Fatboy Gets Seat of Honor Next to Michelle Obama

Posted in the Columbus Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 24 Comments Last updated Feb 25, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 25, 2013
 
Quite the tool.
Of the Left.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22840...

Best Seat in the (White) house! Chris Christie Gets Chair of Honor next to First Lady Michelle During Annual Governors' Dinner

by Beth Stebner

Gov. Chris Christie got the seat of honor at tonightís annual governorís dinner, sitting next to first lady Michelle Obama.

The New Jersey governor, a Republican, joined governors from across the nation at the annual Governorís Association Meeting, and at one point, clinked glasses with the presidentís wife.

Mr Obama had praised Gov. Christie for his response to Hurricane Sandy and his effort to get funding to those who were most affected by last Octoberís storm.

[photos...if you can handle them]
Oliver Canterberry

New Albany, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

That fat pig, parasite and traitor needs an apple in his mouth and to be put on a spit for a Hawaiian style hog roast.

No more liberals.

No more moderates.
bosco

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

How we gonna tell them apart.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

One one side of things, you are correct. What you guys are not correct about is that the politics you guys follow are in any way Reaganesque. There are some Reagan elements today, but most of the politics you guys follow, from accountant thinking to your Christian Zionism, is straight from the songbook of the George Schultz/George Bush/James Baker/Bob Dole/Jerry Ford/Karl Rove version of the Republican party.

Even though Reagan wasn't called a libertarian, that was the essence of his popularity. He was probably a populist libertarian. That is best exemplified today by people like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul.

So, while Christie is pulling a Romney to win reelection, the stuff you guys stand for isn't exactly where the people these days are at, either.
Spookhere F trolls

Clayton, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Enzyte Bob wrote:
One one side of things, you are correct. What you guys are not correct about is that the politics you guys follow are in any way Reaganesque. There are some Reagan elements today, but most of the politics you guys follow, from accountant thinking to your Christian Zionism, is straight from the songbook of the George Schultz/George Bush/James Baker/Bob Dole/Jerry Ford/Karl Rove version of the Republican party.
Even though Reagan wasn't called a libertarian, that was the essence of his popularity. He was probably a populist libertarian. That is best exemplified today by people like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul.
So, while Christie is pulling a Romney to win reelection, the stuff you guys stand for isn't exactly where the people these days are at, either.
Just because a majority of the voters are merely fisting each other down the road to economic collapse doesn't meen I will bend over for them.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 25, 2013
 
Spookhere F trolls wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because a majority of the voters are merely fisting each other down the road to economic collapse doesn't meen I will bend over for them.
But still, do you really think that anybody wants the Republican Party of Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, George Bush, George Bush, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove? The abortion generation is gone - nobody cares except relics like Maude/Reader.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 25, 2013
 
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
But still, do you really think that anybody wants the Republican Party of Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, George Bush, George Bush, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove? The abortion generation is gone - nobody cares except relics like Maude/Reader.
The MSM occasionally brings up an Ike descendent that is a lib, so I doubt people want an Ike like party either. Prior to him Coolidge was the last successful president, and he makes Reagan look tame.

Nixon was actually the most popular GOP president ever, before Watergate.

His center-left economics, were politically successful.

Romney did better than Nixon last year in WV (vs 1972), that tells me that if you are white, the GOP is hugely popular.

The Third Worlders will never vote for a party that doesn't consent to ongoing invasion of the country, confiscatory taxation for redistribution, and "diversity" schemes.

That's why I predicted war.
Spookhere F trolls

Clayton, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 25, 2013
 
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
But still, do you really think that anybody wants the Republican Party of Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, George Bush, George Bush, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove? The abortion generation is gone - nobody cares except relics like Maude/Reader.
Not as they are currently. Though there are things that were done under GH Bush that history will portray well.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 25, 2013
 
Spookhere F trolls wrote:
<quoted text>
Not as they are currently. Though there are things that were done under GH Bush that history will portray well.
1989 import ban, failure to finish the job in Iraq, failure to topple the PRC at Tiananemen
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 25, 2013
 
Spookhere F trolls wrote:
<quoted text>
Not as they are currently. Though there are things that were done under GH Bush that history will portray well.
I agree that George Bush 43 did a lot of the right things being dealt a bad hand. We would still be paying for our economic implosion if a lesser person were at the controls not to mention keeping things humming along after 9/11.

Whatever good he did do, people will still remember the incompetence in Iraq for a very long time.

Like I said in another post, Iraq was the Republicans' Vietnam and they are going to be paying for it as long as the Democrats did after Johnson sent us into Vietnam.

