PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Christy decided no


HonestChieffan
09-27-2011, 12:36 PM
So on with the games

CoMoChief
09-27-2011, 12:40 PM
He gained much of his popularity talking down to unions and speaking his mind....which I agree with the majority of what he did...but he also beleives in global warming. I would've also liked to have known more about him. But oh well..he's out of the race

Cave Johnson
09-27-2011, 12:40 PM
Up next, Sarah Palin.

Get ready for a Perry/Romney/Palin deathmatch, righties.

FD
09-27-2011, 12:41 PM
Thats a shame.

orange
09-27-2011, 12:43 PM
Did he kill himself yet? If not, he's still in.

SNR
09-27-2011, 12:44 PM
He said he'd go ahead and run for president after he was done eating lunch.

Experts predicted that would occur AFTER Election Day 2012

Cave Johnson
09-27-2011, 12:44 PM
Did he have a devil's threesome yet? If not, he's still in.

FYP, to account for Jersey politics.

BucEyedPea
09-27-2011, 12:48 PM
So on with the games

Neo-Gamers unite!

BucEyedPea
09-27-2011, 12:49 PM
He gained much of his popularity talking down to unions and speaking his mind....which I agree with the majority of what he did...but he also beleives in global warming. I would've also liked to have known more about him. But oh well..he's out of the race

There's enough candidates out there who think like him already. So the GW's are still represented. Huntsman being one.

BucEyedPea
09-27-2011, 01:03 PM
He said he'd go ahead and run for president after he was done eating lunch.

Experts predicted that would occur AFTER Election Day 2012

He's going to eat non-stop up til then, 'eh? I think he's gonna need to trim his own size down first.

BucEyedPea
09-27-2011, 01:10 PM
Maybe he didn't want to be beholden to Koch money. If so, the man has some integrity then.

LOCOChief
09-27-2011, 07:42 PM
So on with the games

You mean Christie right?

It's not over, we need this guy and he owes it to his country.

Brock
09-27-2011, 07:46 PM
You mean Christie right?

It's not over, we need this guy and he owes it to his country.

LMAO

LOCOChief
09-27-2011, 07:49 PM
LMAO

I wanted to make sure that you know that I'm serious, I like this guy.

Brock
09-27-2011, 07:50 PM
I wanted to make sure that you know that I'm serious, I like this guy.

I was laughing at the notion that he owes the country anything.

ROYC75
09-28-2011, 06:00 AM
You mean Christie right?

It's not over, we need this guy and he owes it to his country.

Sorry LOCO, nobody owes it to this country. If a guy is not willing to lead, he is not willing to serve as Head Chief. I liked Christie too, but if it isn't his time frame and on his terms, he's not up to the task.

patteeu
09-28-2011, 08:09 AM
Not worth a new thread so I'll put it here. Now that Christie is out, let's revisit Rick Perry:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BhDhDRvHaGs?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BhDhDRvHaGs?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

LOCOChief
09-28-2011, 09:23 AM
I was laughing at the notion that he owes the country anything.

Yeah I know he doesn't but man if he did..............

fan4ever
09-28-2011, 10:42 AM
The global warming thing doesn't bother me as long as he's not saying "it's man-made" global warming...with all the weird weather the last couple of years, eh...people wonder.

patteeu
09-28-2011, 11:09 AM
The important question isn't about whether a guy believes there's man made global warming or not anyway. It's about what he would do about it. It doesn't bother me if a person believes that man is causing a warming effect as long as he's not pushing for major economy-damaging remedial action on the basis of such uncertain science related to the consequences.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 11:18 AM
The global warming thing doesn't bother me as long as he's not saying "it's man-made" global warming...with all the weird weather the last couple of years, eh...people wonder.
Someone mentioned, recently, that he did think it was man-made. I don't know which thread it was in.
Usually, those thinking it's man-made, feel a need to do something about it in order to regulate the matter. What was mentioned about Christie earlier is that he had some big initiative on wind he was on the bandwagon for in NJ. I think such things are logical to assume will happen by the anthropomorhpic crowd.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 11:27 AM
Christi is a big cap-n-trader.


... 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.


Christie is also pro-amnesty for illegals, and weak on repeal of Obamacare in addition to being a cap-n-trader.


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. [ like patteeu claims under the word "pragmatic" ] The voters feel otherwise.



That he believes GW is man-made I believe is also in this same thread earlier. ( this repost is from that thread) I don't have time to go through it but you can if you want.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=250479&page=9

fan4ever
09-28-2011, 11:50 AM
Wow; didn't know that...

...in that case he would be pretty much DOA anyway...

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 12:12 PM
Wow; didn't know that...

...in that case he would be pretty much DOA anyway...

