He's calling you angry and hateful? O.M.G.! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. banyon's posts reek of hostility and hate for other's povs.

banyon
09-25-2011, 12:08 PM
He's calling you angry and hateful? O.M.G.! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. banyon's posts reek of hostility and hate for other's povs.

No, it's not other pov's, as there are plenty of posters with opposing pov's that I get along with fine.

It's more people who are phonies and hide behind crap like "fake ignore" instead of just defending the outlandish claims they are trying to make.

go bowe
09-25-2011, 12:13 PM
No, it's not other pov's, as there are plenty of posters with opposing pov's that I get along with fine.

It's more people who are phonies and hide behind crap like "fake ignore" instead of just defending the outlandish claims they are trying to make.

pffffffffft...

fake ignore is a venerable cp tradition...

all the cool kids do it...

ROYC75
09-25-2011, 12:33 PM
:hmmm: Christie ? I think I could very well go for this. I want to see and hear more about FP, Illegals, etc. The BS stuff he would get blow them off the charts with. The Fed's would be and interesting thing to see where Christie will go. If he is a true conservative, he would audit them, maybe slow them down or shut even them down. So many things to see and hear.

Go ahead and run, we need to know more.:thumb:


FTR, I wanted him and or Mitch Daniels to run. My preferred choice was Daniels.

patteeu
09-25-2011, 05:51 PM
Ok. Maybe I'm confusing you with Killer Clown on something.

So what is your problem?

He seems to be self-identifying as one of the kooks I was talking about and taking offense at your confirmation post even though neither of us mentioned him.

Here, let me check. Billay, would you support Christie in the general election if he wins the GOP nomination?

Chocolate Hog
09-25-2011, 05:54 PM
He seems to be self-identifying as one of the kooks I was talking about and taking offense at your confirmation post even though neither of us mentioned him.

Here, let me check. Billay, would you support Christie of he wins the GOP nomination?

I appreciate the guys honesty but I would need to see where he stands on national issues.

Republicans I would vote for: Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and maybe Gingrich.

patteeu
09-25-2011, 05:57 PM
I appreciate the guys honesty but I would need to see where he stands on national issues.

Republicans I would vote for: Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and maybe Gingrich.

If you can support Gingrich with his foreign policy views and his willingness to use government to solve some problems, you're not one of the kooks I was talking about.

Chocolate Hog
09-25-2011, 06:00 PM
If you can support Gingrich with his foreign policy views and his willingness to use government to solve some problems, you're not one of the kooks I was talking about.

I need to look into Gingrich's FP more. If it's like Reagans I could support him but if it's like McCain/Graham no thanks.

banyon
09-25-2011, 06:04 PM
He seems to be self-identifying as one of the kooks I was talking about and taking offense at your confirmation post even though neither of us mentioned him.

Here, let me check. Billay, would you support Christie in the general election if he wins the GOP nomination?

Oh, good call. I have been rough on the kooks lately.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2011, 07:03 PM
Republicans I would vote for: Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, and maybe Gingrich.

For me it's: Paul, Johnson, Huntsman ( pending a bit more info)....but Gingrich —NEVER!

In the national election...I would give Christie some consideration pending more info on national issues. I am suspicious of the kind of money that is courting him though.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2011, 07:07 PM
I need to look into Gingrich's FP more. If it's like Reagans I could support him but if it's like McCain/Graham no thanks.
It's McCains—all the way. Didn't you hear him on Fox, during the Bush regime, saying this is WWIII we're in? That's what he wants it to be.

He also wanted to shut down speech on the internet too. He got called out on it and it was taken off his website. Plus the economic program he wrote for Iraq with Guiliani was warmed over socialism with national healthcare. He wants to make bureacrats into entrepreneurs and favors govt/private business enterprises which is a soft fascism. He campaigned for Rockefeller, he twisted the arms of junior freshman congressmen in the 90's to vote for tax increases. He pushed for NAFTA. He's a NeoCon and a snake who has sold out America's sovereignty to internationalists time and time again. A total NWO guy, who can't be trusted. He just knows what hot buttons to push on conservatives and pushes them—then votes with Democrats more.

banyon
09-25-2011, 07:14 PM
For me it's: Paul, Johnson, Huntsman ( pending a bit more info)....but Gingrich —NEVER!

