PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Why do people like Chris Christie?


Chocolate Hog
01-31-2013, 08:54 PM
I've never seen this guy say anything thoughtful and he always seems angry. Why is he so appealing to confused peopled like Kotter?

Brock
01-31-2013, 08:55 PM
Charisma. Plus he looks like Jeff Garland.

BigRedChief
01-31-2013, 09:16 PM
He seems to tell it like it is. People want politicians to tell them the truth. But, the reality is that the people can't handle the truth.

eg. every politician will raise our taxes no matter how many times they promise to not raise our taxes.

stevenidol
01-31-2013, 09:48 PM
Just to piss you off.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-31-2013, 09:54 PM
I couldn't tell you, a dumbass for sure if you ask me.

Taco John
01-31-2013, 10:08 PM
I've never seen this guy say anything thoughtful and he always seems angry. Why is he so appealing to confused peopled like Kotter?

Kotter blows in the wind (I'm talking about his politics, not his hobbies). He blew from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, and now to Christie. Right now, Christie is the cult of personality politician of the moment - and for good reason - personality he's got. I personally like a lot of the stuff he says. Kotter would hate it if that stuff came from the mouth of someone less charismatic. But since Christie can say it and still come across as affable, Kotter creams his shorts over it.

cosmo20002
01-31-2013, 10:49 PM
Why do people like Chris Christie?

I've never seen this guy say anything thoughtful and he always seems angry.

I think you answered your own question.

Prison Bitch
01-31-2013, 11:59 PM
Takes on greedy public unions

CoMoChief
02-01-2013, 06:21 AM
People like him because most people are sheep who like youtube sensations and reality TV stars.

Christie became a youtube sensation when he called out that dumb bitch during that teachers union town hall meeting.

chiefforlife
02-01-2013, 08:07 AM
He comes off as straight forward, doesnt speak the party line if he disagrees with them. Says what he thinks, refreshing.
Seems to care about doing his job more than his political aspirations.

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 11:07 AM
He seems to tell it like it is. People want politicians to tell them the truth. But, the reality is that the people can't handle the truth....

He comes off as straight forward, doesnt speak the party line if he disagrees with them. Says what he thinks, refreshing.

Seems to care about doing his job more than his political aspirations.

This. Rabid ideologues who do nothing but engage in disingenuous demogoguery and the politics of the lunatic fringe....don't understand that representative democracy requires consensus and compromise--working together for a common good. Instead, they insist on a narrow and rigid approach to government that renders it impotent. Their greed and myopia is only focused on themselves and if that screws over anyone else....then so be it. They are--the RWNJ dittoheads on the right, and the Moonbat bleeding hearts on the left. You know...the extremist whack jobs who post here far too often.

Whack jobs like that spooge gurgling closeted sausage-smoking pillowbitergot who masterbates to Ron Paul posters and the rantings of Lew Rockwell....the one who calls himself Taco John....

Easy 6
02-01-2013, 11:10 AM
Used to love him, but he once said something nice about Obama or some other dem, so i now hate his guts/DC hard righter

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 12:27 PM
Used to love him, but he once said something nice about Obama or some other dem, so i now hate his guts/DC hard righter

Yep...moderation, consensus, compromise? WTH???

Lunatic fringe douchebags prefer dogma and gridlock over effective governance.....

Taco John
02-01-2013, 01:03 PM
This. Rabid ideologues who do nothing but engage in disingenuous demogoguery and the politics of the lunatic fringe....don't understand that representative democracy requires consensus and compromise--working together for a common good. Instead, they insist on a narrow and rigid approach to government that renders it impotent. Their greed and myopia is only focused on themselves and if that screws over anyone else....then so be it. They are--the RWNJ dittoheads on the right, and the Moonbat bleeding hearts on the left. You know...the extremist whack jobs who post here far too often.

Whack jobs like that spooge gurgling closeted sausage-smoking pillowbitergot who masterbates to Ron Paul posters and the rantings of Lew Rockwell....the one who calls himself Taco John....


No one takes you seriously.

Clinton
Bush II
Obama
Christie

It's easy to compromise when your only criteria for compromise is voting for whoever is popular at the moment. Some of us, though, actually have values.

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 01:23 PM
No one takes you seriously.

Clinton
Bush II
Obama
Christie

It's easy to compromise when your only criteria for compromise is voting for whoever is popular at the moment. Some of us, though, actually have values.

Dogma and rigid ideological extemism is not the same as "values." The only values you seem to have is a naive and misguided faith that anarchy masquerading as "libertarianism" is a cogent and realistic approach managing our nation.

go bowe
02-01-2013, 01:57 PM
Dogma and rigid ideological extemism is not the same as "values." The only values you seem to have is a naive and misguided faith that anarchy masquerading as "libertarianism" is a cogent and realistic approach managing our nation.

yep, what he said...

Chocolate Hog
02-01-2013, 02:02 PM
Yep...moderation, consensus, compromise? WTH???

Lunatic fringe douchebags prefer dogma and gridlock over effective governance.....

Funny how drone bombings, gitmo, unconstitutional appointments, and mountains of debt arent considered fringe or lunacy (which I believe is defined by doing the same thing over and over).

go bowe
02-01-2013, 02:26 PM
Funny how drone bombings, gitmo, unconstitutional appointments, and mountains of debt arent considered fringe or lunacy (which I believe is defined by doing the same thing over and over).

as you say, these things are NOT considered fringe, except by those on the fringe...

which you should know quite a lot about from personal experience... :p

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 02:27 PM
Funny how drone bombings, gitmo, unconstitutional appointments, and mountains of debt arent considered fringe or lunacy (which I believe is defined by doing the same thing over and over).

I suppose you objected to those things when W. did them? To be consistent, I mean.

I simply don't accept the false dichotomy that some subscribe to that you either have to love or hate a particular President. TJ mistakes giving Presidents due respect and fair minded consideration for being swayed by the cult of personality. The bully pulpit, if used to further the public good is a great thing; however, performance and having a plan to address problems weighs much more heavily for me.

It's more complicated than simple partisan and/or ideological politics. In terms of approval, on a scale of 1-10 (1 is lowest, 10 highest)....this is how I'd rate the most contemporary Presidents:

Ford 5+
Carter 3
Reagan 8.5
Bush HW 7
Clinton 7+
Bush W 5-
Obama 6 (so far)

You see, my ratings have to do with whether or not the President has a plan to, and while serving executes policies that....effectively address the major issues of the day. To rank them, it would look like this:

1. Reagan (R)
2. Clinton (D)
3. Bush I (R)
4. Obama (D)
5. Ford (R)
6. Bush II (R)
7. Carter (D)

People like BEP, TJ, and other whack jobs mistake ideology for effective governance. Ideologues insist on their own way, a my-way-or-the-highway approach to politcs that is inconsistent with effective governance in a representative government such as ours--especially when it's coupled with a campaign finance structure that allows for far too much power to be concentrated in the hands of an arrogant and self-serving elite who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

go bowe
02-01-2013, 02:29 PM
oh c'mon...

you really like it the way it is, it's alright, you can tell us...

KILLER_CLOWN
02-01-2013, 02:29 PM
No one takes you seriously.

Clinton
Bush II
Obama
Christie

It's easy to compromise when your only criteria for compromise is voting for whoever is popular at the moment. Some of us, though, actually have values.

