Chris Christie: Blacks' Voting Rights Should Have Been Decided by Southern Voters; Also Vows to Veto Gay Marriage Bill

There is a hell of a lot of him to fade...but I think we will get the job done.

The House can override any veto. It is up to the governor or president to use his judgment on behalf of all of the people and what he is certain is in the best interests - morally as well as in a practical sense - of the citizens.

But other politics are involved here also, no doubt. Those who vote against gay marriage would undoubtedly have to take grief from the radical elements in their district. Therefore, if Christy vetoes their vote, they can simply claim they did the best that they could and no more is to be done.

That was also the reason for having a balanced budget: Each House member has to fight for federal monies for his district. If the balancing FORCES limits, the Congressman can blame it on the law in existence.

I do not know if that is what is going on, but Christy should be applauded, of course.

Huh?!?!? Dumb this down a little so I can understand it bro

" ... dumb this down ... "

The values of a genuine civilization demand that every individual be free from interference by his neighbor. By those values, you cannot rightly vote to deny civil liberties, thus you cannot rightly vote to give them back. You simply restore what was wrongly denied - no vote necessary. That's exactly how the current controversy over "gay marriage" should be handled. Civilized values demand their liberty to marry whomever they choose be simply restored to them. It isn't a matter of vote because it is a liberty that should never have been denied them.

You cannot vote to give back what you could not vote to take away.

The same works in reverse. If some are wrongly given privilege by vote, assuming the aim is a genuinely civilized society, they can be stripped of that privilege without vote.

Sadly, the U.S. isn't a genuine civilization, thus many - like Christie - have a poor understanding of what is a matter for majority vote, and what is beyond majority rule.

It appears that you are essentially referring to Natural Rights. This is the reason that the Founders used the term "secure" our rights twice. The government does not grant, bestow, or give rights, it secures rights. Certain rights are "inalienable," and some governments "secure" them and some do not.

That said, there can be much debate over what these rights actually are. I do not agree that a government formally "securing" a right of marrying anyone one wants to be a Natural Right. All one has to do it take it to its logical conclusion to see what that means.

Yes, government's primary responsibility is to secure our rights, however, there are no natural rights. "Rights" exist only in a social context, i.e., we have need of an understanding between us and our neighbor where certain personal boundaries lie and we have rights only because our neighbor ostensibly agrees as do we not to prey upon us or other human beings - that one principle essential to civilization.

I disagree with the founders that we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights." First, there is no creator and second, no, it is our fellow man that endows us with rights in that, without that one civilized agreement, we'd have no rights at all in relation to other human beings. Rights are not inalienable - they are a promise from other human beings to grant us liberty from interference in exchange for that same promise in return. It is a social contract easily and frequently violated. This is why it must be secured by a government with a monopoly on the initiation of physical force.

Outside of a social setting, we have need of values certainly, but no need of rights.

Interference in the liberty of homosexual individuals to marry one another is predatory and a violation of the civilized contract which demands they have this right. Any government appointed to secure individual rights - i.e. secure the individual from interference from their neighbor - who does not secure this one, has failed in its primary responsibility.

Well, I am glad to see that you acknowledge that the Founders knew that there was a creator, and a purported Deist stated that.

Natural Rights do not necessitate specific beliefs in God per se, but really the creation of human beings, no matter how this happened. They are the qualities specific to humanity, and "inalienable." I hope you do not ask for some kind of operational definition, because they are always in the process of being understood and unfolding. Jefferson and others wanted us to look at humanity and study and understand people in order to more fully realize them.

They are not some kind of agreement with our neighbors. Those create laws and we can write such contracts. That is all that is. The "social contract" is the agreement - with compromises - of how the government will best SECURE our Natural Rights.

The statement on marriages of homosexuals is illogical. If you did what I asked, the conclusion comes of its own accord. It is not a matter of neighbors not interfering, of course. There is the broader social contract. If you take your statement to its logical conclusion, its logical extension, its logical outcome, this becomes very clear.

I cannot imagine the rotund Governor Bam Bam being handed a ticket to the White House by the Democatic state of New Jersey re-electing that loud mouthed lout. He'll probably pull a Romney and quit before the state rejects him ,just as Massachusettes did to Romney.

You got that right.

In case you have not been paying attention, we already do!!!!

do you here anything that dcrog is listening to other than fox news ?

Boy dcrog, you sure no how to stir the pot buddy.

