Chris Christie?......It looks like the answer is.....no!!

[Guest]

Tonight Gov. Chris Christie is giving a much anticipated speech at the Reagan Library on Leadership. But according to sources close to the governor he will not be announcing his candidacy and will indeed not run for the Presidency.

When it comes to no nonsense talk about fiscal problems and policy the governor of N.J. is quite impressive, but his less than conservative positions, once they're fully known might doom his primary chances anyway.

Christie has problems with his view of "illegal immigration" as an "administrative problem", rather than a criminal matter. He is a proponent and believer of "man made" global warming and says it's time to "defer to the experts".

Remember the jabs at the debates by Gov. Perry toward Gov. Romney accusing him of supporting Obama's "Race to the Top"? Gov. Christie calls Obama a great ally in education and applied to join the "Race to the Top" program.

Will Gov. Christie be able to fend off all the attacks that will come from the other candidates challenging him on these issues? I don't know, but I don't think we're going to find out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/27/always-bridesmaid-christie-confidants-say-no-run-but-reagan-library-speech-is/

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/27/should-conservatives-be-clamoring-for-a-christie-candidacy/

A recent post on Politico is not so sure of Fox News' report and the story from Christie's brother. They say his people are still in contact with donors. We shall have to stay tuned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64549.html

[Guest]

Oh well, I could never vote for someone who believes in the man made global warming hoax. It is nothing more then a tax and power scheme.

[Guest]

Oh well, I could never vote for someone who believes in the man made global warming hoax. It is nothing more then a tax and power scheme.

Must be true that ignorance is bliss. :cus:

[Guest]

Tonight Gov. Chris Christie is giving a much anticipated speech at the Reagan Library on Leadership. But according to sources close to the governor he will not be announcing his candidacy and will indeed not run for the Presidency.

When it comes to no nonsense talk about fiscal problems and policy the governor of N.J. is quite impressive, but his less than conservative positions, once they're fully known might doom his primary chances anyway.

Christie has problems with his view of "illegal immigration" as an "administrative problem", rather than a criminal matter. He is a proponent and believer of "man made" global warming and says it's time to "defer to the experts".

Remember the jabs at the debates by Gov. Perry toward Gov. Romney accusing him of supporting Obama's "Race to the Top"? Gov. Christie calls Obama a great ally in education and applied to join the "Race to the Top" program.

Will Gov. Christie be able to fend off all the attacks that will come from the other candidates challenging him on these issues? I don't know, but I don't think we're going to find out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/27/always-bridesmaid-christie-confidants-say-no-run-but-reagan-library-speech-is/

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/27/should-conservatives-be-clamoring-for-a-christie-candidacy/

A recent post on Politico is not so sure of Fox News' report and the story from Christie's brother. They say his people are still in contact with donors. We shall have to stay tuned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64549.htmlSounds to me like he'd never get your vote, Richie.

[Guest]

Must be true that ignorance is bliss. :cus:

Stupid is forever, ignorance can be fixed.

[Guest]

Sounds to me like he'd never get your vote, Richie.

If Chris Christie is ultimately the Republican nominee, he'll get my vote for sure, and I think you know that. I'm just not on this Chris Christie cult "please save us" bandwagon is all.

There's too much ideological baggage for me to seriously root for him as my favorite candidate at this point in time. As governor, it's not much of a problem nationally, but in the White House he could do much which will give conservatives severe agita.

[Guest]

Stupid is forever, ignorance can be fixed.

Time's flying....better get at it. :cus:

[Guest]

Time's flying....better get at it. :cus:

I don't know how you always fly under the radar with your little personal attacks daily. Personally, I rarely see any substance.

[Guest]

Must be true that ignorance is bliss. :cus: Do you have metrics to support that statement or are you buying into the rhetoric that has made Al Gore a multi-millionaire? Should you dig into the data you will find that there is a good reason why the term 'global warming' has been replaced by the term 'climate change'. May I suggest you look at the worldwide network of sea level stations monitored by NOAA to start?

[Guest]

Do you have metrics to support that statement or are you buying into the rhetoric that has made Al Gore a multi-millionaire? Should you dig into the data you will find that there is a good reason why the term 'global warming' has been replaced by the term 'climate change'. May I suggest you look at the worldwide network of sea level stations monitored by NOAA to start?

Some people won't accept or consider facts, not when they have dogma.

[Guest]

Do you have metrics to support that statement or are you buying into the rhetoric that has made Al Gore a multi-millionaire? Should you dig into the data you will find that there is a good reason why the term 'global warming' has been replaced by the term 'climate change'. May I suggest you look at the worldwide network of sea level stations monitored by NOAA to start?

The reason that "global warming" was 'replaced' with the term "climate change" was because that's what it REALLY is when you get all-inclusive.

I remember during the first few times I'd heard the term, they DID include the idea that warming of the seas would produce more violent hurricanes and more severe storms in general.

Do I believe man is responsible 100% for climate change? No. Do I believe that we are contributing to it? Yes. How much? That's the crapshoot.

I mean, the climate change opponents point to ONE study that had some questionable practices (the East Anglia University scandal). Personally I think it's GOOD that the scandal was uncovered.

But you still have over 98% of the scientific community saying we're contributing to climate change. You can match up climate evidence in prehistory (like carbon levels in the atmosphere locked in polar ice) to predict what happens HERE when carbon levels get that high. We've seen what carbon does on a runaway scale (Venus) and we see what happens when there isn't enough (Mars).

Do I think we should go on a 100% anti-carbon crusade? No. Do I think we should use some common sense that gets us off of fossil fuels that will, by the way, stop sending money to people that want to kill us? Yes.

Heck, if nothing else, it'll save our domestic oil for all it's OTHER uses and make it last longer.

[Guest]

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims ~
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

[Guest]

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims ~
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

The do gooders and tree huggers will never look at hard facts. It is their religion. It is like telling them that there is no God, for us believers.

[Guest]

Katz & villagegolfer: I looked at that link. A few things didn't sit right with me. For example:


“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


I'll point you to NASA's evidence of warming: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#no5

Now, like I said, you can argue how much effect we're having. But to say we're cooling is just flat-out lying in the face of evidence - and I purposely avoided going near the tainted East Anglia study.

Other arguments were arguing about whether there would be "accelerated sea rising" - but the facts are that the seas ARE rising and arguing about how much they might accelerate is, to use an old phrase, fiddling while Rome burns.

[Guest]

over the centuries there has been cycling between cooling and melting and cooling (freezing).

I have seen the chart but don't remember where. I believe it was stated we are in another melting cycle. The question was asked if this controversial "melt" (which has become political hence the doubters) is any different than the past. One answer was yes!!!! Today we have a media and political driver of the current status. That means looking at the subject through a straw and at what they want you to see through that straw. Remember they would have you look through a straw at the side of an elephant and then proceed to hammer away at you that they have given you proof the world is grey!!!!

btk