No shit, assholes like Kotter are exactly what is wrong with this country. Nothing like situational ethics to ruin a once fine country.

go bowe
02-01-2013, 02:31 PM
No shit, assholes like Kotter are exactly what is wrong with this country. Nothing like situational ethics to ruin a once fine country.

assholes like kc are exactly what is wrong with this country...

nothing like rigid ideology to ruin a once fine country...





actually, it's sad you think our country is not a fine country still...

it must suck to be you...

KILLER_CLOWN
02-01-2013, 02:34 PM
assholes like kc are exactly what is wrong with this country...

nothing like rigid ideology to ruin a once fine country...





actually, it's sad you think our country is not a fine country still...

it must suck to be you...

Another situational ethic nuthugger, run along and grab another dose of stupidity. By the time you realize the mess you're in it will be too late, and I don't even care to be there to tell you I told you so. I feel sorry for people like you.

GoChargers
02-01-2013, 02:35 PM
Dogma and rigid ideological extemism is not the same as "values."

Translation: "Stop liking what I don't like!"

What your ilk don't understand is that....

a.) A government that agrees on everything all the time is likely dangerous and hungry for power. Without any voices of dissent in government, we the people are left with nobody to stand up for us.

b.) Some things - such as civil liberties and our inalienable rights - absolutely CANNOT be compromised on if we want to maintain a just society based on liberty and democratic-republican values.

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 02:39 PM
assholes like kc are exactly what is wrong with this country...

nothing like rigid ideology to ruin a once fine country...

actually, it's sad you think our country is not a fine country still...

it must suck to be you...

No kidding....9/11 and Sandy Hook were conspiracies of the government! The government wants to confiscate all our weapons! We never really landed on the moon! The military industrial complex killed JFK! All cops are corrupt! W is the devil! Obama is the devil! We are ALLLLL doomed! DOOMED I say....

Now, go build your doomsday shelter, with 4 years of emergency rations and gas powered generators, before those black helicopters land...HURRY!

KILLER_CLOWN
02-01-2013, 02:40 PM
No kidding....9/11 and Sandy Hook were conspiracies of the government! The government wants to confiscate all our weapons! We never really landed on the moon! The military industrial complex killed JFK! All cops are corrupt! W is the devil! Obama is the devil! We are ALLLLL doomed! DOOMED I say....

Now, go build your doomsday shelter, with 4 years of emergency rations and gas powered generators, before those black helicopters land...HURRY!

Heh, who would that be? I never stated SH was a conspiracy? Never landed on the moon? What's your drink of choice this hour Kotter? LMAO seriously.

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 02:45 PM
Heh, who would that be? I never stated SH was a conspiracy? Never landed on the moon? What's your drink of choice this hour Kotter? LMAO seriously.

Not saying YOU did....but all the tin-foil anti-govt BS you spam this place with suggest you just might....

Translation: "Stop liking what I don't like!"

What your ilk don't understand is that....

a.) A government that agrees on everything all the time is likely dangerous and hungry for power. Without any voices of dissent in government, we the people are left with nobody to stand up for us.

b.) Some things - such as civil liberties and our inalienable rights - absolutely CANNOT be compromised on if we want to maintain a just society based on liberty and democratic-republican values.

Dissent is fine, it's the tin-foil conspiracy B.S. and blame that nutjobs like you (I guess) seem to believe in that is fostered by political extremism on both sides that is laughable.

FTR, I would strongly oppose any attempt to curtail true civil liberties and rights, so you are barking up the wrong tree there slick. Liberty and freedom have nothing to do with democratic or republican values--those transcend any and all of the political bullshit.

Go drink some more talk radio kool-aid, and call me in the morning. Okay? :rolleyes:

KILLER_CLOWN
02-01-2013, 02:48 PM
Not saying YOU did....but all the tin-foil anti-govt BS you spam this place with suggest you just might....



Dissent is fine, it's the tin-foil conspiracy B.S. and blame that nutjobs like you (I guess) seem to believe in that is fostered by political extremism on both sides that is laughable.

FTR, I would strongly oppose any attempt to curtail true civil liberties and rights, so you are barking up the wrong tree there slick. Liberty and freedom have nothing to do with democratic or republican values--those transcend any and all of the political bullshit.

Go drink some more talk radio kool-aid, and call me in the morning. Okay? :rolleyes:

Anti Bad government, please try to keep up and keep the generalizations to a minimum. ;)

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 02:52 PM
Anti Bad government, please try to keep up and keep the generalizations to a minimum. ;)

Your questionable "sources" and selective citations of only one side of the story, without telling the whole story....and more importantly, constant attention to the bad without any recognition of the good...makes such a generalizations a pretty safe bet.

Between you and BEP, you two have more bats in your belfry than Phyllis Diller and Pee Wee Herman.

GoChargers
02-01-2013, 04:12 PM
Dissent is fine, it's the tin-foil conspiracy B.S. and blame that nutjobs like you (I guess)

Stopped reading there. Your name-calling and assumptions prove you don't have much of an argument.

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 04:19 PM
For as much shit as Christie gets about being abrasive, he's very good at reaching across the aisle.

The biggest problem with the conservative party isn't that there are people in power who aren't principled enough. It's that they've become so principled that they don't realize that you have to give a little in order to take a little. The Republican party needs a conservative version of Bill Clinton. Think Christie can do that, even if it's couched in a tough skin vs. a slick salesman approach.

Also... Christie is one of the next wave of conservatives, in my opinion, who can appeal to the religious right/neocons without taking on too many positions that piss off moderates.

Easy 6
02-01-2013, 04:28 PM
For as much shit as Christie gets about being abrasive, he's very good at reaching across the aisle.

The biggest problem with the conservative party isn't that there are people in power who aren't principled enough. It's that they've become so principled that they don't realize that you have to give a little in order to take a little. The Republican party needs a conservative version of Bill Clinton. Think Christie can do that, even if it's couched in a tough skin vs. a slick salesman approach.

Also... Christie is one of the next wave of conservatives, in my opinion, who can appeal to the religious right/neocons without taking on too many positions that piss off moderates.

I agree with 100% of this.

Particularly the last part about the new breed of conservatives coming up, what i've been reading says a lot of the younger guys are sick of the "small tent" mentality and ideological purity tests... to paraphrase Jindal, "we dont have to change our conservative principles to be more accessible and appealing to the new demographics of this country".

The reps have become too well known as the stodgy good old boys club, where anything that might look like compromise is anathema, and its starting to sound like a lot of the new guys get it.

Taco John
02-01-2013, 05:00 PM
Dogma and rigid ideological extemism is not the same as "values."

I'm always amused at your special ability to say absolutely nothing valuable, and make it sound like something profoundly intellectual.

Holding the position that government follow the constitution is considered "ideological extemism" (sic), whereas breaking and bending the rules where its convenient is considered sound and moderate. Yep, sounds like Kotter...

What can anyone expect from a guy who went from Clinton, to Bush II, to Obama? Anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated by being in the popular group (whatever that is at the moment) so you can satisfy your deeply ingrained psychological need for being accepted.

Also, to directly answer the silly quote above - an ideology is a collection of values that are connected together by reasoning. It's cute how you thought you were saying something profound, though.

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 05:04 PM
I'm always amused at your special ability to say absolutely nothing valuable, and make it sound like something profoundly intellectual.

Holding the position that government follow the constitution is considered "ideological extemism" (sic), whereas breaking and bending the rules where its convenient is considered sound and moderate. Yep, sounds like Kotter...

What can anyone expect from a guy who went from Clinton, to Bush II, to Obama? Anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated by being in the popular group (whatever that is at the moment) so you can satisfy your deeply ingrained psychological need for being accepted.

