Gov. Christie Live: One Night Only

101
614

Do you have something you’ve been wanting to ask Governor Chris Christie? This could be your chance.

Tonight at 8 p.m., the Guv will appear live on “Christie on the Line,” a call-in program on NJTV hosted by anchor Steve Adubato. Questions can be submitted to democracyworks@caucusnj.org, or by clicking here.

Sponsored by the Caucus Educational Corporation (CEC), the one-hour show will be simulcast  at 8:00 pm on PBS stations THIRTEEN and NJTV. It also will air online at NJ.com, and can be heard on WNYC 93.9 FM, WBGO 88.3 FM and WOR 710.

This is the third time the Governor has appeared on the program. He will respond to viewer questions on such issues as education, health care and the economy.

Newsletter, Monthly Events, Special Features, Breaking News and More:

Get once-daily headlines, a monthly events calendar, and occasional special features and breaking news in your inbox.

101 COMMENTS

  1. Yes herb, and he was only 43 years old but the release states “natural causes”. I was not aware that he suffered from any sort of medical condition, were you?

  2. No, They said it was unexpected natural causes. I heard him on radio the other day. I just read he was married to Orson Beans daughter.

  3. I didn’t agree with his politics and I deplored his methods, but he was a 43 year old man with 4 young children. This is a sad story, plain and simple.

  4. Celebrating the death of Breitbart, a father of four, says more about that person’s character than it does their politics

  5. 43 is way too young to die. And for the most part, comments on HuffPo have been very respectable. Compare that to Breitbart’s reaction when Kennedy died: “Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement.”

    It is tragic for his family and nobody should rejoice that his life was so short, but that does not preclude people from criticizing his methods and principles. Here he is in one of his finer moments.

  6. I, for one, am saddened by the death of one of our most fervent conservative voices. The fact that he was a 43-year-old husband and father just makes it worse. People on Bnet are showing more restraint that those on Twitter, Gawker, Facebook and HuffPo. Some of those comments are truly horrendous. It’s as if the people making them have never lost a friend or loved one.

  7. As Tudlow so correctly pointed out, most folks are being more compassionate in their notes regarding Brietbart’s passing then he himself was regarding those with whom he disagreed.

    There does seem to be a need to put politics aside and to acknowledge our common humanity, and the simple fact that all of our days are numbered.

  8. re: ROC’s point. There was a time, not so long ago, when a “patriot” was someone who served their country in one noble way or another.

    The word has since been corrupted, and reduced to meaning little more than ” a right winger doing right wing things”.

  9. True dat, croi.

    “Remember that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.”

    Death is a certainty. So live and cherish.

    And Martta, despite our recent squabble re: climate change, I’d like to brush politics aside for the moment, lament the passing of a husband and father (but not a conservative pundit who got Sherrod fired by deception) and tell you that I, too, love cats and dogs. And hamsters. And fish.

    I don’t think it’s a worthwhile way to pass time reading the comments on the various websites about Breitbart. I did not read anything negative at HuffPo, although I am sure there are some. But I did read some nasty ones from conservatives at some website called Weasel something or other that said that the evil liberals murdered him. Or that Obama did because he was so scared of him. It’s so silly, all of it. Why waste the emotional energy on reading these incendiary remarks (both liberal and conservative) from anonymous posters? Skip it.

  10. I don’t have time to read them all but I did see references to a “conspiracy.” I don’t buy into it. Sometimes a heart attack is just a heart attack and he’s had heart issues in the past.

    I am glad you love animals, Tudlow. It’s nice that we can come together on something. A love of animals defies politics.

  11. Indeed. And little kids (and big ones for that matter) aren’t too shabby, either. 🙂

    Okay, gotta go, my cat needs some food.

  12. Question for Christie: Given that your appointment for Education Commissioner has met with controversy and resulted in other stalemates, why don’t you do what presidents on both sides of the political spectrum have done before you in the interest of progress in government: withdraw the application and select another appointee who is less controversial?

  13. Patriot:
    a. A person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
    b. An automated surface-to-air missile system designed for early detection and interception of missiles or aircraft.

    Not sure which one of these he was, but, yes, I will exercise restraint and not say anything about anger management. I will say RIP. I am sure his family is devastated and they have my sympathies.

