Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Show me the evidence he knew. You'll find no louder voice than mine calling for his head. Until then... Christie served up a leadership 101 course yesterday.
Evidence. Look it up. I cut it off because I felt like it and my previous post addresses your specific comment.Why did you just cut off part of that post? It shows he indeed was deeply involved in early December.
Why did you do that?
Yup.
And if there's evidence Christie lied then he'll be known as a lying schmuck deserving of contempt and ridicule.
That's on the Christie hand ... what about the Obama hand where there's already that evidence?
Show me the evidence he knew. You'll find no louder voice than mine calling for his head. Until then... Christie served up a leadership 101 course yesterday.
I have criticized Obama for being a lying schmuck when there is evidence of that. Why do you think I didn't vote for either "Obamney" in 2012?
There wasn't a traffic study. That was a lie by Wildstein... who later admitted that he simply ordered the lane closures. And here is Wildstein's email reply to Kelly... the lady in Christie's office who just got fired.
It was Wildstein who responded in August to Kelly's email request that it was “time for some traffic problems” aimed to disrupt the life of the Fort Lee mayor.
link...
Agreed. And when an evangelist doesn't get what he deserves? When most around him, the press, and his defenders quash the criticism and it's ignored until it goes away... what then?A TV evangelist who snorts meth off of a male hooker's erection deserves what he gets.
Remember, Obama set himself up as being the most transparent. This is akin to the evangelist claiming how full of God and holy he is. The same argument is made of Republicans who claim family values who then get caught hiding the pickle with a mistress. The criticism is always, "Well, the Republicans always say they are the party of family values look at this guy having an out of marriage affair! What a joke! You know what, that's fair criticism.I wouldn't call Obama's administration less open and transparent than Bush or Clinton.
Yet when one sets themselves up as the most transparent and then is the direct opposite - we should ignore that?Which is kind of damning with faint praise (Well, at least Kim Jong Un is no Stalin...). Obama claimed a number of things that didn't happen, which is what happens when you elect a politician.
It's a fair comparison however.I'll be the first to criticize Obama about the IRS thing, and in fact I WAS the first person on DP to do so. But, this thread is not about the IRS, or Obamacare, or how "transparent" the Obama administration is.
MSNBC tows the line for Obama especially between 5pm and 11pm ET. All their shows are geared towards pro Democrat and pro Obama. Fox is diametrically opposed to that view and take a critical anti-Democrat anti-Obama stance. My view is, one needs to be able to discern facts from supposition. All opinion shows take facts and then try to connect various other dots to create a narrative that their viewers want to hear. It doesn't mean Maddow cannot provide facts, nor that Hannity cannot provide facts. It's the conclusions they derive to support their narrative one must be wary of and depending on which side of the political fence one is on makes a difference.Let me ask you, when Grim drops a thread about MSNBC, and liberals jump in talking about Fox, what do you think of that?
Of course I see the comparisons and they are fair to make.Do you see the obvious comparisons between MSNBC and Fox? While I have been guilty of that myself, I'm labelled as "deflecting" when I am. What's the difference?
Then you're sense of what is or is not common sense is not realistic. Governors have no power over others as to stupid things they do. Common sense to me shows that these folks got too big for their own good and decided they could take actions which were not consistent with Christie. People do stupid things sometimes.Morning Ockham. For me it isn't about finding some smoking gun evidence that Christie knew. Common sense tells me he did.
Sure he looks bad because he's ultimately responsible for these people's actions. He however fired them and took all questions and stated he had no knowledge these things transpired. He knew however that the lanes were closed for what he called a "traffic study" and that it turns out it was not a traffic study and he found out the truth about what it was 48 hours ago, he had to take action. Things like this are never a positive, however he certain has taken steps to turn it into a positive.Now if this email had been sent by some minor member of his staff, I would give Christie the benefit of the doubt that he did not know but this person was his closest senior aide that sent the email. If a leader doesn't know what his closest aide is up to then he isn't much of a leader. Either way Christie looks bad in my opinion.
I doubt that, a forum on which you cant call people out isnt worth being on.
Let`s just resolve this issue once and for all.
I dont believe that you are a nazi, I simply throw that word in when someone consideres a group of people to be infirior.
I misinterpreted your post and believed that you saw all in opposition to yourself as individuals with infirior thinking capacity.
Evidence. Look it up. I cut it off because I felt like it and my previous post addresses your specific comment.
Because of your poor grasp of the concept of "Lesser of 2 evils"?
Oh hey, a thread that looks bad for a Republican. Lets debate every bad thing and every manufactured bad thing every Democrat in history has ever done instead because that is what really matters. :lol:
To iterate again, its pretty obvious Christie was really pissed off the day before.
