Christie allegedly knew about lane closings

[133743Hokie]

So some people sat in traffic for a couple of hours. It ain't like he set the IRS on em! The whole bottom line of this "scandal" is there was a traffic jam in New Jersey. You know what? There is ALWAYS a traffic jam in New Jersey.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not voting for Christie. But I think withholding help from an ambassador and support staff under siege in the Benghazi Consulate is INFINITELY WORSE than getting some underlings to cause a traffic jam in which NOBODY WAS HARMED in any way. Considering what our Fuhrer has done and how many people he has allowed to DIE through his action, or lack thereof, Christie's alleged transgressions are pretty frickin' harmless. It's all about perspective.

Do you see what you just wrote? If something is reported on EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET... except maybe Faux News... then it almost certainly happened.

If it is reported on Faux News only (or MSNBC only)... then it is probably political bullshit.

Please don't tell me you are too stupid to figure that out for yourself...

[/quote]so you don't see what you just did? Really? An admittedly biased media jumps to the conclusion that he's guilty. No benefit of the doubt. They, and you, have determined that it is Fact because you desperately want it to be.

[awesome guy]

So some people sat in traffic for a couple of hours. It ain't like he set the IRS on em! The whole bottom line of this "scandal" is there was a traffic jam in New Jersey. You know what? There is ALWAYS a traffic jam in New Jersey.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not voting for Christie. But I think withholding help from an ambassador and support staff under siege in the Benghazi Consulate is INFINITELY WORSE than getting some underlings to cause a traffic jam in which NOBODY WAS HARMED in any way. Considering what our Fuhrer has done and how many people he has allowed to DIE through his action, or lack thereof, Christie's alleged transgressions are pretty frickin' harmless. It's all about perspective.

Do you see what you just wrote? If something is reported on EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET... except maybe Faux News... then it almost certainly happened.

If it is reported on Faux News only (or MSNBC only)... then it is probably political bullshit.

Please don't tell me you are too stupid to figure that out for yourself...

so you don't see what you just did? Really? An admittedly biased media jumps to the conclusion that he's guilty. No benefit of the doubt. They, and you, have determined that it is Fact because you desperately want it to be.[/quote]

I like how Christigate is a real scandal but none of Obama's are. It's hilarious and shows the level of partisanship we're dealing with.

[HokieDan95]

Hey VoR, just curious...

If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

After Obama (the President, not the governor of a single state) lied in more than 20 different speeches (not just 1) about the impact of Obamacare (which unlike a closed lane in NJ effects the entire country) do you believe Obama should ever be trusted again?
Or does your "reason"ing have some special exception built into it?

[VoiceOfReason]

Well said

I mean, if you're not going to hold the President accountable for Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Drone Strikes on Civilians, The IRS, Rewriting the ACA without Congress... why the Hell should anyone give a rat's ass about a traffic jam in New Jersey?

This whole misdirection of trying to equate the intentional traffic jam with Benghazi or anything else is beside the point.

Sticking to the discussion of Christie, I stick by the statement I made the day after his mea culpa. If he was telling the truth... and he did not know until the day before his mea culpa... then he will be fine politically. If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

Kinda simple really...

yet by your comments you've already convicted him

Who have I convicted? Christie? Where did I say that? To be honest... I am hoping he is telling the truth. Not that I plan to vote for him - I don't. But I think he brings something valuable to the conversation. I would prefer he be judged by his ideas then being taken down by his hubris (if that is the eventual outcome).

[VoiceOfReason]

So some people sat in traffic for a couple of hours. It ain't like he set the IRS on em! The whole bottom line of this "scandal" is there was a traffic jam in New Jersey. You know what? There is ALWAYS a traffic jam in New Jersey.

I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not voting for Christie. But I think withholding help from an ambassador and support staff under siege in the Benghazi Consulate is INFINITELY WORSE than getting some underlings to cause a traffic jam in which NOBODY WAS HARMED in any way. Considering what our Fuhrer has done and how many people he has allowed to DIE through his action, or lack thereof, Christie's alleged transgressions are pretty frickin' harmless. It's all about perspective.

Do you see what you just wrote? If something is reported on EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET... except maybe Faux News... then it almost certainly happened.

If it is reported on Faux News only (or MSNBC only)... then it is probably political bullshit.

Please don't tell me you are too stupid to figure that out for yourself...

so you don't see what you just did? Really? An admittedly biased media jumps to the conclusion that he's guilty. No benefit of the doubt. They, and you, have determined that it is Fact because you desperately want it to be.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

What "admittedly biased media"? The only biased media is MSNBC and Fox News.