Keep telling yourself that, it will make the crushing disappointment Republicans will be faced with even more satisfactory for all those who can't wait to see them crying in their beer. The next 10 months of watching Obama and his machine strip the veneer off Romney to expose him for the empty, shallow suit he is, will be the best political present I've had in ages. The Perrier Joillet is already on ice and the writings on the wall. Republicans just can't figure out how to read it.

That was very good.

I guess it's a Great place to hang out????

I hear that they talk about the 13 commandments daily and how to break them and be forgiven

Thank you , oldbanjo.

It might take a few more years. A Republican president will be elected, of course. And there is one Lefto Supreme Court Judge that is already 79, so Romney, Gingrich or Santorum will nominate an Original Intent judge to the Court and maybe some of the vile decisions of the past will be overturned.

You are right on, and yes, once adults get back in charge in Washington, many of the power grabbing tyrany imposed on the people by the SCOTUS will be over-turned. This being said, there is no intent by anyone with functioning brains to turn back the voting rights act. It's absurd to think that American citizens who have more color in their complexion are less of a citizen than those who look like Casper the Friendly Ghost! Absurd as it may be, the lunitics on the Left will scream in their shrill and unstable voices that this will happen, in an attempt to get those with more color in their complexion all worked up. Those Americans, as sad as it is, have been used as usefull idiots by the Left for 2 generations now, and what do they have to show for it? More poverty, crime and unemployment in their segregated areas than in any other communities.

Oh I have no doubt that your beloved ass clown will do everything he can to destroy his GOP opponent, no matter who it is, and the shit for brains Obama Media will do everything they can along those lines as well. It seems that you have exposed a bit of intellectual dishonesty in your reply, "strip the veneer off Romney to expose him for the empty, shallow suit he is". Do you not comprehend that ass clown himself is an empty, shallow suit, one who reads his teleprompter very well?!?! As Biden said, "Obama is a clean, articulate black man" (well he's half black anway), other than being clean and articulate, he truely is a dumb ass, one who scammed his way into the peoples' house with lies, and misrepresentation of his true agenda. Perhaps enough Americans will have woken up from the effects of the koolaid by election time and send both the ass clown and his worthless woman packing their crap back to Chicago.

Yep, I take great pride in all the down votes by the zombies! :)

Really? It does not seem to me that many people who pay attention to what's going on believe in the change that ass clown has rammed up our back sides.

What a load of republican, paranoid excrement. The President is liked overwhelmingly by the American people in every poll that asks the likability question. And that " worthless woman" Michelle is rated even higher than he. Your hatred is not shared by the large majority of the people. I hope Republicans continue with vile ,rancid rants such as that. It only turns off the moderates and makes Obama's re-election and Biden's sucsession to the Presidency in 2016 even more inevitable.

"there is no intent by anyone with functioning brains to turn back the voting rights act."

True. The very charge is so absurd it is best to summarily dismiss it. I think that fewer and fewer non-white people listen anymore and get disgusted at these Left-wingers' incessant references to it.

Excellent summary!

Republicans gave us Souter and Kennedy also.

Great, one empty suit exposing another one. Should be fun.

If there is a Republican president next year nothing will be good. Didn't you learn anything from GW.

But why not thnk it through? Who was invited to speak at the 1988 Republican convention when Bush senior was nominated? Reagan, of course. And who at the succeeding Republican conventions?

But what about at the 2008 convention? Was Bush invited? Was he the keynote speaker?

Please answer the question and speculate why?

Well said!

Thank you, EdJoy. Sometimes the level of GOP hypocrisy just makes you want to puke, doesn't it?

You are very welcome. What bothers me the most is that there are people that can not see it for what it is. Mass hypnosis or mass stupidity, but it is just amazing that ordinary people that call themselves republicans are blind to the outrageousness of it all.

I agree

don't waste the vomit without purpose

I have seen Democrats do the same thing but, most of them become Republicans and has burnt their bridges and if they are caught trying to return they are cast into the tea party with Rick and Ron

No party is without blame for greed and stupidity, but the republicans are particularly heartless, ruthless and downright unchristianly when it comes to the needy and the borderline citizens. How this is not crystal clear to anyone that hears what they say is beyond my scope of reason.

It would appear to me that when speaking of assholes and opinons, we all have one.

Band wagon mentality at its worst. They feel they "have" to vote Republican because they have bought into the argument that their insulated worlds will come crashing down upon them if they don;t vore for the great saviors of the GOP. Sad indeed.

Kinda like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist", cmc101? Just getting them to clean off their shoes would be worth it to a certain extent.