Also, to directly answer the silly quote above - an ideology is a collection of values that are connected together by reasoning. It's cute how you thought you were saying something profound, though.

The problem is when people forget that ideology is about ideas. Execution is about executing ideas to get them done.

Sometimes we get so stuck on a guy with ideas that we forget that they mean nothing until they are put into action. Obama has been much more pushy about pushing liberal policy through than Clinton. But one of those guys knew how to get things done, and the other doesn't have a fucking clue.

Conservatives don't need a conservative version of Obama who will railroad his ideologies on people. They need their version of Clinton. That's one reason why I think the Ron Paul movement is interesting in "idea", but it's just not practical in practice.

Taco John
02-01-2013, 05:09 PM
The problem is when people forget that ideology is about ideas. Execution is about executing ideas to get them done.

Sometimes we get so stuck on a guy with ideas that we forget that they mean nothing until they are put into action. Obama has been much more pushy about pushing liberal policy through than Clinton. But one of those guys knew how to get things done, and the other doesn't have a ****ing clue.

Conservatives don't need a conservative version of Obama who will railroad his ideologies on people. They need their version of Clinton. That's one reason why I think the Ron Paul movement is interesting in "idea", but it's just not practical in practice.

It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the president shouldn't be allowed to have a kill list in which he can assassinate Americans without trial or any form of due process. In this case "Execution" is about executing Americans. It turns out that it's not "practical" to stand firm in the conviction of the morality of due process, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

I don't know where the line of "compromise" is on this issue, but what I do know is that I'm not interested in finding it. What I'm interested in is people coming to their senses before we get any further down the slippery slope on this issue (and any number of others).

Taco John
02-01-2013, 05:18 PM
It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the US shouldn't be sending F-16 fighter jets to Egypt - one of the most unstable governments in the world right now. They took a vote on this issue yesterday, and 79 senators voted to move forward with these arms transfers, with only 19 Senators trying to stop it from happening.

I don't know where the line of "compromise" is on this issue. What is the benefit of arming an unstable government who very easily be an enemy to us (and are already an enemy to our allies)?

theelusiveeightrop
02-01-2013, 05:19 PM
Seems like a guy who you would want to have beer and ribs with.

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 05:21 PM
It's considered ideologically extreme in this nation right now to believe that the president shouldn't be allowed to have a kill list in which he can assassinate Americans without trial or any form of due process. In this case "Execution" is about executing Americans. It turns out that it's not "practical" to stand firm in the conviction of the morality of due process, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Obama has been a disaster. The problem is, instead of conservatives rising to the occasion and making Obama look foolish, they are looking even more inept, which actually makes inept Obama look capable to the general public.

I don't know where the line of "compromise" is on this issue, but what I do know is that I'm not interested in finding it. What I'm interested in is people coming to their senses and returning to a government with checks and balances.
Then that's the majority of the problem with the Republican party. We're seeing it in the foolish way they've handled the fiscal cliff negotiation.

Again, nobody would accuse Clinton of compromising liberal principles. But he got shit done because he knew how to negotiate, even if that meant he had to concede a few things to Newt. That's the kind of leadership the conservatives need. Unfortunately, the most recent wave of politicians isn't interested in that. They're more interested in pushing principles, even if that means (as is the case with the Boehner congress) go for all or nothing, and then look like a fool when you get nothing.

Taco John
02-01-2013, 05:23 PM
It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the Second Amendment exists to protect Americans from the government itself. Meanwhile, the government who we are supposed to be trusting has been caught red handed selling weapons to KNOWN violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. Now that same government is trying to disarm Americans and ban them from using the VERY WEAPONS that they were selling to known violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. What "compromise" does anyone suggest that a citizen living in a border town in Texas or Arizona should make to satisfy the Democrat demand that they disarm and stop owning scary looking weapons?

How do we "move forward" on this issue? Should we "move forward" - or be "ideological extremists" and stand our ground?

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 05:24 PM
I'm always amused at your special ability to say absolutely nothing valuable, and make it sound like something profoundly intellectual.

Holding the position that government follow the constitution is considered "ideological extemism" (sic), whereas breaking and bending the rules where its convenient is considered sound and moderate. Yep, sounds like Kotter...

What can anyone expect from a guy who went from Clinton, to Bush II, to Obama? Anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated by being in the popular group (whatever that is at the moment) so you can satisfy your deeply ingrained psychological need for being accepted.

Also, to directly answer the silly quote above - an ideology is a collection of values that are connected together by reasoning. It's cute how you thought you were saying something profound, though.

:spock:

If you can't understand what I'm saying, it's because of your ignorance. "Following the Constitution" is not an ideology. If you would take the time to read the actual document closely, and in conjunction with the Federalist Papers and other primary documents of the day, you might (although I doubt it) begin to understand how ridiculous folks like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, you, and BEP truly are. The twisting and contortionist "reasoning" that you need to do to arrive at the intellectually vacant position of "original intent" and other strict constructionist interpretation of the founder's work is a valant, if entirely bankrupt "ideology." It's actually kinda pathetic the intellect of folks who subscribe to it.

The only thing MORE amusing, though, is your lame-assed attempt at pop psychology, in which you project what is clearly a major issue for you--poor self-esteem and sense of inadequacy. It's alright, anyone who has been around this forum for any amount of time knows that you are strictly motivated to conceal your ignorance and lack of formal education. I realize the folks at "Pheonix University" took you money, and sent you a diploma-milled "certificate"--but that don't count for much in the real world. Nice try though, "Dr. Phil." Heh.

Anyway here, I'll help you out a bit....

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/ideology




<DT>Ideology: A comprehensive and coherent set of basic beliefs about political, economic, social and cultural affairs that is held in common by a group of people within a society. Such interrelated ideas and teachings purport both to explain how political, economic, social and cultural institutions really do work and also to prescribe how such institutions ought ideally to operate. Conservative ideologues seek to demonstrate a close correspondence between "the way things are" and "the way things ought to be," thus legitimizing the existing order in the eyes of those who can be convinced to believe in the ideology. Liberal ideologies, on the other hand, set unconventional, higher, or even utopian standards with regard to what would constitute a legitimate and supportable social-economic-political system and then demonstrate in detail that the existing order does not even come close to meeting these standards, thereby de-legitimizing the existing system and helping mobilize believers in the ideology for concerted action to reform or overthrow the existing order. (In addition to their descriptive and prescriptive functions about existing and ideal social orders, ideologies may also include more specialized doctrines regarding the most suitable political strategies and tactics to be pursued by believers in their efforts to shore up or undermine the existing order.)<DD>One useful way of categorizing ideologies from a political point of view focusses on differences in the ideologies' prescriptions for how much the government ought to be involved in directing or regulating economic, social and cultural affairs and how much individuals or voluntary organizations ought to be left alone to make their own (widely varied) decisions in these spheres of life. In this course, for example, we frequently employ a two-dimensional classification of ideologies proposed by Maddox and Lilie that is based on assessing people's preferences for government regulation versus non-regulation in:
Economic decisions
Non-economic or life-style decisions.
It should be noted that the term "ideology" often has a somewhat derogatory flavor, especially in Anglo-American societies, because it often carries the implication that "ideological" thought is unduly biased, dogmatic and distorted, an obstacle rather than an aid in perceiving how the world "really" works. ("You, sir, are an ideologue. I, on the other hand, am a pragmatic man of reason who sees things the way they really are.")


You TJ, are Exhibit A for an ignorant and self-delusional ideologue if ever there were one. But, by all means....keep grasping at straws, little fella. Meanwhile, leave the critical thinking to the adults in the room.

