Personally I think that’s hogwash. My girlfriend would say that it’s your choice whether or not you’d like to be an evolving person. IMHO, your misuse of quotes is confusing because the words that you wrap in quotes will be interpreted as being ironic. The end result is that your argument becomes weakened, and you may be viewed as a dunce.
While I disagree with almost every stance you’ve taken in this thread, I must applaud your swimming against the tide here.
You asked for plausible possibilities and I provided a couple. You quoted them and even responded to them.
she usually says something like “the reasons for the lane closures are still unexplained”
For my two bits, it was extortion. Real estate developers and owners who have the wisdom and foresight to hire Mr. Samson’s law firm appear to have a much better interaction with the Christie administration. There’s a metric buttload of money tied up in that real estate development (which name eludes me), and one of their chief selling points is the access to a speedy New York commute. I’m thinking that is the source of such blather as we have heard about whether or not those lanes “unfairly” favored Fort Lee.
I don’t actually know whether or not that development hired Mr. Samson, but I’ll give odds they didn’t.
*Double Quotation Marks for Words Used as Examples
Double quotation marks can also be used when you are writing a sentence and you want to refer to a word rather than use its meaning. Since I talk about words a lot, this comes up in almost every Grammar Girl episode. It’s a style choice. You can use italics or double quotation marks to highlight words, but we use quotation marks on the Grammar Girl site because it takes a bit of extra time to italicize words in our content management system.
Unnecessary Quotation Marks
A common mistake, however, is to use quotation marks to simply highlight a word in a sentence. The popular “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks does nothing but mock signs that misuse quotation marks in this way. For example, if you are promoting your gluten-free cookies, and you put “gluten-free” in quotation marks, that actually means they have wheat. Stick with underlining or italics to highlight words. *
Thanks. I checked with Mignon Fogarty, aka Grammar Girl, and see that I should be taking the extra steps required by websites to underline words I wish to highlight. I’ve been using the style-choice (and it was easier) of using double quotes to highlight the words I thought were important to get my point across. My style-choice could have been confusing. I’ll try to do better.
I don’t believe the tide is that strong. I have innocent until proven guilty on my side. The opposition has many, many assumptions, feelings, red herrings, personal attacks, and drive-by tootings. If the Christie-was-trying-to-punish-Sokolich is removed (just temporarily, mind you) from the equation, the opposition has no motive for Christie’s involvement. The other stories that are assumed to add weight to the Christie/Sokolich tie-in don’t really stand up to simple questioning.
I’m from Illinois. I believe we lead the league in sending Governors to prison. I don’t care if Christie is guilty or not. What I do want to see is proof. I want to see the media outlets do a better job of getting the facts. Baroni made the media look like fools with his powerpoint presentation. They had him, if they had only pressed him for the specifics of his non-study study, at the presentation.
What’s obvious is that the Port Authority of NY/NJ needs a serious scrubbing with disinfectant. There was none of the usual trappings of an actual study. No record of meetings to decide if there should be a study. No budget for a study. No meetings to how the study should be conducted. No sign-off from higher ups that any of this should even be taking place. Wildstein order the cones moved and nobody felt comfortable/dared questioning it???
It is not relevant to your attempts at obfuscation, which is what I was addressing.
I didn’t say they were. Limbaugh and Hannity are liars. It does not follow that all entertainers are liars. Indeed, some entertainers are very good at presenting facts in an entertaining manner.
Again, you’re attempting to use GOP tactics on people who can see through them.
Because, perhaps, everyone knows he’s Christie’s guy.
While a judge is still deciding how the court will rule, it doesn’t look good for the denial of Kelly’s and Stepien’s 5th Amendment protection from the 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans on the legislative committee.
*“It’s certainly a plausible Fifth Amendment claim that the production of the document is protected by the Fifth Amendment,” said Jeffrey Bellin, a criminal procedure expert at William and Mary Law School in Virginia. Bellin sees a difference between investigators asking Stepien and Kelly for specific documents they already know exist, an instance in which it is hard to make a Fifth Amendment claim, and the broad subpoenas issued by the legislative committee, which include all manner of documents and communications relevant to the investigation. The committee is “saying, ‘You go and find documents that are relevant to our inquiry and produce them to us,’” he said.
