View Full Version : GOP Hopeful Christie Signs Ten Gun Bills!!!!
http://freebeacon.com/christie-signs-10-gun-bills-into-law/
One of the new laws will disqualify any person on the federal terrorist watch list from obtaining firearms identification cards or permits to purchase handguns.
“To the extent that this bill will keep guns out of the hands of known terrorists, or those who have taken active steps to support terrorist activities, my signature on this bill represents my commitment to keeping the citizens of New Jersey safe,” Christie said in a signing statement. “Our diligence against terrorism must never fade.”
Civil liberties advocates have criticized the watch list for its secrecy. The list is not public, nor can one petition to have his name removed from it. There were about 420,000 names on the watch list as of 2011. It has swollen to nearly 900,000 as of this year.
I've voted republican my entire life, going as far as holding my nose once or twice, however I can say with swift surety, I'll be "sacrificing babies to baal" before casting a ballot on behalf of such as a Chris Christie....
Belmont31R
08-10-13, 22:19
Terrorist watch list...so zero due process to have your rights taken away. Brilliant law there.
thopkins22
08-10-13, 22:21
Maybe SafetyHit knows, but is there any chance of a NJ group challenging any of it in court? Or are there just not enough of us left there?
Maybe SafetyHit knows, but is there any chance of a NJ group challenging any of it in court? Or are there just not enough of us left there?
It has been heavily resisted via our fellow gun owners here in the state and for what it's worth Christi made it fairly clear ahead of time he had reservations with many of the bills. In fact he passed on several, including one that made ownership of a .50 cal illegal and another restricting magazines below the current 15 round limit.
Christi will run as a Dem when the time is right (after he has lost about 100lbs). Count on it....
Christi will run as a Dem when the time is right (after he has lost about 100lbs). Count on it....
No doubt that with all he's done right he remains immensely frustrating to many of us.
Terrorist watch list...so zero due process to have your rights taken away. Brilliant law there.
900,000+ on the list now, no notification, no process to remove your name. Doesn't seem much of a stretch to include, oh say, another 300,000,000 to it. Give or take a few million....
Christi will run as a Dem when the time is right (after he has lost about 100lbs). Count on it....
No need to change parties, the media will take care of nominating him as the Republican in 2016.
It has been heavily resisted via our fellow gun owners here in the state and for what it's worth Christi made it fairly clear ahead of time he had reservations with many of the bills. In fact he passed on several, including one that made ownership of a .50 cal illegal and another restricting magazines below the current 15 round limit.
A moderate position for NJ, a downright nightmare for most of the other states. Christie is in no way a conservative, he's another Giuliani.
Well, I am not surprised given what Christie has said about people not in favor of NSA spying- that thinking what the NSA is doing is wrong becomes "dangerous thinking-" and the fact that you cannot pump your own gas in NJ. :D (Just found that one out, I hated it there.)
A moderate position for NJ, a downright nightmare for most of the other states. Christie is in no way a conservative, he's another Giuliani.
Yes, in many ways he is the equivalent of another Giuliani. But he was also elected as a Republican in a blue state, has been notably rough on the unions and remains in a favorable status.
To be honest the bills he signed weren't ideal but they also weren't too bad considering what was on the table. If he believes a NJ resident should be able to own a .50 the he hasn't gone to the dark side as of yet, although the sucking up to Obama after Sandy was disheartening.
Well, I am not surprised given what Christie has said about people not in favor of NSA spying- that thinking what the NSA is doing is "dangerous thinking-" and the fact that you cannot pump your own gas in NJ. :D (Just found that one out, I hated it there.)
Actually that is one of the few good things about the damn state. At least from where I am sitting where it is cheaper for them to pump your gas up there than it is for me to pump my own down here.
Well, I am not surprised given what Christie has said about people not in favor of NSA spying- that thinking what the NSA is doing is "dangerous thinking-" and the fact that you cannot pump your own gas in NJ. :D (Just found that one out, I hated it there.)
Our gas is among the cheapest in the nation and it always gets pumped for you. A terrible reality indeed.
TacticalSledgehammer
08-10-13, 23:36
It'll be him vs Hillary in 2016. Just watch.
Sure because terrorists always attempt to obtain guns through legal means. And if they are terrorists why the hell are not being detained?
Are people really this dumb?
Five_Point_Five_Six
08-11-13, 01:20
I feel safer already.
Cagemonkey
08-11-13, 07:26
Christie along with McCain and all the other RHINOS are all that's wrong with the Republican party. The Fact that his name and Hillary are frontrunners for the 2016 elections tell you all you need to know about how co-opted are political process is by the Banker/Corporate Cartel.
Our gas is among the cheapest in the nation and it always gets pumped for you. A terrible reality indeed.
Yeah that is true. I have been on the road for the past two weeks, I think the cheapest was in Nebraska, but I cannot remember anymore. It was just strange when in NJ this Indian(?) guy be lined towards to pump my gas.
It'll be him vs Hillary in 2016. Just watch.