I would prefer CC be telling the truth... where did I say otherwise.

Don't assume that because I favor the Ds that I have it out for all Rs.

[VoiceOfReason]

Hey VoR, just curious...

If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

After Obama (the President, not the governor of a single state) lied in more than 20 different speeches (not just 1) about the impact of Obamacare (which unlike a closed lane in NJ effects the entire country) do you believe Obama should ever be trusted again?
Or does your "reason"ing have some special exception built into it?

Obama has never had a mea culpa press conference. What I am speaking of is the press conferences politicians call to do "damage control" on a scandal that directly implicates them.

Examples:
"I am not a crook." -- Nixon.
"I did not have sex with that woman... Ms. Lewinsky" -- Clinton
"I am embarrassed and humiliated that I did not know..." -- Christie

These are very direct statements about personal responsibility in a scandal. Note that none of these things are political in nature. The other side can always distort and play gotcha with a political speech to create the impression that somebody lied.

There is no wiggle room in these speeches.

[HokieJoe]

Hey VoR, just curious...

If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

After Obama (the President, not the governor of a single state) lied in more than 20 different speeches (not just 1) about the impact of Obamacare (which unlike a closed lane in NJ effects the entire country) do you believe Obama should ever be trusted again?
Or does your "reason"ing have some special exception built into it?

Cheap shot incoming:

Reasoning is like chemistry for VOR- there's an exception for every rule.

[HokieDan95]

Exactly where was the wiggle room in Obama's speeches?

“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”

By the way guess what Politifact's 2013 lie of the year was......

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-keep-it/

Hey VoR, just curious...

If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

After Obama (the President, not the governor of a single state) lied in more than 20 different speeches (not just 1) about the impact of Obamacare (which unlike a closed lane in NJ effects the entire country) do you believe Obama should ever be trusted again?
Or does your "reason"ing have some special exception built into it?

Obama has never had a mea culpa press conference. What I am speaking of is the press conferences politicians call to do "damage control" on a scandal that directly implicates them.

Examples:
"I am not a crook." -- Nixon.
"I did not have sex with that woman... Ms. Lewinsky" -- Clinton
"I am embarrassed and humiliated that I did not know..." -- Christie

These are very direct statements about personal responsibility in a scandal. Note that none of these things are political in nature. The other side can always distort and play gotcha with a political speech to create the impression that somebody lied.

There is no wiggle room in these speeches.

[VoiceOfReason]

Hey VoR, just curious...

If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

After Obama (the President, not the governor of a single state) lied in more than 20 different speeches (not just 1) about the impact of Obamacare (which unlike a closed lane in NJ effects the entire country) do you believe Obama should ever be trusted again?
Or does your "reason"ing have some special exception built into it?

Cheap shot incoming:

Reasoning is like chemistry for VOR- there's an exception for every rule.

I hear ya. But circumstances matter. Look at it this way... everybody you know in your life has lied to you at some point. Your wife has lied to you before. Your best friend has lied to you before. Your bosses, your employees, ditto.

This is especially true if you define lying as saying something that eventually turns out not to be true... regardless of the circumstances have changed since you made your statement. I might tell you that I can't meet up with you as planned because a contractor is schedule to come to my house. If the contractor cancels and you see me out and about later in the day... did I lie? Point is... circumstances matter. Intent matters.

In the examples I gave - Nixon, Clinton, Christie... the circumstances were very clear. The public officials setup up a news conference for one purpose and one purpose only. To tell their version of the truth to the people. To look into the camera and swear... that they absolutely positively did not do what it was said they did. When you do that... it damn well better be true. Or people will never believe you again. This is very different from making a comment on healthcare or any other such nonsense.

It's one thing if your wife tells you she is coming home right after work, but stops off for a drink with friends instead. It is quite another if she sits there face to face and tells you she absolutely, positively did not meet up with Mr. Sexy. It's a moment of truth... and it damn we'll better be true.

Nixon lied.
Clinton lied.
Chris Christie has had his moment of truth. Now we will see...

As for Obama, I know what you guys think inside your bubble. But Obama has not lied to me. I have seen no evidence to show that Obama has knowingly, intentionally made a false statement. I take his word for it on the health insurance comment. I am sure it will be investigated... like everything else he has done, lol.

[133743Hokie]

Hey VoR, just curious...

