Whether he was personally and directly responsible for that or not, it certainly does call into question his ability to select the right caliber of subordinate and supervise them properly in carrying out their duties.
Though I'd personally guess that, this being carried out by highly placed aides at the very least, it does tend to suggest his own culpability. Which is a pity, because he always seemed like such a stand-up guy before this. Certainly a less dogmatically crazy and idiotic breed of Republican than the norm.
But petty vindictiveness and dishonesty is just not Presidential material. Or, I should say, not ideally Presidential material. Since a lot of Presidents don't really live up to the standard of behavior one might prefer for somebody in control of such a powerful military &c.
Whether he was personally and directly responsible for that or not, it certainly does call into question his ability to select the right caliber of subordinate and supervise them properly in carrying out their duties.
Though I'd personally guess that, this being carried out by highly placed aides at the very least, it does tend to suggest his own culpability. Which is a pity, because he always seemed like such a stand-up guy before this. Certainly a less dogmatically crazy and idiotic breed of Republican than the norm.
But petty vindictiveness and dishonesty is just not Presidential material. Or, I should say, not ideally Presidential material. Since a lot of Presidents don't really live up to the standard of behavior one might prefer for somebody in control of such a powerful military &c.
Exactly, even if he's not directly involved in the scandal it does call into question about the people he trusts to have as his inner circle in the governor's office. If he can't trust that the people working for him aren't going to go out and do something like that what's to say if does get elected President his Defense Secretary or his Secretary of State won't go and order a strike on some country because they didn't kiss his rings so to speak or if a governor doesn't endorse him and they have a tornado or very bad floods hit their state what's to say his head of Homeland Security won't deny FEMA help to them. That's the kind of stuff you have to wonder about because his staff, aids, and port authority people lied about conducting a traffic survey on the George Washington Bridge.
Though I'd personally guess that, this being carried out by highly placed aides at the very least, it does tend to suggest his own culpability. Which is a pity, because he always seemed like such a stand-up guy before this. Certainly a less dogmatically crazy and idiotic breed of Republican than the norm.
Actually the evidence was in way before this, you just weren't reading the right blogs.
Whether he was personally and directly responsible for that or not, it certainly does call into question his ability to select the right caliber of subordinate and supervise them properly in carrying out their duties.
Though I'd personally guess that, this being carried out by highly placed aides at the very least, it does tend to suggest his own culpability. Which is a pity, because he always seemed like such a stand-up guy before this. Certainly a less dogmatically crazy and idiotic breed of Republican than the norm.
But petty vindictiveness and dishonesty is just not Presidential material. Or, I should say, not ideally Presidential material. Since a lot of Presidents don't really live up to the standard of behavior one might prefer for somebody in control of such a powerful military &c.
Exactly, even if he's not directly involved in the scandal it does call into question about the people he trusts to have as his inner circle in the governor's office. If he can't trust that the people working for him aren't going to go out and do something like that what's to say if does get elected President his Defense Secretary or his Secretary of State won't go and order a strike on some country because they didn't kiss his rings so to speak or if a governor doesn't endorse him and they have a tornado or very bad floods hit their state what's to say his head of Homeland Security won't deny FEMA help to them. That's the kind of stuff you have to wonder about because his staff, aids, and port authority people lied about conducting a traffic survey on the George Washington Bridge.
Though I'd personally guess that, this being carried out by highly placed aides at the very least, it does tend to suggest his own culpability. Which is a pity, because he always seemed like such a stand-up guy before this. Certainly a less dogmatically crazy and idiotic breed of Republican than the norm.
Actually the evidence was in way before this, you just weren't reading the right blogs.
I just prefer not to rush to judgement, myself. I mean, in my own personal estimation, I figured he was personally responsible when it came up in the first place. But I wouldn't want to act on that kind of hunch. Suspicion cannot equal guilt.
Sure they might be signing up, but how many of them actually have healthcare?
You are not a Texan, you are a sham!
Umm, all of them?
Lol, I've spent most of my entire life in Texas, so I am a Texan, actually.
You just lied, majorly.
I signed up on that sad excuse for a website, but I don't have any health insurance because even the cheapest plan was too much on my meager part time wages.
Where is your proof that everyone that signed up on that website or through the number has insurance?
I signed up on that sad excuse for a website, but I don't have any health insurance because even the cheapest plan was too much on my meager part time wages.
1. Obamacare isn't single-payer, universal health care, which is what I support. Not everybody will get it, rather, MORE people will get it than before.
2. Yeah, America sucks like that. Maybe you should stand with the rest of us patriots who want an increased minimum wage, as well as single-payer, universal health care, that way you can have health insurance in spite of your meager part time wages (which should be higher).