And then, for the first time in my adult life, I will skip the POTUS lever in the voting booth and concentrate on the Congressional and state races. I held my nose in 2008. I was shamed into voting for Romney in 2012 by my buddies. However, that was the last time. I absolutely refuse to cast a vote for that shitstain Christie. I don't care what the ramifications are either. Let it burn baby! :mad:
ETA---you guys in NJ who are at least lukewarm about him need to realize that NJ is hardly a bellwether for the rest of the country. You're looking at it from the comparative, relative view of a RINO in a blue state. Step outside NJ to get the real perspective of just how far off he is from acceptable to the rest of us conservatives. He will NOT cut it. Not even close. Sure way to hand the Dems 2016 too.
Our gas is among the cheapest in the nation and it always gets pumped for you. A terrible reality indeed.
This :D
Given the States stance on guns along with the en vogue anti-gun push this could have been a lot worse...he was quoted as saying the people of NJ have enough gun restrictions on the books or something along those lines. So kudos to him for not giving in to the other proposed bills. Small victory of sorts.
The GOP nomination gets worse every time
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-11-13, 09:09
The GOP nomination gets worse every time
Si...
TacticalSledgehammer
08-11-13, 09:32
And then, for the first time in my adult life, I will skip the POTUS lever in the voting booth and concentrate on the Congressional and state races. I held my nose in 2008. I was shamed into voting for Romney in 2012 by my buddies. However, that was the last time. I absolutely refuse to cast a vote for that shitstain Christie. I don't care what the ramifications are either. Let it burn baby! :mad:
ETA---you guys in NJ who are at least lukewarm about him need to realize that NJ is hardly a bellwether for the rest of the country. You're looking at it from the comparative, relative view of a RINO in a blue state. Step outside NJ to get the real perspective of just how far off he is from acceptable to the rest of us conservatives. He will NOT cut it. Not even close. Sure way to hand the Dems 2016 too.
I think if that turns out to be the case, I'll vote independent.
ETA---you guys in NJ who are at least lukewarm about him need to realize that NJ is hardly a bellwether for the rest of the country. You're looking at it from the comparative, relative view of a RINO in a blue state. Step outside NJ to get the real perspective of just how far off he is from acceptable to the rest of us conservatives. He will NOT cut it. Not even close. Sure way to hand the Dems 2016 too.
First of all there is little point getting too wrapped up regarding Christie at this early stage because he may either not run or not be nominated. Second while I agree neither he nor Romney are ideal the concept of cutting off my nose to spite my face has always seemed unwise, so up to this point I haven't done it on election day.
I fully, completely and honestly understand why he is at times deemed a RINO and sympathize with why they aren't popular in general with many out there. Personally I'm ready for a Rand Paul at this stage, but not matter who gets the nod they will have my vote rather than the far more destructive democrat or near impossible Independent. If this simple equation hasn't dawned on everyone after the past five painful years then we continue to deserve what we get.
I was always taught nothing and no one in life is perfect. Many of my peers here demand near perfection according to their personal standard or claim that once again they will remove themselves from the process. As much as I admire their desire to see the best possible man get the job I am profoundly disappointed at their inaction in the face of the worst possible person getting the job.
Christi will run as a Dem when the time is right (after he has lost about 100lbs). Count on it....
He will never run as a Democrat. His entire position of power hinges upon the fact that he can get the 35% of that state that is to blind to cast a ballot for anything but (R), and then pick up 16% of the vote in the center by being "better than the other guy" (which, if you're even mildly conservative in NJ, it's not difficult to do). He isn't liberal enough for todays "Progressive Democratic Party."
Cincinnatus
08-11-13, 09:54
RINOs like Christie remind me of what William Howard Taft said of them in his day: "Assistant Democrats!" :p
First of all there is little point getting too wrapped up regarding Christie at this early stage because he may either not run or not be nominated. Second while I agree neither he nor Romney are ideal the concept of cutting off my nose to spite my face has always seemed unwise, so up to this point I haven't done it on election day.
I fully, completely and honestly understand why he is at times deemed a RINO and sympathize with why they aren't popular in general with many out there. Personally I'm ready for a Rand Paul at this stage, but not matter who gets the nod they will have my vote rather than the far more destructive democrat or near impossible Independent. If this simple equation hasn't dawned on everyone after the past five painful years then we continue to deserve what we get.
I was always taught nothing and no one in life is perfect. Many of my peers here demand near perfection according to their personal standard or claim that once again they will remove themselves from the process. As much as I admire their desire to see the best possible man get the job I am profoundly disappointed at their inaction in the face of the worst possible person getting the job.
You realize that the part I bolded cuts both ways, don't you? Hell, the last two presidential elections ought to show that when the choice on our side is pathetic that we get what we deserve as you said.
Hey, you're free to hit the lever for whomever you like. I won't, and I suspect that quite a few voted for their last RINO in 2012. It did us no good. The candidate doesn't have to be perfect, and no one is suggesting that. That seems to be the accusation of the "I'll vote for whoever is on the ticket" and the "Better hold your nose and get on board" crowd. The fact is that you can eliminate certain candidates without expecting perfection. Like no Christie or no other RINO. Plenty of others who would at least be palatable but yet aren't perfect. Nominate one of those.
The problem is our primary system. One night for everyone, let the chips fall where they may. But that doesn't work for the GOP establishment. Handfull of states at a time, slowly whittle away at the candidates and the remaining funding goes to the favored one. Then later primary states act like mindless morons and jump on the assinine bandwagon of "electability" (God I hate that word, even more so after 2012) and give us a seeming groundswell of support for a McCain/Romney/whatever other RINO you can name.....but it ain't real, it's a facade. The general election results bear that out.
Our gas is among the cheapest in the nation and it always gets pumped for you. A terrible reality indeed.Lot of good that does you when you can't protect yourself from getting carjacked.
Three Dems that need to be gotten out of our political system asap.
Reid
McCain
Christie
It's extremely unfortunate that two of them did so well at infiltrating the right side of the aisle.
No need to change parties, the media will take care of nominating him as the Republican in 2016.
They already have. Not a snowball's chance in hell I'd EVER vote for him. :mad:
As a resident of the occupied territory, as sad as it is to say, he is the best we could hope for.
On a national level, there is no way I will ever vote for him I'm a primary.
If the choice is him or Hillary, I pray there is a third lever that says "Kill Me Now" if there isn't, I would have to reluctantly vote for Christi.
Ugh. Makes me nauseated.
Christi will run as a Dem when the time is right (after he has lost about 100lbs). Count on it....
As oldman Arlen said..."I didn't leave the Republican party......."
-Jax
They already have. Not a snowball's chance in hell I'd EVER vote for him. :mad:
I doubt that you will ever have the opportunity. Although he does well in national opinion polls, Christi's real estate in the GOP has taken a hit in the past 12 months. I don't see him winning a GOP primary.
platoonDaddy
08-12-13, 04:34
It'll be him vs Hillary in 2016. Just watch.
In my opinion, there is no friggin way he will win in the primaries.
Just to clarify, NJ fuel is so much cheaper because it is refined less than other states' fuel. Read "dirtier".
Harley Davidson published this years ago while trying to figure why their bikes had so many fuel/drive ability issues in NJ and not in neighboring states.
Change your fuel filter and get fuel injector cleaner more often. Some cars more sensitive to it than others.
Was in car business (service) for 14 years in jersey and had access to all the manufacturer's tech notes during that time (GM, Chrysler, Benz and Isuzu along with contacts and acquaintances at other dealers)
Just so you know why, no great work by som pol, just less restrictions on how clean the fuel has to be to be sold in NJ...
The_War_Wagon
08-12-13, 06:23
He would surely guarantee my THIRD STRAIGHT VOTE for the Constitution Party candidate... :rolleyes:
He would surely guarantee my THIRD STRAIGHT VOTE for the Constitution Party candidate... :rolleyes:
Ah, Virgil Goode. Now there is a man with principle. How is that Patriot Act working for you?:bad:
Just to clarify, NJ fuel is so much cheaper because it is refined less than other states' fuel. Read "dirtier".
Thanks for the extra clarification. Lived here the much better part of my 44 years, with roughly 9 of them in next door PA, and this is the first I've ever heard that. Also have never had an issue with clogged fuel filters or injectors except for when I lived in...here it comes...PA. Reads "Pennsylvania".
One time I was told that the reason Wawa gas is cheaper is that it is less refined, however they are based in and also sell in PA as you likely know having lived here. Beyond that never had a mechanic, many of who I call friends, that worked on my car warn me of this issue or suggest I should consider it via regular filter replacements because I live in NJ. Again that reads "Never".
And why is a long time mechanic getting his information from a motorcycle magazine?
Just so you know why, no great work by som pol, just less restrictions on how clean the fuel has to be to be sold in NJ...
So I or someone else used low has prices in NJ to endorse Christie? Why would any idiot do that when NJ gas prices have always been cheaper?
Safety,
WaWa gas is cheaper because of their business model. They reduce the profit margin on fuel in order to have more people stop there and go into the store to purchase snacks/food/drinks which is where they make all their money.
Its similar to how electronics stores work. For instance, Best Buy makes almost no money from the sale of computers/laptops, but they make close to 500% profit on the accessories. A laptop bag that sells for $65 has a cost of about $15 to Best Buy.
I drag race and fuel is a big component of engine performance. My tuner/engine builder has heard the same thing about NJ fuels being shitty in comparison to the other states. We tested this a few years ago by running my car on the Dyno with NJ Sunoco '94 and Sunoco '94 from Florida (left over from a trip to race at Bradenton Motors Ports) and there was no difference in power from the fuels from two different states. Also, the engines from their customers who live in other states do not show any less fouling on the valves/pistons/combustion chamber than engines which run on fuels from NJ. I don't think there is truth to this rumor. If it is true, it has no influence on performance or engine longevity. Granted this was not a survey of many engines, maybe 5 to 10 in all as most customers use race fuels with 104-116 leaded octane ratings.
The_War_Wagon
08-12-13, 13:29
Ah, Virgil Goode. Now there is a man with principle. How is that Patriot Act working for you?:bad:
About as well as President Romney could expect! :o
As a resident of the occupied territory, as sad as it is to say, he is the best we could hope for.
On a national level, there is no way I will ever vote for him I'm a primary.
If the choice is him or Hillary, I pray there is a third lever that says "Kill Me Now" if there isn't, I would have to reluctantly vote for Christi.
Ugh. Makes me nauseated.
Same here. Living in NJ, he's the closest to a "best" candidate I've seen in some time. Considering our last governor's (John Corzine) very last act was to institute a 30 day waiting period between handgun purchases, from my perspective, Christie is not that bad. Also, look what Corzine turned out to be......rat bastard! Looking at the laws that Christie signed vs. what he was presented with, I'm not too upset. It could have been A LOT worse.
