Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Christie backing the NSA's behavior, Paul against it. I think Rand is right in the case...

".....Christie criticized a “strain of libertarianism” coursing through both parties as a “very dangerous thought” more than a decade after the nation’s deadliest terrorist attacks claimed the lives of 3,000 Americans.
During a forum in Colorado Thursday, Christie was asked whether he meant Paul, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate.

“You can name any number of people and he's one of them," Christie said. "These esoteric, intellectual debates -- I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won't, because that's a much tougher conversation to have."
Christie’s state suffered the second-highest casualties in the hijacked airplane attacks on New York and Washington. He also praised the policies Presidents George W. Bush and Obama used to fight terrorism.....

.....Paul tweeted that Christie “worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.".......

......The exchange followed a fight earlier this week in Congress over the National Security Agency's collection of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone records. Libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats sought to undo the NSA program because they contend is an affront to civil liberties.

The House narrowly defeated the attempt to restrict the surveillance, with some Republicans questioning whether their adversaries had forgotten the lessons of 2001.......

......Doug Stafford, a top adviser to Paul, said in a statement that if Christie "believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is `esoteric,' he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years."....."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... z2aZveb900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christie's on the "ends justify means" side on this one.

He's wrong. You don't take a "whatever it takes" stance on preventing "terrorist" attacks. If you do, you lose the whole point of being a free society.

"RAND PAUL, CHRIS CHRISTIE FEUD HEATS UP: ‘THIS IS THE KING OF BACON TALKING ABOUT BACON’

....Christie accused Paul of engaging in “pork barrel” spending to win elections in Kentucky while Paul called Christie “the king of bacon,” referring to his “gimme gimme” attitude when it comes to federal funds.

During a Tuesday press conference, Christie addressed the ongoing feud and claimed he has “nothing personal against Senator Paul.”

“If we disagree on certain issues, we disagree. You know, his response seems that he has something personal against me, but that’s okay. He can just get in line on that front,” he added.

However, the New Jersey governor then went after Paul for claiming that he has a “gimme gimme” attitude when it comes to federal dollars. He went on to accuse Paul of taking part in “pork barrel spending” in Kentucky.

“I find it interesting that Sen. Paul is accusing us of having a ‘gimme gimme gimme’ attitude towards federal spending when, in fact, New Jersey is a donor state. We get 61 cents back for every dollar sent to Washington,” Christie said. “Interestingly, Kentucky gets a $1.51 on every dollar they send to Washington. So if Sen. Paul wants to start looking at where he’s going to cut spending to afford defense, maybe he should start looking at the pork barrel spending he brings home to Kentucky.”

Well, that diatribe led Paul to hit back while appearing on CNN’s “Situation Room” Tuesday afternoon.

“This is the king of bacon talking about bacon,” Paul said about Christie and his own brand of “pork barrel” spending. He also explained that the majority of federal spending in Kentucky goes to military bases in the state.

“What does he want to do, shut down military bases in Kentucky?” he continued. “In order to have enough money for national defense, which I think is a priority for the government, you have to be willing to cut spending in other places, and Governor Christie and others have been part of this ‘gimme gimme gimme’, gimme all this money.’”

Paul later warned Christie that “it’s not very smart” to “pick a war with me.”

“And it’s not a good way to grow the party,” he added. “Why would he want to pick a fight with the one guy who has a chance to grow the party by appealing to the youth and appealing to people who would like to see a more moderate and less aggressive foreign policy?”...."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkF5S_DPy9w[/youtube]

Christie is playing his cards smart. He has to get the establishment behind him to support his bid...of course that means he would just be another one of the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" types we have had cycling through the White House for the past few decades. Nothing new to see here.

GD double posts.......

SDHornet wrote:Christie is playing his cards smart. He has to get the establishment behind him to support his bid...of course that means he would just be another one of the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" types we have had cycling through the White House for the past few decades. Nothing new to see here.

I don't think so. A lot of R primary voters won't forget 2012 (cozying up to Barry along with the bear hug & words of praise right before the election). Now you have him alienating more primary voters....

GD double posts.......

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=36358" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rand Paul , who let's be real, has zero shot of success running for President is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. He talks about the GOP fading in the Northeast which is actually correct, and how the GOP should be working together versus fracturing but Christie is the GOP's best & only shot in 2016. It's up to the GOP if they want to lose the WH again with a self-inflicted wound by putting anyone other than Christie up against the Democrats in 2016.