I think if you look under the rhetoric of many Republicans, especially one with more name recognition, you find it doesn't really match the rhetoric of what their party is about. Most of them are weak on the immigration issue as it regards amnesty. It's also true of Democrats who desire low-wage voters but the Rs are with the corporations who like the cheap labor. No wonder, it's one issue that is bi-partisan.

mikey23545
09-28-2011, 12:24 PM
Someone mentioned, recently, that he did think it was man-made. I don't know which thread it was in.
Usually, those thinking it's man-made, feel a need to do something about it in order to regulate the matter. What was mentioned about Christie earlier is that he had some big initiative on wind he was on the bandwagon for in NJ. I think such things are logical to assume will happen by the anthropomorhpic crowd. He's not Ron Paul.

FYP.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 12:27 PM
FYP.
Yup! Apparently that's your problem, isn't it?

BTW I said earlier I could consider Christie at one point—until his record was revealed.
Said earlier that I could vote for Johnson even...liked some things about Huntsman until I could hear more.
The problem is, except for Johnson, none of them have enough of a conservative record.
So until an R shows up that has what I want in my first two top issues, and they have not, I will continue to nominate Paul.

You keep living in denial, though, while you put another D in the White House.

suzzer99
09-28-2011, 12:33 PM
There is no place for someone who believes in science in today's republican party. Well except for Exxon/Koch brothers shill scientists.

suzzer99
09-28-2011, 12:38 PM
The important question isn't about whether a guy believes there's man made global warming or not anyway. It's about what he would do about it. It doesn't bother me if a person believes that man is causing a warming effect as long as he's not pushing for major economy-damaging remedial action on the basis of such uncertain science related to the consequences.

Then why is your side spending so much money to muddle up the issue of whether it even exists or not? Why not just admit it exists but there's not much we can do about it? Why pervert and politicize the scientific process so much?

That's really what pisses me off to no end about the shill FUD campaign (and why I'm always harping on it on here). I just hate to see propaganda doing battle with the normal way science has operated for centuries. It scares me.

Mainstream science doesn't always get it right. But normal, peer-reviewed science is still by far our clearest picture of how the universe works at any given point in time. Shill science only exists to confuse and pervert the issue.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 12:44 PM
There is no place for someone who believes in science in today's republican party. Well except for Exxon/Koch brothers shill scientists.

Neither is there in the Democratic party, since there are more scientists that don't support man-made GW. It's a political agenda. There are people who want funds from govt including scientist too. But this is about Christie and why or why shouldn't a Republican nominate in. It is not a GW thread per se.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 12:45 PM
Then why is your side spending so much money to muddle up the issue of whether it even exists or not? Why not just admit it exists but there's not much we can do about it? Why pervert and politicize the scientific process so much?

That's really what pisses me off to no end about the shill FUD campaign (and why I'm always harping on it on here). I just hate to see propaganda doing battle with the normal way science has operated for centuries. It scares me.

Mainstream science doesn't always get it right. But normal, peer-reviewed science is still by far our clearest picture of how the universe works at any given point in time. Shill science only exists to confuse and pervert the issue.

This is not a GW thread. There's plenty of those you can bump if that's what you want.

patteeu
09-28-2011, 01:04 PM
Then why is your side spending so much money to muddle up the issue of whether it even exists or not? Why not just admit it exists but there's not much we can do about it? Why pervert and politicize the scientific process so much?

That's really what pisses me off to no end about the shill FUD campaign (and why I'm always harping on it on here). I just hate to see propaganda doing battle with the normal way science has operated for centuries. It scares me.

Mainstream science doesn't always get it right. But normal, peer-reviewed science is still by far our clearest picture of how the universe works at any given point in time. Shill science only exists to confuse and pervert the issue.

The issue is muddled up to begin with. Some of the muddling has come from the alarmists on your side that predict dire consequences that go way beyond any peer reviewed scientific knowledge.

As for "my side", there's nothing wrong with questioning the accuracy of data, methodology, and conclusions. That's what scientists do.

Direckshun
09-28-2011, 01:07 PM
Sarah Palin could literally jump into the mix a week before Iowa, win it going away, and compete through Super Tuesday.

She's the only candidate substance-less enough to shapeshift to fit the id of the GOP right now.

JohnnyV13
09-28-2011, 01:17 PM
Hey, Christie is unworthy. I mean, he isn't a true conservative like Michele Bachmann, who demanded Geither not abandon the dollar when the chinese said they wanted an alternative world reserve currrency. Bachmann is such a moron about monetary policy, she thought that meant the US would adopt an international currency like the euro. Just what we need right now.

But, hey, she thinks the constitution should reflect God's biblical law, so she's a true conservative.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 01:30 PM
Hey, Christie is unworthy. I mean, he isn't a true conservative like Michele Bachmann, who demanded Geither not abandon the dollar when the chinese said they wanted an alternative world reserve currrency. Bachmann is such a moron about monetary policy, she thought that meant the US would adopt an international currency like the euro. Just what we need right now.

