When is Jim in NJ

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And your jests proved to be unfounded, since I said that if Christie ordered this, he's unfit to serve the public. Since you dodged my question, allow me to ask again,. Spence, what do you think of the fact (and it is irrefutable fact) that Hilary lied to our faces about getting shot at, at the airport in Kosovo or somewhere? And her excuse for lying, that she was tired? Does that excuse hold water?

I mean, if sleep deprivation cause her to lose the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, what the hell is going to happen when she gets calls from the Situation Room at 3 AM? If she is suffering from exhaustion-induced psychosis, is she going to order the Marines to invade Portugal?

Let's lay down our cards, Spence. Let's see who the fanatic is who cannot be critical of those who share our political ideology. Hint - it's not me.

You started this, let's take it to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I await your reply...

Yoo-hoo, Spence? Yo, Spence!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yoo-hoo, Spence? Yo, Spence!!

Can't I work a bit? It helps to pay the bills.

My jest is not unfounded as I never claimed you'd profess your fealty.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death. What's next? Biden's plaigerism and Wright's "chickens coming home to roost"?

What's interesting here is that you actually have a scandal broken with a smoking gun versus Obama's "scandals" that are highly manufactured.

What remains to be seen is if Christy can make it through this. I'd like to think he's being honest but the number of close aids that were involved makes that difficult. You know the guy is running for POTUS and you don't warn him of an ethics violation that could likely submarine his campaign?

This along with the Sandy story could very well spell doom. He's lucky it came out now.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death.
-spence

Kindly refresh my memory? Tell me how that lie actually makes her MORE suited to be POTUS than if she told the truth?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Can't I work a bit? It helps to pay the bills.

My jest is not unfounded as I never claimed you'd profess your fealty.

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death. What's next? Biden's plaigerism and Wright's "chickens coming home to roost"?

What's interesting here is that you actually have a scandal broken with a smoking gun versus Obama's "scandals" that are highly manufactured.

What remains to be seen is if Christy can make it through this. I'd like to think he's being honest but the number of close aids that were involved makes that difficult. You know the guy is running for POTUS and you don't warn him of an ethics violation that could likely submarine his campaign?

This along with the Sandy story could very well spell doom. He's lucky it came out now.

-spence

This "scandal" is actually more hilarious than SNL would portray it. No doubt they will. It's that there are those flashbacks of Christie (that name just doesn't seem to fit him) walking with Obama after Sandy and praising him, and being able to "reach across the aisle" and be "bi-partisan," and bashing tea partiers and "right wing conservatives." I can't help but snicker as I write this. He bashes and shuns those who should be his allies and cozies up to those who he supposedly runs against. Has he learned anything now? Those cuddly little puppy dogs that he would befriend are now furiously biting at his ankles, and soon the wildebeest that he is will fall and become prey to his own lack of principle.

Or, as you say, he's lucky it came out now. That is, of course, how "scandals" die, isn't it? Just let time pass and they go away. And if anyone brings them up, just ask haven't we "beaten them to death?", and say it's old news. Poof. And if that doesn't quiet the old news chatter, just sarcastically repeat the scandal's names as if that, like voodoo, cleanses them of any force or validity. Right. So, since all scandals are "manufactured" (played up big by the media to give them "legs," or given a mere mention, if anything, and dropped from the conversation to wither and die) they can be dismissed by time and lack of attention.

But my laughter is cynical here, tinged with a bit of joy. The establishment Republican willingness to play the progressive game is the same self-destruction that Christie is experiencing now. He has no true friends, neither among them, nor from those across the aisle, nor most of the media. He might actually now be the very candidate that the Democrats would like to run against. Not someone with the virtue and principle to inspire the majority of Americans who want something other than more of the same, but someone not too unlike themselves, but damaged, marginalized, destroyed, and a destruction brought about by appeasing them rather than truly fighting them.

When the Republican party can muster itself to being a true opponent to the progressive ideal of huge government and our dependence on it . . . can actually stand for the principles that made us "exceptional," made us the place for individuals hungering for freedom, not a bee hive society . . . when it can articulate such principles as well as act on them rather than concocting "strategies" for so-called victory such as funding and letting Obamacare grow so that most will hate it and then vote the Dems out . . . then it will be a truly different choice for the people. And it will have a reason to exist.

As it is now, Democrat lite is a losing proposition . . . even if they win.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But my laughter is cynical here, tinged with a bit of joy. The establishment Republican willingness to play the progressive game is the same self-destruction that Christie is experiencing now. He has no true friends, neither among them, nor from those across the aisle, nor most of the media. He might actually now be the very candidate that the Democrats would like to run against. Not someone with the virtue and principle to inspire the majority of Americans who want something other than more of the same, but someone not too unlike themselves, but damaged, marginalized, destroyed, and a destruction brought about by appeasing them rather than truly fighting them.

