Why Don't They Lay Off
 

What's up with this Christie bashing?
Give the guy a break.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On 1/31/14, 5:14 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
What's up with this Christie bashing?
Give the guy a break.



Are you referring to the latest development, as reported by Reuters:

" Jan 31 (Reuters) - The former New Jersey official at the center of a
political scandal dogging Governor Chris Christie said on Friday the
prominent Republican knew about a traffic jam orchestrated by his top
aides during the blockage, the New York Times reported.

"Christie, seen as a 2016 White House hopeful, has repeatedly denied any
knowledge of a plan to snarl traffic at the busy George Washington
Bridge as political retribution and severed ties with several top aides
over their role in the incident."

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

In article ,
says...


If proven guilty, yup, he should resign. He would have been better off
saying, "I ordered it, whataya gonna do about it?" But he has denied
it, so let's let the investigation and maybe the courts do their jobs.

Courts? What are you suggesting? Quit piling on the poor guy.
I'm sure it's all been but a misunderstanding.
I can't believe a governor would do such as Christie has been accused of
doing.
I predict he will be exonerated.
It's a shame the feds are involved in this.
They railroaded Blagojevich into 14 years in prison for less.
Simple politics.
I hope they're not tapping Christies phone and putting wires on his
aides. He's got a family for Christ sakes.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

Krausebag wrote about Christie's alleged lies.
-------------------------------------------------------

Hey Krausebag, speaking of lies:

How's the Dr-Dr-Dr?
What happened to that Zimerman-like lobster boat?
Do you still have the Hatteras?
What was the date of the fireboat welcome in New York Harbor?
Been back on the Yale campus lately?
Taken may pictures of owls recently?
What were the two dates you "rounded the Horn?"
Been rebuilding any burned out churches in recent years?
Etc., etc., etc.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On 2/1/2014 8:21 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself
shouldn't be reported to the public?

Fair is fair. If we can report on the problems you created for yourself
(I'll list a few later) It's only fitting that problems Christie created
for himself be shown the sunshine. John is suggesting that you are
****ting yourself with glee over the prospect that he has done something
wrong.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On 2/1/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself
shouldn't be reported to the public?


I find it interesting that Democrats always redefine what is OK when a
Republican does it.
What Christie was supposed to do is trivial compared to Chicago
politics on a good day. What Nixon did was trivial compared to LBJ and
the list goes on.



Uh-huh.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

In article ,
says...

What's up with this Christie bashing?
Give the guy a break.

Christie deserves all the crap he is receiving.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On 2/1/2014 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself
shouldn't be reported to the public?


I find it interesting that Democrats always redefine what is OK when a
Republican does it.
What Christie was supposed to do is trivial compared to Chicago
politics on a good day. What Nixon did was trivial compared to LBJ and
the list goes on.


IRS and InJustice being sicked after political opponents is the worst
ever....

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 13:58:58 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:15:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself
shouldn't be reported to the public?


I find it interesting that Democrats always redefine what is OK when a
Republican does it.
What Christie was supposed to do is trivial compared to Chicago
politics on a good day. What Nixon did was trivial compared to LBJ and
the list goes on.



Uh-huh.

Which part was wrong?

I do find it interesting that the Democrats anointed Christie as the
presumptive candidate, just so they could knock him down.
Smart money would have said he would not survive the primaries anyway.
That "Tony Soprano" thing is not going to play in Texas, Florida or
the fly over country that comprises most of the red states.
By a like token they don't really give a **** if some bridge in New
York was slow a few days. I bet most people there didn't even notice.
They just racked up to the same traffic they see a couple hundred
other days a year.

If you'd spend just a little time on your English grammar, you'd realize that 'Uh-huh' is a response
denoting agreement.

Why Don't They Lay Off
 

On 2/1/2014 4:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 13:58:58 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:15:06 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 08:21:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


What's your point, that the problems Christie has created for himself
shouldn't be reported to the public?


I find it interesting that Democrats always redefine what is OK when a
Republican does it.
What Christie was supposed to do is trivial compared to Chicago
politics on a good day. What Nixon did was trivial compared to LBJ and
the list goes on.



Uh-huh.

Which part was wrong?

I do find it interesting that the Democrats anointed Christie as the
presumptive candidate, just so they could knock him down.
Smart money would have said he would not survive the primaries anyway.
That "Tony Soprano" thing is not going to play in Texas, Florida or
the fly over country that comprises most of the red states.
By a like token they don't really give a **** if some bridge in New
York was slow a few days. I bet most people there didn't even notice.
They just racked up to the same traffic they see a couple hundred
other days a year.

If you'd spend just a little time on your English grammar, you'd realize that 'Uh-huh' is a response
denoting agreement.


Getting a little nit-picky here. It's also a form of sarcasm, like ya,
sure.