Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest rider

Chris Christie

Recommended Posts

^It's a stretch to call the IRS scandal "political targeting".  There is no evidence of that... at all.  The IRS profiled their applicants and attempted to determine which were most likely to be undeserving of the tax exempt status.  It reflected poorly on them because it had the appearance of targeting conservative groups, but there is absolutely no evidence that it was politically motivated.  Groups with "Tea Party" in their name were obviously selected due to the singular political focus of seemingly every Tea Party organization.  They are now claiming to be a charity or public welfare organization?  Yeah, that would raise some red flags...

 

:wtf: You just basically said the tea party was politically targeted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that has never made any sense in Christie's bridge scandal was the assumed reason for it.  The assumed reason was that Fort Lee's mayor refused to endorse Chris Christie for governor and the lane closures were meant to punish him.  But it's been pointed out that Christie was cruising to a victory and that other mayors who failed to endorse him didn't get their cities turned into gridlocked nightmare.  So why Fort Lee?

 

A reason that makes more sense and aligns with the timing of the smoking gun email from Christie's deputy chief of staff has emerged.  Gov. Christie has been engaged in a battle with New Jesery Senate Democrats over Supreme Court appointments.  On the day before the infamous email was sent from his office to gridlock Fort Lee, Christie held a press conference to harangue Senate Democrats over the latest fight in that battle and warn of "ramifications" for their actions.  The Senate Majority Leader's district is in Fort Lee.

 

More about this at the link and quote from the link below:

 

The Wire: Is Chris Christie's Supreme Court War With Democrats Behind Bridgeghazi?

On August 12 of last year, Christie announced that he would not renominate another Supreme Court justice -- this time, he said, it was because he didn't want Helen Hoens (who is married to a Christie staffer) to face Senate Democrats who he said would destroy her reputation. 

 

"I was not going to let her loose to the animals," Christie said.  Later, he added: "What the ramifications would be for that going forward, [senate Democrats] should have thought about before opening their mouths."

 

The very next morning, Bridget Anne Kelly emailed David Wildstein with "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."

 

Fort Lee's senator is Loretta Weinberg.  She's a Democrat and she's also the Senate majority leader.  Oh, and Christie once urged reporters to "take a bat to" her back in 2011, so there's no love lost between them.

 

Could those promised "ramifications" be the real reason for Bridgegate?  It's just a theory, but the timing certainly is suspicious.

 

That the retribution was geared toward hurting commuters - simply average people going to and from work - shows that those responsible are p.o.s. psychopaths who have absolutely no business being public officials.

 

I'm no longer going to defend Christie to Dem friends back home. NJ is simply an effing cesspool and I'm afraid there may be no difference between Dems and Repubs there when it comes to dirty politics. The place is already ruined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. [/size]

 

 

 

I'm no longer going to defend Christie to Dem friends back home. NJ is simply an effing cesspool and I'm afraid there may be no difference between Dems and Repubs there when it comes to dirty politics. The place is already ruined.

lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-AHxR50sqQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess not :-( I thought John Pizzarelli wrote it.

 

Nah that song is at least 30 years old! Though I have heavy respect for anyone with the last name "Pizzarelli" man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It's a stretch to call the IRS scandal "political targeting".  There is no evidence of that... at all.  The IRS profiled their applicants and attempted to determine which were most likely to be undeserving of the tax exempt status.  It reflected poorly on them because it had the appearance of targeting conservative groups, but there is absolutely no evidence that it was politically motivated.  Groups with "Tea Party" in their name were obviously selected due to the singular political focus of seemingly every Tea Party organization.  They are now claiming to be a charity or public welfare organization?  Yeah, that would raise some red flags...

 

:wtf: You just basically said the tea party was politically targeted!

 

They weren't "targeted".... They were profiled due to a massive influx of groups with names like "Patriotic American Liberty Association for Freedom and Job Creating Free Christian Americans" all seeking tax exempt status and donor anonymity while claiming not to be engaged in political activity.  I thought you were in favor of profiling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Exactly.  They weren't politically targeted.  They were profiled based on the groups and similar groups history.  And don't lose focus on what that meant.  It didn't mean they were all denied it just meant that they were sent to the auditing office essentially.  And this auditing office (group 7822) was completely overwhelmed due to the absurd Citizens United ruling which led to long delays in approvals.  The conservative groups were just pissed off because they were actually being asked to prove that they were deserving of the tax exempt status instead of being rubber stamped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that they also went after groups with words like "progressive" in their name, too.  I'd expect similar scrutiny if the groups if they included "Tax Dodge" somewhere in their name.  The only thing that was fishy to me is that most of these groups actually did get their tax exemption.  They should not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It's a stretch to call the IRS scandal "political targeting".  There is no evidence of that... at all.  The IRS profiled their applicants and attempted to determine which were most likely to be undeserving of the tax exempt status.  It reflected poorly on them because it had the appearance of targeting conservative groups, but there is absolutely no evidence that it was politically motivated.  Groups with "Tea Party" in their name were obviously selected due to the singular political focus of seemingly every Tea Party organization.  They are now claiming to be a charity or public welfare organization?  Yeah, that would raise some red flags...

 

:wtf: You just basically said the tea party was politically targeted!

 

They weren't "targeted".... They were profiled due to a massive influx of groups with names like "Patriotic American Liberty Association for Freedom and Job Creating Free Christian Americans" all seeking tax exempt status and donor anonymity while claiming not to be engaged in political activity.  I thought you were in favor of profiling?

oh, I see, they were "profiled," not targeted! Really, you and Hootenany should offer master classes in spinning. And I don't mean the kind they do in the gym. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^you don't seriously think the media is not biased, do you :|? I'm not a big fan of Chris Christie, but when the NY Times puts a story like this in the most prominent location possible of its print edition as if it were something akin to treason (or the declaration of an act of war or a mass killing), then any reasonable person would conclude that their coverage is more than a little skewed, especially when such national scandals involving failures in the highest levels of foreign policy like Benghazi are buried in the back pages--

 

 

oh for petes sake, treason? war? as if your view isnt more than a little skewed. if you twist that twisted logic any farther you'll revive a dance craze.

 

this story is on the front of the times because its the big local news story. its the post and dailynews cover story too and the header of long island newsday. and lead on all the tv news channels. kinda blows your reaching conspiracy theory out of the water. obviously you completely dislike the times, its just that you arent being honest about it. well, amirite?

 

The Times positions itself as a national, if not international, newspaper. If this same sort of thing happened say, in Indiana, would it receive this much attention? I think not. If you read the print edition of the Times you know that local stories are toward the back of section A just before the editorial page. But even using the argument that Christie is a national figure (therefore meriting a greater level of attention), then it would still appear several pages in, after the international section. As far as other news sources are concerned, the national (lamestream) media uses the New York Times as a template for what stories they deem are "important" for the day, which is a major reason this story has recieved so much attention. If subsequently Christie is found to be lying and responsible for a cover-up then yes, the story should receive much greater attention due to his presidential aspirations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie's very status as a national figure is also in no small part due to the New York-centricity of the national media. Now everyone and their mother knows who Bill de Blasio is, too, despite him not having done anything noteworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie's very status as a national figure is also in no small part due to the New York-centricity of the national media. Now everyone and their mother knows who Bill de Blasio is, too, despite him not having done anything noteworthy.

Not true. He ate pizza with a fork:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/01/after-pizza-flap-bill-de-blasios-new-york-street-cred-takes-another-hit/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least he didn't have it cut in Columbus-style squares, realize his mistake, then try to make up for it by folding the little squares. Then in Spinal Tap catering tray-like fashion the pieces wouldn't even fold from being too small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^you don't seriously think the media is not biased, do you :|? I'm not a big fan of Chris Christie, but when the NY Times puts a story like this in the most prominent location possible of its print edition as if it were something akin to treason (or the declaration of an act of war or a mass killing), then any reasonable person would conclude that their coverage is more than a little skewed, especially when such national scandals involving failures in the highest levels of foreign policy like Benghazi are buried in the back pages--

 

 

oh for petes sake, treason? war? as if your view isnt more than a little skewed. if you twist that twisted logic any farther you'll revive a dance craze.

 

this story is on the front of the times because its the big local news story. its the post and dailynews cover story too and the header of long island newsday. and lead on all the tv news channels. kinda blows your reaching conspiracy theory out of the water. obviously you completely dislike the times, its just that you arent being honest about it. well, amirite?

 

The Times positions itself as a national, if not international, newspaper. If this same sort of thing happened say, in Indiana, would it receive this much attention? I think not. If you read the print edition of the Times you know that local stories are toward the back of section A just before the editorial page. But even using the argument that Christie is a national figure (therefore meriting a greater level of attention), then it would still appear several pages in, after the international section. As far as other news sources are concerned, the national (lamestream) media uses the New York Times as a template for what stories they deem are "important" for the day, which is a major reason this story has recieved so much attention. If subsequently Christie is found to be lying and responsible for a cover-up then yes, the story should receive much greater attention due to his presidential aspirations.

