• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Christie has cops throwing women outa town meeting

littlejoe

Well-known member
Interesting to look at this guy----kinda pear shaped, reminds me of that blow hard hog that's on the radio----the one that had his illegal maid get his dope for him---Bush Limburger or some such----you just watch---the republicans will run this loser or a facsimile thereof----and some idiot who never been no place done nothing from other side will get elected by default----then it'll be another 4 yrs of blame and bs---sickening--300 million people in this country and we can't find 2 qualified to compete to run it----

http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&videoid=4360af8c-c620-b91a-60d8-218b8ef67d3e&from=en-us_msnhp
 

mrj

Well-known member
While Christie is not the person I'd choose as a candidate, would YOU not do what he did when he was being heckled by people whose intent was clearly to disrupt the meeting rather than have any questions answered?

He isn't conservative enough, and may not be tough enough for what we need as President after all the damage, ignoring Constitutional requirements, and even basic rules of governance President Obama has done.

mrj
 

Steve

Well-known member
I am not by any-means a fan of Christie..

Christie has cops throwing women outa town meeting

I actually watched the exchange.. and Christie was right.. if they had a question,.. they would ask instead of just heckling.. instead they want attention..

I have little if any time for hecklers.. they do not want to participate.. they want to disrupt.. so they should be thrown out of a forum,..

or as happened here politely escorted out by the police..
 

Steve

Well-known member
LittleJoe said:
-you just watch---the republicans will run this loser or a facsimile thereof----and some idiot who never been no place done nothing from other side will get elected by default----then it'll be another 4 yrs of blame and bs---sickening--300 million people in this country and we can't find 2 qualified to compete to run it----

been a while since you showed up.. but in all that time pretty much everything you posted had been negative

kinda like a heckler.. just jumps in and disrupts, and never has anything to ADD to a discussion..

so what have to to say?

nothing to add?

who do you support in 2016?



sadly the republican elite will want to nominate a loser like Christie,
and ,... if those of US who disagree with them can't get behind a solid candidate.. it will happen.



and you are just as much, if not more to blame if you don't support a candidate of your choice instead of just trying to mock others..

so little Joe who do you support?
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
good honest question.

sadly---nobody.

and that sucks.

So---something positive?

I support the military.

We got over 900 bases in over 150 countries.

I support closing down 95% of them, bring our troops home and spending the $ in our own country on our own people.

I support taking care of veterans in general and wounded ones--whether physically or mentally--in particular. I support putting a halt to generating new ones.

I support living within our means and balancing the budget.

I support converting all 3rd term--or longer---politicians into organ donors.

I support equal rights--for all.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
littlejoe said:
good honest question.

sadly---nobody.

and that sucks.

So---something positive?

I support the military.

We got over 900 bases in over 150 countries.

I support closing down 95% of them, bring our troops home and spending the $ in our own country on our own people.

I support taking care of veterans in general and wounded ones--whether physically or mentally--in particular. I support putting a halt to generating new ones.

I support living within our means and balancing the budget.

I support converting all 3rd term--or longer---politicians into organ donors.

I support equal rights--for all.

That's honorable. And makes a lot of sense to me.

So why do you act less than honorable here and post things that make no sense?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
littlejoe said:
good honest question.

sadly---nobody.

and that sucks.

So---something positive?

I support the military.

We got over 900 bases in over 150 countries.

I support closing down 95% of them, bring our troops home and spending the $ in our own country on our own people.

I support taking care of veterans in general and wounded ones--whether physically or mentally--in particular. I support putting a halt to generating new ones.

I support living within our means and balancing the budget.

I support converting all 3rd term--or longer---politicians into organ donors.

I support equal rights--for all.

I agree 100%-- and so far the two possible candidates that come the closest to that are the most libertarian in my opinion...

The one I really liked before was Jon Huntsman- but don't think he will run again... Strict fiscal conservative, but still believes in progress... Tolerant on social and equal rights issues...
Huntsman maintained high approval ratings as Governor of Utah, reaching 90% approval at times. His having approval ratings over 80% when he left office- in a state like Utah, tells a lot..

The second that is slowly talking more along the libertarian thinking is Rand Paul.... But my fear is he will have both the Tea Party evangelicals and the mainstream Republican Party Warhawks against him- and doesn't stand a chance...
 

Steve

Well-known member
But my fear is he will have both the Tea Party evangelicals and the mainstream Republican Party Warhawks against him-

:???:

really can you come up with "one" rational reason the tea party the Evangelicals or even the war-hawks would be against him

so far the only "group" that has spoken against him is the party elites/rino's.. oh,.. and the left..





How Republicans and the tea party see the 2016 field differently

Tea party Republicans show the most interest in Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as a presidential contender and the least in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans who identify as tea partiers would like to see Paul run in 2016 - the highest percentage of any GOPer asked about in the poll and the only potential contender to reach the 50 percent mark. Just 13 percent of tea party Republicans don't want Paul to run.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-republicans-and-the-tea-party-see-the-2016-field-differently/

some folk defy logic.. time and time again..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
But my fear is he will have both the Tea Party evangelicals and the mainstream Republican Party Warhawks against him-

:???:

really can you come up with "one" rational reason the tea party the Evangelicals or even the war-hawks would be against him

so far the only "group" that has spoken against him is the party elites/rino's.. oh,.. and the left..





How Republicans and the tea party see the 2016 field differently

Tea party Republicans show the most interest in Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as a presidential contender and the least in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans who identify as tea partiers would like to see Paul run in 2016 - the highest percentage of any GOPer asked about in the poll and the only potential contender to reach the 50 percent mark. Just 13 percent of tea party Republicans don't want Paul to run.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-republicans-and-the-tea-party-see-the-2016-field-differently/

some folk defy logic.. time and time again..

He is showing more and more tolerance toward same-sex marriage-- and recognizing both the constitutional issues and changing voter acceptance with it and other social issues... Coming out speaking in favor of allowing states to decide (which I believe it's too late and the SCOTUS will decide for the nation)... And he believes government and the Republican party needs to downplay the social issues ...That doesn't set well with the far right evangelicals who prefer to legislate morality ...

I'm not sure if those far right evangelicals will go with a more tolerant candidate or a more tolerant Republican Party... :???:


Rand Paul: GOP needs to ‘agree to disagree’ on social issues


By Aaron Blake

March 14 at 12:16 pm


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says in a new interview that Republicans should embrace a more tolerant view of those who don't hold conservative positions on social issues.

"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues," Paul told vocativ.com. "The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues."

Paul's comments harken back somewhat to former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels's (R) call for a "truce" on social issues within the GOP. The comment at the time drew a rebuke from social conservatives.

At that same time, those groups aren't as influential in today's Republican Party, where an increasing number of people now support gay marriage, for instance.

He- like his father- also has came out in favor of getting a lot of our military out of foreign nations, keeping our nose out of foreign disturbances/ civil wars and ending foreign aid... And what I see as Republican hawks and you see as elites/rinos is still the center core of the Republican Party-- and I believe willing to commit suicide in order to keep an outsider from winning a national primary/election...


hawks: This will not stand, Rand


By ALEXANDER BURNS | 7/26/13 3:34 PM EDT



The Republican Party’s hawks are finally saying it out in the open: This aggression will not stand, Rand.

After three years of watching the GOP’s non-interventionist wing gather strength, there are mounting signs that a more combative set of national security conservatives have reached their breaking point. Now, prominent conservative leaders in what used to be considered the Bush-Cheney mold are increasingly taking the offensive against their intra-party rivals.


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie publicly challenged libertarian Republicans Thursday to explain their skepticism about government surveillance to the families of 9/11 victims, declaring at a Republican Governors Association event: “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation.”

New York Rep. Peter King said this week that he will explore a 2016 presidential run to wrest control of the defense debate from small-government advocates such as Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, and warned that an America-first candidate would stand little chance of defeating Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps the most dramatic provocation to Paul-aligned conservatives came earlier this month, when Republican national security activist Liz Cheney – the former vice president’s daughter – announced a primary challenge to Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, a low-key incumbent backed by Paul and a number of other Senate colleagues.


