• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate probe clears gov

Ockham said:
What about it?


I see your posts affect you as much as they do me. Good to know.
Click to expand...

You post a link to an article which you claim will "reward" all of the brave souls who stood by Christie. Then when challenged you don't make any claim as to the veracity of the article.

So you aren't claiming that the article is true, but you're claiming that it's true. Is that the new definition of a skeptic?
 
Mithros said:
You post a link to an article which you claim will "reward" all of the brave souls who stood by Christie. Then when challenged you don't make any claim as to the veracity of the article.

So you aren't claiming that the article is true, but you're claiming that it's true. Is that the new definition of a skeptic?
Click to expand...

Those who supported Christie will be rewarded. That's a fact. That I'm skeptical of the reports findings - also a fact. Tell me, what is confusing you?
 
Ockham said:
Those who supported Christie will be rewarded. That's a fact. That I'm skeptical of the reports findings - also a fact. Tell me, what is confusing you?
Click to expand...

You cannot say that Christie is innocent and also say that a report which clears Christie is in doubt.

Look.. I get it, you posted the article without reading it. We all screw up. There's no need for mental gymnastics to say that you really didn't mean what you thought you meant.

Also, those who believe in Christie will be rewarded?? Like a messiah figure?
 
Mithros said:
You cannot say that Christie is innocent and also say that a report which clears Christie is in doubt.
Click to expand...
I never claimed Christie was innocent.

Mithros said:
Look.. I get it, you posted the article without reading it. We all screw up. There's no need for mental gymnastics to say that you really didn't mean what you thought you meant.

Also, those who believe in Christie will be rewarded?? Like a messiah figure?
Click to expand...

What I get is that you didn't read what I wrote. You imprinted some assumption on your part onto me and based your posts on that mistake. It's what happens when reading ≠ comprehension.
 
Ockham said:
I never claimed Christie was innocent.



What I get is that you didn't read what I wrote. You imprinted some assumption on your part onto me and based your posts on that mistake. It's what happens when reading ≠ comprehension.
Click to expand...
I screw up too... and I don't like it, but I still feel like I should admit it.


Btw... I'm giving this thing way too much of my time.
1). Christie can only reward people if he has a station with the ability to reward people.
2). Christie will not be in such a station should he be directly implicated in the Bridge investigation.
Ergo Claiming that Christie will reward his supporters in the context of the Bridge investigation is tantamount to claiming that Christie is innocent. An article posted in such context is an assertion of exculpatory evidence.

But feel free to keep digging.
 
Mithros said:
I screw up too... and I don't like it, but I still feel like I should admit it.
Click to expand...
You claimed I said in this thread Christie was innocent. That is false.

I'm glad you acknowledge screw ups, since you made a big one... the rest of your post is irrelevant. It's best to form an argument based on fact, not misrepresentation or false accusation. But please... show me where I claimed Christie was innocent in this thread. :popcorn2:
 
Ockham said:
You claimed I said in this thread Christie was innocent. That is false.

I'm glad you acknowledge screw ups, since you made a big one... the rest of your post is irrelevant. It's best to form an argument based on fact, not misrepresentation or false accusation. But please... show me where I claimed Christie was innocent in this thread. :popcorn2:
Click to expand...
Btw... I'm giving this thing way too much of my time.
1). Christie can only reward people if he has a station with the ability to reward people.
2). Christie will not be in such a station should he be directly implicated in the Bridge investigation.
Ergo Claiming that Christie will reward his supporters in the context of the Bridge investigation is tantamount to claiming that Christie is innocent. An article posted in such context is an assertion of exculpatory evidence.​

Funny how you omitted this part from your "rebuttal". So you knew that Christie commissioned the report from his allies when you wrote the OP? So your goal was to what? Misinform?

I guess Christie will "reward" you for your amazing logic.

oh.. and
Ockham said:
Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie
Click to expand...
That was you no?
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Report: Chris Christie?s Bridgegate probe clears gov - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com


Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie (unlike our many other prominent Washington politicians who have). The Christie haters will continue to hate, the Christie supporters will be rewarded for their steadfast support. The media will likely not say much since this denies a smoking gun and the demise of a rising star Republican. Whether or not Christie runs in 2016 probably hasn't changed - from a political standpoint the damage was done; mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

The tea baggers got what they wanted.
 
Mithros said:
Btw... I'm giving this thing way too much of my time.
1). Christie can only reward people if he has a station with the ability to reward people.
2). Christie will not be in such a station should he be directly implicated in the Bridge investigation.
Ergo Claiming that Christie will reward his supporters in the context of the Bridge investigation is tantamount to claiming that Christie is innocent. An article posted in such context is an assertion of exculpatory evidence.​

Funny how you omitted this part from your "rebuttal". So you knew that Christie commissioned the report from his allies when you wrote the OP? So your goal was to what? Misinform?

I guess Christie will "reward" you for your amazing logic.
Click to expand...

End result is, you purposefully misrepresented the accusation that I claimed Christie was innocent. No quote, none of my words... just more of your assumptions based on - nothing.
I don't know Christie - so I get no reward. :cry:

Any more misrepresentations or unfounded accusations you'd like to make to fully destroy your credibility or shall I continue on educating you?
smiley191.gif
 
Ockham said:
End result is, you purposefully misrepresented the accusation that I claimed Christie was innocent. No quote, none of my words... just more of your assumptions based on - nothing.
I don't know Christie - so I get no reward. :cry:

Any more misrepresentations or unfounded accusations you'd like to make to fully destroy your credibility or shall I continue on educating you?
smiley191.gif
Click to expand...