</DD>

Taco John
02-01-2013, 05:29 PM
:spock:
<-----snip mindless babble ---/>




You're a clown. Nobody is reading you empty bullshit, especially not me.

Calling yourself a "pragmatic man of reason" is comedy at its finest. You're a man in a diaper hoping for a pat on the head from the popular kids. You exist to fit in. No one on this forum considers you even remotely close to a "critical thinker" so spare us the bullshit. You are pragmatic though, I got to give you that. It's always pragmatic to vote for what's popular. Always.

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 05:31 PM
It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the Second Amendment exists to protect Americans from the government itself. Meanwhile, the government who we are supposed to be trusting has been caught red handed selling weapons to KNOWN violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. Now that same government is trying to disarm Americans and ban them from using the VERY WEAPONS that they were selling to known violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. What "compromise" does anyone suggest that a citizen living in a border town in Texas or Arizona should make to satisfy the Democrat demand that they disarm and stop owning scary looking weapons?

How do we "move forward" on this issue? Should we "move forward" - or be "ideological extremists" and stand our ground?


Ideologues tend to engage in faulty reasoning....frequently.

Exhibit B:

Use of propaganda techniques....generalization, card stacking, hyperbole, false dichotomy, and "testimonial" arguments. In one argument even!

As if upholding the intent of the 2nd Amendment is entirely and mutually exclusive and divorced from any and all attempts at reasonable, and legal attempts at gun control...that will surely be subjected to judicial review, and cannot and will not be imposed unilaterally by either the executive or legislative branches of government.

Holy shit...you are lame.... LMAO

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 05:37 PM
It's considered "ideologically extreme" in this nation right now to believe that the Second Amendment exists to protect Americans from the government itself. Meanwhile, the government who we are supposed to be trusting has been caught red handed selling weapons to KNOWN violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. Now that same government is trying to disarm Americans and ban them from using the VERY WEAPONS that they were selling to known violent drug criminals on the Mexican border. What "compromise" does anyone suggest that a citizen living in a border town in Texas or Arizona should make to satisfy the Democrat demand that they disarm and stop owning scary looking weapons?

How do we "move forward" on this issue? Should we "move forward" - or be "ideological extremists" and stand our ground?

How do you move forward on this issue? I know one way. How about in a time of extreme public sensitivity to the issue where the media is playing up the "kids got shot" angle, not to use that as a time to become cowboys about demanding less gun control?

It's an "all or nothing" strategy. If conservatives compromise, gun owners lose a few rights, but they get to keep a lot of them, and the issue sweeps away. The more conservatives fight back, the more rights they lose and the more this becomes an issue that never goes away, which increases the likelihood that future politicians will go on a gun control crusade.

I'm for gun rights, by the way. I also don't believe it's worth losing it all to stand your ground, when you have opportunity to soften the blow.

htismaqe
02-01-2013, 05:39 PM
If conservatives compromise, gun owners lose a few rights, but they get to keep a lot of them, and the issue sweeps away.

WRONG.

They lose a few rights.

And then the next public tragedy happens and they lose a few more.

The 2nd amendment shouldn't be subject to Washington DCs slippery slope bullshit.

Taco John
02-01-2013, 05:42 PM
How do you move forward on this issue? I know one way. How about in a time of extreme public sensitivity to the issue where the media is playing up the "kids got shot" angle, not to use that as a time to become cowboys about demanding less gun control?

It's an "all or nothing" strategy. If conservatives compromise, gun owners lose a few rights, but they get to keep a lot of them, and the issue sweeps away. The more conservatives fight back, the more rights they lose and the more this becomes an issue that never goes away, which increases the likelihood that future politicians will go on a gun control crusade.

I'm for gun rights, by the way. I also don't believe it's worth losing it all to stand your ground, when you have opportunity to soften the blow.


Ah, that's wonderful. Just slide a little ways down the slippery slope *just* this time, and be happy they didn't take you all the way down in one stroke.

No thanks. I'm happy being an "ideological extremist" and hold my ground. If "assult weapons" are good enough for drug lords on the border, they're good enough for the citizens there as well.

RNR
02-01-2013, 05:43 PM
WRONG.

They lose a few rights.

And then the next public tragedy happens and they lose a few more.

The 2nd amendment shouldn't be subject to Washington DCs slippery slope bullshit.

To the point without theatrics just to the point and on the money. The rep will say the same~

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 05:48 PM
WRONG.

They lose a few rights.

And then the next public tragedy happens and they lose a few more.

The 2nd amendment shouldn't be subject to Washington DCs slippery slope bullshit.

Versus losing a ton of your rights by standing your ground.

And then the next public tragedy happens and they lose a few more, maybe a lot more.

Taco John
02-01-2013, 06:19 PM
Versus losing a ton of your rights by standing your ground.

And then the next public tragedy happens and they lose a few more, maybe a lot more.

"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down." --- Joe Biden, February 1st, 2013

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 06:31 PM
"Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down." --- Joe Biden, February 1st, 2013

Let me ask you this....
How much scrutiny does the tobacco industry get today vs. 20 years ago? Is it because the threat of cancer went away? Or was it because the tobacco companies stop going on the maverick spree of "as long as we're not doing anything illegal, we can do whatever we want" and started toward a message of at least trying to act a little sympathetic (even if it was disingenuous)?

Taco John
02-01-2013, 07:22 PM
Let me ask you this....
How much scrutiny does the tobacco industry get today vs. 20 years ago? Is it because the threat of cancer went away? Or was it because the tobacco companies stop going on the maverick spree of "as long as we're not doing anything illegal, we can do whatever we want" and started toward a message of at least trying to act a little sympathetic (even if it was disingenuous)?


http://www.alternet.org/story/149599/will_cigarettes_be_made_illegal_in_the_near_future

Brock
02-01-2013, 07:28 PM
Versus losing a ton of your rights by standing your ground.

And then the next public tragedy happens and they lose a few more, maybe a lot more.

LMAO we dont give an inch. Not on this.

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 07:46 PM
LMAO we dont give an inch. Not on this.

Cool. Then it's a good thing conservatives stood their ground on entitlements. And then ended up with a compromise that didn't address entitlements one iota.

Brock
02-01-2013, 07:51 PM
Cool. Then it's a good thing conservatives stood their ground on entitlements. And then ended up with a compromise that didn't address entitlements one iota.

Completely different subject. The constitution says what it says. I stand with it.

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 07:56 PM
http://www.alternet.org/story/149599/will_cigarettes_be_made_illegal_in_the_near_future

That's your source?
20 years ago, you were talking about massive lawsuits, massive anti-smoking marketing blitzes, pretty much a war on big tobacco. Now you have one advocacy website worrying about tobacco legislation. Today, tobacco is a side conversation. Why? Because the tobacco company chose to play the PR game, going against their long history of fighting back.

I get the idea of standing your ground. But the refusal to play into at least some of the publicity war is hurting the cause big time. And the issue is never going to go away until someone does.

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 07:57 PM
Completely different subject. The constitution says what it says. I stand with it.

Do you think all speech is protected? And do you think it should be?

Brock
02-01-2013, 08:07 PM
Do you think all speech is protected? And do you think it should be?

Do you think you are saying something new here? This discussion has been done to death. I do not compromise on second amendment rights, nor does the nra. It has served them and me well. Any pol who wants to step up, go ahead. You will find that line to be pretty sparse.

chiefzilla1501
02-01-2013, 08:44 PM
Do you think you are saying something new here? This discussion has been done to death. I do not compromise on second amendment rights, nor does the nra. It has served them and me well. Any pol who wants to step up, go ahead. You will find that line to be pretty sparse.

I am not saying anything new. I am responding to your line that the constitution says what it says, therefore, that is an absolute.

It is your right to defend gun rights. I support gun rights too. I am just pointing out the dangerous logic that giving an inch in compromise is worse than standing your ground and potentially giving up a mile.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2013, 09:17 PM
Fattys love a fatty.

Mr. Kotter
02-01-2013, 09:58 PM
Fattys love a fatty.

Dumbfugg-morons love dumbfugg-morons. Thanks for so many first hand examples, Rushbo!

redsurfer11
02-01-2013, 10:16 PM
Seems like a guy who you would want to have beer and ribs with.

It is rare to find a place that cooks and sells ribs in NJ.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-02-2013, 12:04 AM
Stopped reading there. Your name-calling and assumptions prove you don't have much of an argument.

Never had it, never will. ;)

DementedLogic
02-02-2013, 02:04 AM
Cool. Then it's a good thing conservatives stood their ground on entitlements. And then ended up with a compromise that didn't address entitlements one iota.

Nothing was going to be done on entitlements either way. Each side was going to stand their ground until the other side caved. Republicans caved. So the problem is that Republicans didn't stand their ground on entitlements. Those Republicans aren't conservatives.

chiefzilla1501
02-02-2013, 08:52 AM
Nothing was going to be done on entitlements either way. Each side was going to stand their ground until the other side caved. Republicans caved. So the problem is that Republicans didn't stand their ground on entitlements. Those Republicans aren't conservatives.

That is total BS and goes against everything politics and good business sense should be about. You are completely wrong. THe problem wasn't that the Republicans didn't stand their ground, it's that throughout the entire process, all they did was stand their ground instead of finding ways to negotiate concessions. And that is the entire problem with politics and the thing that really bothers me about the tea party movement. Their ideas are right, but then they get pissed when they don't completely get the way. That's NOT good politics. Good politics is about good negotiation, understanding that when you're in a losing battle, negotiating losing an inch is far better than standing your ground and losing a mile.

Mr. Kotter
02-03-2013, 11:28 AM
That is total BS and goes against everything politics and good business sense should be about. You are completely wrong. THe problem wasn't that the Republicans didn't stand their ground, it's that throughout the entire process, all they did was stand their ground instead of finding ways to negotiate concessions. And that is the entire problem with politics and the thing that really bothers me about the tea party movement. Their ideas are right, but then they get pissed when they don't completely get the way. That's NOT good politics. Good politics is about good negotiation, understanding that when you're in a losing battle, negotiating losing an inch is far better than standing your ground and losing a mile.

Ideologues simply refuse to understand what is intuitive to reasonable folks.

ThatRaceCardGuy
02-03-2013, 11:41 AM
That is total BS and goes against everything politics and good business sense should be about. You are completely wrong. THe problem wasn't that the Republicans didn't stand their ground, it's that throughout the entire process, all they did was stand their ground instead of finding ways to negotiate concessions. And that is the entire problem with politics and the thing that really bothers me about the tea party movement. Their ideas are right, but then they get pissed when they don't completely get the way. That's NOT good politics. Good politics is about good negotiation, understanding that when you're in a losing battle, negotiating losing an inch is far better than standing your ground and losing a mile.

Got Damn ****ing right! REP! I agree with what you're saying, except I dont think the tea party is ever right lol...

DementedLogic
02-03-2013, 11:50 AM
That is total BS and goes against everything politics and good business sense should be about. You are completely wrong. THe problem wasn't that the Republicans didn't stand their ground, it's that throughout the entire process, all they did was stand their ground instead of finding ways to negotiate concessions. And that is the entire problem with politics and the thing that really bothers me about the tea party movement. Their ideas are right, but then they get pissed when they don't completely get the way. That's NOT good politics. Good politics is about good negotiation, understanding that when you're in a losing battle, negotiating losing an inch is far better than standing your ground and losing a mile.

You are wrong. Democrats were not going to, and will not negotiate on entitlement reform or real spending cuts. By standing ground, the Republicans at least got concessions from the Democrats on tax increases.

I would have much rather gone off the fiscal cliff. I believe that if one person's taxes go up, everyone's should. Everyone should feel the burden of this government's spending problem. It is the only way that people will wake up and stop electing these big-spending politicians.

Negotiating is what has got us in this mess. Negotiation and compromise has and will always result in more spending and more government. The inability for people to understand this simple fact astounds me.

chiefzilla1501
02-03-2013, 12:27 PM
You are wrong. Democrats were not going to, and will not negotiate on entitlement reform or real spending cuts. By standing ground, the Republicans at least got concessions from the Democrats on tax increases.

I would have much rather gone off the fiscal cliff. I believe that if one person's taxes go up, everyone's should. Everyone should feel the burden of this government's spending problem. It is the only way that people will wake up and stop electing these big-spending politicians.

Negotiating is what has got us in this mess. Negotiation and compromise has and will always result in more spending and more government. The inability for people to understand this simple fact astounds me.

Right. Negotation for more government got us into this mess. That's a pretty nice oversimplification.

Mr. Kotter
02-03-2013, 09:26 PM
Right. Negotation for more government got us into this mess. That's a pretty nice oversimplification.

Duh...that is WHY he calls himself Dimented Logic....he's obviously fuggin' stupid AND demented.

Baby Lee
02-03-2013, 11:48 PM
Back to Chris Christie.

His appeal is that he's bluntly fiscally conservative, while being sane on social issues and cognizant of an person on the other side of the aisle who is being reasonable in trying times.

While Christie's plaudits for Obama down the stretch might have been the last nails in Romney's coffin, I don't hold any grudges. Guy was in a tough patch and state/federal cooperation was crucial.

People are giving less and less of a shit about social issues, and just want a guy who's going to be a right bastard on spending. Christie is right up that alley and is a charismatic, emphatic, articulate, man for those times.

DementedLogic
02-04-2013, 01:24 AM
Right. Negotation for more government got us into this mess. That's a pretty nice oversimplification.

When Republicans want to shrink government and Democrats want to grow government, they always agree to grow government, just not as much as the Democrats wanted. When is compromise going to end with agreement to shrink government, just not as much as the Republicans wanted? It never will, because most Republicans support the idea of giving an inch to not lose a mile. We've been giving inches for so long, that we've lost more than a mile.

This country needs another president like Grover Cleveland.

BucEyedPea
02-04-2013, 12:18 PM
Dogma and rigid ideological extemism is not the same as "values." The only values you seem to have is a naive and misguided faith that anarchy masquerading as "libertarianism" is a cogent and realistic approach managing our nation.

Managing our nation? We're supposed to be free—not managed.

BucEyedPea
02-04-2013, 12:19 PM
Seems like a guy who you would want to have beer and ribs with.

Followed up with massive tubs of ice-cream, with whip cream on top!

BucEyedPea
02-04-2013, 12:20 PM
When Republicans want to shrink government and Democrats want to grow government, they always agree to grow government, just not as much as the Democrats wanted. When is compromise going to end with agreement to shrink government, just not as much as the Republicans wanted? It never will, because most Republicans support the idea of giving an inch to not lose a mile. We've been giving inches for so long, that we've lost more than a mile.

This country needs another president like Grover Cleveland.