Republican hawks say these developments amount to something less than a coordinated counteroffensive. But no one disputes that they’re nearing a critical mass of impatience with what some call “Rand-ism” – resistance to foreign entanglements and deep, confrontational skepticism about the expansion of the federal defense apparatus, particularly in the areas of surveillance and drone warfare.

I want a strong national defense and I don’t want Rand Paul to be the face of the Republican Party,” King said in an interview. “I’ve felt this way for a while [and] once it gets out there, people say, ‘God, this is wrong, we’re killing ourselves. This is not the Republican Party.’”

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who was a vocal and at times caustic critic of Rand Paul’s father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, during the 2012 primaries, called it a welcome development that “people are starting to push back.”

“There was a lot of talk, particularly during the Republican primary last year, of, ‘Well, we don’t want to alienate these voters,” Santorum said, recalling that he’d been criticized as “too bellicose” and “too warlike. “I can tell you, the Paulistas who were active on the state level in 2012 were not interested in the Republican Party as it now exists. They are interested in a very different kind of model.”


King acknowledged that public opinion has turned against some Bush-era security policies, such as the ongoing war in Afghanistan. But he suggested that it doesn’t take much to jolt voters from their sense of complacency.

“I see every time there’s a terror attack, or even a thwarted terror attack, people’s views change dramatically,” the Long Island lawmaker said, conceding: “They want out after 12 years in Afghanistan, and really after President Obama not explaining for the last five years why we’re there.”

For the emboldened phalanx of defense-minded conservatives, it remains to be seen how difficult a task they’ll have in turning the tide of the GOP’s national security conversation. Republican hawks say they are firmly confident that the party is, in its heart, more sympathetic to the George W. Bush agenda of expanding freedom and fighting terrorism, than to the Rand-style focus on limiting the government’s security powers that many congressional Republicans have recently embraced.

That’s certainly true of most national Republican elites. In some Republican donor and operative circles, there’s active talk of whether the GOP’s strong-on-defense wing may need new infrastructure and organizations to promote their priorities during primary season in 2014 and beyond.

Among those groups, optimistic Republicans argue that the GOP base cheers for tirades against drones and the NSA out of hostility toward the Obama administration, rather than the actual substance of those issues. They point out that the GOP-held House defeated an amendment this week offered by libertarian Rep. Justin Amash, which would have sharply curtailed the NSA’s domestic spying powers (though about two in five Republicans supported the measure.)

Amid the continuing Edward Snowden saga, there have been few Republican voices sympathetic to the NSA leaker outside the Paul family.

“I’m honestly not too worried,” said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the influential foreign policy conservative. “I’m confident the Reagan Republicans will prevail over the Snowden Republicans.”

Alluding to hawkish Arkansas Rep. Tom Cotton, an Iraq war vet and potential 2014 Senate candidate, Kristol quipped: “I think Christie-Cotton is much more likely in 2016 than Paul-Amash.”

Still, there are also more than a few daunting data points for the anti-Paul coalition within the GOP – signs in public opinion research that the country has moved substantially from the Bush-era national security consensus.

A Washington Post poll this week showed 67 percent of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, including a bare majority of Republicans. An extensive Pew survey published Friday found a mixed public attitude on surveillance: half of Americans said they approve of the government’s information-collecting, but 56 percent said courts weren’t providing adequate oversight and a 47-percent plurality said the government had done too much to limit civil liberties. And public polls consistently show public hesitation about possible U.S. intervention in Syria, where the United Nations reports 100,000 have been killed in a civil war as dictator Bashar al-Assad clings to power.
Continue Reading


Paul, for all the flak he’s taking inside the party, has ridden this shift in public opinion to national prominence, mounting a 13-hour filibuster against the (hypothetical) domestic use of drones against U.S. citizens. Just last week, he delivered a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Louisville, denouncing foreign aid programs that support Egypt and Pakistan, and arguing against arming rebels in Syria.

“America has never backed down from a fight, but we should never be a nation that is eager to get involved in civil wars that don’t affect our national security,” Paul said, according to his prepared remarks. “America’s mission should always be to keep the peace, not police the world.”