Is Christie ever going to embrace the far right of the Republican party, no way. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't either. NJ is not a far right Republican state. He's got a realistic shot as a presidential candidate....more so than Romney had. How on Earth was Romney the Republican pick, I'll never know. Unfortunately, unless the Republicans offer up a candidate that is palatable to the independent voters, I think the Repub's are going to loose again. Maybe it's me, but some of the issues that the Repub's decide to battle on (gay rights, abortion, etc.) are playing to a smaller and smaller segment of the country and are loosing battles to take on.
Do I think Christie is the ultimate candidate for the 2016 Presidential race, no I don't. Having said that, the pickings are few and far between to find a Republican that plays well to the masses. Romney did not have the broader appeal. Frankly, I didn't/couldn't in good conscience vote for him. I voted Libertarian.
Same here. Living in NJ, he's the closest to a "best" candidate I've seen in some time. Considering our last governor's (John Corzine) very last act was to institute a 30 day waiting period between handgun purchases, from my perspective, Christie is not that bad. Also, look what Corzine turned out to be......rat bastard! Looking at the laws that Christie signed vs. what he was presented with, I'm not too upset. It could have been A LOT worse.
Is Christie ever going to embrace the far right of the Republican party, no way. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't either. NJ is not a far right Republican state. He's got a realistic shot as a presidential candidate....more so than Romney had. How on Earth was Romney the Republican pick, I'll never know. Unfortunately, unless the Republicans offer up a candidate that is palatable to the independent voters, I think the Repub's are going to loose again. Maybe it's me, but some of the issues that the Repub's decide to battle on (gay rights, abortion, etc.) are playing to a smaller and smaller segment of the country and are loosing battles to take on.
Do I think Christie is the ultimate candidate for the 2016 Presidential race, no I don't. Having said that, the pickings are few and far between to find a Republican that plays well to the masses. Romney did not have the broader appeal. Frankly, I didn't/couldn't in good conscience vote for him. I voted Libertarian.
Once again, the (losing) spectre of "electability" rears it's ugly head. It hasn't even been a year since we tried that and how did it turn out?
Screw the masses. Pick a candidate that will rally your base. I don't necessarily mean religious folks but the conservative ones. Less people turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain (go figure). That ought to tell us something.
Also, just because you live in a commie state don't project that nationwide. Sure, there's plenty of other commie states but they don't represent what the rest of us want. We DON'T want Christie or his ilk. He may be hunky-dory to you but that is from your warped NJ view of what/who is acceptable. Not trying to attack you personally but please don't think for a minute that your state's Republicans speak for the rest of us.....you don't.
Straight up: I'm not the only one who's held their nose for the last time. 2016 better bring a newer, fresher, conservative "R" to the forefront or say hello to Hillary. And I don't care if that happens either. I'm not going to choke back vomit in the voting booth again. Think about that come primary time and who you vote for.
Ted Cruz, FTW!
Once again, the (losing) spectre of "electability" rears it's ugly head.
Screw the masses. Pick a candidate that will rally your base. I don't necessarily mean religious folks but the conservative ones. Less people turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain (go figure). That ought to tell us something.
Also, just because you live in a commie state don't project that nationwide. Sure, there's plenty of other commie states but they don't represent what the rest of us want. We DON'T want Christie or his ilk. He may be hunky-dory to you but that is from your warped NJ view of what/who is acceptable. Not trying to attack you personally but please don't think for a minute that your state's Republicans speak for the rest of us.....you don't.
No offense taken. I'm fully aware that I'm not a typical Republican voter. I tend to lean more Libertarian. I'm curious who you would pick as a Republican candidate though? Like I said, I don't think Christie is the ideal Republican candidate, but I'm not aware of another one that has cross party appeal. I think it's the "cross party appeal" that got Obama elected in round 1. Obama won round 2 by the Republicans not putting up a candidate that appealed to the independents. Again, lack of cross party appeal. So, not looking to be argumentative, but I'm generally curious as to who in the Republican party you think could win in 2016?
Also, you mention that "Sure, there's plenty of other commie states but they don't represent what the rest of us want". What do you want?
Once again, the (losing) spectre of "electability" rears it's ugly head. It hasn't even been a year since we tried that and how did it turn out?
Screw the masses. Pick a candidate that will rally your base. I don't necessarily mean religious folks but the conservative ones. Less people turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain (go figure). That ought to tell us something.
Also, just because you live in a commie state don't project that nationwide. Sure, there's plenty of other commie states but they don't represent what the rest of us want. We DON'T want Christie or his ilk. He may be hunky-dory to you but that is from your warped NJ view of what/who is acceptable. Not trying to attack you personally but please don't think for a minute that your state's Republicans speak for the rest of us.....you don't.
Straight up: I'm not the only one who's held their nose for the last time. 2016 better bring a newer, fresher, conservative "R" to the forefront or say hello to Hillary. And I don't care if that happens either. I'm not going to choke back vomit in the voting booth again. Think about that come primary time and who you vote for.
Ted Cruz, FTW!