If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

After Obama (the President, not the governor of a single state) lied in more than 20 different speeches (not just 1) about the impact of Obamacare (which unlike a closed lane in NJ effects the entire country) do you believe Obama should ever be trusted again?
Or does your "reason"ing have some special exception built into it?

Cheap shot incoming:

Reasoning is like chemistry for VOR- there's an exception for every rule.

I hear ya. But circumstances matter. Look at it this way... everybody you know in your life has lied to you at some point. Your wife has lied to you before. Your best friend has lied to you before. Your bosses, your employees, ditto.

This is especially true if you define lying as saying something that eventually turns out not to be true... regardless of the circumstances have changed since you made your statement. I might tell you that I can't meet up with you as planned because a contractor is schedule to come to my house. If the contractor cancels and you see me out and about later in the day... did I lie? Point is... circumstances matter. Intent matters.

In the examples I gave - Nixon, Clinton, Christie... the circumstances were very clear. The public officials setup up a news conference for one purpose and one purpose only. To tell their version of the truth to the people. To look into the camera and swear... that they absolutely positively did not do what it was said they did. When you do that... it damn well better be true. Or people will never believe you again. This is very different from making a comment on healthcare or any other such nonsense.

It's one thing if your wife tells you she is coming home right after work, but stops off for a drink with friends instead. It is quite another if she sits there face to face and tells you she absolutely, positively did not meet up with Mr. Sexy. It's a moment of truth... and it damn we'll better be true.

Nixon lied.
Clinton lied.
Chris Christie has had his moment of truth. Now we will see...

As for Obama, I know what you guys think inside your bubble. But Obama has not lied to me. I have seen no evidence to show that Obama has knowingly, intentionally made a false statement. I take his word for it on the health insurance comment. I am sure it will be investigated... like everything else he has done, lol.

But Christie has not lied to me. I have seen no evidence to show that Christie has knowingly, intentionally made a false statement. I take his word for it on the bridge closing comment. I am sure it will continue to be investigated for months.

[HokieDan95]

You left off the LOL at the end, which I literally did while reading VoUr's post. I don't know whether he's playing games or so desperate to keep his bubble from bursting he needs to redefine what a lie is.

Hey VoR, just curious...

If he lied in his mea culpa... how can you ever believe anything he says again?

After Obama (the President, not the governor of a single state) lied in more than 20 different speeches (not just 1) about the impact of Obamacare (which unlike a closed lane in NJ effects the entire country) do you believe Obama should ever be trusted again?
Or does your "reason"ing have some special exception built into it?

Cheap shot incoming:

Reasoning is like chemistry for VOR- there's an exception for every rule.

I hear ya. But circumstances matter. Look at it this way... everybody you know in your life has lied to you at some point. Your wife has lied to you before. Your best friend has lied to you before. Your bosses, your employees, ditto.

This is especially true if you define lying as saying something that eventually turns out not to be true... regardless of the circumstances have changed since you made your statement. I might tell you that I can't meet up with you as planned because a contractor is schedule to come to my house. If the contractor cancels and you see me out and about later in the day... did I lie? Point is... circumstances matter. Intent matters.

In the examples I gave - Nixon, Clinton, Christie... the circumstances were very clear. The public officials setup up a news conference for one purpose and one purpose only. To tell their version of the truth to the people. To look into the camera and swear... that they absolutely positively did not do what it was said they did. When you do that... it damn well better be true. Or people will never believe you again. This is very different from making a comment on healthcare or any other such nonsense.

It's one thing if your wife tells you she is coming home right after work, but stops off for a drink with friends instead. It is quite another if she sits there face to face and tells you she absolutely, positively did not meet up with Mr. Sexy. It's a moment of truth... and it damn we'll better be true.

Nixon lied.
Clinton lied.
Chris Christie has had his moment of truth. Now we will see...

As for Obama, I know what you guys think inside your bubble. But Obama has not lied to me. I have seen no evidence to show that Obama has knowingly, intentionally made a false statement. I take his word for it on the health insurance comment. I am sure it will be investigated... like everything else he has done, lol.

But Christie has not lied to me. I have seen no evidence to show that Christie has knowingly, intentionally made a false statement. I take his word for it on the bridge closing comment. I am sure it will continue to be investigated for months.

[VoiceOfReason]

Drinking during the SuperBowl had something to do with it. Not my best work... but glad it entertains you guys.

Seriously tho... if you guys cannot discern the difference between the "OMG, I am in big trouble, I better come clean" mea culpa speech and general political speeches... then I don't think you have a good grasp on the pulse of American politics.

