New Jersey Governor Chris Christie often holds Town Hall style meetings, taking questions from constituents who often times decide to attempt to pwn him for some good publicity against the guy, but to my knowledge, every single attempt has consistently turned into a reverse pownage, much to the delight of people like me.
This time a guy asks Christie if he ever fakes those encounters, asking if the Governor plants questioners to enable him to go on a canned speech in response to – to which Christie scolds the man for wasting the peoples time and replies: “if I plant questions, why the hell did I call on you?”
A tiny bit of me doesn’t love that the guy was an old man and got dressed down in such way in front of a crowd like that, but a bigger part of me is more annoyed that the guy did in fact waste the time with the question since the premise is both asinine and not based on anything. I can handle one of those in a question but not both.
If a politician is scripting these events to appear natural and interactive with the community when in reality it’s a sham, that is kind of a big deal, so Christie was right to press the issue aggressively to get to the bottom of the accusation. The questioner doesn’t say it so clearly at first but finally clarifies that no one told him any questioners were planted and he has no source tipping him of as such – he just witnessed Christie being a badass by speaking extemporaneously on a subject for 5 to 7 minutes and concluded that no man could be that knowledgable and prepared for an issue arising, and thus Christie must have set it up to make himself look good. So he asks point blank and Christie says no and that could have been the end of it if the man didn’t go on with an “are you SURE though? cuz your denial didn’t relieve my suspicion” and once Christie understands that the man is just asking about his personal theory and not an actual claim by anyone else – he dismisses it again in Christie like fashion.
A Facebook friend posted this same video on his wall and this Ian gentleman sparked the following exchange:
Ian:
The people have a right to occupy. The cops should have never been there in the 1st place.
Richard:
Yes Ian, it DOES piss me off that these bags of filth wasted the time of the local police force by accomplishing nothing but being a bunch of dicks to their community. I only regret they weren’t pepper sprayed too.
Ian: “The people have no right to occupy. The cops should have never been there in the 1st place because the protestors should have followed the law like everyone else instead of acting like entitled above-it-all douchebags that wasted everyones time” — Fixed that for Ian
Richard:
Iknowright? Reality is the best story to tell. especially in cases of Police brutality where it is especially important not to cry wolf. plenty of real injustices are made by actual corrupt and careless cops. lying to invent such scenarios may make you feel like an oppressed superhero or whatever, but it hurts the community and country. — wait.. hurting the country and community in service to one owns selfish desires is basically the Occupy mission statement, so nvm i guess.
Ian:
Obviously we’re hurting the country and community by speaking out against what we feel is wrong. Bu, hey, if you find that corporate person hood and letting the banks get away with the illegality of their actions then by all means, continue to be a part of the reason why this country is utter shit.
Ian:
Fuck this thread. This dude is an ass and, like everyone else against the movement, is too apathetic to give a shit about what’s going on. He’s also an obvious troll. So fuck this shit, nigga. I’m out
I didn’t reply between those last 2 points out of respect to the mutual friend but after the “screw you guys im goin home” post, I went ahead and let the hammer down:
Richard:
1) no one said “speaking out” hurts anyone. scroll up, read what was actually said and then try not to make things up (only cuz it destroys your point when you need to do that).
2) “speaking out” against something does not necessitate annoying your neighbors and breaking the law, which is what I referenced.
3) Instead of thinking youre entitled to ruin everyones day by speaking out against “what you feel is wrong” – do less “feeling”, pretend to be a mature adult and do more “thinking”. then speak out against what you think is wrong and explain why. under that strategy you wont need to rely on animalistic tactics like cult gatherings, property destruction and illegal sit-ins that distract from any point you were attempting to convey.
4) Whats wrong with corporate personhood? why shouldnt corporations have free speech rights, for example? theyre just a collection of people so why would you remove rights when people group together to provide a product or service?
5) Who said anything about letting any banks get away with any illegality (besides you)? Why is your response to illegality to also engage in illegality? you dont fight fire with fire to solve something. you fight it with water. expose the illegal behavior that you have evidence of and take the banks down instead of playing bongos all day in a public park whydontyou.
6) Demonizing everyone as “part of the problem” just because they dont share your endorsement of illegal activity to get the point across is stupid.
Except – oddly enough – this dude turned out not to be the major douche it appeared and he came back, apologized for the attack, explaining that he thought he was just dismissing a troll and we carried on just fine after that. I always number my responses that go long like this so everyone can keep track of what they’re responding to and – god love him – this guy was one of the very few to actually follow the lead and post a numbered reply as well.
Ian:
1) I don’t recall making anything up.
2) The more people who hear us, the better. If the protests go unnoticed then there’s no reason to have them in the 1st place.
3&4) you’re splitting hairs, I feel corporate person hood is wrong because I’ve thought about what it has made possible for corporations to do and it’s royally fucked. Take Wal-Mart for example, because of corporate person hood they are able to continue to receive goods from China which are produced by slave labor. It means they are legally protected to endorse immorally wrong actions.