Paul’s gang shows no signs of backing down in the face of renewed criticism from inside the GOP. The Kentuckian was attacked for having “strange ideas” on national security during his 2010 Senate primary, and ended up crushing an opponent endorsed by Dick Cheney. The senator and his advisers are well aware of the response he gets outside of Washington to his come-home-America pitch on national security.

In their view, all the elite dismay at Paul’s views on everything from foreign aid to government surveillance, only underscores the potency of his small-government populism.

But Paul and his allies are also acutely aware that the heat on the senator has increased. Earlier this month, Paul’s world reacted with fury to a report in the Washington Free Beacon – a website founded by multiple Weekly Standard alums – detailing the writings of one Paul adviser, Jack Hunter, who authored provocative, neo-confederate columns under the label “The Southern Avenger.”

Despite initially standing by Hunter, Paul accepted his resignation earlier this week.

In general, Paul’s advisers have taken a bring-it-on approach to the stepped-up confrontation. When Liz Cheney announced for Senate, Paul issued a statement suggesting that she’d be better off seeking office in “her home state of Virginia.”

And after Christie’s shock-and-awe remarks this week, senior Paul adviser Doug Stafford suggested the New Jersey governor “needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years.” Paul himself fired back at Christie on Twitter, writing: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”

“We are winning. They are lashing out,” one Paul adviser said in an email, of the national security debate.

In the big picture, it’s still unclear which side of the party is better positioned to win over the next generation of conservatives. Both the libertarian-leaning and the neoconservative-leaning sides have their favored up-and-comers. For the hawks, that group includes Cotton and, for many, Cheney, as well as Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Marco Rubio of Florida.

On the other side, Rand Paul is clearly at the head of the pack, joined on some issues by Cruz and Utah Sen. Mike Lee. His set of supporters varies from issue to issue – on drones, it included much of the Senate GOP conference. On other subjects, such as domestic spying, there are fewer prominent spokespeople, with the largely-untested Amash leading the charge in the House.

Republican strategist Brad Todd, who has sharply criticized the libertarian wing of his party, said the party is still in the process of seeing “younger conservatives who don’t buy into the darkest and weakest corners of libertarianism stand up.”

“These are people whose ideology was shaped by Reaganite exceptionalism and whose adult lives have been colored by the constant threat of jihadists,” Todd said, arguing for the long-term health of the hawkish-leaning GOP.

Another Republican hawk expressed strong unease with the prominence of the Paul coalition, but questioned how far it could really go at the ballot box.

“I don’t think they can win, and even if they did win, what would happen?” the Republican wondered. “The GOP would lose in a Goldwater-style blowout and that would be the end of that.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/rand-paul-republican-hawks-94817_Page2.html#ixzz2vz39TkZ5
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
littlejoe said:
good honest question.

sadly---nobody.

and that sucks.

So---something positive?

I support the military.

We got over 900 bases in over 150 countries.

I support closing down 95% of them, bring our troops home and spending the $ in our own country on our own people.

I support taking care of veterans in general and wounded ones--whether physically or mentally--in particular. I support putting a halt to generating new ones.

I support living within our means and balancing the budget.

I support converting all 3rd term--or longer---politicians into organ donors.

I support equal rights--for all.

That's honorable. And makes a lot of sense to me.

So why do you act less than honorable here and post things that make no sense?

Less than honorable? I find that a harsh judgement call on your part. I'll tell ya----any place I've ever been or worked, I can go back to. Any body I've ever done business with, I can again--and make a deal over the phone and it'll stand. I volunteered for the draft, I volunteered for airborne, I volunteered for Vietnam. I've volunteered to partake in many fights and several jail sessions. I don't look at the size or odds, just whack 'em if I feel it's justified. A strategy that occasionally coulda possibly benefited from a tad more thinking thru. I help my neighbors, I'm on the fire dept, kids and dogs like me.

So--I guess you're saying if I post stuff you disagree with, it ain't honorable? If I post satire and you don't get it--that ain't honorable?