Christie has already & is continuing to present himself as outside of the existing problem - meaning he is outside of the Beltway. He'll win re-election in NJ in November by a landslide margin & then in 2014 he'll officially declare his candidacy.

kalm wrote:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=36358

I gauge by thread titles whether or not I click on it, as I don't have the time nor the inclination to click on every thread title. I click on virtually none of the Expandos threads and probably about 1/2 of the orhers. Before starting a thread on a particular subject I scan thread titles to see if there is already a thread started on said subject. If I see one I won't start the new thread. If I don't, I will. The thread title "Obushmachrist" gives no indication that it is about the Cristie-Paul feud. You should have mentioned Christie and/or Paul in the thread title....

bluehenbillk wrote:Rand Paul , who let's be real, has zero shot of success running for President is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. He talks about the GOP fading in the Northeast which is actually correct, and how the GOP should be working together versus fracturing but Christie is the GOP's best & only shot in 2016. It's up to the GOP if they want to lose the WH again with a self-inflicted wound by putting anyone other than Christie up against the Democrats in 2016.

Christie has already & is continuing to present himself as outside of the existing problem - meaning he is outside of the Beltway. He'll win re-election in NJ in November by a landslide margin & then in 2014 he'll officially declare his candidacy.

Disagree on both counts.

I'll make a prediction. Neither Hiladabeast nor Christie will be the next POTUS....

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=36358

I gauge by thread titles whether or not I click on it, as I don't have the time nor the inclination to click on every thread title. I click on virtually none of the Expandos threads and probably about 1/2 of the orhers. Before starting a thread on a particular subject I scan thread titles to see if there is already a thread started on said subject. If I see one I won't start the new thread. If I don't, I will. The thread title "Obushmachrist" gives no indication that it is about the Cristie-Paul feud. You should have mentioned Christie and/or Paul in the thread title....

No.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
I gauge by thread titles whether or not I click on it, as I don't have the time nor the inclination to click on every thread title. I click on virtually none of the Expandos threads and probably about 1/2 of the orhers. Before starting a thread on a particular subject I scan thread titles to see if there is already a thread started on said subject. If I see one I won't start the new thread. If I don't, I will. The thread title "Obushmachrist" gives no indication that it is about the Cristie-Paul feud. You should have mentioned Christie and/or Paul in the thread title....

No.

No what?

BDKJMU wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Rand Paul , who let's be real, has zero shot of success running for President is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. He talks about the GOP fading in the Northeast which is actually correct, and how the GOP should be working together versus fracturing but Christie is the GOP's best & only shot in 2016. It's up to the GOP if they want to lose the WH again with a self-inflicted wound by putting anyone other than Christie up against the Democrats in 2016.

Christie has already & is continuing to present himself as outside of the existing problem - meaning he is outside of the Beltway. He'll win re-election in NJ in November by a landslide margin & then in 2014 he'll officially declare his candidacy.

Disagree on both counts.

I'll make a prediction. Neither Hiladabeast nor Christie will be the next POTUS....

Well what Democrat are you going to pick then......names...

BDKJMU wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Christie is playing his cards smart. He has to get the establishment behind him to support his bid...of course that means he would just be another one of the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" types we have had cycling through the White House for the past few decades. Nothing new to see here.

I don't think so. A lot of R primary voters won't forget 2012 (cozying up to Barry along with the bear hug & words of praise right before the election). Now you have him alienating more primary voters....

Disagree. An (R) getting into the White House won’t depend on any of the stuff listed in this thread. Government spending, NSA, Christie cozying up to Obama during Sandy won’t matter. If the repubs drop the ball on immigration they can kiss any support from team brown good-bye and forget about winning a presidential election for 2016 and possibly beyond.

SDHornet wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
I don't think so. A lot of R primary voters won't forget 2012 (cozying up to Barry along with the bear hug & words of praise right before the election). Now you have him alienating more primary voters....

Disagree. An (R) getting into the White House won’t depend on any of the stuff listed in this thread. Government spending, NSA, Christie cozying up to Obama during Sandy won’t matter. If the repubs drop the ball on immigration they can kiss any support from team brown good-bye and forget about winning a presidential election for 2016 and possibly beyond.

BS. So called political "experts" said the SAME thing in 86' when Congress passed amnesty and Reagan signed it. Well, guess what? The Rs got a lower % of the Hispanic vote in 88'

Giving amnesty with Citizenship to 11 million illegals will cost them lost votes from their base. It won't gain then anything from Hispanics.

Amnesty for illegal aliens does not win votes and never has won votes
http://www.examiner.com/article/amnesty ... -won-votes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Romney lost because the base didn't turnout, not because of the Hispanic vote.

BDKJMU wrote:Romney lost because the base didn't turnout, not because of the Hispanic vote.

The problem is, the base gets considerably smaller each election cycle.....

BDKJMU wrote:Christie backing the NSA's behavior, Paul against it. I think Rand is right in the case...

".....Christie criticized a “strain of libertarianism” coursing through both parties as a “very dangerous thought” more than a decade after the nation’s deadliest terrorist attacks claimed the lives of 3,000 Americans.
During a forum in Colorado Thursday, Christie was asked whether he meant Paul, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate.