In the national election...I would give Christie some consideration pending more info on national issues. I am suspicious of the kind of money that is courting him though.

Time to scare off BEP:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299415-The-Dirt-on-Jon-M.-Huntsman-Jr



Gov. Jon Huntsman's CFR Membership -- The Rest of the Story


William Norman Grigg | The New American
August 3, 2005

Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., emerging as the focal point of a "solution" to illegal immigration, has an unsettling record where U.S. interests are concerned.

An alert reader of The New American has pointed out that the name of Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. no longer appears on the membership roster for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In a brief item entitled "Huntsman's Amnesty 'Alliance,'" we erroneously reported that Governor Huntsman was a current member of the Council.

Huntsman has been a member of the globalist organization, and has played a significant role in the unfolding campaign to build a system of global governance through the creation of multilateral "free trade" pacts. These facts are significant in light of his emergence as an Establishment-approved point man dealing with the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America.

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. was listed as a member of the CFR from 1993 to 1998. In a mini-essay published in the group’s 1996 Annual Report, Huntsman praised the globalist group effusively, extolling the CFR as "America's premier crossroads for those who are internationally minded and experienced…."

From an early age, Huntsman the younger has mingled with "internationally minded" cognoscenti. A 1998 profile recalls: "When Jon M. Huntsman Jr. was about 11 years old, visiting the White House where his father worked as a special assistant to President Richard Nixon, he happened to run into Henry Kissinger. The boy walked Kissinger out to his car, and the national security adviser mentioned he was leaving on a trip. He was going to China" as part of one of his "secret first treks to China" to open diplomatic relations with the Communist behemoth.

Early in the first term of George W. Bush, the younger, Huntsman (who speaks Mandarin as the result of missionary service in Taiwan) was reportedly "on the short list" to be appointed ambassador to Beijing. (In the administration of Bush the elder, Huntsman served as ambassador to Singapore.) Instead, he was appointed deputy U.S. trade representative and tasked to oversee U.S. trade policy with Asia. At the time he spoke enthusiastically of "fulfilling [President Bush’s] vision for America in the area of international trade."

That vision, as The New American has documented, involves the use of "free trade" pacts – both bilateral agreements and regional accords such as the recently enacted Central American Free Trade Agreement – to build a global trade system managed by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO).

During his Senate confirmation hearings, reported the July 31, 2001 Deseret News, Huntsman specifically mentioned that he would play a role in "China’s accession to the World Trade Organization." Just last January, the WTO lifted the worldwide system of national textile import quotas, which effectively turned the world textile market over to China. A year ago, the Christian Science Monitor predicted that this would bring about "a massive transfer of jobs and wealth in the developing world over the next few years" – from the impoverished, textile-producing nations of the CAFTA region to China. This will almost certainly result in another wave of immigration, legal, and illegal, from Latin America northward. And Jon M. Huntsman Jr. now stands ready to help craft a "solution" to a problem he helped exacerbate.

This brings us back to the so-called "Alliance for Prosperity" Huntsman has proposed with Mexico. During his recent meeting in Mexico with Vicente Fox, Huntsman offered assurances that he would work with other members of the Western Governors’ Association to find a "solution" to the problem of illegal immigration. The preferred arrangement, Huntsman said, would be to "work on mobility of the work force" - a perspective that syncs up with the Bush administration’s proposed amnesty for illegal aliens.

Governor Huntsman’s approach earned plaudits from Joe Reyna, a regional president of Zions Bank of Utah and the incoming chairman of the board of directors of the Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "For President Fox to hear the Utah governor is going to push an agenda for immigration reform … that's music to his ears," he commented.

Mr. Reyna should know. As a member of Mexico’s Institute for Mexicans Abroad, he is an official adviser to Vicente Fox. During a February 2004 press conference in Utah’s state capitol building, Reyna joined Patricia Deluera, the Mexican consul general in Salt Lake City, to denounce as "racist" a proposed legislative measure that would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain state driver’s licenses. He was also "one of only 40 Hispanic leaders invited to attend the Washington announcement" of George W. Bush's proposed illegal alien amnesty, reported the January 8, 2004 Deseret News.

While Governor Huntsman hasn’t offered substantive details about his immigration "solution," it's reasonable to believe that the enchanting "music" he's performing for Vicente Fox’s enjoyment is the overture to another sell-out of our national interests.

OH NOES!!! HE'S A NEOCONMERCANTILISTRINOPOOPYPANTS!!!!

KILLER_CLOWN
09-25-2011, 09:28 PM
Time to scare off BEP:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299415-The-Dirt-on-Jon-M.-Huntsman-Jr



Gov. Jon Huntsman's CFR Membership -- The Rest of the Story


William Norman Grigg | The New American
August 3, 2005

Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., emerging as the focal point of a "solution" to illegal immigration, has an unsettling record where U.S. interests are concerned.

An alert reader of The New American has pointed out that the name of Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. no longer appears on the membership roster for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In a brief item entitled "Huntsman's Amnesty 'Alliance,'" we erroneously reported that Governor Huntsman was a current member of the Council.

Huntsman has been a member of the globalist organization, and has played a significant role in the unfolding campaign to build a system of global governance through the creation of multilateral "free trade" pacts. These facts are significant in light of his emergence as an Establishment-approved point man dealing with the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America.

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. was listed as a member of the CFR from 1993 to 1998. In a mini-essay published in the group’s 1996 Annual Report, Huntsman praised the globalist group effusively, extolling the CFR as "America's premier crossroads for those who are internationally minded and experienced…."

From an early age, Huntsman the younger has mingled with "internationally minded" cognoscenti. A 1998 profile recalls: "When Jon M. Huntsman Jr. was about 11 years old, visiting the White House where his father worked as a special assistant to President Richard Nixon, he happened to run into Henry Kissinger. The boy walked Kissinger out to his car, and the national security adviser mentioned he was leaving on a trip. He was going to China" as part of one of his "secret first treks to China" to open diplomatic relations with the Communist behemoth.

Early in the first term of George W. Bush, the younger, Huntsman (who speaks Mandarin as the result of missionary service in Taiwan) was reportedly "on the short list" to be appointed ambassador to Beijing. (In the administration of Bush the elder, Huntsman served as ambassador to Singapore.) Instead, he was appointed deputy U.S. trade representative and tasked to oversee U.S. trade policy with Asia. At the time he spoke enthusiastically of "fulfilling [President Bush’s] vision for America in the area of international trade."

That vision, as The New American has documented, involves the use of "free trade" pacts – both bilateral agreements and regional accords such as the recently enacted Central American Free Trade Agreement – to build a global trade system managed by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO).

During his Senate confirmation hearings, reported the July 31, 2001 Deseret News, Huntsman specifically mentioned that he would play a role in "China’s accession to the World Trade Organization." Just last January, the WTO lifted the worldwide system of national textile import quotas, which effectively turned the world textile market over to China. A year ago, the Christian Science Monitor predicted that this would bring about "a massive transfer of jobs and wealth in the developing world over the next few years" – from the impoverished, textile-producing nations of the CAFTA region to China. This will almost certainly result in another wave of immigration, legal, and illegal, from Latin America northward. And Jon M. Huntsman Jr. now stands ready to help craft a "solution" to a problem he helped exacerbate.

This brings us back to the so-called "Alliance for Prosperity" Huntsman has proposed with Mexico. During his recent meeting in Mexico with Vicente Fox, Huntsman offered assurances that he would work with other members of the Western Governors’ Association to find a "solution" to the problem of illegal immigration. The preferred arrangement, Huntsman said, would be to "work on mobility of the work force" - a perspective that syncs up with the Bush administration’s proposed amnesty for illegal aliens.