  14. Continuous anger, venom spewing, and deceptive journalism all have a negative long-term effect on the human body and spirit . . . cathar, gifro220.

    Can’t wait until the autopsy report comes out.

  15. Seems like he should’ve mellowed out a little bit and learned to enjoy life more, taken some of that compassionate conservatism to heart.

    Word up, Spiro. The word patriot now means very little.

  16. In Roc’s lexicon, a ‘pariot’ is someone with his conservative political views. Everyone else is seditious.

  17. I think the word Patriot has taken on some sort of religious connotation. Once you are branded with this word, you move up in status to a sainted plane. Whatever you say is cherished but your actions are still hard to overlook by us mere mortals. Politicians and pundits should never be called Patriots, let’s just leave that word to the fighting men & women protecting our liberties, and may they all come home soon and become mere citizens with honors.

  18. Definition of PATRIOT from Merriam-Webster:
    : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.

    That’s pertty straighforward and would describe most people, except those of us on the far extreme right wing who believe in the original intent of the Constitution, right Baristavillains?

    Of course, we’re the only ones who would pervert that simple meaning, because we’re evil, know-nothing troglodytes. Uneducated masses from beyond the pale of the intellectual heartland of the Northeast. Then again, it was Joey Biden who expanded that definition to include the payment of taxes. How’s that for diluting the meaning of a term?

  19. That’s pretty classy silverleaf:

    “Can’t wait until the autopsy report comes out.”

    Yeah, fingers crossed that its drugs!!!!! Then we can all enjoy a good laugh and continue to snicker and sneer contemptuously, our usual pose.

    (note: he had pre-existing heart problems.)

  20. Oh, and he did bash Kennedy post-mortem. Then again, Kennedy DID kill a person, in a very cold fashion to boot. Not that letting a young woman drown in your car while you callously walk back home and tell no one should matter or be a career-killer, or an indictable offence . . . if one is a connected leftist. Kennedy was a 1%er.

  21. “extreme right wing who believe in the original intent of the Constitution”.

    I think everyone believes in the original intent of the constitution, the differences lie in the interpretations. Much like the Bible, some take it as the literal word of God, some see the use of metaphors and parables as a guidance for how to live one’s life rather than a factual document, i.e., the world was created in seven days a few thousand years ago.

  22. That’s pertty straighforward and would describe most people, except those of us on the far extreme right wing who believe in the original intent of the Constitution, right Baristavillains?

    Like the part where African Americans are 3/5s of a person? Or the part where only men can vote?

    Everyone’s interpretation of the ‘original intent’ of the constitution is different. That’s why we have the Supreme Court.

  23. “Class” is subjective and not the point here, mboney11815.

    Your comment, “Yeah, fingers crossed that its drugs!!!!!” betrays your motivation and projects what you hoped I was thinking re his cause of death. Sorry, not the case!

    To my original point, reality is that “continuous anger and venom spewing” can kill, and often does.

    But since you brought it up, tell me, what class did Breitbart display when going into his bag of journalistic dirty tricks and ruining Shirley Sherrod?

  24. (note: he had pre-existing heart problems.)

    As if the looney tune right wingers, like the ones that hang on every word of Glenn Beck, are going to believe that.

  25. Unless you were in the car in Chappaquiddick, boney, you don’t know what happened there. Kennedy’s conduct is indefensible, but you are not the judge for him or for anyone else, save yourself.

    While I’m sure you are not a lawyer, for the record Kennedy did not “kill a person”. He DID walk away from an accident and he failed to report it until many hours later. Reprehensible, for sure. His connections certainly helped him as well, though money played a much bigger role than “leftist” politics. Perhaps you feel that “connected righties” who are rich and powerful don’t get away with things. If you do, you’re a fool.

    I go back to my original post. Breitbart’s death is sad, and a tragedy for his family and loved ones. At times like this, politics id secondary.

  26. Nice one bony. We can all read dictionaries. The question is what the interests of the country are. There doesn’t seem to be a unanimty of opinion on the matter.

    If no one paid taxes the US would fail to exist. Biden’s got a point. W called me unpatriotic for not support the Iraq/Afgan wars.

    I used to not stand for the pledge of allegiance in high school, which my teachers thought was unpatriotic. But my view was that America’s a great place precisely because I have the right NOT to stand for the pledge.