What are the odds his aide got revenge for him without so much as a word?
I find it unlikely but... it needs evidence.
If any tiny little indication ever comes out, he's done.
Seeing you don't want to touch it, can you at least give a slight indication why Chrisite would want to call off the dogs on looking into the matter in the early days of December?
Can you answer that one?
Seeing you don't want to touch it, can you at least give a slight indication why Chrisite would want to call off the dogs on looking into the matter in the early days of December?
Can you answer that one?
We are not talking about just any staff member but the deputy chief of staff and two of his top executives at the Port Authority. The relationship between a governor and a deputy chief of staff is one of the closet relationships in the office of the governor.Then you're sense of what is or is not common sense is not realistic. Governors have no power over others as to stupid things they do. Common sense to me shows that these folks got too big for their own good and decided they could take actions which were not consistent with Christie. People do stupid things sometimes.
Sure he looks bad because he's ultimately responsible for these people's actions. He however fired them and took all questions and stated he had no knowledge these things transpired. He knew however that the lanes were closed for what he called a "traffic study" and that it turns out it was not a traffic study and he found out the truth about what it was 48 hours ago, he had to take action. Things like this are never a positive, however he certain has taken steps to turn it into a positive.
Assuming no hard evidence comes out to refute his statements, he certainly has taken this situation and done the best at handling it IMO.
Agreed. And when an evangelist doesn't get what he deserves? When most around him, the press, and his defenders quash the criticism and it's ignored until it goes away... what then?
Remember, Obama set himself up as being the most transparent. This is akin to the evangelist claiming how full of God and holy he is. The same argument is made of Republicans who claim family values who then get caught hiding the pickle with a mistress. The criticism is always, "Well, the Republicans always say they are the party of family values look at this guy having an out of marriage affair! What a joke! You know what, that's fair criticism.
Yet when one sets themselves up as the most transparent and then is the direct opposite - we should ignore that?
It's a fair comparison however.
MSNBC tows the line for Obama especially between 5pm and 11pm ET. All their shows are geared towards pro Democrat and pro Obama. Fox is diametrically opposed to that view and take a critical anti-Democrat anti-Obama stance. My view is, one needs to be able to discern facts from supposition. All opinion shows take facts and then try to connect various other dots to create a narrative that their viewers want to hear. It doesn't mean Maddow cannot provide facts, nor that Hannity cannot provide facts. It's the conclusions they derive to support their narrative one must be wary of and depending on which side of the political fence one is on makes a difference.
Of course I see the comparisons and they are fair to make.
Oh hey, a post by yet another liberal progressive that wants to clearly take the stance that only Republican scandals, are scandals...:lol:
I'd be pissed too if someone did something I didn't know about that was this level of embarrassment.
Pretty good actually...Unless you want to now say that Executives like Christie, and Obama should know everything like this...If so, then Obama has to answer for quite a bit, no?
And now I am sure you will look upon what the recently fired Kelly has to say as the absolute truth right? :roll:
On that we can agree....Christie came out in forthright fashion and answered every question asked in a straight forward manner. Hell, I thought at one point someone was going to ask what he had for breakfast that morning. So, IF, and it is a big if at this point, but if something comes to light that any of his answers to questions in the presser were false, then he has a problem, if he knew, or ordered the partial shutdown of the GW, then he is done.
Seeing you don't want to touch it, can you at least give a slight indication why Chrisite would want to call off the dogs on looking into the matter in the early days of December?
Can you answer that one?
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils still means you're voting for evil. There wasn't enough distance between the two, IMO. One put an individual mandate on his state when he was governor, the other copied it nationwide. NSA, drones...basically identical positions. Essentially the only difference was that one was sort of for gay marriage, and the other was sort of against it.
I'm comfortable with how I voted. While you can say "You helped re-elect Obama," to me there wasn't any evidence that Romney would be any better, worse, or indeed different.
I like how your counter argument to this is to complain about Obama some more then gush over how incredibly Christie is handling this. :lol:
Obama Derangement Syndrome.
No one can answer why he stonewalled the issue for months, even going so far as to ridicule reporters that dared ask about it. Add that to Christie's reputation for reprisals and you have a pretty good idea of what really happened. These were his TOP aides, people he saw everyday and he never asked for an investigation of the matter?
No, just fact...You, and others are making more of this than it warrants...But if you really want to go down the road of a say Mike Malloy goes, then it is fair game to compare Christie to Obama in the handling of this, and if that is the case, then Christie schools Obama on how to handle it.
Because it was a traffic study perhaps? I can't speculate why he called off an investigation without first seeing where he, personally, requested the investigation to no occur. Or was that his staff that made that request?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?