Some just seem to excel at the use of one or the other.

yep

you got to remember FDR was a republican turn democrat they have been trying to repeal everything that he had done. Reagan campaign for truman and was a labor union leader then become a republican the architect of trickle down economics and they praise him with every breath . they must also emulate his forgetfulness

Reagan's fondness for deregulation was the groundwork for what is the shit storm economic disaster that we now face. Yet, they speak of him as if he were a deity. Frightening.

I think that I feel threaten
by the holy one

Get your history straight.

1. Carter started the deregulations. Take a look at airlines for starters.

2. Our problems are in large part from the "Community Reinvestment Act." Look up when it started and under which president.

Ain't learning fun?

..takes that long to cover his fat face.

We should start calling him Governor Creosote (That is the name of the dude that explodes in MP's Meaning of life).

Exactly! LOL! Thank you, I had forgotten the character's name.

It isn't racism to say that the states in the South shuld have been allowed to vote on civil rights gains for blacks in the 60s. Get a grip. This is why many of us just roll our eyes when the racism charges come out. It's overused and, in many cases, misused.

Allowing states to hide behind policy and demand a vote in order to violate the civil rights of human beings is just a ridiculous comment to make in this day in age. It puts Christie's judgement into question.

Not in this case. Everyone with 2 ounces worth of brainpower would know that if it had been put to a vote in the 60's that it would've been resoundingly defeated because the bigoted whites would've rolled out the heavy racist artillery to block it from happening at all costs and that would include human lives. What this loser said plays into that reality and sanctions it. You are the one who needs to get a grip... of the reality.

During the 1960's, a large portion of the Southern voters were racist and did not want to see African Americans gain the right to vote. For decades they had lived with the rules which segregated and humiliated African Americans and many did not see any reason for those rules to change. Sure, there were quite a few European Americans involved in the movement for equal rights, but most of those were college students. Many of those college students came from different states (and therefor could not vote in local state matters) and those that were from the local population were a vast minority.

Given that, I suppose that what Chris Christie is claiming is not racist, but in order for it to not be racist Chris Christie would have to be one hell of an ignorant dipshit who is completely unaware of the political environment in the South during the 1960's.

In case you missed the 50's and 60's Paratus. Here's a news flash from the past.
African Americans were lynched in the South.
They were beaten to death for LOOKING at a white woman.
They were burnt to death in their beds by the KKK.
Their churches were burnt to the ground.
They could not sit at a lunch counter.
They sat in the back of the bus.
They were not allowed in the same public restrooms as whites.
They were not allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites.
They were not allowed in the same schools as whites.
They were not allowed to vote.
They were called disgusting names, spat upon , refused work and treated like garbage.

And you feel it would have been perfectly alright to have the very people who did this to them decide whether or not they should have their civil rights, and that that is not racist.
What world do you live in? It can't be the one I live in.

"how do we feel today ,sir...?
better..
better,sir?
better get me a bucket,I'm about to throw up.."

blacks could not vote yet...,are you insane ?

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with my post.

Probably would have and rightfully so. However, that has noting to do with my post.
Now you need to learn to read.

I am familiar with what you say. Changes nothing. What he is saying is that the states should have been allowed to vote on it. That is not a racist statement. The rest of your reply is smoke.

Agreed and irrelevant. I am saying that Christies statement is not racist. I am not commenting on the right or wrong of the conditions of black people in the South. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what Christie said. You are bringing in everything but the kitchen sink into the discussion.

Just read my replies to your peers above.

Yes and the dipshits who did that in the 60s were Democrats.

that went on to become repubes after civil rights issues were taken on.

sorry,i follow alot of the true thinkers here...not following you.

Only Southern Democrats because there were no Republicans in the South at the time because Lincoln freed the slaves, and when Johnson passed the Civil Right's Act of 1964,they all became Republicans again. Always race based politics in the South no matter which party is in charge. Try a little accuracy for a change.

Keep telling yourself that, Paratus. I know you believe it, maybe if you repeat it a few thousand times more, you might get a few other suckers to fall in line but no one of sound mind will ever fall for that line of hogwash.

I cannot believe the ignorance of some of these posters about US history. Their lack of knowledge is astounding. Also, they have obviously never been discriminated against, because no matter how hard you beat your head against the wall trying to get them to understand, it's like they wear blinders. Ten to one, they are white, young and were either home schooled or were taught in a GOP controlled schooling system or they are from the "old white establishment" that fear that minorities are going to take over the US.