  27. “I think everyone believes in the original intent of the constitution” . . . Actually, there are many, based on their comments here, that do not believe in the Constitution. Or more likely, they just don’t really know much about it, the times in which it was crafted nor the men who battled for it.

    This is not really a matter of interpretation: if you think that there is an inherent RIGHT to fully paid healthcare in the Constitution, as it was intended to be used, then you can’t claim to believe in the original intent.
    Ditto for gov’t forcing religious institutions to pay for things they don’t believe in.
    Ditto for unrestricted abortion.
    Ditto for confiscatory taxation.
    Ditto for a multitude of internventionist wars.
    Ditto for welfare.
    Ditto for social security.
    Ditto for FDR’s infamous “Four Freedom’s” philosophy.
    Ditto for THE GREAT SOCIETY mindset.
    Ditto for the National Security State.
    Ditto for the NDAA and the Patriot Act.
    Ditto for $2 trillion in stimulus over the past two years.
    Ditto for $15.4 trillion in national debt.

  28. nboney1815:
    “no-nothing troglodytes” ( nice phrase ) are all the rage these days –

    Piggly Wiggly and Winn-Dixie Supermarket executives have been reporting Bayer products flying off their shelves ever since Foster Freiss suggested that young ladies place aspirins between their knees !

  29. “There does seem to be a need to put politics aside and to acknowledge our common humanity, and the simple fact that all of our days are numbered.”

    Cro! Say it isn’t so! Not the political part, but the numbered days! The only way to truly win is to outlive everyone else.

  30. And Samuel Johnson got it right: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

    Back under your rock; no pun intended.

  31. No Conan, I’m afraid that all of YOUR days are numbered.

    Not mine. I made a deal with some guy named Mephist-something and I’m pretty sure its ironclad.

    I’ll use the extra years to wade through boney’s tin foil hat list of Limbaughisms.

  32. Too bad, Cro — I was hoping that given the thread’s topic — the Guv’nor live with Adubato (just who is on first base?) — it just might have driven our on-site wits to new heights of satire. Instead we get an outporing of the usual righty-tighty drivel.

    Oh, by the way, Mr. Mephisto just called — he sold me a credit default swap on your mortality agreement. The Green Ripper awaits…

  33. “Like the part where African Americans are 3/5s of a person? Or the part where only men can vote?

    Ohhhhh Mike91, your “interpretation” is very telling, and proves my point to jerseygurl above about people not really knowing about the Constitution. Now, I guess you probably love to run that one up the flag pole every time you get the opportunity to show just how good of a Baristavillain you really are by showcasing the absolute worst about your country.

    However, as is typical, in this case you could not be more incorrect. That Three-Fifth’s Compromise . . . the operative word is COMPROMISE. Here’s a little history. The Slaveholding states wanted every slave to count in the census, in order to beef up their weaker population figures. The non-Slaveholding states, predictably wanted to curb this. You MIGHT be able to see where I am going with this.

    The men who created this COMPROMISE were not passing official judgement on the worth of a slave. This is not a weights & measuerments document. They were not saying that a slave was 3/5’s of a man. The COMPROMISE was that only 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted in the census, limiting the abilility of the south to pad its population statistics, thereby reducing the number of representatives it could send to the capital. See, in a clever way it was an anti-slavery provision in that it permanently curbed the power of slaveholding states to influence national politics, more than it already did. That isn’t open to debate — that is a historical fact. That was the established INTENT of that compromise and of many of the Founders.

    Back then, when politicans had a good deal of common sense, the anti-slavery framers knew that in order to form a Union they would have to temporarily accept slavery. But they were smart enough to put it on the path to extinction, within the Constitution. The ban on slave importation that was writen into the original document is further proof of this, not that you might have read it. They had a longer view than we do today, where the most important issues surround what the government is going to give us next in terms of goodies and freebies.

  34. next, rboney discusses why women not being allowed to vote doesn’t really mean women not being allowed to vote………,

  35. Sorry silverleaf I had to spend an inordinate amount of time correcting the anti-History above.

    Sherrod: he admitted he screwed up, if not apologizing. He saw a redacted video and sent it out hastily. BUT, it was Obama who fired her based on this, without any investigation. I bet the good folks in Baristaville forgot about that.

