NJ Governor Chris Christie, vying to be the next The New York Times “Republican” posterboy, engages in the kind of emotional demagoguery usually spewed by Leftwinger Nanny Statists.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had blunt words of criticism for those in the Republican party who take a turn to the libertarian way of thinking: That’s dangerous.
He made the comments Thursday in the context of speaking about victims and families of the Sept. 11, 2011, terrorist attacks on America’s soil, and explaining why he objected to intelligence and military policies furthered by the likes of Sen. Rand Paul.
“This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” he said from a Republican governors’ conference in Colorado, the New York Times reported.
When asked if he was referring to Mr. Paul, Mr. Christie replied:
“You can name any number of people, and he’s one of them,” he said, The New York Times reported. “These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversations. And they won’t because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.”
Really, Christie? I’m willing to sit across from you and point out that the vast Hoovering of personal data on all Americans — with the IRS/FBI/EPA being sicced on people and groups that displeased His Royal Oneness — sure didn’t keep the lives and limbs of Boston marathoners safe.
Bring it on, big boy.
I’d like Christie to sit with those people and explain why we shouldn’t be profiling Muslims instead of recording every move that every American citizen makes.
I’m not sure Chrissy has spoken to the widows and orphans. I’m not sure there are that many who vociferously demand that the government should spy on every law-abiding citizen in their name.
“This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought”
Dangerous to nanny-statists like Christie, understood.
At least he didn’t say “we must respect Obama!”. Not directly, anyway.
This from a guy who watches across the Hudson River as Nanny Mike, as opposite to libertarianism as it is possible to be outside of an Ayn Rand thought experiment, tries to outlaw, ban and prohibit him.
As opposed to dangerous actions like praising Obama in the press right before the election.
What a contemptible so-and-so.
Individual liberty is now “dangerous”? This from an alleged Republican?
If ever there was a time when a political establishment needed to be knocked off its perch…
Well at least the mask is off.
Though Crime: it’s what’s for dinner!
if you are what you eat than dear god those poor whores
*then* i mean
sluggish morning
it rained last night
water falling from the sky
this never happens
So far this is at the stage where the businesses say they haven’t turned over any passwords or they say nothing and everyone says that no accounts have been hacked by the Feds.
As with the other surveillance scandals we can expect these answers to morph as more info comes to light.
How long until we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us?
Doesn’t he know what happens to Snowball?
By supporting an open borders policy, which makes it easy for terrorists to enter the country, and draconian gun control laws, which disarm the law abiding citizens leaving them easy prey for criminals who will always have arms, he shows that he doesn’t really care about the safety of his public.
That means the “widows and the orphans” are simply cherry picked as a device to be used to demonize those who support freedom and push for more government and government control, power, over all the little people whose lives don’t matter to him really.
Logic could be Chris Christie’s friend, if only they were acquainted.
Oh no! Widows and orphans! The obnoxiously mendacious fat fuck is right! I’d better cancel my rights and feel bad about ever having them.
John Gray (h/t LibertyLawBlog): What Machiavelli Knew
It’s generous (in the extreme) of AG Holder to extend dictation of US policy to a foreign government, but we may suppose such concessions to be consistent with a Progressive view of law.
A guy that overweight really shouldn’t be straining his heart by holding up women and children as human shields.
Any sufficiently advanced apathy…
“This strain of libertarianism that’s going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought”
Dangerous indeed. Rhinos hardest hit.
Sdferr, other countries have refused extradition of actual serial killers until DOJ pledges not to seek the death penalty. Some serial killers would still be in Canada if such pledges weren’t made.
I always figured the correct response to such demands was, “Okay. Keep him. You’ll have a death penalty yourselves in a few years if you let him run around loose in your country.”
The Hill headlines “Christie, Paul, debate GOP’s future”, which isn’t entirely wrong, albeit much narrower than the actual question at hand. For my own part, the GOP’s future isn’t of terrible interest as over against the interest in the nation’s future — not exactly a question of party. But for the partisan political purposes of The Hill, a far nicer focus than any possible examination of the Obazmites’ disastrous (or non-existent!) national security policy.
Rinos hit back? Or perhaps kiss ass is a better description.
If we have precedent concessions at hand, we can think they too would be consistent with a Progressive view of law, McG. Doesn’t mean there aren’t other views to be considered though, as you point out. The triumphant Progressives have been around for quite awhile now, so there shouldn’t be any surprise the US has become somewhat inured to their depredations.
Phuck the RNC with the barbed cock of satan.
In Snowden’s case, the option of saying “keep him” isn’t open, because the utility of his case to the regime is of making an example and/or keeping him from spilling more secrets (I’m inclined to regard the former as more important to the Obamarrhoids).
The idea that he’s at risk of being executed strikes me as odd. Seems to me this is an instance, not of foreign governments being opposed in principle to capital punishment, but of knowing what they would do to someone who spilled their secrets and knowing they can bully the Unicorn Prince.
Satan demurs. He doesn’t want to catch what the RNC’s got.
In Snowden’s case, the option of saying “keep him” isn’t open, because the utility of his case to the regime is of making an example and/or keeping him from spilling more secrets (I’m inclined to regard the former as more important to the Obamarrhoids).
Indeed, nothing the DoJ would do will stop the damage Snowden has already done or may do in the future. The play-show ( auf Deutsche: schauspiel) of vaunted concern from Holder is little but a sleight of hand in any event, not least because however vicious a traitor to the interests of the USA Snowden may represent, Holder himself is infinitely worse — that is, if anyone ought to be stood against a wall and executed for despoiling the sovereignty, trust of justice and interests of the USA, Holder is numero uno — which in turn can only add to the hilarity. I mean, it is a comedy, isn’t it?
Federalist 3 (comes now once again to be put to the test):
*** It is not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and well-informed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes. ***
Toleration of ruin seems today to have become the newest virtue in a long succession of ever more progressive virtues. Enslavement being outlawed, self-enslavement rises to take the pride of place. So, comedy it is, since federal farting, belching, picking at the teeth and masturbatory practices own (are the primary engagement of) the national consciousness.
Less dangerous than the strain of paternalism running through the GOP right now. And way less dangerous than the strain of maternalism infecting the Democrats, fatso.
That this guy is not only a respected Republican politician but a serious contender to the party’s presidential nomination shows just how far left both parties have moved.
I believe you were thinking of thorn-cocked Gulbuth The Rampant.
I mean, it is a comedy, isn’t it?
Obama’s first term was comedy; this is farce.
The war’s in the process of going away, and the intel-gathering apparatus appears to have been converted into Barry’s Plumbers unit. I’d love to be able to arrange for Chris to meet with the survivors of the marathon bombing, or of Hasan Shoot’s spree at Fort Hood, or for that matter the families of the guys who died in Benghazi, and try to convince them they should still feel protected.
Christie is an Authoritarian Republican and he always has been. That he also knows how to take on the left is the only thing that made him popular with anybody to the right of him.