Just wishin': CHRISTIE/PAUL 2012

[wgadget]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_el_gu/us_christie_iowa

[KCIndy]

You mean "PAUL/CHRISTIE 2012" right?? ;)


Actually, I'm not sure if anyone knows where Christie stands on foreign policy, trade policy, monetary policy.... I would want to "vet" him first to see if he meets Dr. Paul's standards.

[Agorism]

No Christie. Judge would be good vp

[itshappening]

I bet Christie is a neocon, where does he think spending should be cut?

will he tell us?

no candidate should get away without telling us this. I hope Ron Paul will hold their feet to the fire in the debates

we should run grassroots campaigns asking "what would you cut?" to Romney et al.

[Chieppa1]

He's a neo con.

[Slutter McGee]

I bet Christie is a neocon, where does he think spending should be cut?

will he tell us?

no candidate should get away without telling us this. I hope Ron Paul will hold their feet to the fire in the debates

we should run grassroots campaigns asking "what would you cut?" to Romney et al.

Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the state of New Jersey. The man IS cutting EVERYTHING. Including ALL of the sacred cows.

And he isn't a neo-con. His statements concerning a certain muslim place of worship in New York should help prove that. Doesn't mean he is against the war. Just means he isn't a neo-con.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[silentshout]

I like his fiscal conservatism, but if he is a neocon and into wars of offense, no thanks.

[thrillhouse]

In my opinion he took a step back this weekend. NJ's 3 cent gas tax is suppossed to go toward the transportation trust fund. For years the fund has been raided by politicians. Now the trust fund is billions in the hole, somehow they were able to issue bonds without voter approval. The 3 cent gas tax covers just the debt service at this point.
Christie halted all state construction work until the democrats passed a bond for $1.25 billion to keep work going until March.

More in this article:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/10/christie_kicks_the_can_down_th.html

[erowe1]

Why would anyone here wish for a Christie presidency? And why does it matter who the VP is?

[erowe1]

Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the state of New Jersey. The man IS cutting EVERYTHING. Including ALL of the sacred cows.

Like what? I know he's for cap and trade and gun control. What are all these sacred cows he's cutting?


And he isn't a neo-con. His statements concerning a certain muslim place of worship in New York should help prove that. Doesn't mean he is against the war. Just means he isn't a neo-con.


What does anything he said about any mosque have to do with whether or not he's a neocon? And if he supports the neocons' wars, why does it matter if deep down inside he's really one himself or not?

[Chieppa1]

He's also really on board with wiretapping. There is a reason he wasn't my pick in the primary. He has too many skeletons in the closet to give him any federal authority.

[Anti Federalist]

What is this love affair with Christie?

Yeah, he's hollering at the unions, bully for him, although that's like shooting tuna fish in a barrel.

But he's for gun control, the PATRIOT Act, Cap and Trade, my read of his positions indicate that he's in favor of the GWOT.

So, big deal, he's the Ghoul with a sharp pencil.

Do Not Want.

[Slutter McGee]

Like what? I know he's for cap and trade and gun control. What are all these sacred cows he's cutting?

Education. Education. Education. Unions. Education. Education. Unions. Teacher salries. Teacher benefits. Property Taxes. State workers.



What does anything he said about any mosque have to do with whether or not he's a neocon? And if he supports the neocons' wars, why does it matter if deep down inside he's really one himself or not?

If you can't see the difference between Bill Kristol and Jim Demint, both who support the wars, then I give up.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Brian4Liberty]

Without knowing anything about Christie, his constant positive coverage in the mainstream media is cause for skepticism...

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I see Christie as a man with a lot of potential. I pick up that he honestly wants to do what is best and thinks he is doing so and I also pick up that he is an honest patriot. With that said, I would not want him as a VP choice unless he becomes BFF's with Ron Paul and gets a real education.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Because those who worship the alter of political office will 'sell'-out what principles they had whenever someone comes along who agrees with them on one or two issues. They don't understand that someone could agree with you 99%, but on that 1% wipe out the 99% they agreed with you. Instance -- Wars. You could say you love civil liberties and never vote against a persons civil liberties, then in one fell swoop vote for a war, and next thing you know you have lost most of your civil liberties. It is this nuanced detail of policy and consequence that is lost on the average politicker, even those of libertarian ilk.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Education. Education. Education. Unions. Education. Education. Unions. Teacher salries. Teacher benefits. Property Taxes. State workers.




If you can't see the difference between Bill Kristol and Jim Demint, both who support the wars, then I give up.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

There is no difference. Both reap the same consequences. More spending, less civil liberties.

[erowe1]

Education. Education. Education. Unions. Education. Education. Unions. Teacher salries. Teacher benefits. Property Taxes. State workers.
So then, one sacred cow, education.

(Property taxes don't count, since he actually effectively raised them, not lowered them as he promised in his campaign.)

Yeah, I agree, his telling that teacher to look for another job if she didn't like her pay was good. But most candidates have at least one thing good about them. Is that how low the bar is set?



If you can't see the difference between Bill Kristol and Jim Demint, both who support the wars, then I give up.


I probably don't know enough about Christie. You seem to know a lot about him. What are the ways his foreign policy differs from Kristol's? And if he supports the wars, then aren't any other differences pretty minor details next to that?

[Kotin]

Somebody hasn't been paying attention to the state of New Jersey. The man IS cutting EVERYTHING. Including ALL of the sacred cows.

And he isn't a neo-con. His statements concerning a certain muslim place of worship in New York should help prove that. Doesn't mean he is against the war. Just means he isn't a neo-con.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Do you even know what a neocon is??

[Chieppa1]

What is this love affair with Christie?

Yeah, he's hollering at the unions, bully for him, although that's like shooting tuna fish in a barrel.

But he's for gun control, the PATRIOT Act, Cap and Trade, my read of his positions indicate that he's in favor of the GWOT.

So, big deal, he's the Ghoul with a sharp pencil.

Do Not Want.

Thank you. Guess you have to live in Jersey to understand how easy it is to look like the good guy here. All you have to do is not be COMPLETELY corrupt.

[Imperial]

No Christie. Judge would be good vp

It is completely pointless to appeal to the same base as Ron Paul with the selection of the judge as VP.


Do you even know what a neocon is??

The best definition for that would probably be somebody who is outwardly conservative, pro-war, and in favor of retaining the welfare state. You can get into it more specific with tying it into Leo Strauss' philosophy, but the above is much more real world.


Because those who worship the alter of political office will 'sell'-out what principles they had whenever someone comes along who agrees with them on one or two issues. They don't understand that someone could agree with you 99%, but on that 1% wipe out the 99% they agreed with you. Instance -- Wars. You could say you love civil liberties and never vote against a persons civil liberties, then in one fell swoop vote for a war, and next thing you know you have lost most of your civil liberties. It is this nuanced detail of policy and consequence that is lost on the average politicker, even those of libertarian ilk

At the same time, if you never work to put those with whom you at least partially agree with and are electable into office, then you are stuck with the initial civil liberties violations and wars. Then by working into the political system, you can amplify your voice advocate for better politicians.

[Slutter McGee]

Do you even know what a neocon is??

One who supports foreign intervention for the purpose of spreading American exceptionalism through force.

Somebody who supports foreign intervention simply because they have been deluded into believing it necessary for our national security are NOT neo-cons.

Apprently it isn't me who needs a lesson on the definition of neoconservative.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Chieppa1]

One who supports foreign intervention for the purpose of spreading American exceptionalism through force.

Somebody who supports foreign intervention simply because they have been deluded into believing it necessary for our national security are NOT neo-cons.

Apprently it isn't me who needs a lesson on the definition of neoconservative.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

He falls under this category. Too bad that he would continue to be believe the people that got him elected. The GOP establishment. So his actions in Washington would fall in line with Neo-Con foreign policy. For what its worth, Dr. Paul endorsed his opponent in the primary.

[erowe1]

Somebody who supports foreign intervention simply because they have been deluded into believing it necessary for our national security are NOT neo-cons.


If someone supports the wrong policies, why does it matter what their motivations are? And how do you know Christie's motivations, anyway?

[Slutter McGee]

If someone supports the wrong policies, why does it matter what their motivations are? And how do you know Christie's motivations, anyway?

How do you know what my motivations are? And motivations absolutely do matter. Motivation can reflect many things about ones character. A neo-con's belief in spreading American Exceptionalism is an absolute belief. It can't be changed. Somebody who agrees with neo-con policy for different reasons is often open to changing.

Case in point...me. I believed the war in Iraq was just because of the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. I supported the war for different motivations than that of a neo-con. You might say that neocons used the security of our nation after 911 as a way of getting traditional conservatives to support their little wars...but for different reasons.

But I was eventually able to recognize that the wars did not make us safer. Why? Because my motivation for supporting them was not neocon in nature.

This holier than though attitude on these forums makes me sick sometimes.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

How do you know what my motivations are? And motivations absolutely do matter. Motivation can reflect many things about ones character. A neo-con's belief in spreading American Exceptionalism is an absolute belief. It can't be changed. Somebody who agrees with neo-con policy for different reasons is often open to changing.