    More importantly, I’d say his work in taking down Van Jones, The Weiner and ACORN, kind of balance things out in the Saving-the-Republic category.

  36. Ohhhhh Mike91, your “interpretation” is very telling, and proves my point to jerseygurl above about people not really knowing about the Constitution. Now, I guess you probably love to run that one up the flag pole every time you get the opportunity to show just how good of a Baristavillain you really are by showcasing the absolute worst about your country.

    Actually, it was only a point about how the constitution has been altered to reflect the progressive values of our society.

    This is not really a matter of interpretation:

    Ah the openmindedness! The willingness to debate. Meanwhile, your first example:

    Ditto for gov’t forcing religious institutions to pay for things they don’t believe in.

    Was reviewed by several appeals courts, including the Supreme Court and found to be constitutional.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/washington/02scotus.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1191320880-dQ3TxttxgijLzCSqtrMusQ

    But that’s cool that you know better.

  37. Curses, Conan. I thought all of that credit default nonsense was ended by those other two devils, Dodd and Frank!

    Do you think The Father of Lies (thanks, Rick!) would be willing to COMPROMISE?

    I read recently that slavery was really kind of OK because it was the result of compromise and it was eventually going to be ended, so those poor bastards only had to sit tight and take it for a few years and then all would be well.

    I like this compromise stuff!

  38. ACORN! Oh my god. If you can’t see through the partisanship of that campaign, you’re more far gone than I thought.

  39. Oh, that’s good Spiro. But that IS what the 3/5’s Compromise was/did. it was a very practical piece of the legislation that ensured the eventual death of Slavery.

    Here’s another point proving what people DON’T know about the Constitution: it does not define, as originally crafted, who gets to vote. It does not say that women could not vote. That part was left up to the States. Federalism.

    And you do realize that, depending upon location, women were not the only Citizens proscribed from voting . . . many men were as well. But I don’t think that can be succintly witticized by even your uber-Quipping skills.

    Quip away, Spiro . . . quip away!!!!!

  40. “I read recently that slavery was really kind of OK because it was the result of compromise” . . . well Cromag, I am not used to calling people or their utternaces dim-witted. But, that IS a willful misreading of my post. And if it is not, then you seriously lack readiing comperhension skills.

    Or, you could just be part of this generation that expects the world to turn on a dime for them. I am guessing that the answer is some conglomeration here.

    In any event, you are showing a profound lack of insight into the history here. Or even any common sense. Without the Union and the Constitution to restrain it, what do you think would have happened to the institution of slavery as practiced in North America? (Hint: would not have been good for people of color) Without the 3/5 COMPROMISE, there would have been no Union or Constitution.

    Do you really need this much hand-holding?

  41. boney – The Sherrod case was more that just a screw up, as you say. It was a politically motivated act to intentionally ruin the career of someone across the political isle from himself. He was a “journalist”, he should have know better, that is if those who believe his incredulous “redacted video” theory that he espoused to be true. To pin it on Obama is an unjust rap and flat out disingenuous.

    As for Anthony Weiner, he hoisted himself with his own petard and got well, what he deserved.

  42. Adubato is a joke. He has never asked a tough question of anyone in his life. I once sent in some very good questions for him to ask Corzine during a similar interview. I got them in nice and early and through multiple methods. Instead, he asked nothing but what we already knew. If he couldn’t ask whimpy Jon anything controversial, I can’t imagine you’ll learn anything new from Christie. Nor will you learn anything new from every partisan debate that evolves in these comments sections regardless of the article it follows.

  43. nboney, it’s always some pivot or another with your explanations. Slavery? Just needed a few more years to sort out. Women’s right to vote? State’s Rights.
    Why not just admit that the Constitution is excellent but not perfect?
    Try thinking of it as the best attempt by a group of committed and talented individuals working together. They’d be the first to admit to the imperfection in their work, and you can too.
    It won’t hurt you.

  44. it was a very practical piece of the legislation that ensured the eventual death of Slavery.

    Sure, that and a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. For all the praise you give the founding fathers, they punted on the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slaveholding or free. This then became the central motivating question that resulted in the war.

  45. mike91 — sorry, I didn’t realize illegally importing children into the country for the purposes described in the videos was propaganda (sting or otherwise). Is it propganda when the FBI puts a bomb in the hands of muslim fanatics and then arrests them for having a bomb? No, that’s called law enforcement. The sting showed what was going on in the guts of the organization, and not in just one location.

    I would have thought there was consensus on the evils of underage prostitution, even in Baristaville, at the very least. Well, maybe we’re about to find a new right in the 14th Amendment on this soon. We might be infringing on the rights of pimps everywhere. That’s sarcasm folks.

  46. Spiro — I never said or implied it was imperfect. Just defending the motives of the framers from people who don’t seem to know much about them. In this particualt forum, especially, someone has to defend the document and the people who wrote it. In the rest of the country, you can’t have a debate with only one side.

    And I don’t see how the truth is a pivot. these are facts that are obviously uncomfortable: the 3/5’s compromise is one of the levers used to entire the South to get on board and not a judgement of a given groups’s humanity, or lack thereof. And the texture of voting was a state’s rights issue, not touched by the original Constitution.

    When did knowledge become so offensive in Baristaville?

  47. mike91 — sorry, I didn’t realize illegally importing children into the country for the purposes described in the videos was propaganda (sting or otherwise).

    Please list the ACORN employees indicted on charges involving trafficking. Here’s a head start: Two states’ investigations (Massachusetts and California) both came to the same conclusion: the videos that were broadcast were heavily edited to make the employees look bad, and that there was no evidence that ACORN workers had misused government funds or participated in the criminal activities represented.

  48. Well boney, I have family visiting from across the waves, so I’m afraid that my dance card for dealing with half-educated ideologues is filled. No room for you at this time, but perhaps in a few weeks after everyone has gone home, stuffed to the gills with pizza and hauling Macy’s shopping bags onto BA.

    But I DO have to say how much I love the site. Just when you think you’ve encountered the dimmest bulb ever, along comes a new and dimmer one!

    Welcome aboard, my Corsican friend!

  49. “Sure, that and a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. For all the praise you give the founding fathers, they punted on the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slaveholding or free. ”

    UGH.

    Of course they punted. That’s how one tries to readjust field position, when in a disadvantagous place. There would have been no TOTAL WAR ending with the destruction of slaveery without the cause of holding the Union together. Withouth the Constitution, there is no Union. Without the compromise, there is no Constitution. Building blocks — this is elementary.

    Again, common sense. Back then people had it. I can see why the Chinese aer running rings around us. They understand what a long-term plan is.

  50. “Please list the ACORN employees indicted on charges involving trafficking.”

    DOUBLE UGH.

    Those undercover people were not police officrs, you know. They had no power to arrest, and that was not their intention. IT WAS their intention to show the rottenness of the organization. I’d say they succeeeded.

  51. nboney:

    “When did knowledge become so offensive in Baristaville?”

    Knowledge is never offensive in Baristaville, nboney.

    On the other hand, nboney, self-styled experts, lecturers, and folks who insist to others that they are correct all the time must be prepared to be skewered, should they post their self-proclaimed brilliance on Baristanet. It’s a local tradition.

    You have been advised, son.

  52. There would have been no TOTAL WAR ending with the destruction of slaveery without the cause of holding the Union together.

    Yet, above you said that the 3/5s compromise was part of some long term plan of the founding fathers to eliminate slavery. (“But they were smart enough to put it on the path to extinction, within the Constitution.”)Obviously, since we needed a war, it didn’t work. Specifically because the constitution didn’t address the question of newly admitted states.

    Perhaps the Chinese are “running rings around us” because certain people can’t remember what they posted an hour ago.

  53. Those undercover people were not police officrs, you know.

    No but I imagine the investigators for the states of Massachusetts, California, and New York sure had prosecution powers, no? Why didn’t they arrest anyone?

    TRIPLE UGH.

  54. Sprio, yeah, that’s not really what the Baristanet boards look like to an outsider. But its a nice bubble mentality. Everyone on here is a “self-styled” expert. But I appreciate your assumed board-maven position.

    And as a right winger, I expect to get skewered every time, even when carefully laying out history. So I skewer back.

  55. Stu – Adubato is a joke indeed. He plays himself off as this journalist cum political mover and shaker, when in reality, he rode his old man’s coattails for years. He is nothing less than an ego ridden, self important, condescending hack. To see him prancing around town like a peacock is a sight to behold indeed. Someone ought to give him a good smack and knock him back to Newark’s North Ward and ECHS.

