Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Chris Christie for President 2016?

Page 4 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 121
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

18 Jan 2013, 3:25 pm

Anyone who thought he ever had a chance can just forget about it now.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chri ... itics.html

Even the Democrats know better than to characterize the NRA as "represehensible."

He'll be lucky if no-one shoots him in the next few days.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

18 Jan 2013, 3:46 pm

He is scum, he set up a hapless rice trader for life on one of those fake terrorism stings.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas

18 Jan 2013, 10:38 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Anyone who thought he ever had a chance can just forget about it now.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chri ... itics.html
Even the Democrats know better than to characterize the NRA as "represehensible."
He'll be lucky if no-one shoots him in the next few days.

the people who would deny that the NRA behaved badly, are IMHO themselves "reprehensible." children are NOT "fair game."



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,484
Location: Aux Arcs

18 Jan 2013, 10:53 pm

Is the American tax payer going to have to foot the bill to keep him in feed?
A skinny president would be cheaper.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

18 Jan 2013, 10:54 pm

auntblabby wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Anyone who thought he ever had a chance can just forget about it now.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chri ... itics.html
Even the Democrats know better than to characterize the NRA as "represehensible."
He'll be lucky if no-one shoots him in the next few days.

the people who would deny that the NRA behaved badly, are IMHO themselves "reprehensible." children are NOT "fair game."

Obama just used children to push his gun control agenda. And he uses his own children politically on a pretty regular basis.

That said, I don't think children should be used that way by either side. I just think it's a bit hypocritical for one side to get a pass.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

18 Jan 2013, 11:50 pm

There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Jan 2013, 11:53 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.


And would you have a different opinion if the add made an example of - say - George W's kids?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Jan 2013, 1:49 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.


And would you have a different opinion if the add made an example of - say - George W's kids?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Of course not.

It's not going after Obama's kids personally rather his hypocrisy, not their fault. People who have armed guards around them and their family 24/7 shouldn't be telling people they don't have the right to own a gun. It's a legitimate point.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jan 2013, 2:19 am

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.


And would you have a different opinion if the add made an example of - say - George W's kids?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Of course not.

It's not going after Obama's kids personally rather his hypocrisy, not their fault. People who have armed guards around them and their family 24/7 shouldn't be telling people they don't have the right to own a gun. It's a legitimate point.


As it so happens, the president's children are at a much higher risk as potential targets than your or my kids. The chance that our kids could be threatened at school by an armed assailant is in truth astronomical. Unfortunately, that's not the case for the Obama girls, as their father's very position as president put them at far greater risk. And that's why Sasha and Malia Obama get armed guards. As that's common sense, I hardly think the NRA, or the rest of the American right, can be excused for using these two girls for political attack.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Jan 2013, 5:01 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.


And would you have a different opinion if the add made an example of - say - George W's kids?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Of course not.

It's not going after Obama's kids personally rather his hypocrisy, not their fault. People who have armed guards around them and their family 24/7 shouldn't be telling people they don't have the right to own a gun. It's a legitimate point.


As it so happens, the president's children are at a much higher risk as potential targets than your or my kids. The chance that our kids could be threatened at school by an armed assailant is in truth astronomical. Unfortunately, that's not the case for the Obama girls, as their father's very position as president put them at far greater risk. And that's why Sasha and Malia Obama get armed guards. As that's common sense, I hardly think the NRA, or the rest of the American right, can be excused for using these two girls for political attack.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook. We have the right to defend ourselves and our family just the same as Obama does.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jan 2013, 7:11 am

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.


And would you have a different opinion if the add made an example of - say - George W's kids?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Of course not.

It's not going after Obama's kids personally rather his hypocrisy, not their fault. People who have armed guards around them and their family 24/7 shouldn't be telling people they don't have the right to own a gun. It's a legitimate point.


As it so happens, the president's children are at a much higher risk as potential targets than your or my kids. The chance that our kids could be threatened at school by an armed assailant is in truth astronomical. Unfortunately, that's not the case for the Obama girls, as their father's very position as president put them at far greater risk. And that's why Sasha and Malia Obama get armed guards. As that's common sense, I hardly think the NRA, or the rest of the American right, can be excused for using these two girls for political attack.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook. We have the right to defend ourselves and our family just the same as Obama does.


