Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Christie vs. Clinton. Either way, you have a democrat in office.

My prediction exactly.

It would take another decade for GOP to get their sh** together.

But in a decade or two, I don't think GOP will be a national party.

It would be great if Tea Party splits off from GOP.

Who is looking forward to GOP primary debates? It's going to be quite a circus.

The Republicans and Democrats are the same party at this point. They work together to screw you, the common man, financially. People need to figure this out and start to consider voting for third party candidates who don't subscribe to one party's ideology vs. another. Fiscally conservative, and socially liberal would be a good middle ground for me. Democrats and Republicans seem to know one thing these days, and that's how to spend all your inflated tax dollars into debt.

We need another 21st century party that embraces the social things that DEM does and at the same time, being fiscally conservative.

Being fiscally conservative goes against what the Democratic party represents, which is why I can never vote Democrat and choose third party candidates.

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Christie vs. Clinton. Either way, you have a democrat in office.

My prediction exactly.

It would take another decade for GOP to get their sh** together.

But in a decade or two, I don't think GOP will be a national party.

It would be great if Tea Party splits off from GOP.

Who is looking forward to GOP primary debates? It's going to be quite a circus.

The Republicans and Democrats are the same party at this point. They work together to screw you, the common man, financially. People need to figure this out and start to consider voting for third party candidates who don't subscribe to one party's ideology vs. another. Fiscally conservative, and socially liberal would be a good middle ground for me. Democrats and Republicans seem to know one thing these days, and that's how to spend all your inflated tax dollars into debt.

Seagull wrote:
Christie vs. Clinton. Either way, you have a democrat in office.

Monroe wrote:
Atshushi, so much is unknown about Benghazi that remain to be uncovered. Dozens and dozens of the government contractors who were sited in Libya-we don't know what they were doing there. Congress has been prohibited from interviewing them to find out, under the guise of they're part of a criminal investigation.

Freedom of Information Act requests have been stonewalled. We don't even know where Obama and Clinton were during the 12 hour attack, and why no support was instantly sent-after all, the last of the killed happened many hours after the attack began and could have been saved. And I'll leave aside the cover up and distraction about the 'spontaneous' riot vs an Al Qaeda supported/aided attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

And Hilary's convenient concussion when she was called to testify still boggles the mind. Talk about accountability?

Anyone who thinks a traffic jam in Ft. Lee is within a million miles of Clinton's exposure on Benghazi is stupid, na?ve, or delusional.

Monroe wrote:
All this Democratic circle jerk about the local lane closures only shows how they're scared to their pinky toes about Christie.

Four lanes diverted from local access is exactly what compared to four murdered Americans, on the anniversary of 9/11, under the watch of Christie's opponent in 2016-whose department was begged by the murdered Ambassador for help and was denied?

Which is the bigger scandal? A traffic jam or four dead Americans and dozens more injured? An alleged bridge lane coverup, or Benghazi victims being hidden from Congressional enquiries?
Christie, perhaps 'Four lanes closed? What difference does it make'
Mrs. Clinton, on record 'Four dead Americans? What difference does it make?'

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

The point is, if I see racism, I will call it that whether it's here or there.

No, you're the type that will create the illusion of racism, to discredit someone's points. Big difference.

I hate to burst your bubble, but racism goes both ways.

The elections of 2008 and 2012 were largely racist results...by democrats.

Not voting for someone because of their race: racist.

However, voting FOR someone because of their race is equally as racist, and downright stupid.

Case in point: african americans voting almost 100% in line with Obama.

Monroe wrote:
Feel free to believe what you want, regardless of facts!

I guess you feel the 61 million Americans who voted for a Republican instead of Obama did so because they're racist.

And the poll numbers showing how unhappy people are with Obama and his 'signature' accomplishment-wait for it-are doing it because they're racist!

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Yes, GOP was once a great party. And back then, DEM was a horrible racist party. In our time that's reversed!

Yes, it's part of the looney left code to throw racism around. Next up-opposing Obamacare is racist because Obama is half black!

It is more difficult to criticize Obama and/or Obamacare without sounding racist; it's true.

Not all criticisms are racial, this is also true.

However when the right wing extremists talk about Obama and/or Obamacare, it is racism.

Opinions of such extremists have to be absolutely rejected.

Since you feel every supporter of the GOP is extreme and right wing you therefore call every Republican racist.

Of course, many would call Japanese treatment of non-Japanese as racist. (Hint-one such group is the United Nations). Are you as active as combating racism back in Tokyo as you are in your adopted country? If not, why not? Could I say all Japanese racist, because quite a large population is?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Yes, GOP was once a great party. And back then, DEM was a horrible racist party. In our time that's reversed!

Yes, it's part of the looney left code to throw racism around. Next up-opposing Obamacare is racist because Obama is half black!

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I'll say it again-the intolerance of those who demand tolerance themselves always amuses me, not least of all because they are self blind to it.

And this concludes this debate, okay? I have to get back to work.

Monroe wrote:
I'll say it again-the intolerance of those who demand tolerance themselves always amuses me, not least of all because they are self blind to it.

Monroe wrote:
When you have people here getting moist over disgusting and vile insults to women who are Republican I feel ok to call them looney-because, after all, they would be outraged if someone made the same comments to a woman who is a Democrat.

Oh, that's right, you say the dumbest people are GOP women. Next to GOP homosexuals.

Are you a closeted misogynist because of that? Or just believe it's ok to insult people when they aren't of your political party?

Monroe wrote:
You get props for being open about your looney leftiness!

I hope you're as charitable with Governor Christie not knowing about the Fort Lee lane closings as you are about Obama and the IRS scandal. :)

As far as landing hard on groups that engage in political support while seeking tax free status-shouldn't unions be held to the same standard? Is that ethically correct, not to mention morally correct??

Monroe wrote:
Atsushi you should read up about the IRS scandal-yes, they did finally (in some cases years after the applications were filed, and unsurprisingly AFTER the election) approve some of the conservative groups status.

But the IRS had admitted its guilt by apologizing for the targeting of conservative groups-you do know that, right?

And now Obama is pushing for stricter controls, while exempting unions (his base, obviously) from similar controls. Hey, it worked for him with Obamacare (until the unions ended up reading the fine print).

Monroe wrote:
You're just repeating the defensive meme that liberal groups were also targeted by the IRS, without mentioning how the overwhelming numbers denied were conservative groups.

As for Obamacare, just look at how the overwhelmingly majority of Americans feel about it.

Why has Boehner put his staff on it, and Harry Reid exempted some of his-after saying he wouldn't. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Monroe wrote:
You're great at quoting, but you're making stuff up. Just to debunk your 'debunking', the IRS targeted conservative groups-and Jay Carney apologized for doing it. As Obama apologized for lying to the public about his 'signature' program.

And you're ok with someone on the looney left talking about crapping and peeing in a woman's mouth because she's a public person?

As if someone on the right saying the same thing about a public woman-say, the First Lady-you'd be ok with that? You'd be fine with that? Or maybe suggesting she should be strung up? Fine by you?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'd be disgusted at such hateful and harmful words. Apparently we differ.

Monroe wrote:
Poor atsushi. Don't you know Christie is in favor of granting in-state tuition to all residents, legal or illegal, but like the vast majority of NJ residents he opposes giving them grant money? And you must be really annoyed at Obama, whose level of deporting illegal aliens is epic in numbers. How do you feel about that?

The Democratic war on women (just how loud were the voices from the left commenting on the misogynistic and utterly disgusting Bashir talking about shitting and peeing in a woman's mouth? And you're complaining about Christie? Did Mrs. Clinton call out for MSNBC to fire Bashir?

And Christie ordered the closing of the local lanes to the bridge? Was that reported somewhere, outside of a looney left wet dream that is turning into a Democratic circle jerk?

I'll bet you thought when Obama said he didn't know about a) the IRS targeting of conservative groups,

b) the phone tapping of foreign leaders,

c) Eric Holder's Fast and Furious,

d) the re-engineering of the unemployment numbers just before the election you believed him.

But when Governor Christie says the same thing you feel differently, lol? Oops, partisan politics again.