  56. Hey mike, did you ever hear about the differences between plans and reality? No one planned for war, they planned for a Union that would solve the problem peacefully. However, that’s not the way it worked out. And if the Constitution did attempt to outlaw slavery and address the issue of new states and slavery, it would never have been adopted.

    I don’t see what the disconnet is here. This isn’t a political issue, except for your misunderstanding of what exactly the 3/5’s compromise did. Without A (compromise), there would be no B (Constitution). Without B there would have been no C (Union). Without C there is no D (Civil War leading to eradication of Slavery). At least not in a 80 year time frame.

    You really should leave the wittiness to Spiro. He seems to be the one here tasked with that.

  57. I don’t see what the disconnet is here. This isn’t a political issue, except for your misunderstanding of what exactly the 3/5′s compromise did. Without A (compromise), there would be no B (Constitution). Without B there would have been no C (Union). Without C there is no D (Civil War leading to eradication of Slavery).

    Yes I understand that. My only contention is a)I don’t think the constitution as written had any plan to eliminate slavery, as you’ve stated and as evidenced by the things they didn’t address and b) my original point about the whole thing is that the constitution has been amended many times, to reflect a changing society. “Originalists” tend to only bring up the changes (or interpretations) they disagree with, not the changes that made the country better.

  58. Oh, and as long as we’re making suggestions, mine is that you should keep your feelings about the motivations of other posters to yourself, especially when you get those motivations 180 degrees incorrect. I don’t post anything to make my country “look bad,” and I resent the questioning of my patriotism.

    But then again, your side always feel like you’re the patriotic ones right? Thomas Paine notwithstanding.

  59. OK Mike, well I guess we’re going to have to disagree on the issue of slavery in the Constitution then. I’d hate to rankle Spiro’s sensibilities with my facts, and forcefulness in prosecuting them.

    Yeah, I get the amendment argument, and the Founders’ foresight in building in that process. I just think that many of the generations that have followed them were not up to the task of improving upon their model. Not all of the changes have been good for the country (Sorry, that was a value judgement). And the ones I disagree with, it makes sense that I don’t think they made the country better. Point taken though.

  60. OK Mike, well I guess we’re going to have to disagree on the issue of slavery in the Constitution then. I’d hate to rankle Spiro’s sensibilities with my facts, and forcefulness in prosecuting them.

    Ok. If you have the time, I’d look up the NY Times series on the Civil War called “Disunion,” if you haven’t already. A semester’s worth of really good reading on the Civil War, at least. Everything’s behind a paywall now of course, but its worth using your ‘monthly allotment’ on it.

    And the ones I disagree with, it makes sense that I don’t think they made the country better.

    Of course! I happen to hate the 18th amendment.

  61. nboney, my sensibilites are hardly rankled by your opinions. But your stuff is fun to read, I’ll grant you that. It’s at least “3/5ths” more fun than slavery !

  62. Mike: Harry Truman. JFK. Grover Cleveland. My father-in-law. All Democrats, all misguided on many issues. All patriots. All good Americans.

    You were throwing out the 3/5’s compromise in order to show how flawed the Constitution is, at its core. That’s what one does when using that lever. I have been through this exact argument too many times not to know the intention of the people who do it, when face-to-face — so I assumed it to be the case here. Otherwise, you don’t know enough about the history behind it.

    Just like the New Jersey Compromise creating the bi-cameral legislature, this was just one more tool to get a faction on board. It was not a social commentary. To suggest otherwise is baseless racial mudslinging, or a lack of knowledge on the subject.

  63. Like the part where African Americans are 3/5s of a person? Or the part where only men can vote?
    No where in the constituition does it say does it say either of those things. Free people, regardless of race, were counted as one person in the census. Both african americans and women could vote in NJ subject to the same property restrictions as white men at the time that the US constitution was adopted.

  64. “Free people, regardless of race” love it, bitpusher. So I guess the slaves didn’t meet the criteria. Fiddlesticks !
    OK folks, kindly stop reading right here, I have a private message for bitpusher. No peeking.