Since the U.S. Attorney’s office is now investigating potential criminal activity in the scandal – though Stepien and Kelly have not yet been subpoenaed by prosecutors – the threat of becoming ensnared in a criminal case is not out of the question. The Fifth Amendment can only be used when there is a plausible risk that the testimony could result in criminal charges.*
Lawyers for Kelly and Stepien partially based their 5th Amendment claims on a parallel criminal investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office, which is seeking to uncover whether federal laws were broken. The legislative panel, which lacks authority to prosecute, wants to find out how high up Christie’s chain of command the lane-closing scheme went and why it was hatched.
It seems that the legislative committee is doing more than it’s fair share to hinder the federal investigation.
If you’re looking for a Kool-Aid spitting contest, you might have better luck on one of the other Christie threads. I originally came here for the 5-minute argument but stayed for the full half hour.
Perhaps. Now if somebody could just provide proof of that. Except for the people who don’t require proof before deciding that someone is guilty, of course.
Clarify, please. Proof that “knowing he’s Christie’s guy is the reason his orders were not questioned?” Or proof that “he’s Christie’s guy?”
Or proof that “everyone knows he’s Christie’s guy?”
ETA: FWIW, I have only a very small quantity of dog in this fight. I have sufficient evidence to satisfy me that Christie and his political associates are reprehensible scalawags.
Proof that - Wildstein order the cones moved and nobody felt comfortable/dared questioning it??? - of course.
Procrustus forgot to note that he had underlined that sentence in his quote of my post.
Providing a “couple” does NOT match your claim “There are many “plausible” possibilities.” And of that couple, the first was already out there, that Christie was not involved, so you really only provided one, which just happens to be highly implausible. Anybody but you think “It’s also plausible that a traffic jam in NJ is being used to clear away an obsticle [sic] to Hillary’s election.”?
You made the claim “There are many “plausible” possibilities.” Can you tell us some of the many plausible possibilities or just admit maybe you should not have made that claim?
Sorry about that.
I was acting alone
Hmm, are you falling on your sword? Does Hillary have an alibi for not directing you in The Great Christie Defense Underline Scandal?
The whole mess was the doing of Straight Dope Procrustus, not Christie Crony Kelly or Christie Crony Wildstein or Christie Crony Stepien? Really?
There are many plausible possibilities. A) Christie wanted to punish the hapless Sokolich for not supporting Christie’s reelection. 2) Christie wanted to punish Sokolich because Christie was fighting with the Democrats over state Supreme court nominations. Tres) Christie wanted to punish Sokolich over the Harbor Lights project. Four) Christie ordered the Lt Governor to threaten to withhold Sandy funds from Zimmer. V) Hillary supporters want to clear the way for Hillary’s election as POTUS. Seis) Port Authority’s Wildstein was acting under orders from Christie.
What the lynch mob media can not provide is an concrete evidence that Christie was involved and it’s certainly not that they haven’t tried.
Is this the level that you’ve sunk to? Bullying and intimidation? Are you admitting that you have no case against Christie and intend to stop people from discussing it because you don’t like the content?
*Tell me, Clarice– have the lambs stopped screaming?
- Dr. Hannibal Lecter*
doorhinge, is there a case against Christie’s judgment and leadership for choosing these asswipes for senior staff positions at all? Will you stipulate that much, at least? :dubious:
You’re bullied and intimidated by my joking response to Procrustus’ joking response?
I am not making a case against Christie, the Powers That Be are investigating why his Crony Appointees pulled that crap, and the very real possibility that it is even worse than initially thought. I do believe that Christie is lying about his knowledge of the debacle but I’m waiting for the investigations to run their course. Though unlikely, it’s certainly possible that he had no involvement other than appointing incompetent hacks to important and/or made up positions in his administration.
I simply find your responses in defense of the bully to be desperate, flailing, irrelevant and sneering with your occasional HaHaHaHas, and your general tone of LaLaLaLa as to the investigations not reporting definitive findings yet. I enjoy the discussion except for your posts that invariably need virtually every sentence to be addressed for your unsubstantiated claims, deflections, distractions, and failure to add anything to the discussion other than “Where’s the proof?”