“You can name any number of people and he's one of them," Christie said. "These esoteric, intellectual debates -- I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won't, because that's a much tougher conversation to have."
Christie’s state suffered the second-highest casualties in the hijacked airplane attacks on New York and Washington. He also praised the policies Presidents George W. Bush and Obama used to fight terrorism.....

.....Paul tweeted that Christie “worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.".......

......The exchange followed a fight earlier this week in Congress over the National Security Agency's collection of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone records. Libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats sought to undo the NSA program because they contend is an affront to civil liberties.

The House narrowly defeated the attempt to restrict the surveillance, with some Republicans questioning whether their adversaries had forgotten the lessons of 2001.......

......Doug Stafford, a top adviser to Paul, said in a statement that if Christie "believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is `esoteric,' he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years."....."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... z2aZveb900" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've always been a fan of Christie's, especially his style, but he's dead wrong here. And bringing up the widows and children is a lowest common denominator argument that is pandering at best.

bluehenbillk wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Romney lost because the base didn't turnout, not because of the Hispanic vote.

The problem is, the base gets considerably smaller each election cycle.....

No it doesn't. Inccrementally, not considerably.

Romney could have gotten 50% of the Hispanic vote, which was only 8.4% of the electorate, and he still would have lost. Still would have lost the popular vote with even 60% of the hispanic vote.

bluehenbillk wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Romney lost because the base didn't turnout, not because of the Hispanic vote.

The problem is, the base gets considerably smaller each election cycle.....

Really? And to what do you attribute the drop in Obama voters by over 5,000,000? Did his "base" suddenly get smaller?

ASUMountaineer wrote: I've always been a fan of Christie's, especially his style, but he's dead wrong here. And bringing up the widows and children is a lowest common denominator argument that is pandering at best.

I'll disagree. It's a much easier statement to make from North Carolina. The closer you love to NYC the more likely it is that you knew people, or you knew people that knew people that lost family/co-workers/friends whatever in the 9/11 attacks. You can bet as the governor of NJ Christie has met thousands of such people. When you live it, & live it continually it makes sense to those people more than anyone that you want to do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again.

bluehenbillk wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote: I've always been a fan of Christie's, especially his style, but he's dead wrong here. And bringing up the widows and children is a lowest common denominator argument that is pandering at best.

I'll disagree. It's a much easier statement to make from North Carolina. The closer you love to NYC the more likely it is that you knew people, or you knew people that knew people that lost family/co-workers/friends whatever in the 9/11 attacks. You can bet as the governor of NJ Christie has met thousands of such people. When you live it, & live it continually it makes sense to those people more than anyone that you want to do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again.

No doubt about that, and that's an effective strategy if you want to president of the tri-state area. If you want to be president of the country, you have to act in the best interest of everyone. For the vast majority of the country, adhering to the constitution and valuing freedom over security is more important.

In no way am I saying that he shouldn't empathize with those of his state and region over what happened. However, I don't see what diminishing my unalienable and civil rights have to do with protection.

BTW, your assumption based on my location isn't accurate.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:
I'll disagree. It's a much easier statement to make from North Carolina. The closer you love to NYC the more likely it is that you knew people, or you knew people that knew people that lost family/co-workers/friends whatever in the 9/11 attacks. You can bet as the governor of NJ Christie has met thousands of such people. When you live it, & live it continually it makes sense to those people more than anyone that you want to do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again.

No doubt about that, and that's an effective strategy if you want to president of the tri-state area. If you want to be president of the country, you have to act in the best interest of everyone. For the vast majority of the country, adhering to the constitution and valuing freedom over security is more important.

In no way am I saying that he shouldn't empathize with those of his state and region over what happened. However, I don't see what diminishing my unalienable and civil rights have to do with protection.

BTW, your assumption based on my location isn't accurate.

This.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:
I'll disagree. It's a much easier statement to make from North Carolina. The closer you love to NYC the more likely it is that you knew people, or you knew people that knew people that lost family/co-workers/friends whatever in the 9/11 attacks. You can bet as the governor of NJ Christie has met thousands of such people. When you live it, & live it continually it makes sense to those people more than anyone that you want to do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again.

No doubt about that, and that's an effective strategy if you want to president of the tri-state area. If you want to be president of the country, you have to act in the best interest of everyone. For the vast majority of the country, adhering to the constitution and valuing freedom over security is more important.

In no way am I saying that he shouldn't empathize with those of his state and region over what happened. However, I don't see what diminishing my unalienable and civil rights have to do with protection.

BTW, your assumption based on my location isn't accurate.

Can you be specific over what "unalienable and civil rights" of yours have been infringed...

Versus the shock media that Fox will have you believe.