 

except being the lead story in basically all major media quickly negates your argument. along your line of thinking there, the real question then is how much attention it would receive in something like the national review.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several Large city newspapers had the story on the front page and no, the IRS "scandal" and Bridgegate are not comparable since the IRS scandal isn't a scandal at all. The only thing that "scandal" and the whole Bengazi story tells me is that the Republican Party has ceased to be capable of governing. That and my former party have elected "people" like Darrel Issa, Steve Stockton, Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachman. That's a pretty big disappointment for a fiscal conservative, social liberal bloke like myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A developing angle of this story is the use of private emails as opposed to public accounts which can be retrieved through public records requests.  I was thinking about this issue with emails a few weeks ago when someone was going on with the usual idiotic "government should be run like a business" chap.  Yeah..... let's see how your average CEO feels about having his business emails and letters open to public inspection upon simple request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A developing angle of this story is the use of private emails as opposed to public accounts which can be retrieved through public records requests.  I was thinking about this issue with emails a few weeks ago when someone was going on with the usual idiotic "government should be run like a business" chap.  Yeah..... let's see how your average CEO feels about having his business emails and letters open to public inspection upon simple request.

 

Exactly, and having to make their entire budget, down to the last penny, public.  Not only that, but the salaries of public employees are public record.  So when I see the wise-asses chime in on news comment sections, I always challenge them, when they compare government finances to a family budget, "to make your family budget public, so that we can see what perfection looks like". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest difference between the Christie "bridgegate" scandal & any of the half dozen scandals in the Clinton administration is that Christie took action immediately & fired his deputy chief of staff, his campaign manager & two port authority employees.  Nobody was ever fired for Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS targeting, Obamacare website rollout, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest difference between the Christie "bridgegate" scandal & any of the half dozen scandals in the Clinton administration is that Christie took action immediately & fired his deputy chief of staff, his campaign manager & two port authority employees.  Nobody was ever fired for Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS targeting profiling, Obamacare website rollout, etc

profiling, it vas pro-fi-ling, Mein Herr! :whip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie's very status as a national figure is also in no small part due to the New York-centricity of the national media. Now everyone and their mother knows who Bill de Blasio is, too, despite him not having done anything noteworthy.

Not true. He ate pizza with a fork:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/01/after-pizza-flap-bill-de-blasios-new-york-street-cred-takes-another-hit/

 

And he's a Red Sox fan.  That's like Cleveland electing a M****** fan mayor. 

 

Oh yeah, that's right....

 

Love the pic of Bloomberg on that link, he looks like he is eating a lemon.  Then again, that was the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest difference between the Christie "bridgegate" scandal & any of the half dozen scandals in the Clinton administration is that Christie took action immediately & fired his deputy chief of staff, his campaign manager & two port authority employees.  Nobody was ever fired for Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS targeting, Obamacare website rollout, etc

 

Three people resigned as a result of the IRS scandal.  Fast and furious resulted in at least one person being fired, William McMahon, and a slew of demotions and transfers.

 

Christie did fire is chief of staff and campaign manager, but the two Port Authority employees were not fired.  They resigned back in December.  Why did Christie think they resigned in December?  What was the reason given?  Why would he accept the resignation of two of his top appointees at the Port Authority if they had done nothing wrong?  When they resigned he was still sticking with the traffic study cover up so if he believed there was a genuine reason for the closures why would he allow those two to resign?  It appears to me that Christie knew much more much earlier than he is leading us to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie said he fired his deputy chief of staff for one simple reason: “She lied to me.” And after calling her a liar, he said her behavior was “stupid.” And he made it personal for himself, too. “I am a very sad person today. That’s the emotion I feel. A person close to me betrayed me.”  And another: After his humble mea culpa, Mr. Christie took questions. Not just some questions — every single question. For 100 minutes. He gave short, to-the-point answers without “ums” and “uhs” (those make you sound like you’re trying to keep track of your false story). When he finally left the podium after nearly two hours, not one reporter called after him with an unanswered question.

The indefatigable exhibition brought to light one stark contrast: Mr. Christie versus President Obama. The president has been mired in scandal for the last 18 months: Benghazi, the IRS mess, NSA spying on Americans, seizing phone records from U.S. news organizations.  And how has he handled those? By stonewalling, obfuscating, misdirecting. He sent out top aide Susan Rice to lie about Benghazi (an unknown YouTube video caused the spontaneous attack — lie, and lie). The IRS mess was perpetrated by rogue workers in some Ohio district office — no heads rolled in Washington; instead, those involved were either allowed to retire or, amazingly, promoted. His attorney general, censured by Congress, also remains in his post, despite targeting journalists and running guns into Mexico.

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/12/curl-chris-christies-handling-of-bridgegate-school/#ixzz2qIKm0wbv

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the conservative media would do without their false equivalencies.  It's almost hysterical as they are not really reporting at all on the Christie scandal, but instead using it as a stepping stone to re-ignite "scandals" involving the Obama administration which they beat to death for months upon end and never wanted to let go.  Even here, where our conservative forum members tilt more moderate than the national spectrum (crazy but true), can't make one mention of this without at least attempting to draw some type of false equivalency.

