1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Chris Christie to pass law with 5 year jail term for threatening a police dog

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Obamanation, Aug 2, 2013.

  1. #1


    It isn't the donuts, his grossly obese physique, or his politically staged love of Obama in the last 8 days of the 2012 election that make Christie unpopular on the right, but all those things help. If you want to know why Christie is unpopular with civil libertarians on the right and left, the article above illustrates the exact kind of big government, anti-citizen, prison state legislation that makes him an oversized target for people like Rand Paul on the right and Glenn Greenwald on the left. What a useless tub of lard.

    SEMrush
     
    Obamanation, Aug 2, 2013 IP
    SEMrush
  2. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    26,537
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Best Answers:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #2
    Not being American I have no idea who this Christie chap that you are so enamoured with is - but I do know that training up those dogs costs a huge bucket of money and when they are injured/killed the cop is out of action too. The dog never chose to be a police dog - it is just doing what it's been trained to do and they deserve protection.
     
    sarahk, Aug 21, 2013 IP
  3. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #3
    I'm fairly certain that assaulting or harming a police dog already comes with a jail sentence. We are talking about a loosely defined "threatening" here.
     
    Obamanation, Aug 22, 2013 IP
  4. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #4
    Sarah:

    The scope of the opening thread was far more an attack on Chris Christie, the Republican governor of NJ than an attack on this possible legislation and its consequences. It is one of these strange posts generated by political fanatics on the extreme that tend to take an isolated headline about something that might occur but hadn't then yet occurred. The post didn't speak about the issue of how to treat attacks on police dogs in the specifics and the reasons why or why not to do so.

    The post simply used this isolated headline to generate an attack on the individual and to paint him in outrageous perspectives that reflect the poster's political leanings.

    It was so weird in stretching the story that after 3 weeks it generated no responses and scarcely any views. Very unusual. But not unusual when somebody goes ballistically political on a little story trying to create an overwhelming attack on the individual by fabricating fantasies and characterizations on such a disconnected topic.

    So why did this little story that attracted no commentary for 3 weeks appear? As a GOP governor in NJ, Chris Christie gained a lot of popularity and attention in 2011 and 2012. He gained so much popularity within the party and the nation that he was chosen to give the keynote nominating speech at the GOP convention in August 2012 for the nominee for President, Mitt Romney.

    Later in late October 2012 Hurricane Sandy hit NJ, NY and Connecticut, destroying the shore areas, driving waters up inland and destroying areas serviced by rivers into the ocean. It had the impact of Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast in 2005 which utterly destroyed New Orleans and other gulf coast areas in Louisiana and neighboring states. Hurricane Katrina ultimately generated billions of dollars of US aid that was provided by Congress by vote within days of its passing.

    As governor of NJ, which was devastated he immediately started working for help. The state needed it. President Obama responded to oversee immediate help. The two men got together within days and toured the state, embraced in the midst of their efforts. That was in late October 2012. It was also coincidentally days before the national election.

    While immediate emergency aid from the feds was facilitated in part by Obama jumping in to tour the devastated states....the large scale aid that was needed...and had been provided to the Gulf States was not provided in a similarly quick fashion as was the case in 2005 following hurricane Katrina.

    Here is how the fed gov responded on a timeline following Katrina in 2005:

    (from Wikipedia)

    More than 10,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen and 7,200 active-duty troops were stationed in the Gulf Coast region to assist with hurricane relief operations with some remaining several weeks.[1] The military relief effort, known as Joint Task Force Katrina, is being commanded by Lieutenant GeneralRussel L. Honoré, commander of the US First Army. At President Bush's urging, the U.S. Senate quickly approved $10.5 billion in aid for victims September 1, 2005. The U.S. House of Representatives voted and approved on the measure Friday, September 2, 2005 without any debate. President Bush requested an additional $51.8 billion on September 7. Congress approved that funding package the next day.

    In other words over $60 billion dollars of federal aid was approved and voted on by congress within 10 days.

    Christie, the governors of NY and CT, and the entire populations of those 3 states though experienced something entirely different.

    After Obama's initial visit and the first emergency source of federal funding arrived NOTHING occurred from the fed level...and primarily from the US House of Representatives who were tasked with approving funding.

    10 days, 20 days, 30 days/one month. Over 2 months passed. There was no movement by Congress. A crisis the scope of Katrina had occurred and the House of Representatives were totally SILENT on the issue.