And for whoever commented upon Governor Christie's, er, manhood-do you feel it would be ok to comment on Mrs. Clintons backside, now that Christie's is smaller than hers?

Or Obama's ears flapping about? Or is insulting someone ok only when directed to a Republican (see Governor Palin above). (Hint, the answer by the looney left is no to my first and second questions, and yes to the second).

The intolerance shown by those who demand tolerance can be quite amusing in its hypocrisy.

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Christie will never survive the primaries south of the Mason Dixon.

He thinks women, gays and immigrants should have some, but not all the rights of others. Far, far too liberal for todays' Republicans.

Not only that, but he had the audacity to work with Democrats instead of following Congressional Republicans lead of running home with the ball when you lose.

All that said, sorry but what is the defense to I didn't like what a mayor did so I decided to fark over his city by ordering a corrupt agency to ruin traffic there? How is that a defensible act?

It shows Christie is as petty and partisan as the big bad teachers union, meanwhile the PA and police unions walk all over us.

Christie is big on cutting taxes, we are told, let allowed PATH fares and tolls to rise...property taxes...HA...$24 million so he doesn't have to face Booker on the same day...

He is the tallest midget in a party where Senate candidates think women's bodies shut down rape. That's a celebrity because they have nothing else.

Who cares what Clinton did. I don't like her. But I'd vote for her over the cesspool on the other side, which isn't about less government or lower taxes. It's about right wing fundamentalist Christians and corporations and neither of whom should have any role in our government.

Adonis wrote:
A Whole Foods.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
This story shouldn?t be remotely plausible, but it gets traction because of what the public already knows of his tendency to behave unprofessionally. I think that's a bigger story than the traffic jam.

He may be funny on TV, but he is NOT presidential. And his policies suck!

Even if miraculously he gets to be the GOP nominee, he is not going to win if Clinton runs, which I'm sure she will.

He's not presidential? Two people have been removed from the PA over the traffic jam-which is TWO MORE PEOPLE than have been removed over the debacle we call Obamacare. (You know, the 650 million dollar website that doesn't work, the millions losing the insurance they were told they could keep, yadda yadda).

Please try to figure out what Presidential means to you outside partisan politics, lol. And while polls change, right now Christie is ahead of Mrs. Clinton. And the press won't give Mrs. Clinton a pass the way they did Obama. Lots of time for Benghazi information to come out.

Frank_M wrote:
This story shouldn?t be remotely plausible, but it gets traction because of what the public already knows of his tendency to behave unprofessionally. I think that's a bigger story than the traffic jam.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
I think the Christie-yites are feeling desperate. They know Christie has done nothing good for NJ. In fact, Cuomo has far outperformed Christie.

Yup, real desperate. Did you miss the November election? The 'Christie-yites' you mention were black, white, latino, male, female, rich, poor-in fact, his appeal extended across gender, race, economic status, and most importantly political party.

The sheeple trying to make a mountain out of a small traffic jam are the same people (like State Senator Nia Gill) who are trying to shift blame from Obama for 800,000 NJ residents losing the healthcare he promised they could keep, to Christie for not setting up a NJ program (which was part of the 'settled law' featured in Obamacare).

OneSkirt wrote:
Who cares?? This is not Brooklyn, nor should people think it is. If you want Brooklyn, live there. Why do people continually feel the need to force this comparison on any part of JC? Most of us live here because its unique, and not Brooklyn. And that's no slam against BK.

SMH

tommyc_37 wrote:
If you have a friend who won't visit you because of a place that you live, no matter where it is, then I seriously would not consider that person a friend. Add to that the fact that JC borders Manhattan and can be reached in a matter of minutes, and I'd say you have some pretty sh*tty friends!

So these friends of yours don't leave Manhattan, for any social reason?

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
.
It was funny to hear at the end that their friends in Manhattan are not coming to visit them, which I have repeated many times here (If you live in JC, your cool friends in NYC will NEVER come to visit you).

What type of friends do you have? I have visitors almost every weekend from NYC, BK, Bx, SI and even Queens. The only set of friends that have not visited me as of yet are my buddies on Long Island but other than that my friends have no problem stopping by for a visit.

tommyc_37 wrote:
That real estate agent is AWFUL, lol.