Governor Huntsman’s approach earned plaudits from Joe Reyna, a regional president of Zions Bank of Utah and the incoming chairman of the board of directors of the Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "For President Fox to hear the Utah governor is going to push an agenda for immigration reform … that's music to his ears," he commented.

Mr. Reyna should know. As a member of Mexico’s Institute for Mexicans Abroad, he is an official adviser to Vicente Fox. During a February 2004 press conference in Utah’s state capitol building, Reyna joined Patricia Deluera, the Mexican consul general in Salt Lake City, to denounce as "racist" a proposed legislative measure that would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain state driver’s licenses. He was also "one of only 40 Hispanic leaders invited to attend the Washington announcement" of George W. Bush's proposed illegal alien amnesty, reported the January 8, 2004 Deseret News.

While Governor Huntsman hasn’t offered substantive details about his immigration "solution," it's reasonable to believe that the enchanting "music" he's performing for Vicente Fox’s enjoyment is the overture to another sell-out of our national interests.

OH NOES!!! HE'S A NEOCONMERCANTILISTRINOPOOPYPANTS!!!!

Traitor is the word you were looking for.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2011, 09:50 PM
I still like what he said about Pakistan. People also join the CFR for contacts too. Even if one has to be invited. It does represent Establishment views but they don't always agree with each other either.

Ha! Ha! Ha! banyon, who reads the pinko-commie rag The Nation, thought he could scare me—NOT!

patteeu
09-26-2011, 07:10 AM
I need to look into Gingrich's FP more. If it's like Reagans I could support him but if it's like McCain/Graham no thanks.

What do you see as the difference?

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 07:16 AM
BTW what banyon doesn't seem to know is when he complains about corporatism he's complaining about the same thing when I call it mercantilism.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 08:26 AM
What do you see as the difference?

McCain/Graham aren't tactful.

Amnorix
09-26-2011, 08:28 AM
I'm as wary of Christie as I was of Perry. I expect him to be disappointing if he decides to get in. He's been impressive as the governor of a liberal state, but I bet he'll have similar flaws from the pov of the conservative purists that other northeasterners have had (Scott, Giuliani, Romney, etc.). Also, he has very little experience and no national organization as far as I know.


I know you're not a Paulite, so who is your preferred nominee?

Amnorix
09-26-2011, 08:40 AM
Thanks for chiming in Banyon but nobody gives a shit about what you have to say.


I do.

So you're wrong too.

You and BEP are ON FIRE in this thread. Keep up the good work. I have no doubt you will.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 08:51 AM
I do.

So you're wrong too.

You and BEP are ON FIRE in this thread. Keep up the good work. I have no doubt you will.

You voted for Barack Obama of course you have to stick together to somehow justify your dumbassery.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 09:12 AM
You voted for Barack Obama of course you have to stick together to somehow justify your dumbassery.

:thumb:

He's got nuthin' today. So he has to resort to ad hominem. Get back in your paddock, Amn. LMAO

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 09:13 AM
Traitor is the word you were looking for.

Regardless, one need not be a member to be a traitor.

patteeu
09-26-2011, 09:43 AM
I know you're not a Paulite, so who is your preferred nominee?

I'm undecided, but leaning toward Romney.

patteeu
09-26-2011, 09:44 AM
McCain/Graham aren't tactful.

So you're worried about hurting people's feelings?

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 09:46 AM
So you're worried about hurting people's feelings?

Are you kidding me? Graham thinks it would be wise to start a war with Pakistan.

Amnorix
09-26-2011, 09:46 AM
:thumb:

He's got nuthin' today. So he has to resort to ad hominem. Get back in your paddock, Amn. LMAO


Don't believe I'm the one making a fool of myself about illegals getting "free" tuition. But then you can't respond to this because I'm on fake ignore. :p

Amnorix
09-26-2011, 09:47 AM
You voted for Barack Obama of course you have to stick together to somehow justify your dumbassery.


