Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

Christie goes after libertarians — hard

35 posts in this topic

ASPEN, Colo. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a RHINO -- he probably weighs as much as one too! Ha! :lol:

Editorial-Cartoon-Chris-Christie.jpeg

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Election is coming up, it is really sad to see a governor trying to get re-elected by slyly saying those with liberal views are supporters of the maniacs who flew the planes into the world trade centers and pentagon, very very sad desperate attempt to elicit followers.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Election is coming up, it is really sad to see a governor trying to get re-elected by slyly saying those with liberal views are supporters of the maniacs who flew the planes into the world trade centers and pentagon, very very sad desperate attempt to elicit followers.

Unfortunately he has a point. The same Libertains are arming themselves to the teeth so that they can throw off this "corrupt and oppressive" regime - as their second amendment right entitles them to.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Title of the thread - Christie goes after libertarians — hard... And so far, not an innuendo in sight..lol

*face palms herself for that one *

Edited by Beckys_Mom
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Christie the Hut needs to back it up "beep-beep-beep"...

The populist libertarian lean of some of the Republicans is kinda refreshing...sort of.

I will wait to see who the actual Libertarian party puts up front. I voted Libertarian in 2008 and 2012...I have my suspicions I will vote Libertarian in 2016...I agree with 85- 90% of the Libertarian platform...can't say that about the typical Republican platform...even if they start "leaning" a little more and more toward "true" libertarian views, they still have quite a way to go to convince me they are for big freedom and small gov. Telling someone what they can put in their body or what they can take out IS NOT freedom and does not allow for smaller Gov and bureaucracy...someone has to enforce their regulations.

I will say...I like Rand Paul. I am still a bit skittish of him for his rollover and endorsement of Romney while his dad was still in the hunt...to me, that was low brow and bad form...but that is just me. He will have to continue as he has since the filibuster to keep my attention. I am on his email list if that says anything. His brand of "libertarianism" isn't "true" Libertarianism...it's just selfishness.

Christie...I'm not sure what to say...he seems like a "wiseguy" wannabe. Many people think his rollover and kiss up to Obama was a terrible thing after Superstorm Sandy...I understand that he was buttering the bread to get to the top of the disaster relief list... He did what he had to do for his state (whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant)...but it made him look bad at the same time to his "party".

Edited by Jeremiah65
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are arming strictly for defensive purposes. Cause at the rate our liberties are being dismantled, if it continues, one day they are going to cross a line and there will be no turning back. If you dont already have guns by then, it will be to late. Make no mistake, if something happens, they will be the agressors.

Anyhow, as the hearts and minds of the people slowly starting turning back tward a thirst for freedom, comments like these are expected from establishment scum. It wont change anyones mind, but it will only serve to divide further. Its one thing to have political differences, but when a guy like Christie lables a entire movement as dangerous, its only gonna make his followers filled with unwarrented fear.

As for his comments on 9/11, its the families of the victoms who were first calling for a independent investigation. So for him to say they should explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, is BS. The living victoms have been asking YOU to explain your position on 9/11. Of course anyone who reads the PNAC report from the same year, gets a clear explaination of thier position.

Title of the thread - Christie goes after libertarians — hard... And so far, not an innuendo in sight..lol

*face palms herself for that one *

I love you BM, you are great.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie the Hut needs to back it up "beep-beep-beep"...

The populist libertarian lean of some of the Republicans is kinda refreshing...sort of.

I will wait to see who the actual Libertarian party puts up front. I voted Libertarian in 2008 and 2012...I have my suspicions I will vote Libertarian in 2016...I agree with 85- 90% of the Libertarian platform...can't say that about the typical Republican platform...even if they start "leaning" a little more and more toward "true" libertarian views, they still have quite a way to go to convince me they are for big freedom and small gov. Telling someone what they can put in their body or what they can take out IS NOT freedom and does not allow for smaller Gov and bureaucracy...someone has to enforce their regulations.

I will say...I like Rand Paul. I am still a bit skittish of him for his rollover and endorsement of Romney while his dad was still in the hunt...to me, that was low brow and bad form...but that is just me. He will have to continue as he has since the filibuster to keep my attention. I am on his email list if that says anything. His brand of "libertarianism" isn't "true" Libertarianism...it's just selfishness.

Christie...I'm not sure what to say...he seems like a "wiseguy" wannabe. Many people think his rollover and kiss up to Obama was a terrible thing after Superstorm Sandy...I understand that he was buttering the bread to get to the top of the disaster relief list... He did what he had to do for his state (whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant)...but it made him look bad at the same time to his "party".

Man its like you are reading my mind. The only difference is im even more critical of Rand Paul. Though Id vote for him if he made the ticket.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As far as the 9-11 comments from Jabba....

Let me outline a Libertarian scenario that is so simple and yet profound.