Though I'd personally guess that, this being carried out by highly placed aides at the very least, it does tend to suggest his own culpability. Which is a pity, because he always seemed like such a stand-up guy before this. Certainly a less dogmatically crazy and idiotic breed of Republican than the norm.
Actually the evidence was in way before this, you just weren't reading the right blogs.
I just prefer not to rush to judgement, myself. I mean, in my own personal estimation, I figured he was personally responsible when it came up in the first place. But I wouldn't want to act on that kind of hunch. Suspicion cannot equal guilt.
Well, when I said "the right blogs" I had one particular blog in mind. Read this. And keep in mind that it's dated November 9 of last year.
That one's the most appropriate for obvious reasons, but there are literally hundreds of posts on Christie on that blog.
Though I'd personally guess that, this being carried out by highly placed aides at the very least, it does tend to suggest his own culpability. Which is a pity, because he always seemed like such a stand-up guy before this. Certainly a less dogmatically crazy and idiotic breed of Republican than the norm.
Actually the evidence was in way before this, you just weren't reading the right blogs.
I just prefer not to rush to judgement, myself. I mean, in my own personal estimation, I figured he was personally responsible when it came up in the first place. But I wouldn't want to act on that kind of hunch. Suspicion cannot equal guilt.
Well, when I said "the right blogs" I had one particular blog in mind. Read this. And keep in mind that it's dated November 9 of last year.
That one's the most appropriate for obvious reasons, but there are literally hundreds of posts on Christie on that blog.
"The right blog" in this case is the Wall Street Journal, then. Well, I don't read the WSJ, so I'll have to concede that point.
Blockbusters (old TV game show, on both sides of the pond) meets the State of the Union speech!rolleyes
I'll have a P please Mr President
State of the Union 2014 - Quiz
What "P" is a country which hosts terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans and are targeted by US drones, gets billions of US taxpayer dollars in aid yet can afford to buy more and more nuclear weapons, but despite the threat and danger to the US from this country, it wasn't even named by the President in his State of the Union speech in 2014?
We all remember the State of the Union longest round of applause that went to wounded veteran U.S. Army Ranger Sgt. First Class Cory Remsburg, who was blown up and nearly killed by a road-side bomb in Afghanistan.
Most of those road-side bombs that have killed and injured thousands of Americans in Afghanistan are made and planted by Taliban forces sent across the border into Afghanistan from what country, begins with a "P"?
Well it's an easy question to answer but now for the harder political questions and my answers.
Why didn't President Obama name this dangerous country-name-begins-with-a-P in his State of the Union speech?
Iran is a dangerous country which Obama named 10 times in his State of the Union speech.
Then again Obama has quite a robust policy to confront and to contain Iran.
Whether Obama's Iran policy is good enough for everyone's satisfaction is another matter. But his Iran policy is good enough for Obama to be able to stand in front of the American people, to defend his policy, maybe get a round of applause too.
Obama also has a policy about Afghanistan that he must talk about because American troops are in harm's way there and his policy of withdrawing and ending the war in Afghanistan, is a dove-policy, it's an Obama-policy but it is not a policy to stop the terrorism coming over the border from this unnamed country, coming to Afghanistan and coming to America maybe like they did before on 9/11.
Obama has no policy to boast about as regards this dangerous country (name begins with a "P" ); his policy - "diplomacy, aid & drones" is so weak and ineffective, so dove-like when a hawk-like policy is required, so Obama-when-we-need-JFK that Obama prefers not to speak the name of this dangerous country (begins with a "P" ) in his State of the Union speech.
Say the name of this country Mr President. Say it and come up with a better, tougher, more effective, hawk-like policy to deal with it.
How Pakistan secretly sponsors Al Qaeda & the Taliban
The BBC's Secret Pakistan videos.
The AfPak Mission
The AfPak Mission on the internet is about war on terror military and security strategy for NATO and allied countries with ground forces in action in Afghanistan and air and airborne forces including drones and special force raids in action over Pakistan.
The AfPak Mission helps implementation of the Bush Doctrine versus state sponsors of terror and is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice.
The AfPak Mission approach to the Taliban is uncompromising.
There should be no peace with the Taliban.
The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.
Arrest all Taliban political leaders and media spokesmen.
Capture or kill all Taliban fighters.
The AfPak Mission identifies useful content across multiple websites.
On YouTube, the AfPak Mission channel presents playlists of useful videos.
The AfPak Mission forum offers structured on-line written discussion facilities and the forum is the rallying and reference centre of the AfPak Mission, linking to all other AfPak Mission content on the internet.
The AfPak Mission has a Twitter, a Flickr and a wordpress Blog too.
You are invited to subscribe to the channel, register with the forum and follow on twitter, flickr and the blog.
100
200
200
