-
I’ve reported this post for a forum change - I think you must be confused, doesn’t satire belong in MPSIMS?
-
Just in case you’re not confused - and are actually being serious, I did find THIS resource that will help to explain the article a bit further - and speaks to the heart of the matter re Christie Hater Kelly
All those italics made it very easy to not bother reading any of that.
Actual proof that Christie was actually involved would be even more helpful.
Why doesn’t that surprise me? Did you read the linked article that ElvisL1ves provided in post 1199?
All in good time. These things must be done delicately. I happen to think Christie will be shown to have been the mastermind of the operation and will be tried, convicted, and sentenced of at least one felony. You might think that Christie will be universally recognized as the most awesome person who ever walked the earth and whose farts smell like lilacs. The truth will perhaps lie somewhere in between. The evidence will come from what appears to be a politically neutral federal prosecutor and be weighed by a jury of Christie’s peers. Until then, all we can do is speculate, which I am enjoying to no end.
(underline added)
I agree with you completely, except for the part where you attempt to define my position.
No problem. Let us see where the US Attorney winds up with this.
You actually thought that was exonerative? 
Skimmed it. But it was nicely formatted, paragraphed and no huge areas of italics,YAWNs or triple question marks jumped out to say “Don’t waste your time reading this”.
If by “exonerative” you mean “inconclusive” (it is basically another he said-she said article with unnamed sources), then I agree you might conclude that I thought it was “exonerative”.
I believe you should waste your time reading it. Only then can you analyze the article and pick the nits out of it. One side says black, the other side says white. Which side can actually support their position? Is one side resorting to rumors and innuendo? Is the author preaching to the choir?
I simply don’t have the time to read everything about topics that may interest me. I rely on evaluating what those whose job it is to do that. I respect some sources more than others by their track record and take it from there. As I’ve said, I have my thoughts on Christie’s involvement, but it’s the evidence I’m interested in and will then judge accordingly.
(underline added)
OK. Are you saying you rely on evaluating someone else’s opinion of the article based on your assumption that they actually read the article or were/were not providing bias of their own?
What I mean to say is I rely on reporters and journalists, etc. to interpret and evaluate these things and I use my evaluations of those people to form my opinions.
For example, I really do not know about, nor care to learn about, electricity. I have great respect for those who do, but it is not my area of expertise. When I need to find out about electrical work, I will not attempt to learn it, but rely on those I’ve spoken to in the past that have logically explained the important issues to me as well as considering those highly recommended by others and I will dismiss those whose explanations are obviously not as competent or well informed.
I have found that “reporters” and “journalists”, as well as media outlets, sometimes have a bad habit of rushing to judgment, repeating rumors, starting rumors, and pursuing political agendas.
What is it about Salvador Rizzo of The Star-Ledger that you find so trust-worthy or accurate or un-biased?
That’s why I said I evaluate the source.
Did I say that?
Essentially that he’s a long-time political reporter, with a lot of connections and sources, for the state’s long-time leading daily newspaper, and does not AFAIK have any sort of reputation as a partisan.
Now why do you give him so much less credence about Christie’s conduct than you give to Christie’s own hired lawyers? 
The best way, perhaps the only way, that you can prove that your opinion is fair and unbiased is by a wholesale endorsement of the position offered by doorhinge.
Actually very little of the article was about the lane reassignment, and most was about Christie’s slimy past. It did mention that they had a list of Democratic politicians they want to get to endorse Christie, and Sokolich was high on this list. It also mentioned how Christie did not support Republicans running in southern NJ in return for the tacit support of the Democratic bosses there.
The Houston Press summarizes some of the questionable items in Perry’s past. And draws a comparison with the effect of the bridge story on Christie’s possible candidacy for President. Might Perry’s brewing trouble affect his future hopes? Ben Sargentrecognized a parallel back in February…
As the story unfolds, it may warrant a thread of its own.