Azalin

he apparently sees a kindred spirit in those that are incompetent.

I don't know about that. Reagan was very popular and the country did rather well with him in office, and he was no pragmnatist. the country did pretty well under Clinton, but his pragmatism was a by-product of his ego - his desire to be popular both with voters and historically. Clinton was a hard-left idealist until the dems got slaughtered in the '94 elections. that put an end to Hillarycare and gave way to Dick Morris and his 'triangulism', making Clinton position himself as a centrist and making him much more popular with the moderate american middle.

I agree. Jeb would help offset Christie's perceived centrism, but I can't see the voting middle being too thrilled at another Bush in high office.

my first laugh of the day. thank you.

I don't know about that. they had just been hammered by a hurricane, and presidents always fly in to put in some face time and survey the damage in situations like that. it would be a pretty weak argument on their part if the tea party tried to exploit Christie's meeting with Obama. I think it would have been political suicide if he'd refused to meet with the president under those circumstances. still, you may be right. nothing surprises me anymore in politics.

so, thanks to this incident, as well as the rumored activities in Roswell, New Mexico is the anal-probe capitol of the USA.

in order to become the nominee, Christie must win the party's primary. he has to appeal to enough of the republican base in order for that to happen. I think it will be interesting to see how he tries to sell himself to the hard right of the party. he's shown that he's good at politics by winning two terms as governor of a largely democratic state, and he's the most charismatic potential contender in the republican party right now (his charisma is right up there with the likes of Reagan and Clinton). I'll go on record right now and say that if (and that's a big 'if') Christie can win the republican primary, he will win the presidency.

thanks! I apparently have trouble keeping up with urban vernacular.

'I was smoking a little wet tonight'? I don't even know what that means....................

you say something like this and call someone else a fool at the same time? do you not yet realize that it was easier to get health care BEFORE this idiotic law was enacted? purely partisan bitching??? what the hell do you call every syllable that stutters its way out of that vacuous head of yours? you should consider putting that helmet back on and picking up your crayons again.

the authorities are way out of control on this one, and it will come back to bite them in the end.

as far as attitude toward the military goes, the Dems have fallen a long way since the days of president Kennedy. at least back then they recognized the necessity of a strong, cohesive national defense. now the military is being reduced to an arena for social experimentation, while the president boasts of being good at killing people with drones. pathetic.

not being an expert in aviation technology, I can't say exactly what the benefit of such an aircraft might be. I suspect a major advantage may be that the speed attainable from such an aircraft would help to offset the advancements made in stealth detection technology. any aircraft designed with the intent to replace the SR-71 would have the same purpose as the Blackbird: espionage. just imagine for a moment what our level of technological advancement must be to gather visual intelligence while flying at the edge of space at a speed exceeding 4,000 mph. this thing will apparently also be used as a bomber, and according to this article, is indeed intended to be unmanned, essentially making it a type of 'super drone'. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/01/skunk_works_unveils_blackbird_replacement_capable_of_mach_6_flight/

how do you know that it isn't intended to be a drone? it has no windows. granted, it may not need a window, but the article suggests the possibility that it may be, or may lead to, an unmanned version.

an oxymoron if ever there was one.

so if I voted for Romney, then I'm partially responsible for Obama winning reelection?

when a luxury tax is imposed, the sales and production of those items that fall under the tax are markedly decreased, and there is history to back that up. New York Times, 1992: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html

this

there was a time where I could look under the hood of a car and tell you what every part of the engine was. those days are long, long gone, and my general knowledge of automotives nowadays is beyond lacking. that said, I'm not the least bit surprised to learn that ethanol isn't good for engines. I don't think that I can name offhand any time the feds have imposed a regulation where it didn't at least cause us an inconvenience and cost us extra money.

it sure as hell drove up the cost of food, though. corn is in damn near everything we eat, in one form or another. I remember the instantaneous rise in cooking oil prices, and the subsequent rise in beef prices due to the increased price of corn once the added ethanol became mandatory. not to mention everything sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.

I recognize and understand the need for taxation....I'm not trying to argue against taxes in general. my beef is with the notion that to compensate for the insane over spending by continually increasing taxes is somehow okay. at some point or another, the feds need to get a grip on their expenditures and quit tossing around so much money that they don't have.

Mitt Romney has a horse.

if gasoline use drops due to greater use of alternative fuels, all the feds need to do is place a comperable fuel tax on kilowatt hours at charging stations for electric cars or per a specified volume of natural gas. there's no need for them to get into tracking miles driven.

if I robbed you at gun point (since I don't have the power of the IRS at my disposal) and decided to only take 75% of your cash, would you say that you received a 'giveaway' of 25%?

I know this much: less tax money taken from me means more money for me. you don't have to be an accountatnt or an economist to know that the mounting national debt is due to the feds overspending, not because they aren't taxing us enough.