    A new Congress was coming into office in early January 2013 and still the House hadn't taken up the issue. Why was Congress so inactive in 2012 after it had been so responsive to the suffering of US citizens in 2005???

    As of late Dec 2012 and early 2013 Christie and other Republicans from the afflicted states in the Northeast Blasted Congress. But who they really blasted was the majority leadership of Congress...the Republicans. The leadership simply refused to bring this issue to a vote.

    This leadership was shamed to the core and brought the issue to a vote. The House and Senate went back and forth and ultimately as of late January 2012 passed an aid package similar in size to that passed for Katrina aid in 2005.

    But it took a full 3 months for this to occur in 2011-2012 versus 10 days in 2005.

    Why do I mention this? Because in the opening post...ostensibly about a piece of legislation that might be passed by this guy Christie, it is referenced that he gave "political love" to the opposition 8 days before the election.

    That statement of course completely ignores what occurred with an enormous hurricane devastating 3 states and causing unimaginable damage that in the past had generated quick US federal reaction by the President, various elements under the Presidents administration, and Congress to approve large expenditures.

    Somehow the opening thread completely missed all those devastating and critical facts.

    After that of course the opening thread simply is an attack on Governor Christie massing the extreme right wing perspective and a exaggeration of a tiny article concerning a piece of legislation that was first proposed over 1 year ago and may or may not be ultimately passed.

    Sarah: Today, though it is only 2013 there is an enormous amount of activity by politicians, their supporters and the US press to speculate and generate interest on behalf of candidates for the US presidency in 2016. The politicians who consider themselves as having shots at this position are raising their profiles, speaking, and clearly trying to gain popularity.

    On the GOP side there already is a two sided very different perspective. On the traditionalist side, possibly representing business interests, main street, old line republicans Christie is a leading candidate. Those on the tea party libertarian side will simply write anything they can from any topic to attack him.

    Frankly, I believe in having cops. I assume have police dogs helps in the administration of the law by cops. If some a-holes want to avoid getting caught for their crimes by killing police dogs they should be punished.

    Its not some kind of esoteric philosophical discussion about citizen rights. Its about maintaining a working police situation that actually protects citizen rights.

    Seriously if you don't want even a modicum of civil protections provided by a government move to South Sudan or possibly Syria or where pirates reign on the East Coast of Africa off the Indian Ocean. It seems to me those would be great places for libertarians who have a need to scream about police dogs or any completely nonsensical tiny issue to attack any move by government of any sort and similarly try and push their perspectives forward.
     
    earlpearl, Aug 22, 2013 IP
    sarahk likes this.
  5. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #5
    I'm sorry it took me so long to read your book, Earl, but I finally got around to it. Here are the salient points:

    1) You praise George W. Bush's response to Katrina, making you perhaps the first Democrat in history to do so.
    2) You acknowledged Chris Christie's "bear hug" of Obama, 8 days before a presidential election, did nothing to improve Obama's poor response to Sandy(Though it did help Obama's campaign, and therefore Christies likability among Democrats)
    3) You claimed the "traditional" GOP operates for the benefit of mainstreet (and business interests), which would normally lose you your commie card altogether.
    4) You asserted that without some new legislation to protect police dogs from the hurtful words of citizens, New Jersey might not be able to maintain a "working police situation that actually protects citizens rights". LMAO
    5) You then claimed that the Tea Party and Libertarians want a society without police.

    I realize hyperbole and BS sell well on the left, but I know you have crossed the line when you are talking up Bush's response to Katrina, and the care the GOP has for mainstreet, when your party has spent the last decade selling the exact opposite story. Regarding the NJ's ability to maintain a "working police situation that protects citizens rights", It looks like they have the job well in hand.


    My guess, Earl, is that your tune will change when the guy in this video is you. Remember to comply with these words: "Stop resisting!"

     
    Obamanation, Aug 26, 2013 IP
  6. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #6
    A Working Police Situation that Protects Citizens Rights
     
    Obamanation, Aug 26, 2013 IP
  7. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #7
    A Working Police Situation that Protects Citizens Rights
     
    Obamanation, Aug 26, 2013 IP
  8. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #8
    A Working Police Situation that Protects Citizens Rights
     
    Obamanation, Aug 26, 2013 IP