    (PS – now that no one is looking, I have to tell you, bitpusher, “nowhere” is not two words, but rather, a single word with two syllables. I’m glad you’re not one of those college snobs that Ricky S has warned us about. Best regards, Spiro.)

  65. This from Reuters :

    “Breitbart faced widespread criticism when in 2010 his website posted a heavily edited version of a speech by U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod that led to her forced resignation.

    Sherrod, who is black, said her bosses at USDA pushed her to resign after Breitbart posted portions of a video in which she seemed to say she had discriminated against a white farmer. But in the full video of the speech that Sherrod gave, she had in fact said race should not matter.

    Breitbart mentioned the Sherrod controversy last night in one of his last Twitter messages, in response to a back-and-forth discussion with Web users in which one person suggested he should apologize to Sherrod. “Apologize for WHAT?” Breitbart wrote back.”

    What a “class” act Breitbart was…right up until the end.

  66. No where in the constituition does it say does it say either of those things. Free people, regardless of race, were counted as one person in the census. Both african americans and women could vote in NJ subject to the same property restrictions as white men at the time that the US constitution was adopted.

    Phew! What a relief! I thought my original point, that the constitution has been amended multiple times to reflect changing values, was incorrect. So glad we got off on this tangent about the civil war and slavery.

  67. Look, if you are looking for true evil in the constitution, look at the fugitive slave laws that are enabled by Article IV. The 3/5th rule wasn’t what denied people of rights, it was the recognition of a separate class “of all other persons” who were in permanent bondage that is the abomination.
    If you are going to criticize, at least know what your criticizing.

    Maybe I can’t spell, but at least I can read.

  68. Who’s looking for “true evil” in the constitution? No one here. At worst, it is being portrayed as a work in progress.

  69. True evil? (eyes roll here). Honestly, saying that there are varying interpretations of what our founding fathers intended doesn’t’ mean anyone is looking for true evil.

  70. no surprise that here on baristanet we have elitist liberals vs elitist conservatives. man, you guys are so much more similar than you know.

  71. Except for you, right stay?

    YOU are just regular folks. Everyone else is, well, SO predictable.

  72. Predictable is appropriate, but boring also works in some respects. All one has to do is turn on the TV to get similar opinions.

  73. Andrew Breitbart simply dropped dead walking home from a bar? Is that a pig that just flew by my window? I hope that whomever has the videos in question makes them public, and soon. People tend to forget that this country was founded based upon the toleration of dissent. You may not agree with Breitbart’s views, but as an American, you should defend his right to have them.

  74. I hardly consider myself an elitist. Where’s mansion, my 40-foot yacht, my million-dollar trust fund?

    I prefer to think of myself as just another fed up American.

  75. What are you suggesting, deadeye? Do you think he was the victim of some leftist assassin? Are you serious?

  76. Michael “Savage”. Figures.

    Good Lord.

    I thought Obama used up all of his hit squad knocking off the delivery room team who were on duty that night 49 years ago in Kenya.

  77. Scary stuff. The now deceased Iceman (not OUR beloved Iceman but Richard Kuklinski, hit man for the mob) was known to research and use methods and chemicals that could not be traced to kill people.

  78. comrade croiagusanamovich! Be not mentioning anything related to Operationik Moose and Squirrel! The capitalist running dogs are on to us! Meet me at indoctrination headquarters number 7 (Also called Clifton Commonisky), for latest brainwash movie, The Lorax.

  79. Considering some of his successes at exposing the shenanigans at ACORN, and now what could be an explosive video of Obama with his old weather underground pals, I wouldn’t entirely dismiss the possibility of foul play here. I mean people just drop dead walking home from restaurants all of the time, right?

  80. Yes. Especially people with known heart issues. Holy cow deadeye you sound unhinged.

    But let’s examine this, just because its fun to make fun of: Why Breitbart? Limbaugh holds more sway. Heck, why not Grover Norquist? Or even Romney? Breitbart wasn’t even all that important, having taken his lumps with ACORN stuff.

    Secondly, all that Ayers crap didn’t stick to Obama the first time around, what makes you think its important enough to make a difference now? I doubt anything on the tapes will be all that explosive. By the time Obama met Ayers, Ayers was a professor at University of Illinois.

  81. Well yes, it could happen.

    Everyone knows that Cardinal Sheen was killed by a poisoned altar boy.

Comments are closed.