[133743Hokie]

Drinking during the SuperBowl had something to do with it. Not my best work... but glad it entertains you guys.

Seriously tho... if you guys cannot discern the difference between the "OMG, I am in big trouble, I better come clean" mea culpa speech and general political speeches... then I don't think you have a good grasp on the pulse of American politics.

The press challenged Nixon, they challenged Clinton, and they are now challenging Christie, as they should. They, however, have abdicated their responsibility and not challenged Obama on most of his issues. If they had then you would have seen more of Obama wordsmithing his "OMG, I'm in big trouble, I better come clean" mea culpa around some of his issues.

And if you are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see that then I don't know what else to say.

[VoiceOfReason]

The press challenged Nixon, they challenged Clinton, and they are now challenging Christie, as they should. They, however, have abdicated their responsibility and not challenged Obama on most of his issues. If they had then you would have seen more of Obama wordsmithing his "OMG, I'm in big trouble, I better come clean" mea culpa around some of his issues.

And if you are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see that then I don't know what else to say.

1) Nixon was involved in a criminal break-in and coverup of the opposition party HQ.
2) Clinton was accused of lying under oath in a criminal trial.
3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

Obama is accused of nothing of this sort. Congress has investigated Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious and the ACA. The press has covered all the accusations and the Congressional hearings. And nothing of substance has been found implicating Obama in any misdeeds. You don't agree with him politically, yeah, we get that. So what exactly is your point, relative to the topic of this thread?

[awesome guy]

The press challenged Nixon, they challenged Clinton, and they are now challenging Christie, as they should. They, however, have abdicated their responsibility and not challenged Obama on most of his issues. If they had then you would have seen more of Obama wordsmithing his "OMG, I'm in big trouble, I better come clean" mea culpa around some of his issues.

And if you are so blinded by partisanship that you can't see that then I don't know what else to say.

1) Nixon was involved in a criminal break-in and coverup of the opposition party HQ.
2) Clinton was accused of lying under oath in a criminal trial.
3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

Obama is accused of nothing of this sort. Congress has investigated Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious and the ACA. The press has covered all the accusations and the Congressional hearings. And nothing of substance has been found implicating Obama in any misdeeds. You don't agree with him politically, yeah, we get that. So what exactly is your point, relative to the topic of this thread?

[Hokie CPA]

3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

How were Christie's constituents harmed? They spent an extra hour or two in traffic! What a horrible inconvenience! But HARM?!?!?

Oh, and the (EOs changing the) ACA have most certainly NOT been investigated. And just because "the most transparent administration in history" circled the wagons and clammed up about Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the IRS doesn't mean that something didn't happen there. I'm not AT ALL satisfied with Hillary's responses on Benghazi. People are DEAD because of this administration's actions, or lack thereof, in both Benghazi and Fast and Furious. And I don't buy the BS from the IRS that a couple/few "rogue agents" were the only ones responsible for that mess.

[awesome guy]

3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

How were Christie's constituents harmed? They spent an extra hour or two in traffic! What a horrible inconvenience! But HARM?!?!?

supposedly some lady died trying to get the hospital, but not sure if that's just DNC BS.

I can't he really thinks Obama has done nothing wrong. Then again, Obama is investigating himself with a top donor leading the IRS investigation. I wish I could say I'm shocked VoUR is duped by this. Oh well. And that's the pattern of all Obama investigations, deny and obstruct. Holder was blasted by congress for not complying with subpoenas. LIVs eat the none compliance compliance stories up.

[VoiceOfReason]

But Christie has not lied to me. I have seen no evidence to show that Christie has knowingly, intentionally made a false statement. I take his word for it on the bridge closing comment. I am sure it will continue to be investigated for months.

And I agree with this. I take the same approach and take his word for it.

Now... I did make a statement about IF it comes out that he lied... but right now, that is an IF... and nothing I personally am rooting for.

[VoiceOfReason]

3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

How were Christie's constituents harmed? They spent an extra hour or two in traffic! What a horrible inconvenience! But HARM?!?!?

Oh, and the (EOs changing the) ACA have most certainly NOT been investigated. And just because "the most transparent administration in history" circled the wagons and clammed up about Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and the IRS doesn't mean that something didn't happen there. I'm not AT ALL satisfied with Hillary's responses on Benghazi. People are DEAD because of this administration's actions, or lack thereof, in both Benghazi and Fast and Furious. And I don't buy the BS from the IRS that a couple/few "rogue agents" were the only ones responsible for that mess.

