Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hmmm...dont know about "specific laws broken", but I do know that a governor is not fit to be prez of the United States, who either :
(1) Didn't want to deal with what was going on over 4 days of the lane closures at the GWB
when informed repeatedly...(while it was happening and later, when Christi lightheartedly joked about "putting the cones out" himself.)
Or:
(2) Actually made it happen to punish citizens for a mayor's non compliance w his agenda.
We do not need a petty dictator or a "know nothing" detached prez who only serves himself...and citizens be damned.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Another low IQ poster that, instead of addressing the topic, goes on a rant over a possible presidential candidate, that may or may not have done exactly what the current POTUS has done.
My IQ is 136. What's urs?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Worse, Benghazi reminds Americans of the failed Iraqi war. The thousands of young Americans dead. The tens of thousands maimed for life and the cost to the US reaching unknown trillions over the next 50 years for medical care for all the tens of thousands maimed because Republicans hoped they could steal another country's oil. Terrible..
No, it doesn't. It shows how the current regime LIED to the public over a SUPPOSED video that caused a riot that has been proven to be a lie!
"The CIAs former deputy director disclosed Wednesday that Obama administration officials were alerted the day before they went on national television that a key tenet of their original Benghazi storyline might be inaccurate. But he did not explain why the administration continued to cling to its narrative even after U.S. intelligence debunked reports that the deadly attack was born out of a protest over an anti-Islam video.
In often testy exchanges with Republicans who accused him of a cover-up, Michael Morell flatly denied that he inappropriately altered and influenced the infamous Benghazi talking points to downplay the role of terrorism in the attacks.
But he acknowledged overruling the wishes of his boss at the time, CIA Director David H. Petraeus, by excising from the talking points information that the CIA had warned about possible al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Libya before the Benghazi tragedy unfolded on Sept. 11, 2012, killing ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
I saw the language as self-serving and defensive on the agencys part, Mr. Morell replied to skeptical lawmakers. Here was a tragic event, and we were saying, We told you so. This was wrong, in my view, and would have been seen as an attempt to make the CIA look good and shift any possible blame for failing to see the risk of an attack from the agency to the State Department.
What would you have done in Iraq, after Saddam had been shooting at our planes patrolling the NO FLY zone, and even the Democrats in Congress agreed to go to war?
At this point I think we should go back to the words of JFK's dad who said, "The FACTS are not as important as the voter's PERCEPTION of the facts.
I have offered my opinion as an independent voter who does vote for both parties. Two Presidential elections have proven that Republicans are out of touch with voters. Obama won his second term by a margin higher than any other second term POTUS. And with 50,000 Hispanics reaching voting age each MONTH, the time is not far off that Democrats can win General Elections before they even nominate a candidate! This will be pathetic, but we stupid Americans have done this to ourselves.
The only way I can see Republicans winning the White House is to take bold action. If Republicans came out for legalization of pot, the taxes would balance State budget shortfalls, and bring those young Democrats to the Republican side. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is still out there trying to sell horses to automobile owners.
Seems like the only law Christie broke was to be polling well against the Democrat Goddess Hillary...
And that just cannot be allowed...
No, it doesn't. It shows how the current regime LIED to the public over a SUPPOSED video that caused a riot that has been proven to be a lie!
"The CIA’s former deputy director disclosed Wednesday that Obama administration officials were alerted the day before they went on national television that a key tenet of their original Benghazi storyline might be inaccurate. But he did not explain why the administration continued to cling to its narrative even after U.S. intelligence debunked reports that the deadly attack was born out of a protest over an anti-Islam video.
In often testy exchanges with Republicans who accused him of a cover-up, Michael Morell flatly denied that he “inappropriately altered and influenced” the infamous Benghazi talking points to downplay the role of terrorism in the attacks.