:thumb: yep!

chiefzilla1501
02-04-2013, 07:01 PM
When Republicans want to shrink government and Democrats want to grow government, they always agree to grow government, just not as much as the Democrats wanted. When is compromise going to end with agreement to shrink government, just not as much as the Republicans wanted? It never will, because most Republicans support the idea of giving an inch to not lose a mile. We've been giving inches for so long, that we've lost more than a mile.

This country needs another president like Grover Cleveland.

It doesn't change the fact that you tried to copy-cut-paste an argument to fit what we are talking about.

The economy didn't crash because of government spending. If anything, they weren't active enough in regulating financial markets as the private sector started gambling with derivatives and in protecting consumers from horrible lending practices.

mlyonsd
02-04-2013, 07:29 PM
Back to Chris Christie.

His appeal is that he's bluntly fiscally conservative, while being sane on social issues and cognizant of an person on the other side of the aisle who is being reasonable in trying times.

While Christie's plaudits for Obama down the stretch might have been the last nails in Romney's coffin, I don't hold any grudges. Guy was in a tough patch and state/federal cooperation was crucial.

People are giving less and less of a shit about social issues, and just want a guy who's going to be a right bastard on spending. Christie is right up that alley and is a charismatic, emphatic, articulate, man for those times.Exactly.

And he's passionate enough in his fiscal conservative beliefs to make a forceful presentation.

Seeing at where we'll be in 2016 he'll destroy any democratic candidate.

BucEyedPea
02-04-2013, 09:37 PM
It doesn't change the fact that you tried to copy-cut-paste an argument to fit what we are talking about.

The economy didn't crash because of government spending. If anything, they weren't active enough in regulating financial markets as the private sector started gambling with derivatives and in protecting consumers from horrible lending practices.

LMAO They just replaced older regulations that worked for new ones that didn't.

BucEyedPea
02-04-2013, 09:38 PM
Exactly.

And he's passionate enough in his fiscal conservative beliefs to make a forceful presentation.

Seeing at where we'll be in 2016 he'll destroy any democratic candidate.

He won't win the youth vote.

DementedLogic
02-04-2013, 11:26 PM
It doesn't change the fact that you tried to copy-cut-paste an argument to fit what we are talking about.

The economy didn't crash because of government spending. If anything, they weren't active enough in regulating financial markets as the private sector started gambling with derivatives and in protecting consumers from horrible lending practices.

The people who predicted the bubble buildup, and eventual economic collapse, blame the collapse on too much intervention in the market place, not under regulation. I think I'm going to listen to the people who actually saw this coming, not the people who want to figure out what happened after the fact.

go bowe
02-05-2013, 12:20 AM
You're a clown. Nobody is reading you empty bullshit, especially not me.

Calling yourself a "pragmatic man of reason" is comedy at its finest. You're a man in a diaper hoping for a pat on the head from the popular kids. You exist to fit in. No one on this forum considers you even remotely close to a "critical thinker" so spare us the bullshit. You are pragmatic though, I got to give you that. It's always pragmatic to vote for what's popular. Always.

actually, i read his empty bullshit and find it much more rational than your general blatherings about all things paulian/austrian...

you should stop with the no-one bullshit, really...

mlyonsd
02-05-2013, 06:55 AM
He won't win the youth vote.

People under the age of 30 shouldn't be voting anyway.

go bowe
02-05-2013, 08:19 PM
People under the age of 30 shouldn't be voting anyway.

yeah, i'm tired of all those broads voting too, let's take away their right to vote while we're at it...

and don't forget those democrats, they don't need to vote either...

and then they came for me...

Mr. Kotter
02-06-2013, 10:50 PM
actually, i read his empty bullshit and find it much more rational than your general blatherings about all things paulian/austrian...

you should stop with the no-one bullshit, really...

TJ, BEP, and even BL....think "nobody" is everyone; when in reality it is merely their lunatic fringe ideological soul-mates here, that are belied/outnumbered in the pos rep I get. Heh.

go bowe
02-07-2013, 10:51 PM
Your questionable "sources" and selective citations of only one side of the story, without telling the whole story....and more importantly, constant attention to the bad without any recognition of the good...makes such a generalizations a pretty safe bet.

Between you and BEP, you two have more bats in your belfry than Phyllis Diller and Pee Wee Herman.

HEY! what have you got against phylly and pee wee?

they never did anything to you, did they?

listopencil
02-08-2013, 02:00 AM
When did people start liking politicians again? Is this a thing now? What the fuck?

Easy 6
02-08-2013, 10:51 AM
actually, i read his empty bullshit and find it much more rational than your general blatherings about all things paulian/austrian...

you should stop with the no-one bullshit, really...

Yep, there isnt a soul here who does a better job of acting like some kind of existential ****ing genius than Taco.

Baby Lee
02-08-2013, 12:07 PM
TJ, BEP, and even BL....think "nobody" is everyone; when in reality it is merely their lunatic fringe ideological soul-mates here, that are belied/outnumbered in the pos rep I get. Heh.

My beef with you isn't you're positions, it's that you never put any thought into any of them.

Tell me PRECISELY what view I have that are fringe. I admit having strong convictions, but I submit that they are not fringe.

My strongest convictions are 1st amendment, 2nd amendment and fiscal discipline. The rest I am completely flexible on.

If there is evidence to the contrary, demonstrate it, or kindly be fucked.

BTW - no offense, but Go Bowe's sudden BFF status with Kotter legitimately made the saddest I've ever been on CP. And some dude killed his GF then himself in front of the CEO and coach.

go bowe
02-08-2013, 12:23 PM
My beef with you isn't you're positions, it's that you never put any thought into any of them.

Tell me PRECISELY what view I have that are fringe. I admit having strong convictions, but I submit that they are not fringe.

My strongest convictions are 1st amendment, 2nd amendment and fiscal discipline. The rest I am completely flexible on.

If there is evidence to the contrary, demonstrate it, or kindly be fucked.

BTW - no offense, but Go Bowe's sudden BFF status with Kotter legitimately made the saddest I've ever been on CP. And some dude killed his GF then himself in front of the CEO and coach.

aye laddie...

there is a difference between objecting to "nobody listens" and being a bff, i hope...

at the very least, kotter is entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking...

hell, i even agree with him once in awhile, but don't hate me for it... :deevee:

Mr. Kotter
02-08-2013, 01:06 PM
My beef with you isn't you're positions, it's that you never put any thought into any of them.

Tell me PRECISELY what view I have that are fringe. I admit having strong convictions, but I submit that they are not fringe....

BTW - no offense, but Go Bowe's sudden BFF status with Kotter legitimately made the saddest I've ever been on CP. And some dude killed his GF then himself in front of the CEO and coach.

BL, I included you because you and a handful of others....constitute the "nobody" part of Isaac's hyperbole. I would not put you on the lunatic fringe with TJ, BEP, KillerClown, Pete, and other RWNJ wingtards. I actually admire your willingness to engage in rational debate. I just don't have your patience. For you to say I don't put any thought into my positions is just patently silly though.

You and I may disagree more in the last 5 years than we did in the early years of CP...but if you'd bother to notice, I'm willing to engage reasonable attempts at dialogue here--it's just that so many are beyond reasonable, I don't try with them. Conservatives seemed just fine when moonbats like jAZ were my object of my wrath, but as a moderate I object to ideological extremism on both sides. Sorry if that somehow translates into "never putting any thought" into my positions for you--but that don't make it so.

John and I go way back; we have our disagreements, but also some common ground. The difference between you and he seems to be he understands principled moderation is a legitimate philosophy--but most importantly he understands that I don't argue with ideologues, rather I just use them for entertainment. He and some others do appreciate the difference, even if you don't.

RNR
02-08-2013, 06:45 PM
When did people start liking politicians again? Is this a thing now? What the ****?

I don't like them, in fact I view them as scum. Leaches who see themselves as royalty~

Mr. Kotter
02-08-2013, 06:49 PM
I don't like them, in fact I view them as scum. Leaches who see themselves as royalty~

Leeches, some of 'em, yeah; just not on the scale of insurance salesmen, car salesmen, lawyers, CEOs, or corporate board members who have them beat by geometric proportions. Not even close....public service vs. self-centered avarice.

Brock
02-08-2013, 06:52 PM
Leeches, some of 'em, yeah; just not on the scale of insurance salesmen, car salesmen, lawyers, CEOs, or corporate board members who have them beat by geometric proportions. Not even close....public service vs. self-centered avarice.

you have to be kidding.

RNR
02-08-2013, 06:54 PM
you have to be kidding.

Most likely not~

Brock
02-08-2013, 07:03 PM
Most likely not~

Well, Jesus. That's completely naive. Not even delving into the insider information politicians use to make money, after they leave office, they're usually lobbyists for corporations with a seat on the board and a golden parachute. They made it to that level in half the time it would have taken if they took a job with a company instead of going into politics, if they would have gotten there at all. To think that congress is separated from corporate interests at this point is wildly ignorant.

RNR
02-08-2013, 07:38 PM
Well, Jesus. That's completely naive. Not even delving into the insider information politicians use to make money, after they leave office, they're usually lobbyists for corporations with a seat on the board and a golden parachute. They made it to that level in half the time it would have taken if they took a job with a company instead of going into politics, if they would have gotten there at all. To think that congress is separated from corporate interests at this point is wildly ignorant.

Could not agree more. It amazes me to see people here at like groupies of these people. Not a single one of them gives two shits in a bucket about us. We are subjects that foot the bill to them~

Mr. Kotter
02-08-2013, 08:43 PM
you have to be kidding.

Actually, both are slutty and skanky prostitutes....but at least the politicians have good intentions; whereas, business and corporate folk are ONLY about Me-me-me. That's my only real disagreement....of course, bidness junkies and hos....won't understand the diffference. Heh.

go bowe
02-09-2013, 08:54 PM
BL, I included you because you and a handful of others....constitute the "nobody" part of Isaac's hyperbole. I would not put you on the lunatic fringe with TJ, BEP, KillerClown, Pete, and other RWNJ wingtards. I actually admire your willingness to engage in rational debate. I just don't have your patience. For you to say I don't put any thought into my positions is just patently silly though.

You and I may disagree more in the last 5 years than we did in the early years of CP...but if you'd bother to notice, I'm willing to engage reasonable attempts at dialogue here--it's just that so many are beyond reasonable, I don't try with them. Conservatives seemed just fine when moonbats like jAZ were my object of my wrath, but as a moderate I object to ideological extremism on both sides. Sorry if that somehow translates into "never putting any thought" into my positions for you--but that don't make it so.

John and I go way back; we have our disagreements, but also some common ground. The difference between you and he seems to be he understands principled moderation is a legitimate philosophy--but most importantly he understands that I don't argue with ideologues, rather I just use them for entertainment. He and some others do appreciate the difference, even if you don't.

it has been a long time hasn't it? i sure wish you'd come to joe's next fall, i miss you buddy...

i'm not sure i could speak for bl, but i do believe principled moderation is a legitimate philosophy...

a difficult and at times unpopular philosophy to be sure, but legitimate...

of course you have the difficulty of determining what those principles are...

and yes, you devil, you do enjoy your political trolling and always have...

where's those guys that are supposed to come along and call me your ball-washer...

given your stance on homosexuality/marriage equality, that would be ironic...

god, i miss anton...

could you do a little sometime, just for old time's sake?

i could be your gay lover... :)

go bowe
02-09-2013, 09:01 PM
Could not agree more. It amazes me to see people here at like groupies of these people. Not a single one of them gives two shits in a bucket about us. We are subjects that foot the bill to them~

i think that's true on the federal but at the state and local level politicians who don't give a shit about their constituents don't stay in office long...

and i think that by and large most republicans are moderate as opposed to right wingtards...

and that most democrats are centrists/moderates as opposed to the hard left/liberal wingtards...

independents are probably very moderate in their views on the whole...

BucEyedPea
02-09-2013, 09:10 PM
Actually, both are slutty and skanky prostitutes....but at least the politicians have good intentions; whereas, business and corporate folk are ONLY about Me-me-me. That's my only real disagreement....of course, bidness junkies and hos....won't understand the diffference. Heh.

LMAO Politicians do not have good intentions—not as a group. Nope.
Businesses cannot stay in business only being about themselves. They have to deliver products and services people are willing to exchange their money for—or they don't survive. The ones that do, despite that criteria, are in bed with the politicians.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2013, 09:11 PM
Leeches, some of 'em, yeah; just not on the scale of insurance salesmen, car salesmen, lawyers, CEOs, or corporate board members who have them beat by geometric proportions. Not even close....public service vs. self-centered avarice.

Ignorance of economics and markets. That's okay, it can be handled with education.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2013, 09:12 PM
Right. Negotation for more government got us into this mess. That's a pretty nice oversimplification.

And the truth for those not in denial.

chiefzilla1501
02-09-2013, 11:37 PM
And the truth for those not in denial.

Too funny. So the crash had a lot more to do with us paying too much for social security and welfare, and had nothing to do with private sector financial institutions going unregulated as they gambled literally trillions of dollars in risky derivatives and as horrendous lending practices destroyed the mortgage market.

Anyone claiming government spending was the primary reason for the crash or even close... it's just laughable. If anything, government didn't do enough, and the motives for not doing anything suck.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2013, 11:42 PM
Too funny. So the crash had a lot more to do with us paying too much for social security and welfare, and had nothing to do with private sector financial institutions going unregulated as they gambled literally trillions of dollars in risky derivatives and as horrendous lending practices destroyed the mortgage market.

You keep harping on this "unregulation" and I've discussed it with you already by saying the previous tried and true regulation was simply replaced with new and different regulations. So it could not have been regulation itself.

Anyone claiming government spending was the primary reason for the crash or even close... it's just laughable. If anything, government didn't do enough, and the motives for not doing anything suck.

No the regulators were asleep not doing their jobs and I didn't say govt spending...I responded to "more govt." It was govt that decided to replace previous regulations with new and untried regulations. That was adding more govt. That was govt activism.

The root of the problem was Federal Reserve monetary policy which leads to such speculation in markets because the extra money/credit they create has to be spent somewhere. This creates overheated areas called cones. Who created the Federal Reserve? It was created at the start of the BIG govt era. Hence, more govt is still the underlying root of the problem. Especially one that is in bed with banks and financial institutions because guess who bailed them out which created moral hazard? More govt.

Wake up.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2013, 12:12 AM
You keep harping on this "unregulation" and I've discussed it with you already by saying the previous tried and true regulation was simply replaced with new and different regulations. So it could not have been regulation itself.

No the regulators were asleep not doing their jobs and I didn't say govt spending...I responded to "more govt." It was govt that decided to replace previous regulations with new and untried regulations. That was adding more govt. That was govt activism.

The root of the problem was Federal Reserve monetary policy which leads to such speculation in markets because the extra money/credit they create has to be spent somewhere. This creates overheated areas called cones. Who created the Federal Reserve? It was created at the start of the BIG govt era. Hence, more govt is still the underlying root of the problem. Especially one that is in bed with banks and financial institutions because guess who bailed them out which created moral hazard? More govt.

