It's okay if you are ok with how the current administration has handled its scandals. Personally I don't think its ok no matter who does it.kalm wrote:So that makes it OK then?SDHornet wrote:
And agree with what some folks have said about Christie. If he was aware or did order this bridge shutdown to happen, he will be no different than what has gone on under this current administration.
Well it sure as fuck didn't stop Obama from getting reelected now, did it?kalm wrote:So that makes it OK then?SDHornet wrote:
And agree with what some folks have said about Christie. If he was aware or did order this bridge shutdown to happen, he will be no different than what has gone on under this current administration.
God you're dumb. People don't need to align themselves with a party. You're one of the idiots that believes everything the GOP tells you and you vote for them, 100% of the time. If Hitler and Mussolini ran on the Republican ticket, you'd be out campaigning for them.JohnStOnge wrote:That's what's sad. The percentage may not be exactly right but the fact is that it's people who have no clue as to a consistent view of what they want in terms of the direction of the country who determine who wins. You've got somewhere around two thirds of the country who know what they want, and they're roughly split.Second: It's the some odd 10% in the middle that shift one way or the other and swing elections
Then you've got these idiots in the middle who don't know what they want and end up controlling who wins. And I'm not being too harsh. If you are somebody who votes for Bush over Kerry one election then votes for Obama over McCain the next election you really have no comprehensive concept with respect to what you want. You just don't.
Yet we act as though these people in the "middle" are something special. Like they're REALLY smart because they don't pick a side.
The opposite is the case. They're idiots. Sometimes they may have high IQs. But it's still a stupid way to behave.
What is up with you? I asked a legit question and you give me the runaround.DSUrocks07 wrote:"Their"? "There"? or "They're"?CAA Flagship wrote: Help a brother out here. Who is "their" and "our"?
"Our"? "Hour"? or "Are"?
AZGrizFan wrote:houndawg wrote:
Bye bye big boy, we hardly knew ya..
Yep....donk logic at it's finest: Cavort with known/convicted terrorists? No problem--you're perfect to be president.
Fiddling while Americans are gunned down in Libya? What difference, really, does it make? You'll be the NEXT Donk candidate for president...
But godforfuckingbid your staff shut down a bridge for 3 days in a retaliatory political move. It doesn't matter that Obama claimed to have no knowledge of Fast & Furious, no knowledge of NSA spying, no knowledge of IRS targeting conservative groups, and no knowledge of Obamacare website problems....you, Chris Christie, are NOT allowed to use the "I didn't know" defense. It doesn't matter that Obama has NEVER fired the head of ANY of the above departments. It doesn't matter that Obama let the IRS chief retire as planned, and Hildabeast walked away unscathed to prepare for 2016. You, sir, despite holding your Deputy Chief of Staff accountable and firing her IMMEDIATELY have NO business running for ANY public office EVER again and should slink away in shame.
Mostly because you're fat.
ASUG8 wrote:Interesting that the left is accusing Christie of predatory politics, then suddenly Holder and Co. suddenly get interested in Christie's handling of Sandy relief funds.
Pot, meet kettle.
So, the predatory politics that Christie allegedly initiated were predated by the DOJ in August? Again, pot meet kettle.dbackjon wrote:ASUG8 wrote:Interesting that the left is accusing Christie of predatory politics, then suddenly Holder and Co. suddenly get interested in Christie's handling of Sandy relief funds.
Pot, meet kettle.
Investigation was started in August. Just no one cared enough to report it widely, because of the media's love for Christie
Just bored today.CAA Flagship wrote:What is up with you? I asked a legit question and you give me the runaround.DSUrocks07 wrote:
"Their"? "There"? or "They're"?
"Our"? "Hour"? or "Are"?
ASUG8 wrote:So, the predatory politics that Christie allegedly initiated were predated by the DOJ in August? Again, pot meet kettle.dbackjon wrote:
Investigation was started in August. Just no one cared enough to report it widely, because of the media's love for Christie
One could argue that this administration began predatory politics in August with Sandy investigations before calling out Christie for the same thing last week.dbackjon wrote:ASUG8 wrote:
So, the predatory politics that Christie allegedly initiated were predated by the DOJ in August? Again, pot meet kettle.
???
No, no, no. It's OK when the donks do it. Only bad when conks do it. Get yer shit straight, 8.ASUG8 wrote:One could argue that this administration began predatory politics in August with Sandy investigations before calling out Christie for the same thing last week.dbackjon wrote:
???
Sorry...I don't speak leftist very well.AZGrizFan wrote:No, no, no. It's OK when the donks do it. Only bad when conks do it. Get yer shit straight, 8.ASUG8 wrote:
One could argue that this administration began predatory politics in August with Sandy investigations before calling out Christie for the same thing last week.
OK. Agreed on the strategy of both parties. I still hold out with the thought that there is a fundamental difference between the D and R parties, even though they are both retarded. I vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils. While I agree that the platforms of third party candidates over the years have been appetizing, Donks are buying votes with more and more unnecessary entitlements. A vote for R is the only way to stop it since the D votes continue to grow.DSUrocks07 wrote:Just bored today.CAA Flagship wrote: What is up with you? I asked a legit question and you give me the runaround.
Legit answer: their and our are just relative terms. The mindset that NOT voting for one major party gives a vote to the other major party is why the political process will not advance in this country. It's not about voting for "what's best for the country as a whole", its only about garnering and pandering for votes from the small group of independents that truly decide elections. A necessary evil for the Ds and Rs. They need their votes, but it scares them to death if that small group shows any signs of increasing their numbers.
There are minor differences philosophically but they serve the same master and it isn't "we the people".CAA Flagship wrote:OK. Agreed on the strategy of both parties. I still hold out with the thought that there is a fundamental difference between the D and R parties, even though they are both retarded. I vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils. While I agree that the platforms of third party candidates over the years have been appetizing, Donks are buying votes with more and more unnecessary entitlements. A vote for R is the only way to stop it since the D votes continue to grow.DSUrocks07 wrote:
Just bored today.
Legit answer: their and our are just relative terms. The mindset that NOT voting for one major party gives a vote to the other major party is why the political process will not advance in this country. It's not about voting for "what's best for the country as a whole", its only about garnering and pandering for votes from the small group of independents that truly decide elections. A necessary evil for the Ds and Rs. They need their votes, but it scares them to death if that small group shows any signs of increasing their numbers.
houndawg wrote:There are minor differences philosophically but they serve the same master and it isn't "we the people".CAA Flagship wrote: OK. Agreed on the strategy of both parties. I still hold out with the thought that there is a fundamental difference between the D and R parties, even though they are both retarded. I vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils. While I agree that the platforms of third party candidates over the years have been appetizing, Donks are buying votes with more and more unnecessary entitlements. A vote for R is the only way to stop it since the D votes continue to grow.
It's hard to believe that there is anybody who cannot see that when we get to a Presidential election there are two realistic alternatives. One of those two alternatives is going to be President.God you're dumb. People don't need to align themselves with a party. You're one of the idiots that believes everything the GOP tells you and you vote for them, 100% of the time. If Hitler and Mussolini ran on the Republican ticket, you'd be out campaigning for them.
The only reason any of this makes sense is if one party or the other were less inclined to bow down to monied interests. As it stands, the Republicans are rhetorically better at limited government, fiscal responsibility, and lower spending. So congrats on being duped.JohnStOnge wrote:It's hard to believe that there is anybody who cannot see that when we get to a Presidential election there are two realistic alternatives. One of those two alternatives is going to be President.God you're dumb. People don't need to align themselves with a party. You're one of the idiots that believes everything the GOP tells you and you vote for them, 100% of the time. If Hitler and Mussolini ran on the Republican ticket, you'd be out campaigning for them.
It's also hard to believe that there is anybody who cannot see that which of the two major parties is in power makes a significant difference. An example is something that is in the news all the time right now. If the Republicans had held even one House of Congress through Obama's first term, the Affordable Care Act would never have become law.
It is clear that the two major parties have significantly different philosophies with respect to the role of the Federal government. Neither has the view I subscribe to. But the Republican Party clearly, overall, believes in a less influencial and less proactive Federal government role than the Democratic Party believes in.