Is the Middle East is a far better place without Saddam? I thought so at first. Not looking like it now.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 25, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
1989 import ban, failure to finish the job in Iraq, failure to topple the PRC at Tiananemen
I misread Spooks earlier post ... I thought he was talking about 43. Given what 43 did, not toppling Saddam proved to be exactly the right thing to do. Otherwise that mess would have occured in 1991 and we would have had 10 years of mailaise in the 1990's.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 25, 2013
 
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that George Bush 43 did a lot of the right things being dealt a bad hand. We would still be paying for our economic implosion if a lesser person were at the controls not to mention keeping things humming along after 9/11.
Whatever good he did do, people will still remember the incompetence in Iraq for a very long time.
Like I said in another post, Iraq was the Republicans' Vietnam and they are going to be paying for it as long as the Democrats did after Johnson sent us into Vietnam.
Is the Middle East is a far better place without Saddam? I thought so at first. Not looking like it now.
The Democrats maintained Congress until losing the Senate in 1980, regaining it in 1986.

They kept the House until 1994.

Ford's move to continue support to the RVN is what finished the GOP and his presidency.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I misread Spooks earlier post ... I thought he was talking about 43. Given what 43 did, not toppling Saddam proved to be exactly the right thing to do. Otherwise that mess would have occured in 1991 and we would have had 10 years of mailaise in the 1990's.
Iran was weaker in 1991 than it was in 2003. They had just been beaten up by the preceding war in the 80s.

We were at our height of power. The Arab leaders were scared that tossing Saddam would lead to their people tossing them.

But the Islamists were not as politically powerful yet, liberal capitalism had just wrecked the USSR, and the street was receptive for a short period.

Imagine no PRC, but a restored ROC in 1989.

That's his biggest failure.
Spookhere F trolls

Clayton, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 25, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
1989 import ban, failure to finish the job in Iraq, failure to topple the PRC at Tiananemen
I didn't say I agreed with his domestic policy nor all of.his foreign ones. There are things that He set in motion that were the right thing to do at.the time.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 25, 2013
 
Spookhere F trolls wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say I agreed with his domestic policy nor all of.his foreign ones. There are things that He set in motion that were the right thing to do at.the time.
?

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 25, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
The Democrats maintained Congress until losing the Senate in 1980, regaining it in 1986.
They kept the House until 1994.
Ford's move to continue support to the RVN is what finished the GOP and his presidency.
Ford lost in the debates. The "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" gaffe sank him the way, "No I would not (want the death penalty if my wife were raped and murdered) Bernie," torpedoed Dukakis.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 25, 2013
 
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I misread Spooks earlier post ... I thought he was talking about 43. Given what 43 did, not toppling Saddam proved to be exactly the right thing to do. Otherwise that mess would have occured in 1991 and we would have had 10 years of mailaise in the 1990's.
I would have been willing to take that chance.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 25, 2013
 
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I misread Spooks earlier post ... I thought he was talking about 43. Given what 43 did, not toppling Saddam proved to be exactly the right thing to do. Otherwise that mess would have occured in 1991 and we would have had 10 years of mailaise in the 1990's.
Where have you been, Roberto? I agree with you on the latter. I don't understand why 'getting' bin laden was a big deal. It has not weakened the terrorists, emboldened them if anything.

I'll tell you what, under Bush 1 or II, Benghazi would have had far faster reaction and farther reaching consequences. And Connie Rice would not have run off to Peru for a month after. I think they were both transparent as possible.

And if Clinton had reacted to the Cole and embassy bomings and deaths, 9-11-01 may not have happened.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 25, 2013
 
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Iran was weaker in 1991 than it was in 2003. They had just been beaten up by the preceding war in the 80s.
We were at our height of power. The Arab leaders were scared that tossing Saddam would lead to their people tossing them.
But the Islamists were not as politically powerful yet, liberal capitalism had just wrecked the USSR, and the street was receptive for a short period.
Imagine no PRC, but a restored ROC in 1989.
That's his biggest failure.
Except you wouldn't have had a restored PRC, at least not then. You would have had a decade of Chinese civil war that might have gotten very ugly if a nervous Japan, Taiwan and ROK were affected.

Since: Jan 13

Returning with a vengeance

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 25, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Ford lost in the debates. The "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" gaffe sank him the way, "No I would not (want the death penalty if my wife were raped and murdered) Bernie," torpedoed Dukakis.
"I was for it before I was against it"

"The fundamentals of the economy are strong"

"47%"

You can count Candy Crowley's intrusion into the debate as another.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••