1) A traffic jam is not death admittedly, but CC's constituents were indeed harmed. If you don't think so, just ask CC. His level and depth of apology speaks directly to making right the wrongs committed by people in his administration. So don't be silly.

2) Obama did not kill anyone in Benghazi. Terrorists did that. Nobody died because of any action or inaction in Benghazi. The primary fault for Obama was the lack of transparency of information after the fact that appears to be politically motivated. Anything else is GOP conspiracy fantasy.

3) You are no satisfied with something Hillary said? Oh well... there is such a shocker.

[VoiceOfReason]

3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

How were Christie's constituents harmed? They spent an extra hour or two in traffic! What a horrible inconvenience! But HARM?!?!?

supposedly some lady died trying to get the hospital, but not sure if that's just DNC BS.

I can't he really thinks Obama has done nothing wrong. Then again, Obama is investigating himself with a top donor leading the IRS investigation. I wish I could say I'm shocked VoUR is duped by this. Oh well. And that's the pattern of all Obama investigations, deny and obstruct. Holder was blasted by congress for not complying with subpoenas. LIVs eat the none compliance compliance stories up.

And nobody is surprised that there is such a list of crimes and conspiracies coming from partisans of the opposite party. Let's just focus on the truth, shall we?

[awesome guy]

3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

How were Christie's constituents harmed? They spent an extra hour or two in traffic! What a horrible inconvenience! But HARM?!?!?

supposedly some lady died trying to get the hospital, but not sure if that's just DNC BS.

I can't he really thinks Obama has done nothing wrong. Then again, Obama is investigating himself with a top donor leading the IRS investigation. I wish I could say I'm shocked VoUR is duped by this. Oh well. And that's the pattern of all Obama investigations, deny and obstruct. Holder was blasted by congress for not complying with subpoenas. LIVs eat the none compliance compliance stories up.

And nobody is surprised that there is such a list of crimes and conspiracies coming from partisans of the opposite party. Let's just focus on the truth, shall we?

That is the truth. You not liking it doesn't make it false.

[VoiceOfReason]

3) Christie is accused of using the power of his office to exact political revenge, harming his own constituents in the process.

How were Christie's constituents harmed? They spent an extra hour or two in traffic! What a horrible inconvenience! But HARM?!?!?

supposedly some lady died trying to get the hospital, but not sure if that's just DNC BS.

I can't he really thinks Obama has done nothing wrong. Then again, Obama is investigating himself with a top donor leading the IRS investigation. I wish I could say I'm shocked VoUR is duped by this. Oh well. And that's the pattern of all Obama investigations, deny and obstruct. Holder was blasted by congress for not complying with subpoenas. LIVs eat the none compliance compliance stories up.

And nobody is surprised that there is such a list of crimes and conspiracies coming from partisans of the opposite party. Let's just focus on the truth, shall we?

That is the truth. You not liking it doesn't make it false.

Nor does you wishing it were true make it thus. Believe me, if Obama had been responsible for even one-tenth of what is routinely assumed as fact on this board... there would be impeachment proceedings with the Rs in Congress.

[awesome guy]

Nor does you wishing it were true make it thus. Believe me, if Obama had been responsible for even one-tenth of what is routinely assumed as fact on this board... there would be impeachment proceedings with the Rs in Congress.

I'm not wishing anything, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Low information. Everything I said is 100%, undeniable fact. Take a couple minutes informing yourself instead of spewing more garbage here about "nothing to see" with Obama's numerous scandals.

[133743Hokie]

So now, a day later, after libs and MSNBC are foaming at the mouth and smell blood, the NYT says "oops", there really wasn't proof that Christie knew in advance. Oh well. Sorry. But no harm no foul. Meanwhile MSNBC is going all Christie all the time regardless of the new info.

[VoiceOfReason]

Nor does you wishing it were true make it thus. Believe me, if Obama had been responsible for even one-tenth of what is routinely assumed as fact on this board... there would be impeachment proceedings with the Rs in Congress.

I'm not wishing anything, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Low information. Everything I said is 100%, undeniable fact. Take a couple minutes informing yourself instead of spewing more garbage here about "nothing to see" with Obama's numerous scandals.

Neither one of us is low information. We both read up on many subjects. (Yes, I am assuming you can read.) The difference is the sources of information. I rely on Facts & News... you rely on Faux News.

You are living proof that just because you mouth is moving and your brain is full... does not mean you have anything intelligent to say.