Nationally, which of the two major parties is in power makes far more of a difference than which particular person is in power in any particular elective office. It's just the reality, and dealing with reality is not dumb.
What indicates "dumbness" out there is stuff like getting to within one month of a Presidential election and seeing polls indicating that 10, 15, or 20 percent of the population being undecided. That clearly indicates a substantial percentage of the population that has no concept of strategic, comprehensive thinking when it comes to the direction of the country.
If we ever have a situation in which it looks like, say, a Libertarian candidate has a reasonable chance to win then I would consider that candidate. But I wouldn't hold my breath over that happening in my lifetime.
A caveat is that if you're in a State where there's no doubt about which of the two major Presidential candidates will win and you want to make a statement by voting for a third party candidate I guess that's defensible. But it makes no difference. You're still wasting your effort.
Do you think the Affordable Care Act would be law right now if McCain had won the 2008 Presidential election and/or if the Republicans would've won both houses of Congress then?The only reason any of this makes sense is if one party or the other were less inclined to bow down to monied interests. As it stands, the Republicans are rhetorically better at limited government, fiscal responsibility, and lower spending. So congrats on being duped.
Do you really think taxes (mostly on the middle class) would have been raised if a Dem had held the WH instead of Reagan?JohnStOnge wrote:Do you think the Affordable Care Act would be law right now if McCain had won the 2008 Presidential election and/or if the Republicans would've won both houses of Congress then?The only reason any of this makes sense is if one party or the other were less inclined to bow down to monied interests. As it stands, the Republicans are rhetorically better at limited government, fiscal responsibility, and lower spending. So congrats on being duped.
On a longer time scale: Do you think we would have a Social Security system right now if Herbert Hoover had beaten Franklin Roosevelt then Republicans had continued to hold the Presidency for decades thereafter? Another way to get at it is to ask if you think that we would have a Social Security System if Republicans had been in total control 1932 through present?
And what do you think things might be like if the Democrats had been in total control 1932 through present.
Do you think Clarence Thomas would be a Supreme Court Justice if there hadn't been any Republican Presidents in power since 1932? Do you think Ruth Bader Ginsberg would be a Supreme Court Justice if no Democrat had been in power since then? Do you think...seriously...that there's no difference between those two Justices?
If you really think about it, you see that it is really ridiculous to say that which of the two major parties is in power makes no difference. It makes a huge difference.
Cliff Notes version: I have my opinion and you're dumb if you don't share it.JohnStOnge wrote:It's hard to believe that there is anybody who cannot see that when we get to a Presidential election there are two realistic alternatives. One of those two alternatives is going to be President.God you're dumb. People don't need to align themselves with a party. You're one of the idiots that believes everything the GOP tells you and you vote for them, 100% of the time. If Hitler and Mussolini ran on the Republican ticket, you'd be out campaigning for them.
It's also hard to believe that there is anybody who cannot see that which of the two major parties is in power makes a significant difference. An example is something that is in the news all the time right now. If the Republicans had held even one House of Congress through Obama's first term, the Affordable Care Act would never have become law.
It is clear that the two major parties have significantly different philosophies with respect to the role of the Federal government. Neither has the view I subscribe to. But the Republican Party clearly, overall, believes in a less influencial and less proactive Federal government role than the Democratic Party believes in.
Nationally, which of the two major parties is in power makes far more of a difference than which particular person is in power in any particular elective office. It's just the reality, and dealing with reality is not dumb.
What indicates "dumbness" out there is stuff like getting to within one month of a Presidential election and seeing polls indicating that 10, 15, or 20 percent of the population being undecided. That clearly indicates a substantial percentage of the population that has no concept of strategic, comprehensive thinking when it comes to the direction of the country.
If we ever have a situation in which it looks like, say, a Libertarian candidate has a reasonable chance to win then I would consider that candidate. But I wouldn't hold my breath over that happening in my lifetime.
A caveat is that if you're in a State where there's no doubt about which of the two major Presidential candidates will win and you want to make a statement by voting for a third party candidate I guess that's defensible. But it makes no difference. You're still wasting your effort.