Case in point...me. I believed the war in Iraq was just because of the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. I supported the war for different motivations than that of a neo-con. You might say that neocons used the security of our nation after 911 as a way of getting traditional conservatives to support their little wars...but for different reasons.

But I was eventually able to recognize that the wars did not make us safer. Why? Because my motivation for supporting them was not neocon in nature.


I don't know what your motivations are, and I still don't know how you know what Christie's are, and I still don't see why it matters even after you've explained it.

Sure, maybe he supports a foreign policy that's just as bad as one his ideological twin, Rudy Giuliani (a self-proclaimed neoconservative), would support, and maybe Christie could be more apt to change his mind about it than Giuliani would. If that's the case then maybe he would be slightly less bad, based on the hope that he would turn out, once in office, to follow policies other than the ones he now holds or campaigns on. Is there a reason to expect that to happen? If he hasn't realized he was wrong by now, then what's your basis for expecting him to (after all, the problem of people running on humble foreign policy and pursuing an aggressive one once in office is far more prevalent than those running on an aggressive one and then adopting a humble one)? If you don't have a basis for expecting that, then what's your point?

And is that all it takes to make him a good candidate anyway--being as bad as Giuliani except for the fact that there's a slightly greater possibility of Christie changing his mind about foreign policy later on?

[Anti Federalist]

This holier than though attitude on these forums makes me sick sometimes.


*cough*

Ahem.

It's "Holier than thou".

Just sayin'. :rolleyes:

[Slutter McGee]

I don't know what your motivations are, and I still don't know how you know what Christie's are, and I still don't see why it matters even after you've explained it.

Sure, maybe he supports a foreign policy that's just as bad as one his ideological twin, Rudy Giuliani (a self-proclaimed neoconservative), would support, and maybe Christie could be more apt to change his mind about it than Giuliani would. If that's the case then maybe he would be slightly less bad, based on the hope that he would turn out, once in office, to follow policies other than the ones he now holds or campaigns on. Is there a reason to expect that to happen? If he hasn't realized he was wrong by now, then what's your basis for expecting him to (after all, the problem of people running on humble foreign policy and pursuing an aggressive one once in office is far more prevalent than those running on an aggressive one and then adopting a humble one)? If you don't have a basis for expecting that, then what's your point?

And is that all it takes to make him a good candidate anyway--being as bad as Giuliani except for the fact that there's a slightly greater possibility of Christie changing his mind about foreign policy later on?

I have no basis either way on foreign policy. Id like to see where he has made these neo-con statements you say. I do know he is bad on civil liberties issues such as wire-tapping and the Patriot Act. My point though is pretty simple...you and others have been distorting the definition of the word neo-con and using it as a end all debate insult.

I believe that government expansion and federal spending is currently the biggest threat to liberty. So I would support somebody who is good on those issues and bad or unknown on other ones.

It seems logical to me.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

*cough*

Ahem.

It's "Holier than thou".

Just sayin'. :rolleyes:

Smartass. Hey, Ive read the KJV.

Slutter McGee

[acptulsa]

Thank you. Guess you have to live in Jersey to understand how easy it is to look like the good guy here. All you have to do is not be COMPLETELY corrupt.

Thank you. I was trying to find a nice way to explain why someone from New York or New Jersey was very unlikely to win the (rather critical for a conservative candidate) Texas vote without making it seem like we in the Southwest spend all our time talking out our asses. To have someone voice the same impression we have--and have that someone be from the state itself--helps tremendously.

[erowe1]

I have no basis either way on foreign policy. Id like to see where he has made these neo-con statements you say.

I never said anything about him making neocon statements. I just took your word for it. You're the one who knows a lot about him.

[Chieppa1]

I never said anything about him making neocon statements. I just took your word for it. You're the one who knows a lot about him.

He's not a Washington insider. But he does WANT to be.

[ravedown]

one positive about Paul/Christie ticket is Fox news seems to have a boner for Christie, so if he ran with Dr. Paul...I wonder if they'd (Beck,OReilly,Cavuto) change their tune, or continue with the positive publicity? Could it potentially unite the tea party base?

[Slutter McGee]

I never said anything about him making neocon statements. I just took your word for it. You're the one who knows a lot about him.

And I was just responding to the two statements above that said he was. I have searched the internet for a clue as to his foreign policy and have found nothing. I do know that he took the exact same approach as Ron Paul dealing with the mosque issue...which gives me hope he is not a millitant neocon.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[TNforPaul45]

NO NO NO NO NO no NO