Billay calling others a dumbass. Oh sweet irony...

patteeu
09-26-2011, 09:51 AM
Are you kidding me? Graham thinks it would be wise to start a war with Pakistan.

What were Graham's words? Did he say "I think it would be wise to start a war with Pakistan"?

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 10:10 AM
Are you kidding me? Graham thinks it would be wise to start a war with Pakistan.

Good Lord, really? No wonder he wants more war funding.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 10:39 AM
Billay calling others a dumbass. Oh sweet irony...

You defend Obama, Cassel, Pioli, and Banyon. Do you not see a trend?

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 10:41 AM
What were Graham's words? Did he say "I think it would be wise to start a war with Pakistan"?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Lindsey Graham says the U.S. should consider military action to defend U.S. troops if Pakistan's intelligence agencies continue supporting terrorists who are attacking American forces.


Tell me how this would be a wise move Pat.

patteeu
09-26-2011, 10:47 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Lindsey Graham says the U.S. should consider military action to defend U.S. troops if Pakistan's intelligence agencies continue supporting terrorists who are attacking American forces.


Tell me how this would be a wise move Pat.

I think defending US troops is a very good use of military action and I think Ronald Reagan would believe the same thing. Perhaps more relevantly, I think it's important that countries like Pakistan believe that we'd use military force to defend our troops. The more they believe it, the less likely they are to provoke it.

It appears that Graham's words leave him far short of pining for a full scale war though.

Saul Good
09-26-2011, 11:00 AM
You voted for Barack Obama of course you have to stick together to somehow justify your dumbassery.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I read banyon's posts with interest. Got any more idiotic observations?

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 11:07 AM
I didn't vote for Obama, but I read banyon's posts with interest. Got any more idiotic observations?

You suck off yout father in laws teet.




Edit: That's not very nice.

patteeu
09-26-2011, 11:08 AM
You suck off your father in laws teet.

Aren't we all?

Edit: Whoa, that didn't turn out how I expected.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 11:10 AM
Aren't we all?

Edit: Whoa, that didn't turn out how I expected.

ROFL

ROYC75
09-26-2011, 11:12 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Lindsey Graham says the U.S. should consider military action to defend U.S. troops if Pakistan's intelligence agencies continue supporting terrorists who are attacking American forces.


Tell me how this would be a wise move Pat.

You and all the world idiots are in hyperbole mode. Defending American soldiers is a must if they continue to support the terrorist in killing our troops. Pakistan is like your greedy cousin that comes around because you have it better and then throws a knife in your back after you handed him a $ 20.00 loan.

Graham nowhere chimed he wanted a full scale war or WWIII.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 11:17 AM
You and all the world idiots are in hyperbole mode. Defending American soldiers is a must if they continue to support the terrorist in killing our troops. Pakistan is like your greedy cousin that comes around because you have it better and then throws a knife in your back after you handed him a $ 20.00 loan.

Graham nowhere chimed he wanted a full scale war or WWIII.

Hey asshole Pakistan has had connections to terrorist for years and we've supported and still do. What do you think will happen if we attack them? They'll just sit back and take it?

Amnorix
09-26-2011, 11:48 AM
You defend Obama, Cassel, Pioli, and Banyon. Do you not see a trend?


I don't defend Cassel. Haven't seen a game the man has played in Chiefs uniform yet. If you all say he sucks, then fine, he sucks.

The rest, yes. Trend? Not really. Did Obama and Pioli go to the same school of management or something? Is Banyon an NFL GM-in-training that I missed?

I also like broccoli. That part of the same trend?

ROYC75
09-26-2011, 12:13 PM
Hey asshole Pakistan has had connections to terrorist for years and we've supported and still do. What do you think will happen if we attack them? They'll just sit back and take it?

They have and we have allowed them too, do we still continue to let them. Why don't we just line up a few good men and hand them over to them?

Get over the BS Billay. You always seem to over look the reasoning in the problem? Why ? Are we there to win or for political reasons ?