Had we not been trampling over the middle east for decades to exploit their resources purely for globalist corporate profit...those people would not have hated us so much and would not have had a reason to "retaliate" (in their mind anyway) against the great Satan.

Our meddling and exploitation have made us pretty much hated all over the world. Sure, we pay off some countries so they can spread propaganda back home that "they love us"...but that is not the truth. If we would have kept our troops home, secured our national security, fairly traded AND let countries tend to their own sovereign affairs....the tragedy of 9-11 would never have happened...

I know, someone is going to bring up Kuwait and that was different because they were invaded and specifically pleaded for help...everything before and after has been for "something else" besides "spreading democracy"...it's called resource exploitation and profit....for the super mega corporations. Deep down...we all know this.

Just my opinion though...

Edited by Jeremiah65
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for his comments on 9/11, its the families of the victoms who were first calling for a independent investigation. So for him to say they should explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, is BS. The living victoms have been asking YOU to explain your position on 9/11. Of course anyone who reads the PNAC report from the same year, gets a clear explaination of thier position.

As far as the 9-11 comments from Jabba....

Let me outline a Libertarian scenario that is so simple and yet profound.

Had we not been trampling over the middle east for decades to exploit their resources purely for globalist corporate profit...those people would not have hated us so much and would not have had a reason to "retaliate" (in their mind anyway) against the great Satan.

Our meddling and exploitation have made us pretty much hated all over the world. Sure, we pay off some countries so they can spread propaganda back home that "they love us"...but that is not the truth. If we would have kept our troops home, secured our national security, fairly traded AND let countries tend to their own sovereign affairs....the tragedy of 9-11 would never have happened...

I know, someone is going to bring up Kuwait and that was different because they were invaded and specifically pleaded for help...everything before and after has been for "something else" besides "spreading democracy"...it's called resource exploitation and profit....for the super mega corporations. Deep down...we all know this.

Just my opinion though…

X: The organizing principle of any society, Mr. Garrison, is for war. The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are arming strictly for defensive purposes. Cause at the rate our liberties are being dismantled, if it continues, one day they are going to cross a line and there will be no turning back. If you dont already have guns by then, it will be to late. Make no mistake, if something happens, they will be the agressors.

You have to agree that this is paranoia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"ASPEN, Colo. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ® on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

I'd be interested to see how Gov. Christie ™ thinks that American foreign policy over the last decade has had anything to do with 9/11.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the 9-11 comments from Jabba....

Let me outline a Libertarian scenario that is so simple and yet profound.

Had we not been trampling over the middle east for decades to exploit their resources purely for globalist corporate profit...those people would not have hated us so much and would not have had a reason to "retaliate" (in their mind anyway) against the great Satan.

Our meddling and exploitation have made us pretty much hated all over the world. Sure, we pay off some countries so they can spread propaganda back home that "they love us"...but that is not the truth. If we would have kept our troops home, secured our national security, fairly traded AND let countries tend to their own sovereign affairs....the tragedy of 9-11 would never have happened...

I know, someone is going to bring up Kuwait and that was different because they were invaded and specifically pleaded for help...everything before and after has been for "something else" besides "spreading democracy"...it's called resource exploitation and profit....for the super mega corporations. Deep down...we all know this.

Just my opinion though...

This is one area where i agree very much with the Libertarian point of view, I have to say.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie, Paul highlight GOP debate over security

WASHINGTON (AP) — A rift over national security is developing in the early stages of the Republican Party's next presidential campaign, pitting libertarians who question government overreach against defenders of a more hawkish approach on national security formed after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

During a forum Thursday night in Aspen, Colo., New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pointed to a "strain of libertarianism" coursing through both parties as a "very dangerous thought" more than a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks. Christie was asked whether he was referring to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a potential presidential candidate who has been at the forefront of the party's libertarian wing.

"You can name any number of people and he's one of them," said Christie, noting his state suffered the second-most casualties in the hijacked airliner attacks on New York and Washington, which killed nearly 3,000 people. "These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won't, because that's a much tougher conversation to have."

Paul responded Friday on Twitter, saying Christie "worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional."

For Republicans, the national security debate offers a window into an evolving party that nearly a decade ago re-elected President George W. Bush, in part, on the basis of his administration's hard-line response to the terror attacks and use of tools provided by the USA Patriot Act, which gave the administration the powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists. It also serves notice that whoever hopes to claim the GOP nomination in 2016 may need to fuse factions within the party on national security.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/christie-paul-highlight-gop-debate-over-security-193205422.html

bfquote.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems fitting lol

184767_489581844416993_65797504_n.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately he has a point. The same Libertains are arming themselves to the teeth so that they can throw off this "corrupt and oppressive" regime - as their second amendment right entitles them to.

Br Cornelius

How many people died in wars started by neoconservatives and RINOs? Compare that death toll to the one caused by Libertarians like the Pauls. Facts trump rhetoric. That's even true in our Orwellian world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight. The loss of liberties caused by Constitutional erosion and the loss of lives caused by eternal wars are good things, and the denunciation and renunciation of these policies is just "destructive" ideology from "dangerous" extremists. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Mr. Celebrity/Politician. Now, I know who *not* to support.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people died in wars started by neoconservatives and RINOs? Compare that death toll to the one caused by Libertarians like the Pauls. Facts trump rhetoric. That's even true in our Orwellian world.

Thats simply because they haven't been in power. Do you think the Military-Industrial complex would stop under a Libertarian president? In fact I fail to see how libertarian de-regulation of the market would do anything except benefit the MIC.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thats simply because they haven't been in power. Do you think the Military-Industrial complex would stop under a Libertarian president? In fact I fail to see how libertarian de-regulation of the market would do anything except benefit the MIC.

The United states has personal in 130 different nations around the world. We police the world. We spend the most on are military out of any country.

Libertarians are noninterventionist. As in pull or troops out of every freaken nation in the world. Stop giving finnacle and military aid to foreign dictators just because we want a friendly dictator in power.

Doing all this would cut the military and use it only for defense which is what Libs want to do.

The government is who funds the military just in cause you forgot, so deregulating the market would not effect the military complex. But all of the above would

I fail to see how the MIC wouldent stop under a Libertarian president :gun:

Edited by spartan max2
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United states has personal in 130 different nations around the world. We police the world. We spend the most on are military out of any country.

Libertarians are noninterventionist. As in pull or troops out of every freaken nation in the world. Stop giving finnacle and military aid to foreign dictators just because we want a friendly dictator in power.

Doing all this would cut the military and use it only for defense which is what Libs want to do.

The government is who funds the military just in cause you forgot, so deregulating the market would not effect the military complex. But all of the above would

I fail to see how the MIC wouldent stop under a Libertarian president :gun:

Freed of any constraint they would simply carry on but in a private capacity. The MIC is the most profitable industry in the world - they wouldn't just pack up their bags and go home because the president told them to - especially if you deregulated the market.

In an interesting development Monsanto has recently purchased its own private army in the form of Blackwater - I don't think they are legally entitled to use a private army in defense of their franchise but do you think that will stop them ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freed of any constraint they would simply carry on but in a private capacity. The MIC is the most profitable industry in the world - they wouldn't just pack up their bags and go home because the president told them to - especially if you deregulated the market.

In an interesting development Monsanto has recently purchased its own private army in the form of Blackwater - I don't think they are legally entitled to use a private army in defense of their franchise but do you think that will stop them ?

Br Cornelius

Deregulating the market place is not the same as giving the military no constraints. Montaso is a private company, the military is owned by the United states government this is hardy the same thing.

Of course there would be a fight, but we stop giving them money and pull them all back home and yes they have to listen they are not a free entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deregulating the market place is not the same as giving the military no constraints. Montaso is a private company, the military is owned by the United states government this is hardy the same thing.

Of course there would be a fight, but we stop giving them money and pull them all back home and yes they have to listen they are not a free entity.

Have you tried taking a childs toys away - they generally kick, punch and bite you !

Try the same thing with a tank manufacturer, I am certain they would have imaginative ways of punching, biting and kicking (especially since they have a whole rake of lobbyists embedded in the Government and Civil service).

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried taking a childs toys away - they generally kick, punch and bite you !

Try the same thing with a tank manufacturer, I am certain they would have imaginative ways of punching, biting and kicking (especially since they have a whole rake of lobbyists embedded in the Government and Civil service).

Br Cornelius

That I agree with, I guess what I don't understand is your point?

Would it be difficult yes, impossible no.

Anytime someone try's to make a big change it gets met with a lot of resistance,

The point is the Democrats and Republicans are acting like imperialist, ,personal in 130 nations.

Libertarians have a plan to actually try and change that. It would be difficult of course. But that does not mean we shouldn't try.

Or we can just let the donkeys and elephants expand the MIC.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time a president proposed trying to defang the MIC - he ended up dead ! That is my point.

Consider also that the CIA is the hidden world government which is largely unaccountable (probably the ones who bumped off the last president that tried to defang them) and you see that I don't imagine simply electing a party which believe in minimal regulation and small government will be much of a success in the long run.

It would take a popular and peaceful uprising to get rid of the criminals who have ceased control of your country - and I don't see much sign of that either.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time a president proposed trying to defang the MIC - he ended up dead ! That is my point.

Consider also that the CIA is the hidden world government which is largely unaccountable (probably the ones who bumped off the last president that tried to defang them) and you see that I don't imagine simply electing a party which believe in minimal regulation and small government will be much of a success in the long run.

It would take a popular and peaceful uprising to get rid of the criminals who have ceased control of your country - and I don't see much sign of that either.

Br Cornelius

So you are an adherent of the JFK MIC Conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.