Why do people like Chris Christie?

[Titty Meat]

I've never seen this guy say anything thoughtful and he always seems angry. Why is he so appealing to confused peopled like Kotter?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Leeches, some of 'em, yeah; just not on the scale of insurance salesmen, car salesmen, lawyers, CEOs, or corporate board members who have them beat by geometric proportions. Not even close....public service vs. self-centered avarice.

you have to be kidding.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Brock

you have to be kidding.

Most likely not~

[Brock]

Originally Posted by RNR

Most likely not~

Well, Jesus. That's completely naive. Not even delving into the insider information politicians use to make money, after they leave office, they're usually lobbyists for corporations with a seat on the board and a golden parachute. They made it to that level in half the time it would have taken if they took a job with a company instead of going into politics, if they would have gotten there at all. To think that congress is separated from corporate interests at this point is wildly ignorant.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Brock

Well, Jesus. That's completely naive. Not even delving into the insider information politicians use to make money, after they leave office, they're usually lobbyists for corporations with a seat on the board and a golden parachute. They made it to that level in half the time it would have taken if they took a job with a company instead of going into politics, if they would have gotten there at all. To think that congress is separated from corporate interests at this point is wildly ignorant.

Could not agree more. It amazes me to see people here at like groupies of these people. Not a single one of them gives two shits in a bucket about us. We are subjects that foot the bill to them~

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Brock

you have to be kidding.

Actually, both are slutty and skanky prostitutes....but at least the politicians have good intentions; whereas, business and corporate folk are ONLY about Me-me-me. That's my only real disagreement....of course, bidness junkies and hos....won't understand the diffference. Heh.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

BL, I included you because you and a handful of others....constitute the "nobody" part of Isaac's hyperbole. I would not put you on the lunatic fringe with TJ, BEP, KillerClown, Pete, and other RWNJ wingtards. I actually admire your willingness to engage in rational debate. I just don't have your patience. For you to say I don't put any thought into my positions is just patently silly though.

You and I may disagree more in the last 5 years than we did in the early years of CP...but if you'd bother to notice, I'm willing to engage reasonable attempts at dialogue here--it's just that so many are beyond reasonable, I don't try with them. Conservatives seemed just fine when moonbats like jAZ were my object of my wrath, but as a moderate I object to ideological extremism on both sides. Sorry if that somehow translates into "never putting any thought" into my positions for you--but that don't make it so.

John and I go way back; we have our disagreements, but also some common ground. The difference between you and he seems to be he understands principled moderation is a legitimate philosophy--but most importantly he understands that I don't argue with ideologues, rather I just use them for entertainment. He and some others do appreciate the difference, even if you don't.

it has been a long time hasn't it? i sure wish you'd come to joe's next fall, i miss you buddy...

i'm not sure i could speak for bl, but i do believe principled moderation is a legitimate philosophy...

a difficult and at times unpopular philosophy to be sure, but legitimate...

of course you have the difficulty of determining what those principles are...

and yes, you devil, you do enjoy your political trolling and always have...

where's those guys that are supposed to come along and call me your ball-washer...

given your stance on homosexuality/marriage equality, that would be ironic...

god, i miss anton...

could you do a little sometime, just for old time's sake?

i could be your gay lover...

[go bo]

Originally Posted by RNR

Could not agree more. It amazes me to see people here at like groupies of these people. Not a single one of them gives two shits in a bucket about us. We are subjects that foot the bill to them~

i think that's true on the federal but at the state and local level politicians who don't give a shit about their constituents don't stay in office long...

and i think that by and large most republicans are moderate as opposed to right wingtards...

and that most democrats are centrists/moderates as opposed to the hard left/liberal wingtards...

independents are probably very moderate in their views on the whole...

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Actually, both are slutty and skanky prostitutes....but at least the politicians have good intentions; whereas, business and corporate folk are ONLY about Me-me-me. That's my only real disagreement....of course, bidness junkies and hos....won't understand the diffference. Heh.

Politicians do not have good intentions—not as a group. Nope.
Businesses cannot stay in business only being about themselves. They have to deliver products and services people are willing to exchange their money for—or they don't survive. The ones that do, despite that criteria, are in bed with the politicians.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Leeches, some of 'em, yeah; just not on the scale of insurance salesmen, car salesmen, lawyers, CEOs, or corporate board members who have them beat by geometric proportions. Not even close....public service vs. self-centered avarice.

Ignorance of economics and markets. That's okay, it can be handled with education.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Right. Negotation for more government got us into this mess. That's a pretty nice oversimplification.

And the truth for those not in denial.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

And the truth for those not in denial.

Too funny. So the crash had a lot more to do with us paying too much for social security and welfare, and had nothing to do with private sector financial institutions going unregulated as they gambled literally trillions of dollars in risky derivatives and as horrendous lending practices destroyed the mortgage market.

Anyone claiming government spending was the primary reason for the crash or even close... it's just laughable. If anything, government didn't do enough, and the motives for not doing anything suck.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Too funny. So the crash had a lot more to do with us paying too much for social security and welfare, and had nothing to do with private sector financial institutions going unregulated as they gambled literally trillions of dollars in risky derivatives and as horrendous lending practices destroyed the mortgage market.

You keep harping on this "unregulation" and I've discussed it with you already by saying the previous tried and true regulation was simply replaced with new and different regulations. So it could not have been regulation itself.

Anyone claiming government spending was the primary reason for the crash or even close... it's just laughable. If anything, government didn't do enough, and the motives for not doing anything suck.

No the regulators were asleep not doing their jobs and I didn't say govt spending...I responded to "more govt." It was govt that decided to replace previous regulations with new and untried regulations. That was adding more govt. That was govt activism.

The root of the problem was Federal Reserve monetary policy which leads to such speculation in markets because the extra money/credit they create has to be spent somewhere. This creates overheated areas called cones. Who created the Federal Reserve? It was created at the start of the BIG govt era. Hence, more govt is still the underlying root of the problem. Especially one that is in bed with banks and financial institutions because guess who bailed them out which created moral hazard? More govt.

Wake up.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You keep harping on this "unregulation" and I've discussed it with you already by saying the previous tried and true regulation was simply replaced with new and different regulations. So it could not have been regulation itself.

No the regulators were asleep not doing their jobs and I didn't say govt spending...I responded to "more govt." It was govt that decided to replace previous regulations with new and untried regulations. That was adding more govt. That was govt activism.

The root of the problem was Federal Reserve monetary policy which leads to such speculation in markets because the extra money/credit they create has to be spent somewhere. This creates overheated areas called cones. Who created the Federal Reserve? It was created at the start of the BIG govt era. Hence, more govt is still the underlying root of the problem. Especially one that is in bed with banks and financial institutions because guess who bailed them out which created moral hazard? More govt.

Wake up.

To say that the crisis was cause only by government is a typical right-wing conspiracy theory.

I don't like regulation. Too much regulation in this case likely created behaviors that contributed to the crisis. But in none of what you said above did you ever lay accountability at the feet of the private sector employees and business who knew what they were doing, and purposely chose to unethically push bad mortgage loans and to take on an extraordinary amount of risk in derivatives in a greed grab.

The idea that this is purely about bad government, and not also about bad people who purposely made bad decisions, is oversimplifying.

[Hoover]

I've had the opportunity to be around Christie a handful of time. I think it's easy to understand why people like him, he has attitude and people respond to it.

He's an incredible politician. He can whip an audience up into a frenzy with his passion, or he can silence a room to a point you can see people hanging on every word he speaks. He is personally talented and gifted. It's his politics that will limit his growth however. He's doing a great job of getting himself re-elected in a very difficult state for a Republican, but in doing so he's basically killing any chance of national political run.

I like him, but I'd probably never vote for him.

As presidential politics is concerned, he's the 2nd coming of Rudy Giuliani, but I think he will flame out before he actually runs for president.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

To say that the crisis was cause only by government is a typical right-wing conspiracy theory.

May I ask what part of the word "conspiracy" you do not understand.

There was nothing remotely conspiratorial in my post. You are mis-using the word and falling back on a robotic talking point loved by statists.