 

The high level officials caught red-handed here were Christie's top political aide and another direct Christie appointment.  One of those people resigned (was not fired) in December over this very issue and has pleaded the Fifth Amendment (where is the conservative media outcry over that?).  Another official implicated was Christie's campaign manager, former deputy Chief of Staff, and had a contract to work for the Republican Governors' Association (which "coincidentally", Christie chairs).

 

Contrast that to the IRS scandal.  No direct ties to the White House found, despite countless congressional hearings, inquiries, etc.  Darrell Issa and his "inquisition" committee have reviewed thousands upon thousands of emails.  They have subpoenaed every witness under the sun.  They have surely got their fingernails dirty behind the scenes trying desperately to find that missing link.  They have selectively highlighted, quoted, and released documents in an attempt to draw the conclusion they reached prior to starting the "investigation."  They failed.  Moreover, part of the reason this died down is that the entire allegation has largely unraveled over time as more documents have revealed that the scrutiny was not applied solely to Tea Party groups.

 

Regardless, Obama did indeed fire the acting Chief of the IRS, just as Christie fired Kelly.  Only on Fox and Friends (and, apparently, the Washington Times ^) are false allegations allowed to stand unchallenged as unrebutted facts.  Not here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^Amen, Hts121, I DESPISE the false equivalencies of conservatives.  It screams a total lack of accountability; that right-wingers have no responsibility to uphold any right/wrong standard because (allegedly) the Democrats always commit similar bad acts and get away with it.  It's so friggin' childish and why, more and more, adults are finding it difficult to discuss issues or cooperate even on little things and this country is becoming more and more dysfunctional with every passing day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, don’t like these false equivalencies. The Christie “scandal” resulted in a traffic jam. The scandals that have marred Obama’s second term have results that aren’t even in the same ballpark.

 

The one thing Democrats are focused on most is that the person responsible for the traffic jam was closer to Christie than any of those who have taken/might take/should have taken the fall for the Obama administration scandals. Though it’s fairly obvious that is by design – a state government is a much smaller, simpler organization. The federal government is purposely massive and has as many layers of separation between the president and the people who are ultimately held “accountable.” Put simply, Christie’s top aide didn’t have 8 layers of people below her that she could tell, off the record, to do what was done. Obama’s top aides do have that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie's very status as a national figure is also in no small part due to the New York-centricity of the national media. Now everyone and their mother knows who Bill de Blasio is, too, despite him not having done anything noteworthy.

Not true. He ate pizza with a fork:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/01/after-pizza-flap-bill-de-blasios-new-york-street-cred-takes-another-hit/

 

John Cranley should try eating a three-way with his hands and see if he can attract the national media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets more laughable by the minute.  So now the talking point is apparently this Media Research Group 'finding' that the three major networks spent more time on Bridgegate in a 24 hour span, centered around Christie's press conference, than they have for the entire preceeding 6 months on the Obama-IRS scandal.  Double face-palm.  Are they really comparing the 'IRS scandal' which had largely been debunked more than 6 months ago to the coverage of a current event?  Are people really that utterly stupid and gullible?  Just because Fox decides to lead each of its shows with some dead issue doesn't mean the rest of the networks have to follow suit.  On that note, can't Fox just make that one burning car from Benghazzi or the image of the two Black Panthers from the 2008 election part of some kind of permanent backdrop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually all the wall-to-wall coverage of the Christie "scandal" isn't so hard to understand. There's really a simple explanation (don't be fooled by the convoluted punditry of some of our own resident spin doctors :wink:):

http://nypost.com/2014/01/11/why-bridgegate-made-headlines-but-obamas-irs-scandal-didnt/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it to the NY Post to state such logic:

 

For in the end, because Christie is a Republican. Christie isn’t them.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the logic compelling.  That and the fact that it's right in NYC's backyard.

 

As for comparing the two scandals, personalize them.  If you had to choose between (1) being the target of a politically motivated IRS audit, and (2) being caught in a politically motivated traffic jam, what would you find more hackle-raising?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did nobody watch the news (other than Fox) or read the newspapers (other than NYPost, WSJ, WashTimes) while the IRS scandal was unfolding?  By reading that article, you would think that there was no coverage of the IRS scandal at all.  I seem to somehow remember it being on every website, every news channel, and in every paper.  But whatever Ailes/Murdoch wants you to believe must be the truth. 

 

Just when I think we can't further dive into the absurd, the NY Post always seems to remind me that Bullsh!t Mountain does indeed exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only on Fox and Friends (and, apparently, the Washington Times ^) are false allegations allowed to stand unchallenged as unrebutted facts.  Not here.

 

So would you say you are "fair & balanced"?  Perhaps your new screen name should be "nospinzone"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...