But, hey, she thinks the constitution should reflect God's biblical law, so she's a true conservative.

What does Bachmann have to do with Christie? I don't see many conservatives rooting for her in this forum either.
I don't know that I'd label her as a "true" conservative, since she wants to federalize marriage.
However, she is closer to what a conservative claims to be than some of the others.
I find it hard to accept she harassed taxpayers for the IRS as one of their attorneys. Lol.

How do we know what Christie knows about monetary policy or economics? We don't. At least I don't.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 01:34 PM
Sarah Palin could literally jump into the mix a week before Iowa, win it going away, and compete through Super Tuesday.

She's the only candidate substance-less enough to shapeshift to fit the id of the GOP right now.
She doesn't fit what I consider for the ID of the GOP.

I love when progressives and leftists chime in on what is essentially a thread for Republicans trying to decide who they'd like. It's not anywhere near what you'd like.

suzzer99
09-28-2011, 02:19 PM
Neither is there in the Democratic party, since there are more scientists that don't support man-made GW. It's a political agenda. There are people who want funds from govt including scientist too. But this is about Christie and why or why shouldn't a Republican nominate in. It is not a GW thread per se.

Citation needed for bold. Here's a citation that says the opposite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.


AGW only became a political agenda when the energy industry started funding attacks on mainstream science (running the same playbook the tobacco industry used for 30 years).

Maybe the scientists on the AGW side have made some mistakes, and become hyper-defensive after these attacks. But that's because they're trained as scientists, not advocates or PR people - like the think tanks and other orgranizations that hire shill scientists like Roy Spencer - who's entire scientific career now is just throwing anti-GW stuff against the wall to see what sticks.

suzzer99
09-28-2011, 02:20 PM
The issue is muddled up to begin with. Some of the muddling has come from the alarmists on your side that predict dire consequences that go way beyond any peer reviewed scientific knowledge.

As for "my side", there's nothing wrong with questioning the accuracy of data, methodology, and conclusions. That's what scientists do.

It's muddled because all the Exxon/Koch side needs to do is make it seem like there's a legitimate controversy and they win. They don't have to prove anything, just make a lot of noise and give people who don't want to believe AGW anyway something to cling to.

Alarmists have gone overboard a few times. But nothing like what Roy Spencer does - which is basically just play advocate for the energy industry. That's the difference between shill science and actual science. One seeks the truth, the other just seeks to present their side in the best light.

suzzer99
09-28-2011, 02:22 PM
This is not a GW thread. There's plenty of those you can bump if that's what you want.

Ok I'll stop, I just noticed this post last. You guys can have the last word.

patteeu
09-28-2011, 02:24 PM
It's muddled because all the Exxon/Koch side needs to do is make it seem like there's a legitimate controversy and they win. They don't have to prove anything, just make a lot of noise and give people who don't want to believe AGW anyway something to cling to.

Alarmists have gone overboard a few times. But nothing like what Roy Spencer does - which is basically just play advocate for the energy industry. That's the difference between shill science and actual science. One seeks the truth, the other just seeks to present their side in the best light.

It's also muddled because people like Al Gore have tried to scare people with catastrophic consequences that aren't supported by solid science.

Chiefnj2
09-28-2011, 05:58 PM
The guy who lobbied, on behalf of Bernie Madoff, for SEC violations to be exempt from certain laws isn't going to run. What a surprise. He can keep his fat ass in New Jersey and yell at people who ask him questions he doesn't want to answer.

Brainiac
09-28-2011, 07:33 PM
The important question isn't about whether a guy believes there's man made global warming or not anyway. It's about what he would do about it. It doesn't bother me if a person believes that man is causing a warming effect as long as he's not pushing for major economy-damaging remedial action on the basis of such uncertain science related to the consequences.

This.

Brainiac
09-28-2011, 07:35 PM
Sarah Palin could literally jump into the mix a week before Iowa, win it going away, and compete through Super Tuesday.

She's the only candidate substance-less enough to shapeshift to fit the id of the GOP right now.
There's a whole lot of wishful thinking in that post. A lot Republicans realize that Sarah Palin is unelectable, and deserves to be.

Brock
09-28-2011, 07:41 PM
Sarah Palin could literally jump into the mix a week before Iowa, win it going away, and compete through Super Tuesday.

She's the only candidate substance-less enough to shapeshift to fit the id of the GOP right now.

Ha ha ha, riiiight.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 08:36 PM
This.

Yet, that's what Christie has been doing with his cap-n-trade in NJ. Sorry, but action follows thought. Change the thought the action will change.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2011, 03:37 PM
...by the likes of Kissinger and George W. Bush, of all people. Two despised men. That ought to tell us all we need to know about the latest Republicrat to enter.