It is truly astounding isn't it? This was suppose to be the post racial generation. They know nothing. What are we teaching them ? Certainly not modern history. My mind is reeling.

good reply
thanks

It does have to do with your post. Racism would be a valid question with a comment like that. I m not saying he is a racist, but it certainly does beg the question about what Christie's thoughts are on the subject that would prompt such a thoughtless remark on established and unquestionably just law.

LOL!!!

It changes a lot actually, the whole process was determining whether or not an entire race of people could vote and cast a voice for their own best interests. The federal government had every right to make that decision, unless you are saying that the states should have had a vote to determine if African Americans could vote and during that hypothetical vote African Americans could cast a vote of their own to help decide their own political role. If the federal government had not stepped in and given African Americans the right to vote in the Southern States, European American Southern voters would have almost certainly shot down the idea that African Americans have the right to vote, and people who were and are United States citizens would not have equal representation or rights to express themselves.

That is where the federal government is supposed to step in. People can argue about how the federal government oversteps it's bounds and bitch all day about things the federal government does, but one of the big jobs of the federal government is to make sure that states do not pass or enforce laws that prevent equal rights, and being able to vote is an equal right issue.

Yes and no. Although the Democratic party was, for decades, a party of rich white racists who suppressed the rights of African Americans, changes within the party were occurring in the 1960's that swung the party towards racial equality.

In 1965, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which suspended poll taxes, literacy tests, and other subjective voter tests which were continuously used to prevent African Americans from voting.

Prior to that, John F. Kennedy showed support for the Southern African American population by sending in army support to uphold a court decision in favor of James Meredith.

The point being, political parties shift their core ideal values. Yes, the Democrats were a racist party, and I'm sure that they are to an extent today, but only because of the technicality that every person is racist to some extent. You can argue that if you want to, but everyone holds some form of racial stereotyping within them in some form or another. It doesn't matter if it is viewed as a negative or a positive stereotype for a race. It is still projecting a generalizing set of beliefs upon a people which we use to categorize others. But back to the main point, during the 1960's and 1970's the Democratic party and the Republican party switched figurative places on many things.

But all that being aside, I'll ask a question of you. What does your statement have to do with, or add to the conversation? It does not counter my argument in any way, shape, or form. The only purpose of your statement seems to be to rile people up while at the same time, shifting the topic away from what was said by a man who, today, is either racist or an ignorant dipshit, possibly both, while trying to associate the Democratic party of the 1960's with the Democratic party today.

Please insert another quarter to continue.

My statement was 100% accurate.

No my point was to discuss how we got to where we are now. If we don't know our history we are doomed to repeat it. The thread is rife with "the GOP is racist" and I agree that the GOP sucks. Is there no room in the discussion to look at what the other party did and does or are we content to ignore the racism that exists there? Racism sucks wherever it comers from.

Johnson signed legislation that was filibustered by major Democratic party figures to include Al Gore Sr. LBJ refused to go to King's funeral and sent VP Humphrey instead.

In your own mind.

The charge of "racism" by the left is an old stand-by for when they have nothing else.

But it actually reveals THEIR racism. The Left-wingers actually claim SUPERIORITY over "minorities," simply by virtue of the two FACTS:

1. The Left-wingers declare that they know what is best for a pre-defined group of people. That is treating them as inferior, of course. Suppose I claimed to know what is best for YOU? Wouldn't that be looking down and assuming superiority?

2. The Leftists are saying that these certain groups need government help. This implies - quite clearly - that they must be inferior.

Yes, it is the Left that has the racists.

The Liberals will never let it go, never.

One tactic of the Left is whenever a person advocates for states' rights, they scream "racist!"

They are really part of the Borg in that they all think alike.

Liberals do not know HOW to think, but Liberals know WHAT they are SUPPOSED to think.

Another Liberal technique to watch: They want you to agree with everything they propose. If you do not agree, you may be branded in some way. In this case, it is as a racist. But another is to claim that you are in DENIAL. Or that you have some emotional problem. Watch: Disagree enough, and they will start the psycho-analysis....

I have found that it generally takes about 5-6 repetitiions of the same thing before a Liberal starts to comprehend.

Be patient.

Be sure to use easy words, and never make sentences complex. That helps sometimes. Another thing is never use sarcasm or jokes. Liberals are concrete "thinkers," so do not expect them to understand anything that requires inference or interpretation.

Yawn.

Thank God, my power has been out for days so I was lucky enough to avoid most of your comments.

Ah, the vacuous apologists for the status quo arrive.

Ah, sophmoric political rhetoric from the chief sophmore. Golly Gee.