I said in the very beginning, we are sucked in for life when we went to the ME. You don't go in kick their butt and leave, hostility takes over, chaos, etc. If you leave, you alienate them, if you stay you alienate them. This is the way it is, this is why so many people was against going, but we had to. I said It will take 100 years of controlling them to possibly change their culture, it doesn't happen over night, 5, 10 years. It takes a world of countries in order to change the rouge nations or you leave them alone long enough to enough start knocking each other off and then before long you have another WW.

Garcia Bronco
09-26-2011, 12:17 PM
Christie would get my immediate vote.

ChiefsCountry
09-26-2011, 12:27 PM
Christie would get my immediate vote.

This.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 01:10 PM
You defend Obama, Cassel, Pioli, and Banyon. Do you not see a trend?

And Keynesianism. But gee, you could have left Pioli outta that, at least. :harumph:

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 01:13 PM
They have and we have allowed them too, do we still continue to let them. Why don't we just line up a few good men and hand them over to them?

Get over the BS Billay. You always seem to over look the reasoning in the problem? Why ? Are we there to win or for political reasons ?

I said in the very beginning, we are sucked in for life when we went to the ME. You don't go in kick their butt and leave, hostility takes over, chaos, etc. If you leave, you alienate them, if you stay you alienate them. This is the way it is, this is why so many people was against going, but we had to. I said It will take 100 years of controlling them to possibly change their culture, it doesn't happen over night, 5, 10 years. It takes a world of countries in order to change the rouge nations or you leave them alone long enough to enough start knocking each other off and then before long you have another WW.


How 'bout we pull out of Central Asia and the MidEast but let our ships patrol in the Persian Gulf the way we did when RR was in power? That worked until we went beyond that...in Beirut where we suffered immediate blowback.

Tell them if there's another terrorist act by AQ in the US ( No, not on military installations in the ME where we're busy butting in on a conflict), we'll be sending drones back in.

So we need a world of countries in order to change rogue nations? I thought you were a conservative? That's international progressivism talking there. The UN is saying, "You really like me! You really, really like me!"

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 01:18 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Lindsey Graham says the U.S. should consider military action to defend U.S. troops if Pakistan's intelligence agencies continue supporting terrorists who are attacking American forces.


Tell me how this would be a wise move Pat.

Well, for starters, if they are attacking our troops then that is not terrorism by definition. It can be considered attacks but then I would suggest that they are seeing it as their own defense. I mean we sent drones in there didn't we. You think they're gonna just lie down and take that without a fight. I thought we were at war now with AQ.

Geez, I mean talk about wanting to call it both ways. Calling them terrorists is propaganda.

patteeu
09-26-2011, 01:22 PM
How 'bout we pull out of Central Asia and the MidEast but let our ships patrol in the Persian Gulf the way we did when RR was in power? That worked until we went beyond that...in Beirut where we suffered immediate blowback.

Tell them if there's another terrorist act by AQ in the US ( No, not on military installations in the ME where we're busy butting in on a conflict), we'll be sending drones back in.

So we need a world of countries in order to change rogue nations? I thought you were a conservative? That's international progressivism talking there. The UN is saying, "You really like me! You really, really like me!"

No, that didn't work as the repeated terrorist attacks and government sponsored hostage-takings demonstrated.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 01:42 PM
Cheers!

BigChiefFan
09-26-2011, 01:46 PM
Christie would get my immediate vote.He was for the bail-outs and supports carbon tax. He cut a few government jobs and so some have been duped thinking that's how he always operates-he doesn't, not even close. He's another globalist.

patteeu
09-26-2011, 01:48 PM
I'm convinced that some Ron Paul supporters wish they could live in a 3rd world country.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-26-2011, 01:51 PM
I'm convinced that some Ron Paul supporters wish they could avoid living in a 3rd world country.

FYP! Cheneyman.

BigChiefFan
09-26-2011, 02:01 PM
Time to realize Christie is a fraud...

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13561

Garcia Bronco
09-26-2011, 02:22 PM
He was for the bail-outs and supports carbon tax. He cut a few government jobs and so some have been duped thinking that's how he always operates-he doesn't, not even close. He's another globalist.