The whole point of this attack ad by the NRA has nothing to do with protecting our children, but to turn public opinion against the president in regard to his plans for tighter regulation of assault rifles.
As for Sandy Hook - - I thought in another thread you gave the insane notion that the grieving parents were just government paid actors the benefit of the doubt. Now you accept they're actually grieving parents?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,676
Location: Over there

19 Jan 2013, 9:05 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
The whole point of this attack ad by the NRA has nothing to do with protecting our children, but to turn public opinion against the president in regard to his plans for tighter regulation of assault rifles.
Exactly - that NRA ad pulled a really cheap and disgraceful trick with no legitimate purpose.
Clearly any serving President's children are at risk in their daily life through no fault of their own and if it's considered necessary to protect a President from being taken out by any passing nut-job, that same protection must be provided for his immediate family.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jan 2013, 4:05 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The whole point of this attack ad by the NRA has nothing to do with protecting our children, but to turn public opinion against the president in regard to his plans for tighter regulation of assault rifles.
Exactly - that NRA ad pulled a really cheap and disgraceful trick with no legitimate purpose.
Clearly any serving President's children are at risk in their daily life through no fault of their own and if it's considered necessary to protect a President from being taken out by any passing nut-job, that same protection must be provided for his immediate family.


While unsaid, I got the impression that the NRA ad was implying Sasha and Malia somehow didn't deserve the protection the rest of America's children were "denied."
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, as I'm hardly unbiased in this case.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Jan 2013, 6:58 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.


And would you have a different opinion if the add made an example of - say - George W's kids?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Of course not.

It's not going after Obama's kids personally rather his hypocrisy, not their fault. People who have armed guards around them and their family 24/7 shouldn't be telling people they don't have the right to own a gun. It's a legitimate point.


As it so happens, the president's children are at a much higher risk as potential targets than your or my kids. The chance that our kids could be threatened at school by an armed assailant is in truth astronomical. Unfortunately, that's not the case for the Obama girls, as their father's very position as president put them at far greater risk. And that's why Sasha and Malia Obama get armed guards. As that's common sense, I hardly think the NRA, or the rest of the American right, can be excused for using these two girls for political attack.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook. We have the right to defend ourselves and our family just the same as Obama does.


The whole point of this attack ad by the NRA has nothing to do with protecting our children, but to turn public opinion against the president in regard to his plans for tighter regulation of assault rifles.
As for Sandy Hook - - I thought in another thread you gave the insane notion that the grieving parents were just government paid actors the benefit of the doubt. Now you accept they're actually grieving parents?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Where have I said that specifically? I commented on the conspiracy video, yes. I think some of the facts are being bent for ideological reasons. Is that a conspiracy?

And what you say are not mutually exclusive. I wish they had more guts when going after the president, how can you claim to care about children and be a family man when you kill Pakistani children daily? Of course, the neocons love killing Pakistani children tho.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jan 2013, 7:27 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There was nothing wrong with the NRA's ad at all. The NRA's stance that we should have armed guards in every school is stupid but hard for somebody who sends their kid's to a school with them to say otherwise.


And would you have a different opinion if the add made an example of - say - George W's kids?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Of course not.

It's not going after Obama's kids personally rather his hypocrisy, not their fault. People who have armed guards around them and their family 24/7 shouldn't be telling people they don't have the right to own a gun. It's a legitimate point.


As it so happens, the president's children are at a much higher risk as potential targets than your or my kids. The chance that our kids could be threatened at school by an armed assailant is in truth astronomical. Unfortunately, that's not the case for the Obama girls, as their father's very position as president put them at far greater risk. And that's why Sasha and Malia Obama get armed guards. As that's common sense, I hardly think the NRA, or the rest of the American right, can be excused for using these two girls for political attack.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook. We have the right to defend ourselves and our family just the same as Obama does.


The whole point of this attack ad by the NRA has nothing to do with protecting our children, but to turn public opinion against the president in regard to his plans for tighter regulation of assault rifles.
As for Sandy Hook - - I thought in another thread you gave the insane notion that the grieving parents were just government paid actors the benefit of the doubt. Now you accept they're actually grieving parents?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Where have I said that specifically? I commented on the conspiracy video, yes. I think some of the facts are being bent for ideological reasons. Is that a conspiracy?

And what you say are not mutually exclusive. I wish they had more guts when going after the president, how can you claim to care about children and be a family man when you kill Pakistani children daily? Of course, the neocons love killing Pakistani children tho.


The only facts being bent for ideological reasons is being done by the conspiracy nuts making those videos.
As for killing Pakistani children - the President isn't explicitly going out of his way to kill anyone's kids, and I sincerely feel for the loss those parents feel. But you know something? I sincerely doubt the NRA gives a s**t about the killing of those Pakistani children. And any claim they might make about wanting to defend the lives of any kids is disingenuous, since their number one goal is to promote unrestricted gun rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



timburtonrocks
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 25

04 Oct 2013, 6:15 am

Of course i would he has done so much for my state and president Christie has a great ring to it 8) .