5) The banks aren’t committing any illegal actions, what they are doing is taking all the money that is put into them, loaning it out, then having the federal reserve give them what they are missing, then the reserve has the U.S mint print off more, then the government taxes the shit out of all of us in order to pay it back.
6) I’m not demonizing everyone who doesn’t share my views. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if they don’t agree with then that’s their business, I’m just passionate about it and I can’t see how anyone else is fine with what’s going on in our fucked up country
The reason most people wont reply to a numbered response with their own numbered response is because they want to dodge certain things they cant answer or argue, so it’s really heartening to see someone have the courage of their convictions to respond to every point like this guy did.
Richard:
1) The thing you made up was “Obviously we’re hurting the country and community by speaking out against what we feel is wrong.” — no one made any such claim. You made it up in what is known as a “straw man fallacy”.
2) That response only shows a lack of imagination, civility and respect for property rights and the well being of your community. I repeat: “speaking out” against something does not necessitate annoying your neighbors and breaking the law, which is what I referenced.
3) What is splitting hairs about encouraging law abiding protest? I repeat the substance of my (since it wasn’t responded to) #3: under that strategy [of organized critical thinking] you wont need to rely on animalistic tactics like cult gatherings, property destruction and illegal sit-ins that distract from any point you were attempting to convey.
4) Walmart could continue those trade practices with or without corporate personhood.
5) I’m not pointing this out to play “gotcha”, but rather because its important that if you’re going to be a messenger for a cause that you not say opposite things like this in such a short amount of time. You said “..if you find that corporate person hood and letting the banks get away with the illegality of their actions then by all mean..” and now you say “The banks aren’t committing any illegal actions”. Earlier you said it was important for people to hear your message but if that message contradicts itself then… whats the point?
6) You were demonizing everyone who didn’t agree with you in the comment previous to my 6 point list, but since then I think you clarified/revised the position so chop it from the list.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ian:
1) I thought you had inferred that the protests were only causing harm.
2) The intention isn’t to wake the neighbors, it’s to acquire the attention of law makers and political figures so they know we’re pissed off. If I had it my way, we’d have another Woodstock scenario.
3) You had said “stop feeling and do more thinking” which is splitting hairs. We feel it’s wrong is saying we think it’s wrong. I just chose to use “feel” rather than “think”
4) wal-mart shouldn’t be allowed to continue those practices at all because it’s wrong. That may be a personal opinion however, I feel it’s a damn good one. Endorsing child labor is wrong, I don’t care who you are.
5) It’s a technicality. They aren’t doing anything illegally by loaning money they don’t have and acquiring further debt, but I think that should be illegal and so do millions of others in our country.
6) It’s been chopped like my firewood
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard:
1) I may have. Instead of checking, I’ll just clarify: I was referring to “protests” but not “every protest within the Occupy movement”. in the link i posted that applauds the pepper spraying, i acknowledge that lots of protests are peaceful and non-disruptive and that I’m only referring to the ones throwing feces, destroying property and breaking the law and refusing to move when ordered by law enforcement
2) Intentions aside – the results are what matter and i don’t see any benefit in letting law makers know you’re pissed off unless there is a purpose (like rallying behind a specific demand or political candidate or philosophy)
3) Clarified. Accepted.
4) I’m just saying that its unrelated to corporate personhood.
5) Things you think SHOULD BE illegal vs what actually IS illegal isn’t a technicality but I understand your point at least.
-Unless you know what results letting law makers know you’re pissed will bring about, id say all points have been settled with clarity (which is all i ever seek, really: clarity. not agreement).
At first I was like waaaa? but then I remembered who Kim Kardashian is and that she ended a marriage after a really short time and then I was all “aaahhhh, you clever thing yewww”.
Seriously though: she should join the gym and lose about 64% of that ridiculous ass.
Also, there’s this:
UPDATE: Here’s another ad that mentions the divorce:
This guy, Michael Abraham, decided to troll someone on Facebook for some reason saying that he is scared he will not be able to stop himself from acting out his frequent thoughts of suicide. The odd part is that the “person” he was trolling was… Mountain Dew.
This appeared on the Mountain Dew Facebook fan page:
You’ll look forward to the next blizzard when you’re armed with the Crossbow Snowball Launcher. Load a snowball into the front of the Launcher, pull back the lever, aim and fire at the target (provided) or your next victim. The Crossbow Launcher shoots snowballs up to 60 feet.
Forty beagles that were being used for lab testing in Spain found out what grass and outdoors were like for the first time.
All the male beagles, which are between 4 and 7 years old, have lived in cages their entire lives, according to Gary Smith of the Beagle Freedom Project.
Beagles are often used in lab testing of products, including cosmetics, because of their ‘docile and trusting’ personalities.
Mr Smith added: ‘Beagles are incredibly sweet, docile, companion animals.
‘The downfall is, the same reason the beagle is a perfect companion animal, is the same reason they’re used for testing.’
For more information on the rescue operations or adopting one of the beagles, go to ARME’s website.