I'll tell ya what----I post here because I have seldom seen a more opinionated, narrow thinking, prejudiced, closed mind, tunnel visions buncha bullies and cowards. They gang up on people, one individual in particular. This guy can comment on a cow or his drive to a polling place and he's immediately called a lier, drunk, etc. WTF is wrong with you people?! How can you consider yourselves honorable? Let alone comment on someone else?

ps--a couple have gone over the line. if they don't know who they are, they're stupider than they sound. I may favour them with an opportunity to insult me in person, at my convienience. I do travel extensively.

ps--Faster----'member Skeets, on the corner, in Dillon? You could get a rib steak that hung over the plate for 4 bucks. Steve Logan had the Moose where you could drink a little wine, shoot the bull and hire some haying help. Cut thru the alley and you were at Benny's place---the Pheasant. FYI, I've rode a horse or two---but Benny's brother John was more my style------life ain't meant to be took too serious....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I may favour them with an opportunity to insult me in person, at my convienience. I do travel extensively.

Ya, you even visited a little lady to give me that chance...will I call you a liar, or continue to allow you to claim that you are honorable?

You claim to have searched out my residence/workplace and showed up uninvited, for a visit...


:roll:

I've volunteered to partake in many fights and several jail sessions. I don't look at the size or odds, just whack 'em if I feel it's justified.

very honorable indeed

"I'll huff and puff and blow your house down"

Let me put it this way, if you ever showed up at my residence/workplace/mom's basement, looking for an insult, you'd get an insult. You'd more than likely also be volunteering for a beatdown and stay in our local jail, like you have done before.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
littlejoe said:
ps--a couple have gone over the line. if they don't know who they are, they're stupider than they sound. I may favour them with an opportunity to insult me in person, at my convienience. I do travel extensively.


Watch it folks, we have a new internet tough guy :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you can't beat them with wit, TRY to use threat of violence..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You do make a great liberal. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, my.... oh boy..... another gay internet bad a$$... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't worry folks, you'll know "little" joe is in town when you see a tough guy in pink chaps and a rainbow sticker on his harley. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Come on, give us some more. This is great stuff!
 

Mike

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:
littlejoe said:
ps--a couple have gone over the line. if they don't know who they are, they're stupider than they sound. I may favour them with an opportunity to insult me in person, at my convienience. I do travel extensively.


Watch it folks, we have a new internet tough guy :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you can't beat them with wit, TRY to use threat of violence..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You do make a great liberal. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, my.... oh boy..... another gay internet bad a$$... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't worry folks, you'll know "little" joe is in town when you see a tough guy in pink chaps and a rainbow sticker on his harley. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Come on, give us some more. This is great stuff!

Reminds me a lot of Fatsquatch. He threatened more than once to call law enforcement on some here for terrorism and anarchy?

You know, being the sanctimonious essobee they are.............Come in here stirring sh_t, then getting mad when someone else has had a say? :lol: :lol:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Mike said:
iwannabeacowboy said:
littlejoe said:
ps--a couple have gone over the line. if they don't know who they are, they're stupider than they sound. I may favour them with an opportunity to insult me in person, at my convienience. I do travel extensively.


Watch it folks, we have a new internet tough guy :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you can't beat them with wit, TRY to use threat of violence..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You do make a great liberal. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, my.... oh boy..... another gay internet bad a$$... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't worry folks, you'll know "little" joe is in town when you see a tough guy in pink chaps and a rainbow sticker on his harley. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Come on, give us some more. This is great stuff!

Reminds me a lot of Fatsquatch. He threatened more than once to call law enforcement on some here for terrorism and anarchy?

You know, being the sanctimonious essobee they are.............Come in here stirring sh_t, then getting mad when someone else has had a say? :lol: :lol:

Very true.

I just keep thinking about how long it is going to take this clown to travel North America to hand out all these arse woopings... at least the original distorter of facts was intelligent enough to know he was going to need someone else to do his dirty work... :D
 

Tam

Well-known member
So Pee Wee was it honorable to act the way you did towards me with your sick creepy little posts? :?

You and Oldtimer have so much in common that it isn't even funny. :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top