Christie, looking harder

The New York Post - whose proprietor has been among those urging Chris Christie to join the 2012 race - reports that the New Jersey governor is growing more serious, after urging from figures including Henry Kissinger and George W. Bush:

The announcement may come as soon as Monday, said sources familiar with Christie’s thinking.

The renewed consideration about a White House run came after prodding this week from some Republicans he idolizes, including former First Lady Nancy Reagan, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and former President George W. Bush, sources said.

“It’s more than just flattering,” a source close to Christie said, adding they helped convince Christie that he not only could win, but that he has what it takes to be president.


Flattering? Gasp! What a horrible endorsement. More like the "Kiss of Death!"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64704.html#ixzz1ZNbyOJXy

BucEyedPea
09-29-2011, 03:40 PM
"If Christie stays out, expect Mitch Daniels to be the next Toast of the Hot Tub Crowd. If he refuses, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. When he fades, Senator Marco Rubio. After him, Big-Money heavyweight Haley Barbour, who will fade just as quickly."

HonestChieffan
09-29-2011, 06:12 PM
Rubio will be VP

BucEyedPea
09-29-2011, 07:48 PM
Rubio will be VP

Are you willing to bet money on your predictions? Predicting is arrogant. Anything can happen in this current environment. It's volatile.

But it would be a waste to make Rubio a VP. He can do more in the Senate instead of just breaking ties.

dirk digler
10-04-2011, 11:28 AM
Finally...he is out.

Who is going to be the next great hope for the right in 2012?

And mlyonsd if you need a shoulder to cry on I am here for you bro

Amnorix
10-04-2011, 12:13 PM
I seriously do not know why anyone would want to be POTUS.

orange
10-04-2011, 02:15 PM
Finally...he is out.


"I have a commitment to the people of New Jersey that I simply will not abandon"

Waiting for SP's tweet. :D

Iowanian
10-04-2011, 02:19 PM
The fact that he doesn't want the job, makes him that much more appealing and likely to do a good job in the office.


The campaigner in chief sure is sucking an egg.

CaliforniaChief
10-04-2011, 04:37 PM
I know candidates say "I'm not running, I'm not running, I'm not running" and then run after all...and eventually it's forgotten.

But Christie was so adamant about it that it almost would have been difficult for him to get in and save his reputation as a straight talker.

BucEyedPea
10-04-2011, 05:04 PM
Meh! He was a closet lefty. Although, having him in would have diluted the R vote which would help Rep Paul.

SNR
10-04-2011, 05:12 PM
I really don't think he would have made that great of a president. People loved him because he told whiney me-first assholes to go fuck themselves. That's fucking awesome, sure, and certainly shows his leadership qualities, but on a national level? There's no room for that form of governing. It can work on a state level, but it will just fall on deaf ears as president. Look how much trouble Obama has gotten in for using that kind of language.

patteeu
10-04-2011, 05:14 PM
I know candidates say "I'm not running, I'm not running, I'm not running" and then run after all...and eventually it's forgotten.

But Christie was so adamant about it that it almost would have been difficult for him to get in and save his reputation as a straight talker.

I agree. And giving the reason "I'm not ready" (or somethin to that effect) for declining to run would be hard to overcome as well. Particularly in light of the fact that our current POTUS is widely viewed now as having been unprepared for the office.

mlyonsd
10-04-2011, 06:46 PM
Finally...he is out.

Who is going to be the next great hope for the right in 2012?

And mlyonsd if you need a shoulder to cry on I am here for you broYeah I'm not surprised. He seems like the kind of guy that does what he says. Lucky for you though, if he were to throw his hat in that would nail the Palin coffin shut.

dirk digler
10-04-2011, 07:39 PM
Yeah I'm not surprised. He seems like the kind of guy that does what he says. Lucky for you though, if he were to throw his hat in that would nail the Palin coffin shut.

With Christy out my prediction may come true that a 3rd party run by Palin might happen :)

SNR
10-04-2011, 08:28 PM
With Christy out my prediction may come true that a 3rd party run by Palin might happen :)Beat Obama or vote for his favorite person in the world?

Kcnut might cut himself in half so he can vote for both.

ClevelandBronco
10-04-2011, 10:37 PM
Who is going to be the next great hope for the right in 2012?

I'd say Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

And Holder. Lots and lots of Holder.

BucEyedPea
10-05-2011, 08:34 AM
Christie is too big to fail. LMAO

Dave Lane
10-05-2011, 08:46 AM
It's also muddled because people like Al Gore have tried to scare people with catastrophic consequences that aren't supported by solid science.

On that I agree. Its obvious there is going to be some effect from all the pollutants the human race is pumping out. The correct debate is whether it is potentially damaging enough that something needs to be done about it or not.

Dave Lane
10-05-2011, 08:47 AM
Christie is too big to fail. LMAO

OK I lol'd