When you look at Christy's record on many issues he certainly looks like a conservative. That's he's not as rabid a partisan as the tea party would like doesn't diminish his own beliefs.

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee. A hard change in course to the right from what's been established by both parties over the past decades would be seen are more progressive than what we have today.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee.

-spence

We tried that with McCain and Romney, didn't work out that well. I suppose the answer isn't to nominate a more radical conservative, but rather to nominate someone who won't let the Democrats and the media (sorry for the redundancy) launch unfounded attacks, one after the other. We need someone who (1) has appeal to independents, and (2) isn't afraid to throw an elbow back when attacked. That was Christie.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

When you look at Christy's record on many issues he certainly looks like a conservative. That's he's not as rabid a partisan as the tea party would like doesn't diminish his own beliefs.

I understand that you don't have time to go into depth in your posts due to constraints of job, family, and life in general. And I respect that, in spite of those restraints, you are so willing to jump into the fray so often, and usually are the only one coming from the left who has a halfway rational approach. But the fact that you so often have to hit and run frequently results in quick, broad stroke stereotypical labels. And worse than just being pejorative snipes, they often completely miss the mark. "Rabid a partisan as the tea party" describes that group with the label of partisan, when it is the political "party" which is least interested in partisanship. It is not, at this point, an actual political party. It chooses to domicile in the Republican Party because of the two major parties it is the one which even remotely pretends to aspire to constitutional government. The Constitution is not a partisan document. It can be abused and distorted in partisan ways, and that tea "party" wishes to correct the distortion and eliminate the abuse. And I don't believe their other main goal, correcting the undisciplined, uncontrollable spending (which ties in with constitutionalism) is partisan either.

And one diminishes his own beliefs by compromising them. Going along to get along as a belief system cannot be compromised or diminished since its core principle, if it can be called a principle, IS compromise. I am not sure what Christie's core principle is. He says various things. He does, as you say, appear to be "conservative." Maybe he is (whatever it means to him in terms of what he wants to conserve). It would be a pleasant surprise if he got elected President and became as hard core "conservative" as Obama is "liberal."

The Democrat Party, no matter how much I disagree with their agenda, has to be admired for its unwillingness to compromise. And it never gives up, even if it loses, it keeps coming back with an even ramped up effort with even more "rabid partisan" rhetoric. Would that the Repubs would fight that way for the oath of office they swore to.

I think the GOP would benefit much from a Republican-light nominee. A hard change in course to the right from what's been established by both parties over the past decades would be seen are more progressive than what we have today.

-spence

What do you mean by "benefit"? Just winning? "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" I know, it's the Bible, one of those stupid little guide books that Nebe frowns upon. But it has a lot of good lines, and that one says a lot to me. I don't know what the soul of the Republican Party is now. That of the Democrat Party is obvious. I realize that you believe both parties should be mostly similar. Not even certain in how you would like the Republican Party to be different. Does "Republican light" mean more or less like the Democrats, but just not let them go too far into the socialist stratosphere? At least not right away--just slow down a bit?

And I don't know what you mean by "what's been established by both parties over the past decades". You call it more "progressive than what we have today." So is that it? Democrats progressive--Republicans progressive light? Well from the way the Repubs keep giving, after sputtering complaints, in to Dem demands, I think that is what we have today. I don't know how that has changed over the past decades, its even got more "progressive." I would think you should be happy with the way it is.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

We've beaten the Kosovo topic to death.

-spence

Since you won't remind me of your opinion, I searched it. Here is what you said about the fact that she lied about sniper fire, then said that she lied because she was tired. Here is an exact quote from you...

"I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way."

So Spence, your idea of "beating something to death", is to say that "it doesn't matter", and that's that?

Whether she is honest, or a blatant liar, "doesn't really matter" to you, as long as she's liberal.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Since you won't remind me of your opinion, I searched it. Here is what you said about the fact that she lied about sniper fire, then said that she lied because she was tired. Here is an exact quote from you...

She didn't say she "lied" because she was tired, she said she misspoke because she was tired.

I don't think she was trying to mislead anyone, she just conflated two stories. Flip a few words around and it all make sense.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

She didn't say she "lied" because she was tired, she said she misspoke because she was tired.

I don't think she was trying to mislead anyone, she just conflated two stories. Flip a few words around and it all make sense.

-spence

Spence, what were the two stories she conflated? Please share.

One does not accidentally misremember getting shot at by snipers. Spence, was she referring to another time when she actually got shot at? Or has she never been shot at? If she claimed she got shot at in one place, but it actually happened in another place, that's one thing. If she has never been shot at, but claimed she has, that's something else. If one has been shot at nineteen times, but they claim it was twenty times, that's one thing. If one has been shot at zero times, but they claim it happened once, that's another thing entirely. It's not something you have trouble distinguishing between if it happened zero times or one time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device