I was for the TARP loan...not the second stimuls or porkulus..and while I am not for a carbon tax, I am for protecting the environment through education, not taxes.

He won't be able to run on a carbon tax platform, nor would I expect him to.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-26-2011, 03:04 PM
Time to realize Christie is a fraud...

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13561

How in the world does he have an R next to his name? Total fraud.

ROYC75
09-26-2011, 03:08 PM
How 'bout we pull out of Central Asia and the MidEast but let our ships patrol in the Persian Gulf the way we did when RR was in power? That worked until we went beyond that...in Beirut where we suffered immediate blowback.

Tell them if there's another terrorist act by AQ in the US ( No, not on military installations in the ME where we're busy butting in on a conflict), we'll be sending drones back in.

So we need a world of countries in order to change rogue nations? I thought you were a conservative? That's international progressivism talking there. The UN is saying, "You really like me! You really, really like me!"

It was what I was pertaining it to, going into the ME, it would take the rest of the world's backing to do so. If not it's a 100 year war, or greater.

It's not so much as what I believe we should have done. We done a lot more than we should have and some of those countries should have at least paid up for the work we did. Ya know, a lot of $$$$$ for doing their dirty work.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 03:08 PM
They have and we have allowed them too, do we still continue to let them. Why don't we just line up a few good men and hand them over to them?

Get over the BS Billay. You always seem to over look the reasoning in the problem? Why ? Are we there to win or for political reasons ?

I said in the very beginning, we are sucked in for life when we went to the ME. You don't go in kick their butt and leave, hostility takes over, chaos, etc. If you leave, you alienate them, if you stay you alienate them. This is the way it is, this is why so many people was against going, but we had to. I said It will take 100 years of controlling them to possibly change their culture, it doesn't happen over night, 5, 10 years. It takes a world of countries in order to change the rouge nations or you leave them alone long enough to enough start knocking each other off and then before long you have another WW.

Because your reasoning doesn't make sense. 1. We take our the central Pakistan government we then risk putting nukes in the hands of terrorist. 2. It would could alot of resources that we don't have. 3. Theres a better alternative than what you suggested: Just pull all funding.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 03:09 PM
I didn't know Christie supported the first bailout. Yep def. would not support him.

Calcountry
09-26-2011, 03:15 PM
Only think I can think of is that Christie believes in global warming. .That's because he has such a HUGE carbon footprint.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 03:16 PM
Time to realize Christie is a fraud...

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13561

These tea-party types disagree on a lot of issues, but they’re virtually unanimous in their dislikes. They hate cap-and-trade. They hate immigration amnesty. And they hate national health care reform. [Yup!]

Christie’s weak on all three issues. On immigration, he supports what he calls “a commonsense path to citizenship” - which is what conservatives call "amnesty.” And he’s conspicuously absent from that multistate suit to end Obamacare – or “Pallonecare” as Little terms it in honor of its prime sponsor.

Christie’s”new” message is the same old RINO insistence that Republicans have to put up with a lot of liberal nonsense if they want to win elections. The voters feel otherwise.

Christie is a cap & tax fan, endorsed RINO Mike Castle over Christine O'Donnell, etc.

Christie should cap and trade that RINO rhetoric

O.M.G.

... Our governor had backed U.S. Rep. Mike Castle in the race for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. Castle is a 44-year veteran of Delaware politics who is the prototypical RINO – the term conservatives use to describe a “Republican In Name Only” who sides with the Democrats on key issues.

The key issue in this race was cap-and-trade. As a congressman, Castle was one of the few Republicans to vote for the federal bill to curb CO-2 emissions. That bill is now stalled in the Senate. Delaware tea-party members were adamant about not allowing Castle a chance to support the same bill again.

As for Christie, he’s a big cap-and-trader, too. New Jersey is already enrolled in a 10-state cap-and-trade system. Christie intends to use the revenue to promote an offshore windmill scheme that is just one Sancho Panza short of an impossible dream.