Wake up.

To say that the crisis was cause only by government is a typical right-wing conspiracy theory.

I don't like regulation. Too much regulation in this case likely created behaviors that contributed to the crisis. But in none of what you said above did you ever lay accountability at the feet of the private sector employees and business who knew what they were doing, and purposely chose to unethically push bad mortgage loans and to take on an extraordinary amount of risk in derivatives in a greed grab.

The idea that this is purely about bad government, and not also about bad people who purposely made bad decisions, is oversimplifying.

Hoover
02-10-2013, 09:56 AM
I've had the opportunity to be around Christie a handful of time. I think it's easy to understand why people like him, he has attitude and people respond to it.

He's an incredible politician. He can whip an audience up into a frenzy with his passion, or he can silence a room to a point you can see people hanging on every word he speaks. He is personally talented and gifted. It's his politics that will limit his growth however. He's doing a great job of getting himself re-elected in a very difficult state for a Republican, but in doing so he's basically killing any chance of national political run.

I like him, but I'd probably never vote for him.

As presidential politics is concerned, he's the 2nd coming of Rudy Giuliani, but I think he will flame out before he actually runs for president.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2013, 10:51 AM
To say that the crisis was cause only by government is a typical right-wing conspiracy theory.
May I ask what part of the word "conspiracy" you do not understand.

There was nothing remotely conspiratorial in my post. You are mis-using the word and falling back on a robotic talking point loved by statists.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2013, 11:26 AM
May I ask what part of the word "conspiracy" you do not understand.

There was nothing remotely conspiratorial in my post. You are mis-using the word and falling back on a robotic talking point loved by statists.

It is a conspiracy theory because you talk in such absolutes. As if individuals should not take accountability for their actions, but rather they were forced to do the wildly unethical things they did to comply with excessive regulation.

You don't create a crisis like this without multiple things going wrong creating a perfect storm. This is as much about free market participants acting unethically and unchecked as it is about market intervention. There were too many players within the system trying to game the system. And let's not act like they did this all because they were forced to gamble. They did it for self interest. This is about bad government AND bad people within the market. To say government intervention was the root cause of the problem excuses the problematic individuals within the system.

DementedLogic
02-10-2013, 09:26 PM
It is a conspiracy theory because you talk in such absolutes. As if individuals should not take accountability for their actions, but rather they were forced to do the wildly unethical things they did to comply with excessive regulation.

You don't create a crisis like this without multiple things going wrong creating a perfect storm. This is as much about free market participants acting unethically and unchecked as it is about market intervention. There were too many players within the system trying to game the system. And let's not act like they did this all because they were forced to gamble. They did it for self interest. This is about bad government AND bad people within the market. To say government intervention was the root cause of the problem excuses the problematic individuals within the system.

The crisis would not have happened without government intervention into the marketplace. That is no oversimplification, that is the truth. Without the massive bubble caused by the federal reserve, there is no crash. The private sector participants should have to take accountability for their actions, but the government intervened in that as well. Creating more regulations doesn't fix the problem, it hurts the businesses who didn't contribute to the crisis. As long as the federal reserve continues with keynesian monetary policy, there will be bubble formation. Those bubbles will burst, as all do.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2013, 10:46 PM
It is a conspiracy theory because you talk in such absolutes.

Unbelievable! That doesn't make it a conspiracy which is a crime committed by more than one person in secret. I know what you're problem is, you're somewhat illiterate—definitely economically illiterate. You might want to look up the meaning of a word before you throw it around accusing others of it.

You don't create a crisis like this without multiple things going wrong creating a perfect storm. This is as much about free market participants acting unethically and unchecked as it is about market intervention. There were too many players within the system trying to game the system. And let's not act like they did this all because they were forced to gamble. They did it for self interest. This is about bad government AND bad people within the market. To say government intervention was the root cause of the problem excuses the problematic individuals within the system.

You just don't get it. Try studying free-market economics for starters. You wouldn't know a market if you saw one. You're a central planner.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2013, 10:47 PM
The crisis would not have happened without government intervention into the marketplace. That is no oversimplification, that is the truth. Without the massive bubble caused by the federal reserve, there is no crash. The private sector participants should have to take accountability for their actions, but the government intervened in that as well. Creating more regulations doesn't fix the problem, it hurts the businesses who didn't contribute to the crisis. As long as the federal reserve continues with keynesian monetary policy, there will be bubble formation. Those bubbles will burst, as all do.

He lacks a basic understanding of our system, economics and moral hazard.

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 11:01 PM
This country needs another president like Grover Cleveland.

I've got to admit, I did not see that coming.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2013, 11:26 PM
Grover Cleveland was da' bomb. The boring presidents don't get much fanfare, but they are the true but quiet heroes. He had the most vetoes in a single congressional session. Good stuff from a good man!

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2013, 11:57 PM
He lacks a basic understanding of our system, economics and moral hazard.

I do not like regulation. I hate Dodd Frank. I hate QE and I am not a fan of the Federal Reserve. I understand their contribution to our economic problems including the economic crisis. But they were bigger problems than that.

The crisis was built around investors riding the mortgage market because they built a flawed calculation and became overconfident in it, and loaded trillions of dollars in derivatives, namely mortgage backed securities. They didn't do these things because the market forced them to with regulation. They did this because they WANTED to and the market allowed them to do it.

To no surprise, when the mortgage market collapsed, then guess what happens to your trillions of dollars of derivatives dependent on gambles made on the housing market? The housing market collapse could easily be blamed on both public and private sector, but it was that collapse that triggered the derivative bomb to go off.

The housing market would have hurt our economy. It was overspeculation in derivatives that wrecking balled the economy.

So yes, it is an unbelievable oversimplification to blame excessive regulation when the primary root cause for the devastation was in private investors taking part in unbelievably risky behaviors and nobody tried to stop them.

DementedLogic
02-11-2013, 01:16 AM
I do not like regulation. I hate Dodd Frank. I hate QE and I am not a fan of the Federal Reserve. I understand their contribution to our economic problems including the economic crisis. But they were bigger problems than that.

The crisis was built around investors riding the mortgage market because they built a flawed calculation and became overconfident in it, and loaded trillions of dollars in derivatives, namely mortgage backed securities. They didn't do these things because the market forced them to with regulation. They did this because they WANTED to and the market allowed them to do it.

To no surprise, when the mortgage market collapsed, then guess what happens to your trillions of dollars of derivatives dependent on gambles made on the housing market? The housing market collapse could easily be blamed on both public and private sector, but it was that collapse that triggered the derivative bomb to go off.

The housing market would have hurt our economy. It was overspeculation in derivatives that wrecking balled the economy.

So yes, it is an unbelievable oversimplification to blame excessive regulation when the primary root cause for the devastation was in private investors taking part in unbelievably risky behaviors and nobody tried to stop them.

Without the federal reserve manipulating interest rates, the GSEs, and the community reinvestment act, the crisis would not have happened. All of those are government interventions into the marketplace. The private investors would not have been able to do what they did, without government.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2013, 07:39 AM
Without the federal reserve manipulating interest rates, the GSEs, and the community reinvestment act, the crisis would not have happened. All of those are government interventions into the marketplace. The private investors would not have been able to do what they did, without government.

Exactly. Manipulating interests rates, making them too low, is also price fixing. Price controls from a central bank covers two planks of socialism. While it is true there was greed unleashed, created by perverse incentives, it was done for housing socialism. Funny how the richies connected to govt power get richer, while the left cries for more of the same.