But he acknowledged overruling the wishes of his boss at the time, CIA Director David H. Petraeus, by excising from the talking points information that the CIA had warned about possible al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Libya before the Benghazi tragedy unfolded on Sept. 11, 2012, killing ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“I saw the language as self-serving and defensive on the agency’s part,” Mr. Morell replied to skeptical lawmakers. “Here was a tragic event, and we were saying, ‘We told you so.’ This was wrong, in my view, and would have been seen as an attempt to make the CIA look good and shift any possible blame for failing to see the risk of an attack from the agency to the State Department.”
What would you have done in Iraq, after Saddam had been shooting at our planes patrolling the NO FLY zone, and even the Democrats in Congress agreed to go to war?
At this point I think we should go back to the words of JFK's dad who said, "The FACTS are not as important as the voter's PERCEPTION of the facts.
I have offered my opinion as an independent voter who does vote for both parties. Two Presidential elections have proven that Republicans are out of touch with voters. Obama won his second term by a margin higher than any other second term POTUS. And with 50,000 Hispanics reaching voting age each MONTH, the time is not far off that Democrats can win General Elections before they even nominate a candidate! This will be pathetic, but we stupid Americans have done this to ourselves.
The only way I can see Republicans winning the White House is to take bold action. If Republicans came out for legalization of pot, the taxes would balance State budget shortfalls, and bring those young Democrats to the Republican side. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is still out there trying to sell horses to automobile owners.
Most states budget shortfall is in the 100's of millions to many BILLIONS of dollars.... You believe that taxes on POT can make that up? Besides, DRUGS, are not something that any sane Republican would want to promote. You may disagree, but I suggest you get the correct amounts. As an example, Col. made $2 million on pot in January, There budget shortfall is as much as $257 million short in the current fiscal year and faces a deficit of almost $1.1 billion in the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
Seems like the only law Christie broke was to be polling well against the Democrat Goddess Hillary...
And that just cannot be allowed...
As an Indy voter, I believe Hillary would like to run against Christi because then the debate would be Democratic principles against Republican principles. I think it was the conservatives who are afraid of losing the chance to nominate one of their own for POTUS.
Now, you know why this Indy does not watch Fox.
Facts don't lie.
At this point I think we should go back to the words of JFK's dad who said, "The FACTS are not as important as the voter's PERCEPTION of the facts.
I have offered my opinion as an independent voter who does vote for both parties. Two Presidential elections have proven that Republicans are out of touch with voters. Obama won his second term by a margin higher than any other second term POTUS. And with 50,000 Hispanics reaching voting age each MONTH, the time is not far off that Democrats can win General Elections before they even nominate a candidate! This will be pathetic, but we stupid Americans have done this to ourselves.
The only way I can see Republicans winning the White House is to take bold action. If Republicans came out for legalization of pot, the taxes would balance State budget shortfalls, and bring those young Democrats to the Republican side. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is still out there trying to sell horses to automobile owners.
Most states budget shortfall is in the 100's of millions to many BILLIONS of dollars.... You believe that taxes on POT can make that up? Besides, DRUGS, are not something that any sane Republican would want to promote. You may disagree, but I suggest you get the correct amounts. As an example, Col. made $2 million on pot in January, There budget shortfall is as much as $257 million short in the current fiscal year and faces a deficit of almost $1.1 billion in the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
jAfter Googling Marijuana sales in the United States, I find there is no definitive answer as to the national dollar amount. But, here are several reasonable estimates. MarijuanaBusinessNews.com - How Big is the Marijuana Market?
Therefore, here are the various guesses at the size of the market. Each has its own merits and rationale. Just for comparison's sake, the market for brewed beverages in the US is a little over $100 billion.
Other Estimates
Jeffrey Miron estimates the national marijuana market at about $10 billion per year.
Dale Geiringer of California NORML estimates the market in California to be about $3-5 billion. If California is about ten percent of the national market, this would indicate a national market of $30 to $50 billion.
Jon Gettman estimates the size of the domestically grown marijuana crop at about $35 billion, based on DEA figures. Note that this is just the estimate for the dollar value of marijuana grown within the United States. It would not include imports. He has estimated the total size of the national market at around $100 billion.
The officials involved in CAMP (Campaign Against Marijuana Planting) have estimated that they seized $7 billion worth of marijuana in California alone. Federal Government officials have estimated that, at best, they only seize about ten percent of the crop. That would put the size of the market at about $70 billion, minimum, if California was the only place growing it.
There are no estimates for the dollar value of the marijuana that is imported from other countries. Even the US Government does not attempt to offer figures. By any method of estimate, it would have to be in the billions.
Obviously, taxing this volume of pot would substantially reduce the budget problems of the States. Do the math with an 8.25% sales tax, plus internal buried taxes that would be levied like cigarettes and liquor.
But all these numbers betray the advantage of cutting the power of drug cartels. Pot smokers will use pot legal or not. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have the opportunity to ride the "pot wave." Democrats look blindly at the problem and wink to young voters. Republicans sound like my old man preaching against beer when I was in high school. Didn't listen to him then and don't listen now, I have had enough of his sermons. As I originally posted Republicans are afraid to take a risk when their party has been shredded in the last two elections by their own candidates. Without Christi, Hillary has a clean win in 2016.
I'd call this the Independent voter's view of Republicans.
And, below is our view of Democrats.
And, yes, I feel cheated about that, I would actually like to have two reasonable mainstream candidates for President. My conservative Republican friends like Jeb Bush as does Hillary. It is an easy win, but will mean more gridlock. I lose either way.
Tracking back to the OP.
Vigilante
Can anyone name the law Chris Christie supposedly broke with "Bridgegate?"
Not a fan of the Fat Man's but as far as I can tell, inconvenience was the only thing that happened!
Seems like the only law Christie broke was to be polling well against the Democrat Goddess Hillary...
And that just cannot be allowed...
As an Indy voter, I believe Hillary would like to run against Christi because then the debate would be Democratic principles against Republican principles. I think it was the conservatives who are afraid of losing the chance to nominate one of their own for POTUS.
Now, you know why this Indy does not watch Fox.
Facts don't lie.
First off, my young friend, the above chart seems to be bullshit perpetrated on the public!
The Clinton Surplus lie - Broken down
Clinton claimed to have a surplus of:
$69 billion in fiscal year 1998,
$123 billion in fiscal year1999
$230 billion in fiscal year 2000
Clinton said he reduced the National Debt by $360 billion in the prior three years.
Those would have been fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000
Oddly $360 billion was a misrepresentation of even his own figures.
$69Billion + $123Billion + $230Billion = $422Billion and not $360Billion as he claimed. .
There was never a Clinton Surplus The National; Debt INCREASED in fiscal year 1998 through 2000 by <$281 billion>.
Don’t believe me: Go to the Treasury and surf around a while
they keep records that are far, far better than Clinton’s lies.
Here, I’ll walk you through their website:
The Clinton Surplus lie - Broken down - ! * POLITICS * ! - tribe.net
As an Indy voter, I believe Hillary would like to run against Christi because then the debate would be Democratic principles against Republican principles. I think it was the conservatives who are afraid of losing the chance to nominate one of their own for POTUS.
Now, you know why this Indy does not watch Fox.
Facts don't lie.
First off, my young friend, the above chart seems to be bullshit perpetrated on the public!
The Clinton Surplus lie - Broken down
Clinton claimed to have a surplus of:
$69 billion in fiscal year 1998,
$123 billion in fiscal year1999
$230 billion in fiscal year 2000
Clinton said he reduced the National Debt by $360 billion in the prior three years.
Those would have been fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000
Oddly $360 billion was a misrepresentation of even his own figures.
$69Billion + $123Billion + $230Billion = $422Billion and not $360Billion as he claimed. .
There was never a Clinton Surplus The National; Debt INCREASED in fiscal year 1998 through 2000 by <$281 billion>.
Don’t believe me: Go to the Treasury and surf around a while
they keep records that are far, far better than Clinton’s lies.
Here, I’ll walk you through their website:
The Clinton Surplus lie - Broken down - ! * POLITICS * ! - tribe.net
People who tease about my age, are addressed as Mr. Senility. Mr. Senility, you make lots of noise, but I do not see links to budget surplus and deficit numbers from you for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and "W." Until we do my numbers stand, and you are just a distraction.
First off, my young friend, the above chart seems to be bullshit perpetrated on the public!
The Clinton Surplus lie - Broken down
Clinton claimed to have a surplus of:
$69 billion in fiscal year 1998,
$123 billion in fiscal year1999
$230 billion in fiscal year 2000
Clinton said he reduced the National Debt by $360 billion in the prior three years.
Those would have been fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000
Oddly $360 billion was a misrepresentation of even his own figures.
$69Billion + $123Billion + $230Billion = $422Billion and not $360Billion as he claimed. .
There was never a Clinton Surplus The National; Debt INCREASED in fiscal year 1998 through 2000 by <$281 billion>.
Don’t believe me: Go to the Treasury and surf around a while
they keep records that are far, far better than Clinton’s lies.
Here, I’ll walk you through their website:
The Clinton Surplus lie - Broken down - ! * POLITICS * ! - tribe.net
People who tease about my age, are addressed as Mr. Senility. Mr. Senility, you make lots of noise, but I do not see links to budget surplus and deficit numbers from you for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and "W." Until we do my numbers stand, and you are just a distraction.
People who tease me about my age, I refer to as young heads full of mush. Young head full of mush, this was to show you the LIES about the Clinton debt. Your other numbers may or may not be right on the others, but Clintons weren't! Now you are starting to sound not very bipartisan, and independent, Heaven knows I'm not, but I never LIED about my status!
People who tease about my age, are addressed as Mr. Senility. Mr. Senility, you make lots of noise, but I do not see links to budget surplus and deficit numbers from you for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and "W." Until we do my numbers stand, and you are just a distraction.
People who tease me about my age, I refer to as young heads full of mush. Young head full of mush, this was to show you the LIES about the Clinton debt. Your other numbers may or may not be right on the others, but Clintons weren't! Now you are starting to sound not very bipartisan, and independent, Heaven knows I'm not, but I never LIED about my status!
Yet, you still can not provide a fact/link to support a word you post about Federal deficits and and surpluses. Guess I will have to take the win.
Is this how you grill people who agree with your OP? How many friends do you have, Mr. Senility?
People who tease me about my age, I refer to as young heads full of mush. Young head full of mush, this was to show you the LIES about the Clinton debt. Your other numbers may or may not be right on the others, but Clintons weren't! Now you are starting to sound not very bipartisan, and independent, Heaven knows I'm not, but I never LIED about my status!
Yet, you still can not provide a fact/link to support a word you post about Federal deficits and and surpluses. Guess I will have to take the win.
Is this how you grill people who agree with your OP? How many friends do you have, Mr. Senility?
I guess you have trouble going to the TREASURY LINKS provided in that article, which apparently you didn't do, young head full of mush! Are friends your idea of being popular, or correct?... Never mind, you already answered that question!
Yet, you still can not provide a fact/link to support a word you post about Federal deficits and and surpluses. Guess I will have to take the win.
Is this how you grill people who agree with your OP? How many friends do you have, Mr. Senility?
I guess you have trouble going to the TREASURY LINKS provided in that article, which apparently you didn't do, young head full of mush! Are friends your idea of being popular, or correct?... Never mind, you already answered that question!
Again, neither of your Treasury links Bureaus
discuss surplus or deficit. You are trying to pull a red herring, and it will not work.
Friendship in USMB is given just like friendship in real life. I no longer waste my time posting against low information voters. You don't understand what a fact is, and you are too stubborn to accept that you are wrong.