Word. I don't care if it's R. Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal or any other real conservative (not those phony religious conservatives like nutjob Santorum). If it's Christie, I'm gonna sit back with a stiff drink in hand and watch the GOP conflagrate itself. :mad:
No offense taken. I'm fully aware that I'm not a typical Republican voter. I tend to lean more Libertarian. I'm curious who you would pick as a Republican candidate though? Like I said, I don't think Christie is the ideal Republican candidate, but I'm not aware of another one that has cross party appeal. I think it's the "cross party appeal" that got Obama elected in round 1. Obama won round 2 by the Republicans not putting up a candidate that appealed to the independents. Again, lack of cross party appeal. So, not looking to be argumentative, but I'm generally curious as to who in the Republican party you think could win in 2016?
Also, you mention that "Sure, there's plenty of other commie states but they don't represent what the rest of us want". What do you want?
NJ, MA, ME, VT, NH, and NY Republicans have conditioned themselves to accept as their norm what the rest of us consider RINO's, kind of a Dem-Lite. Ironically Kali's few Republicans still actually seem to be pretty conservative (Rohrbacher, Issa, Hunter when he was in)....can't explain why.
From the stats I've seen last year the Republicans had less turn-out than in '08. The difference between Romney and Obama popular vote-wise would have been overcome by that "R" voter deficit. We should learn from that. Specifically, put up a truly conservative candidate and quit worrying about pandering to that wishy-washy, "I don't know what I want from one election to the next" independent jackasses (caveat: if you're a conservative who doesn't necessarily see himself as a registered Republican, that's one thing; I'm talking about the perennially indecisive bastards). Look internally for your votes, not externally.
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz (my preference), or someone similar. NOT Rubio as he's waaayyy too kissy-face with the illegals; anyone who seemingly puts his ethnicity ahead of his nation is off my list.
thopkins22
08-12-13, 14:40
I know lots of highly successful young people(particularly women) who would be voting Republican if they weren't so turned off by the stupidity surrounding gay rights and abortion. They view those two issues like we view gun rights, and will not vote for someone with opposite views no matter if they agree with everything else the person says.
And considering the actual policy differences between Republicans like Romney, McCain, Bush, Christie, and Democrats like Obama, Clinton, and Clinton, I'm not sure there's any tangible difference with the exception of those issues anyway. These idiots are arguing degrees of policy, percentages and minor differences in income brackets, and so forth meanwhile telling us that it's this huge crossroads and a clear choice. BS.
Hell half of this country does not vote either because they don't see the difference between the parties, or because they don't believe their vote matters.
A little ideological consistency would go a long way towards winning elections and reclaiming many young Democrats who aren't actually in favor of higher taxes and welfare, have no opinion on guns either way, and simply don't believe that the government has a role in the bedroom.
Dump the social conservatives. I firmly believe they are ruining the party and by extension the country. You believe God wants us to behave a certain way? Then persuade me...don't force me with the boot of government at my neck.
(D)"I believe you should pay your fair share, people earning more than X should pay 5% more on capital gains."
(R)"I believe that we should lower the capital gains tax by X%, but eliminate loopholes."
Meanwhile both are bragging that they'll bring in the same amount or more money as the other.
Then the Republicans talk about cutting spending and provide some irrelevant cut to the growth of spending. They've got to be kidding me.
"We're bankrupt and in debt because we're spending $X. Next year instead of spending X+100, we should spend X+95." It's a farce folks.
I know lots of highly successful young people(particularly women) who would be voting Republican if they weren't so turned off by the stupidity surrounding gay rights and abortion. They view those two issues like we view gun rights, and will not vote for someone with opposite views no matter if they agree with everything else the person says.
And considering the actual policy differences between Republicans like Romney, McCain, Bush, Christie, and Democrats like Obama, Clinton, and Clinton, I'm not sure there's any tangible difference with the exception of those issues anyway. These idiots are arguing degrees of policy, percentages and minor differences in income brackets, and so forth meanwhile telling us that it's this huge crossroads and a clear choice. BS.
Hell half of this country does not vote either because they don't see the difference between the parties, or because they don't believe their vote matters.
A little ideological consistency would go a long way towards winning elections and reclaiming many young Democrats who aren't actually in favor of higher taxes and welfare, have no opinion on guns either way, and simply don't believe that the government has a role in the bedroom.
Dump the social conservatives. I firmly believe they are ruining the party and by extension the country. You believe God wants us to behave a certain way? Then persuade me...don't force me with the boot of government at my neck.
(D)"I believe you should pay your fair share, people earning more than X should pay 5% more on capital gains."
(R)"I believe that we should lower the capital gains tax by X%, but eliminate loopholes."
Meanwhile both are bragging that they'll bring in the same amount or more money as the other.
Then the Republicans talk about cutting spending and provide some irrelevant cut to the growth of spending. They've got to be kidding me.
"We're bankrupt and in debt because we're spending $X. Next year instead of spending X+100, we should spend X+95." It's a farce folks.
I don't support abortion or gay marriage. Let the states decide without the libs trying the "Full faith and credit" crap 'cause then we want national CCW (that *usually* shuts the other side up). Having said that, those two issues are not my pet peeves. I'm talking about being constitutionally conservative, and of course that inolves the RKBA too! ;)
Same here. Living in NJ, he's the closest to a "best" candidate I've seen in some time. Considering our last governor's (John Corzine) very last act was to institute a 30 day waiting period between handgun purchases, from my perspective, Christie is not that bad. Also, look what Corzine turned out to be......rat bastard! Looking at the laws that Christie signed vs. what he was presented with, I'm not too upset. It could have been A LOT worse.
Is Christie ever going to embrace the far right of the Republican party, no way. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't either. NJ is not a far right Republican state. He's got a realistic shot as a presidential candidate....more so than Romney had. How on Earth was Romney the Republican pick, I'll never know. Unfortunately, unless the Republicans offer up a candidate that is palatable to the independent voters, I think the Repub's are going to loose again. Maybe it's me, but some of the issues that the Repub's decide to battle on (gay rights, abortion, etc.) are playing to a smaller and smaller segment of the country and are loosing battles to take on.
Do I think Christie is the ultimate candidate for the 2016 Presidential race, no I don't. Having said that, the pickings are few and far between to find a Republican that plays well to the masses. Romney did not have the broader appeal. Frankly, I didn't/couldn't in good conscience vote for him. I voted Libertarian.
That sort of political realism and logic is exactly what the GOP needs. Get off social issues, quite running from science, and start talking about the deficit, runaway spending, and the intelligence industrial complex that we are getting saddled with.
That sort of political realism and logic is exactly what the GOP needs. Get off social issues, quite running from science, and start talking about the deficit, runaway spending, and the intelligence industrial complex that we are getting saddled with.
Isn't this exactly what Romney ran on? I'm with you and certainly don't have all the answers, but despite his imperfections he was not evangelical yet was constantly addressing the economy and deficit. Honestly I still can't believe he lost despite the what I'd percieve to be the amazingly tantrum like response from many on the far right.
You may want to bitch about the tantrum reference but there is a time and place for everything. A Clinton? Ok, if you must. Another fairly sensible democrat (I know I'm reaching but some do exist), have at it.
Obama and his administration? No excuse whatsoever.
I will never vote for Christie, even if he gets the nomination. I'd rather not vote at all.
So far at least, I like Ted Cruz.
Picking a candidate for the masses has not worked in the past. Ford, Dole, Romney...and I am not voting for any more Bushes either. I would rather lose with a real conservative, than loose with a moderate.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
That sort of political realism and logic is exactly what the GOP needs. Get off social issues, quite running from science, and start talking about the deficit, runaway spending, and the intelligence industrial complex that we are getting saddled with.
We must have watched a different election because that WAS the major platform from the GOP. Sure, Romney had his personal opinions on social issues, and the media tried to make those opinions part of the platform. However, when did you ever hear Romney bringing up the topic of abortion or gay rights? All Romney talked about in the debates or in the media was job growth, spending, and the wars in the ME. It was actually a very direct and focused campaign.
For what its worth, he didn't lose because women and gays stayed home. He lost because middle aged and older whites who voted for McCain stayed home. Hell, McCain got more Mormons than Romney - how does that happen? Do you really think these people stayed home because of the GOP social platform?
Oh and I forgot the further endowment and validation of the already massively corrupt media. Instead of at the very least teaching them that they won't get away with their blatant treachery they were enabled and emboldened.
That may not matter to us here, but the world laughs at America now as a direct result. Part-time work is the rule of the day. And how many are now worried about things like emails and taxes because they're conservative or, even worse, have association with firearms. Romney would have re-established a degree of respect and at least stabilized the ship.
The only hope is that it all crashes so bad that the ideologues finally concede on the left, but even then entitlements will have become both more mainstay and genuinely needed because the economy has tanked even worse this time.
I know lots of highly successful young people(particularly women) who would be voting Republican if they weren't so turned off by the stupidity surrounding gay rights and abortion. They view those two issues like we view gun rights, and will not vote for someone with opposite views no matter if they agree with everything else the person says.
One issue I see with the gay rights issues is that I know a lot of people here in the south who will not vote for someone who supports gay marriage. Period! I am talking it doesn't matter on the other issues, the other party could be advocating bombing Israel(which some of them would likely support anyway) but if you allow gay marriage the devil will **** you in the ass. Or at least that i how it appears if you talk to some of those down here. Personally my opinion on gay marriage is that we have much more pressing issues then it for me to care, doesn't affect me one way or the other. Then again I could say that about about 80% of the issues that gets front page news and the most coverage.
Even though I would love to see the Rebublican party move significantly in the libertarian direction, too many libertarians think that social issues like gay marriage don't affect anyone but homosexuals. Wrong! Many so called social issues have unintended consequences far beyond the obvious that impact and undermine society as a whole. For example, Johnson's so called, "Great Society." It destroyed the Black family and created a welfare society and gangster drug culture in it's place.
Conservative candidates must stop attacking the person and start attacking the ideology.
E.g. Progressive liberalism does not work, never has worked, and never will work. Keynesian Economics does not work. Multimulticulturalism does not a work, ask Brown and Merkle. There are many examples to site. For example, Western Europe and Japan.
Make it about the philosophy and the idealology not the personality. Hammer it home, over and over.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
Libertarian's think that social issues like gay marriage don't affect anyone but homosexuals. Wrong! Many so called social issues have unintended consequences far beyond the obvious that impact and undermine society as a whole. For example, Johnson's so called, "Great Society." It destroyed the Black family and created a welfare society and gangster drug culture in it's place.
Conservative candidates must stop attacking the person and start attacking the ideology.
E.g. Progressive liberalism does not work, never has worked, and never will work. Keynesian Economics does not work. Multi Culturalism does not a work, ask Brown and Merkle. There are many examples to site. For example, Western Europe and Japan.
Make it about the philosophy and the idealology not the personality. Hammer it home, over and over.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
Multiculturalism doesn't work? America is one of the most multicultural nations in the world. America is a super power.
What am I missing?
thopkins22
08-12-13, 17:54
If you believe that somehow allowing a gay person to enter a voluntary legal contract is going to lead to the destruction of the country, that taxpayers should be subsidizing religious beliefs(no matter what they are,) that the earth is six thousand years old, the human body naturally rejects semen from rape, or any number of similar issues, then i don't want to be in the same party anymore. Either return to the Democrat party where people with those views were a few decades ago, or the Republicans should stop saying they are the party of small government and that they believe in individual responsibility.
Because just as you shouldn't be allowed to tell me where to spend my money, you shouldn't be allowed to tell me where to put my genitals. It was criminal that the IRS was targeting tea party groups...but somehow it's okay that they will send you to jail if you file jointly with someone with the same body parts?
All I want is ideological consistency. Either central planning works or it does not.
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, they're just observations.
thopkins22
08-12-13, 18:00
For what its worth, he didn't lose because women and gays stayed home. He lost because middle aged and older whites who voted for McCain stayed home. Hell, McCain got more Mormons than Romney - how does that happen? Do you really think these people stayed home because of the GOP social platform?
Those women and gays didn't stay home. They did what so many of us did for McCain. They held their noses and voted for Obama because they felt the Republicans would be a step backwards.
TX is likely to see a Democrat governor in the next election, thanks to their stupid abortion shenanigans...these are women who had previously been content with our government.
One issue I see with the gay rights issues is that I know a lot of people here in the south who will not vote for someone who supports gay marriage. Period! I am talking it doesn't matter on the other issues, the other party could be advocating bombing Israel(which some of them would likely support anyway) but if you allow gay marriage the devil will **** you in the ass. Or at least that i how it appears if you talk to some of those down here. Personally my opinion on gay marriage is that we have much more pressing issues then it for me to care, doesn't affect me one way or the other. Then again I could say that about about 80% of the issues that gets front page news and the most coverage.
That's just it, they can be against homosexuality, they just need to reiterate that a Constitutional Republic based on liberty and justice means that whether to condone homosexuality or not doesn't have a damn thing to do with running a government or making laws! :rolleyes:
Multiculturalism doesn't work? America is one of the most multicultural nations in the world. America is a super power.
What am I missing?
Not to speak for him but "multiculturalism" as defined by the libtards is that any culture but traditional American culture (to them meaning "white") is to be celebrated while the latter is trashed and poo-poo'ed.
The liberal form of "multiculturalism" seeks to Balkanize our society, pit one against the other and runs completely against the grain of our "melting pot" origins. It has led to the coming to the forefront of hyphenated Americans.
thopkins22
08-12-13, 18:03
That's just it, they can be against homosexuality, they just need to reiterate that a Constitutional Republic based on liberty and justice means that whether to condone homosexuality or not doesn't have a damn thing to do with running a government or making laws! :rolleyes:
Exactly. Rant and rave against it if you must, just recognize that it's not the role of government to enforce your views.
Multiculturalism doesn't work? America is one of the most multicultural nations in the world. America is a super power.
What am I missing?
What you're missing is the difference between multiculturalism and e pluribus unum (the "Melting Pot"). The very qualities that in the past attracted people from all over the world to the USA no longer exist. The USA that we grew up in does not exist anymore. In the past, new immigrants to the USA refused to speak their native language outside of home. Instead they demanded that their children learn English. Now, they demand school and government services be in their native language. Go look up how many languages election ballets in California are printed in. Did you know that the Muslim call to prayer is played and can be heard throughout the city of Detroit?
Do a little research on Sweden and where it is headed. Also, France. Guess who's having babies and who is not?
And this brings up another point. This country is too big and diverse to be governed under a central Federalist government. I used to think that the Balkinization of this country was bad. Upon further reflection, I think it is too late. It has already happened and our only hope is to do away with the central federal government altogether.
People have a right to be governed in the way they want to be governed. The only way this will happen is for the states to be truely independent of each other. We should be moving into a coalition of states intended for security/military/football purposes only. Otherwise, the states should not be held to a national united states authority or identity.
Forget religion. Try logic, common sense, and observation instead. Homosexual marriage, abortion, drug use, have consequences far beyond the obvious. In the same year (last year) that medical science announced that once a week marijuana use permanently lowers IQ in the less than fully mature brain, several states began the process of legalizing the use of marijuana. The marijuana of today has been selectively grown and cultivated to the point that it is not the same as it was in the 1960s. Google it. The marriage rate in the USA is already at its lowest ebb ever. Marriage is foundational to society. You think it does not matter? Civilization has already started to unravel. Do you really think these things won't affect you? Do you believe Trevon Martin's drug use did not affect you? How will that one incident affect your second amendment rights?
That's just it, they can be against homosexuality, they just need to reiterate that a Constitutional Republic based on liberty and justice means that whether to condone homosexuality or not doesn't have a damn thing to do with running a government or making laws! :rolleyes:
Like I said earlier, I don't condone homosexuality but what you do on your own is your business. Just don't shove it in my face and expect my blessing. The liberal agenda involves just that. Leaving each to his own isn't good enough....no, EVERYONE must accept, cherish, and revel in it.
Want to shut a libtard up real quick, or at least make them stammer and search for a bullshit answer? When you mention leaving gay marriage to the states and they invoke the "Full Faith and Credit" clause just remind them it would apply to national CCW privileges too. Of course they'll insist it doesn't but there's no way to make a coherent argument otherwise (but we ARE talking about libs so my bad).
Excellent discussion! I love the GD section of this site since it usually has great debates w/out a negative tinge. Thanks!
Gay Marriage is a Lie: Lesbian Masha Gessen on the Destruction of Marriage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4&feature=player_embedded
After listening to that, go to this website and look around:
http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
Now, do you still think these things will not affect you and your family?
Here is a local story that some may find informative on the recent signings. Take it for what it's worth, not an endorsement but rather a passing of relevant information. Also might add that I was told by someone who had worked on his campaign that he will never approve the ID technology even if it can be implemented.
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie Friday vetoed a ban on .50-caliber rifles that was vigorously opposed by firearms rights advocates and gutted a proposal overhauling the state’s gun permit law.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/viewart/20130817/NEWS02/308170036/Christie-vetoes-50-cal-rifle-ban
I am not voting for Chris Christie. Period.
I am not voting for Jeb Bush. Period.
I am not voting for R.I.N.O.s. Period
I am not voting for Michael Bloomberg. Period.
I am not voting for Hillary Clinton. Period.
I am only voting for true conservatives and libertarians. Period.
I am not voting for Chris Christie. Period.
I am not voting for Jeb Bush. Period.
I am not voting for R.I.N.O.s. Period
I am not voting for Michael Bloomberg. Period.
I am not voting for Hillary Clinton. Period.
I am only voting for true conservatives......... Period.
Pretty much spot on! ;)
The problem is when asked about gay marriage, abortion and mandatory drug sentences a Libertarian will say the states should decide. That won't be a good enough answer and when pressed they will either give their personal opinions on the issues or not answer. Either way the machines of both parties and the media will turn their answers against them. Most people will listen and vote for the "sensible" candidate like Christie or Jeb.
I won't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. Rand Paul is the most politically consistent politician I know of so far. We may not agree on everything but we do agree on the most important issue that the federal government is out of control.
Christie, Jeb, Romney, McCain, and any Democrat would agree on growing the federal government so to hell with them all.
Did McCain really say if he had to choose between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton it would be a tough choice?
The problem is when asked about gay marriage, abortion and mandatory drug sentences a Libertarian will say the states should decide. That won't be a good enough answer and when pressed they will either give their personal opinions on the issues or not answer. Either way the machines of both parties and the media will turn their answers against them. Most people will listen and vote for the "sensible" candidate like Christie or Jeb.
I won't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. Rand Paul is the most politically consistent politician I know of so far. We may not agree on everything but we do agree on the most important issue that the federal government is out of control.
Christie, Jeb, Romney, McCain, and any Democrat would agree on growing the federal government so to hell with them all.
Did McCain really say if he had to choose between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton it would be a tough choice?
The appropriate response is:
"That particular question is beyond the scope of office for which I'm running. My platform encourages the federal government to focus on good governance at the federal level, and to stop wasting federal resources on battles that do nothing to further the constitutionally required duties of the federal government. Ultimately the question you're asking is one to ask The People, as they are the ones who should make those decisions. It's not within my authority to make them, should I be elected."
How's that?
The appropriate response is:
"That particular question is beyond the scope of office for which I'm running. My platform encourages the federal government to focus on good governance at the federal level, and to stop wasting federal resources on battles that do nothing to further the constitutionally required duties of the federal government. Ultimately the question you're asking is one to ask The People, as they are the ones who should make those decisions. It's not within my authority to make them, should I be elected."
How's that?
I totally agree and that's the answer I'm looking for them to say. Unfortunately Joe Voter will need them to say I'm personally for or against gay marriage and pot or in his mind they're dodging the question. It's a lose/lose scenario :(
I totally agree and that's the answer I'm looking for them to say. Unfortunately Joe Voter will need them to say I'm personally for or against gay marriage and pot or in his mind they're dodging the question. It's a lose/lose scenario :(
Yep. Stupid people are stupid and you'll never change that. :(
I totally agree and that's the answer I'm looking for them to say. Unfortunately Joe Voter will need them to say I'm personally for or against gay marriage and pot or in his mind they're dodging the question. It's a lose/lose scenario :(
So say it then. I believe what the founders said. We are all created equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. I support civil marriage equality. If your religion doesn't allow you to marry someone of the same sex, than don't. My heterosexual marriage is not endangered by two men getting married. If it was, that says a lot about the status of my marriage. You either believe that we are all entitled to equal protection under the law or you don't.
... or words to that affect. Bottom line.... as old folks die off, gay marriage is going to be less and less important an issue.
brickboy240
08-20-13, 10:56
Chris Christie is as uninspiring as Romney and McCain. Proof positive that the RNC has not learned a damn thing or really does not want to win, lead or reform a damn thing.
Christie will go down in flames against Hillary....you could bet money on it.
We are already screwed for 2016....keep buying and hoarding guns and ammo.
-brickboy240
We are already screwed for 2016....keep buying and hoarding guns and ammo.
-brickboy240
that's my plan for the next 2+ years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.