Marley wasn’t putting these in order of importance. You’re continuing your desparate attempt to change the tenor of this thread away from the attempts of a corrupt political regime to extract political revenge on people who won’t cowtow to their whims. How can you equate individual protests with what I’ve suggested?
Of course, if YOU were inconvenienced, then I guess that’s the answer.
burunduk, you really don’t need to go undercover as a fake conservative to post outrageous things to make them look bad. There are enough genuinely bad conservatives out there that they’ll self-destruct eventually on their own. It’s just dishonest to try to pretend to be even worse than them.
I’m in favor Chris Christie getting the same treatment as Melissa Mark-Viverito: a couple of hours of detention, followed, in 2 years, by a promotion to a higher office.
Maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t–it’s not clear from the original post, and I think only Marley23 can clarify this point.
I wouldn’t call 700 or so people attempting to close down an important city artery “individual protests”. I’d call it a mob of dregs of society attempting to shut down the city.
As opposed to a small handfull of dregs of people elected to public office criminally trying to subvert their sworn duty. No contest.
A conservative punched a woman in the face once, which means it’s ok for Christie to put people’s lives at risk for his own pleasure. Duh, how are you people not getting that?
I also find it really sad - not surprising, because, you know, Republicans - but sad that a man who thinks he has a right to physically assault whoever he wants and defends politicians who hurt others and insults people who have been stomped on by his own scum friends as “dregs of society” and this is seen as acceptable.
Maybe we should just change this thread to how Republicans are violent, dangerous, petty thugs and should never be trusted?
Not all Republicans. Hopefully not a majority. Just some.
Indeed, my father’s family were all Republicans, and each one a decent, salt-of-the-earth type who would condone none of the recent shenanigans. It’s very much a case of some rotten apples spoiling the barrel, I fear. But I also fear the rotten apples may have reached critical mass.
Suddenly, I’m reminded of the Applebaums…a nuclear family, the Applebaums…
You will stop referring to anyone as a twat or a cunt in this forum.
You will stop hijacking this thread will irrelevant claims about protests with which you disagreed or bragging about your violent nature.
EVERYONE ELSE: Take any further discussions about violent behavior or the differences between a protest and a politically motivated bridge closing to a separate thread.
This thread was intended to discuss whether Christie was guilty of participating in the closure of the George Washington Bridge. Stick to that topic.
[ /Moderating ]
This is precisely why we need to define the rules of acceptable bridge-blocking. Marley23 had some good ones, but they are not complete yet.
So far, it appears that the length of the time a bridge was blocked should be taken into consideration, along with whether the people who blocked the bridge were arrested (and subsequently, promoted), and whether the motivation behind the blocking was a political protest or political retaliation.
You seem to hit another nail on the head: who,exactly, is doing the blocking? Elected officials or “I can’t Occupy a job, if my life depended on it” protesters?
Some people should be allowed to block the bridge, while others shouldn’t.
If you ask me, it is also important to include the race and sexuality of the blockers into account.
For example, bridge-blocking by a woman-punching elderly straight white christian republican male should be strictly *verboten *while the same action performed by gay-right defending young lesbian african-american muslim liberal should be rewarded.
In the post immediately above yours, tomndebb said
I am giving you a warning for ignoring moderator instructions.
twickster, Elections moderator
hat’s no goo.
Alternate-Universe-President Christie would have to have an evil goatee. And nobody wants that.
Maybe it’s this-universe Christie who has the goatee-of-evil. And maybe he shaved it off as a disguise. Did you ever think of that?
Another drip from the faucet. Carl Lewis says that Christie bullied him out of the Senate race. Not directly related to the bridge closure, but it reinforces the bully nature of Christie and further makes the case that he’s the type of guy who would pull off a petty stunt like the bridge closure.
If true - that alone should be enough to finish his career right? Wouldn’t outright blackmail of that sort (assuming Lewis can prove it) be illegal? Impeachable?
I’m not defending Christie, by any stretch, but I doubt it. Christie was going to appoint Lewis to a political position, and decided not to due to a political dispute between them. I don’t see any wrongdoing here, ethically. I would be surprised if there were any legally either.
Was it a “political” position?
In the sense that any public promotion is political, I guess so…
But how is running for office contrary to the position of Sports Ambassador?
In any case - it probably doesn’t matter…
Whether or not it was unethical or illegal for Christie to deny the position to Carl Lewis, it’s a petty, partisan thing to do (as was the lane closures in Fort Lee). But he had an image as a Republican who was above the partisan nonsense (e.g., embracing the president during his post-Sandy visit).
*Lewis withdrew from the Senate race after a court ruled he didn’t meet a residency requirement. He now lives in Houston.
Democrats have said recent scandals involving traffic jams and Superstorm Sandy aid are more evidence Christie is a bully*.
Hahahaha. Boohoo, if Lewis had any balls he would have run for the Senate anyway. Just because Lewis DID NOT LIVE IN THE AREA AND WAS INELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THAT OFFICE, it must be Christie’s fault. :smack: