Poor Christie just swiftboated himself

Don't be too quick to believe that. Just as we agree that the media tries to define the Tea Party as what we are not, that also includes the idea that we have been absorbed by the Republican party. Even though I'm a registered Republican with conservative values that align with Tea Party principles, I'm not foolish enough not to know that Republicans often times push the same kind of socialistic ideals as the left. The Tea Party is no lap dog. No, in many ways we are riding on the back of the Republican Party.

 

obviously I agree with him more often than not....

and I find him to be pretty charming.

did you see him make sure the lunatic who called him the anti-christ didnt forget his jacket?

 

lol so he wont do things he ran on doing once he gets the power?

we already know hes a republican....

 

So who do you support?

 

Christie was being honest and somehow that translates into republicans hating him?

what the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you libs smoking these days?

 

I'm honestly finding it hard to support anyone these days...of all the potential POTUS candidates, the only one with any legitimate chance of facilitating change is Paul, and the corporate party/media machine won't allow it...

 

So your choice for president is - no one?

That's not very realistic.

Even if the choices don't suit you someone will be sworn in as president after the 2012 elections.

My guess it that it won't be Ron Paul because even though most Republicans agree with him on the economy they also think he goes too far to the isolationist in foreign policy.

But political campaigns are where people with different ideas get to debate and change other people's minds.

If you like Paul why not spend more time talking him up and less time talking the other candidates down?

 

Agree with him/her pretty often....check

Is pretty charming.......check

Reminds people to get their jacket........check

Wow, those sure are some great requirements for president you have there.


Guess, I won't get a meaningful answer from you. I'm not surprised, whenever I ask this same question of other people who say they are "fond" of Obama.....they give me the same BS answers.

There is no reason to like this man. He is a fraud.

 

lol a fraud? so hes not a really the president? not really a man? not really Barack Obama?

and yes, a president I agree with on most/major policy issues is important.

 

at least youre following along this time....

conservatives want to be lied to......what else explains talk radio or why all your "conservative" politicians suddenly change stripes when it comes time to actually govern.

 

Ole Christie has a colorful past. Has ties to the Alberto Gonzalez Bush days, that dont shed a good light on his principles

Has been a registered Wall Street lobbyist that was employed by Bernie Madoff that worked to keep securities fraud off the Consumers Fraud Act in New Jersy.

Is a proponent for stricter GUN CONTROL LAWS.

As a U.S Attorney Christie stated that being an immigrant present in the U.S without proper documentation should not be considered a crime.

Chris Christie is a person who thinks appointing muslims to high office such as Judges is perfectly ok. He also has said that people who disagree with him on this veiw are full of krap.

Christies appointees to office as govenor are peppered with former republican lobbyists, relatives of former federal high ranking officials and former "Whitewater case" U.S attorneys

Chris Christie isnt going to run because he will get media-raped, and he knows it.

 

who has changed stripes? the true conservatives have not. move along and stop ur bs.

 

So many like Paul's stance on the economy. The biggest issue right now. But don't like his isolationist policies. How many laws does the POTUS sign into law without congress? Do you think congress will make us isolationists just because the prez likes it?
Do you think congress will pass laws to help the economy if the prez wants it?
There are issues with every candidate, pick your 2 or 3 top issues and find the candidate that most reflects them.

 

You have it backwards.

Congress has more authority over domestic policy and much less say about foreign policy.

 

A "colorful" past?
Alinsky
Resko
Ayers
ACORN
SEIU
And a present where the Department of Energy is the largest Venture Capital Supplier on the Earth.

And Christie has been getting media raped since BEFORE the NJ elections. Hasn't bothered him yet. You're mixing him up with the incompetent incumbent idiot odrama who cries and wets his pants if the media hints anything bed about his leakiness.

 

I would suggest Paul's foreign policy isn't so much isolationist as it is more national interest oriented. US foreign policy for the past 3 quarters of a century has been globalist on nature. We spend far too much tax payer money securing access to foreign markets for the global corporate oligarchy when at the end of the day, their interests don't take any consideration for the good of the US beyond where we are useful to them.

I find that talking about what is wrong with the system coincides with talking about what's wrong with the field of candidates and the parties. I'm less interested in seeing Paul get in than I am getting people to see that following either of the two corporate parties is nothing more than supporting maintaining the status quo.

 

I think our foreign policy has been global since the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor.

Then as now not every American wanted it that way but there has been no turning back since.

And particularly since WWII ended we have accepted global responsibility by taking the place of the British.

I'm sure we've gone too far in recent times but Paul wants to take us almost back to an isolationist policy that I think is unrealistic.

 

Can't you read? Christie just knocked YOU.

 

I think he's a retard because his pizza stinks.

 

This is the most bizarre thread I've seen in a while. Angry incoherent OP. Libs are losing it.

 

I certainly don't believe the rich should have to sacrifice. Rich??? Sacrifice??? Gawd, that hardly makes sense. You don't get to be rich by sacrificing. You get to be rich by making other people sacrifice.

 

The rich pay 70% of the income tax now.

That seems like enough to me.

The problem is that Obama spends too much.

 

Once again a liberal exposes their total lack of any clue of how the world and business operates. "Get rich by making other people sacrifice," is an asinine statement. I'd bet my life that not one businessman in 500 million EVER had the thought that he could get rich by making anyone sacrifice.
This surely will come as a complete shock to you but businesses large and small do a thing called a "business plan." That is their plan for the future of the business. What they plan to do and how they plan to do it. It NEVER includes making someone else sacrifice. It DOES sometimes include the sacrifice that the business owner will endure.

I often wonder who you "all business hating liberals" work for? Or do you all just not have ever had a job? And thus have no clue of what the working world is like. Or do you have a job and hate your employer? A formula guaranteed to produce a good and valued employee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not.

 

If you ever expect to have any enduring impact on American politics, you have to accept that other people have different beliefs than you do, and they aren't going to give you one shred of support if you don't compromise sometimes.

 

I guess if you expend the definition of rich to include folks making $60,000 a year.