...Politico quoted Christie insiders as saying this is all part of his effort “to get his message out and promote what he has described as the future road for the party.” Unfortunately, that road goes off a cliff. By Tuesday night, Castle was lying at the bottom of it. He had lost the primary to a candidate who was so unorthodox that she didn’t have a chance, at least not in the minds of mainstream Republicans.

I knew he was on the GW bandwagon but didn't know it had gone this far.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-26-2011, 03:20 PM
O.M.G.



I knew he was on the GW bandwagon but didn't know it had gone this far.

He's.....ya know.....conserv....A Republican, A New Republican!

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 03:21 PM
It was what I was pertaining it to, going into the ME, it would take the rest of the world's backing to do so. If not it's a 100 year war, or greater.

It's not so much as what I believe we should have done. We done a lot more than we should have and some of those countries should have at least paid up for the work we did. Ya know, a lot of $$$$$ for doing their dirty work.

The Pakistan thing is tricky though, because of the make up of their people. They can't openly work against those elements. Even when we were initially bombing Afghanistan they didn't like it and had no understanding as to why. We just cannot socially engineer these non-westerners in that part of the world. Besides, most of those govts are corrupt.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2011, 03:22 PM
He's.....ya know.....conserv....A Republican, A New Republican!

Well, if he so left-leaning, is he anti-war? I mean he is a Catholic, many tend to be liberal but socially conservative and antiwar.

ROYC75
09-26-2011, 03:30 PM
Because your reasoning doesn't make sense. 1. We take our the central Pakistan government we then risk putting nukes in the hands of terrorist. 2. It would could alot of resources that we don't have. 3. Theres a better alternative than what you suggested: Just pull all funding.

This, I agree. My reasoning I was afraid of going to the ME to start with. Those silly people do not care how they live, they will die to live in poverty. If we , anybody attack their livelihood, it's an all out war to them. They die for reasons we walk away from.

It's the reason why I said it would take 100 years or more to change their culture.

But to turn a blind eye or ear if Pakistan is helping AQ busting up our troops
is just plain naive. Pakistan should never been allowed to have nukes to start with. Any country that can not control their own government or people have no right to have nuclear weapons.

It has always been believed for sometime that someday Pakistan and India will go after each other.

orange
09-26-2011, 03:35 PM
That's because he has such a HUGE carbon footprint.

His jobs aren't shovel-ready, they're steamshovel-ready.

Chocolate Hog
09-26-2011, 03:39 PM
This, I agree. My reasoning I was afraid of going to the ME to start with. Those silly people do not care how they live, they will die to live in poverty. If we , anybody attack their livelihood, it's an all out war to them. They die for reasons we walk away from.

It's the reason why I said it would take 100 years or more to change their culture.

But to turn a blind eye or ear if Pakistan is helping AQ busting up our troops
is just plain naive. Pakistan should never been allowed to have nukes to start with. Any country that can not control their own government or people have no right to have nuclear weapons.

It has always been believed for sometime that someday Pakistan and India will go after each other.

Sorry what does ME stand for?

I wish we would just drop a nuke on the entire reason I don't give a shit about those people after hearing the stories my friends have seen over there. They are a bunch of crazy ungreatful fucks.

ROYC75
09-26-2011, 03:54 PM
Sorry what does ME stand for?

I wish we would just drop a nuke on the entire reason I don't give a shit about those people after hearing the stories my friends have seen over there. They are a bunch of crazy ungreatful ****s.

Middle East.....

FD
09-26-2011, 05:09 PM
The Christie legend comes almost entirely from a handful of youtube videos. The more the GOP base learns about the less likely they are to vote for him.

mlyonsd
09-27-2011, 08:04 AM
The Christie legend comes almost entirely from a handful of youtube videos. The more the GOP base learns about the less likely they are to vote for him.If Christie's name doesn't begin with Barack and end with Obama they'll vote for him.

Unless he were to choke to death on a chicken bone the nomination would be his if he entered the race.