So this wasn't you? Did someone hack your account? Because you should definitely report that.
Ockham said:
Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie
Click to expand...
Or wait.. You meant to say "Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie, unless he did...because i'm totally not claiming that he didn't lie."

FYI... I really appreciate the "education". You should charge money.
 
Mithros said:
So this wasn't you? Did someone hack your account? Because you should definitely report that.

Or wait.. You meant to say "Surely just one important step showing the Gov didn't lie, unless he did...because i'm totally not claiming that he didn't lie."

FYI... I really appreciate the "education". You should charge money.
Click to expand...

I still don't see where I said he was innocent, as you claim. The report claims he didn't know ... that's what Christie said - he didn't know.
Now do I believe that is exactly what happened? No... hence my skepticism.

Another lesson for you: If you accuse someone of doing something, at least make the accusation ACCURATE. Your posts describe a difficulty in understanding causational actions which can be mutually exclusive. According to you I cannot say Christie didn't lie, and be skeptical at the same time.

More lessons? I'm here all week.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL You made the same mistake that made a fool of Romney in the debate. Obama called the event "an act of terror" the very first day. This is all about the difference between words "terrorist attack" and "act of terror? Could that be any more petty? Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Why not get your facts straight so you can understand the significance of words and what they really mean. Obama also called Benghazi an act of violence, and avoided to use of the 'terror' word the very next day.
Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’ - The Washington Post
 
Ockham said:
I still don't see where I said he was innocent, as you claim. The report claims he didn't know ... that's what Christie said - he didn't know.
Now do I believe that is exactly what happened? No... hence my skepticism.

Another lesson for you: If you accuse someone of doing something, at least make the accusation ACCURATE. Your posts describe a difficulty in understanding causational actions which can be mutually exclusive. According to you I cannot say Christie didn't lie, and be skeptical at the same time.

More lessons? I'm here all week.
Click to expand...
I think I'm enjoying the sight of an obviously intelligent person wrap themselves into knots trying to defend an excusable mistake. You never claimed that Christie was innocent, only that he wasn’t lying. Funny stuff.

This is fun. I'll try. I never claimed that it wasn't hot, I just said that it was cold. I never claimed that Tebow was a good quarterback, I just said that he'll take the Jets to the Superbowl. (Actually, that one is probably over the line).
 
Mithros said:
I think I'm enjoying the sight of an obviously intelligent person wrap themselves into knots trying to defend an excusable mistake. You never claimed that Christie was innocent, only that he wasn’t lying. Funny stuff.
Click to expand...
That may be your perception but the last thing I am is in knots. Keep trying though.

Mithros said:
This is fun. I'll try. I never claimed that it wasn't hot, I just said that it was cold. I never claimed that Tebow was a good quarterback, I just said that he'll take the Jets to the Superbowl. (Actually, that one is probably over the line).
Click to expand...
Like I said, if you're gonna bother making an accusation, it's worth doing right the first time so as to not look foolish later. :shrug:
 
rocket88 said:
Only 40 times? That must be some kind of record for lowest number of lies ever. His opponent lied at least as often trying to get a first term. Which is partially why I refused to vote for either of the Obamney twins.
Click to expand...

it's always about "his opponent" or his "enemies" with you guys. His "opponent" has never had his hands on the purse strings.

Obama LIED 40 TIMES that we know of to sell the nation on a false premise to get elected, and then lied to hide the lie.

But thank you again for proving that Obama is not one lick better than is opponents, as everything is a matter of comparatives as opposed to a matter of integrity. I am sorry, "my guy's a thief, but your guy is worse" doesn't cut it.
 
Fearandloathing said:
it's always about "his opponent" or his "enemies" with you guys. His "opponent" has never had his hands on the purse strings.

Obama LIED 40 TIMES that we know of to sell the nation on a false premise to get elected, and then lied to hide the lie.

But thank you again for proving that Obama is not one lick better than is opponents, as everything is a matter of comparatives as opposed to a matter of integrity. I am sorry, "my guy's a thief, but your guy is worse" doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Neither of them are "my guy." I didn't vote for either of them, which you would know if you read the whole thing.
 
Ockham said:
Is that what they wanted?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.....Christie was a huge threat to the baggers....that's why they referred to him as a rhino and did what they had to do to bring him down.
 
j-mac said:
Yep, just like that...Don't confuse, I am not a Christie supporter...But this is the era that Obama created....Christie would have never tried this sort of 'internal' crap had he not seen Obama get away with it since 2009.
Click to expand...

So you're blaming bridgegate now on Obama? :lamo
 
disneydude said:
Absolutely.....Christie was a huge threat to the baggers....that's why they referred to him as a rhino and did what they had to do to bring him down.
Click to expand...

Rhino?

It's RINO. Don't make it sound like the Tea Partiers are calling him fat.

Wait, when you say "Baggers" you're talking about the gay men and their Earl Grey sex acts? Maybe they were the ones who wanted to bring him down, yes.

Sorry, carry on.
 
pbrauer said:
Hey, that's great news, too bad the Republican's will never nominate him, in my opinion the Republicans will nominate a Tea Party type. ie. Cruz. Christie would be tough to beat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're so sure you and haymarket love Christie. I think this eats you up inside, good.
 
rocket88 said:
Only 40 times? That must be some kind of record for lowest number of lies ever. His opponent lied at least as often trying to get a first term. Which is partially why I refused to vote for either of the Obamney twins.
Click to expand...

Really, want to list Romney's lies for me? I'll wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom