Obama drones digging for dirt on "Round Boy" ?

Round Boy is what us Jersey residents affectionately call our Gov,Chris Christie.The man has repeatedly stated he is in no way gonna run yet the drones dig and investigate him.What the hell makes them so nervous about Round Boy?


"Any responsible campaign would at the very least start asking around about potential challengers. In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing that the media should be doing right now," the insider said. "Never has a field of presidential contenders gotten so little real scrutiny from the press corps."

Excuse me but isn't this clown saying that the media should do to Round Boy exactly what they didn't do to Obama?,to me that's bass ackwards and hypocritical!!

I like Round Boy and would vote for him but I doubt he'll run.My 1st choice would be Herman Cain,he's more conservative than Round Boy and would be the dems worst nightmare.He would take away the race card dems are so fond of playing but they would still try.

Discussion is locked
Reply to: Obama drones digging for dirt on "Round Boy" ?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Obama drones digging for dirt on "Round Boy" ?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
I'm so glad that

you and I are in agreement about both Christie and Cain. I suspect that, exactly as he keeps saying, Christie feels he can do more for the State of New Jersey right now as Governor than he could individually help NJ as president....however, if he keeps up the great track record he has going for himself, he will probably be a contender next go-round (no pun intended). I, also, have been very impressed by Cain....not just for the same race card issue that couldn't be used, but because he is soooooo very conservative that not only does he have the Dems highly concerned, but some of the Rep runners right now as well since many of them carry so much baggage that probably couldn't even be explained away. I like Newt, because as Speaker, he was a force to be reckoned with and accomplished much even with Clinton as president, but I fear his personal past will bite him. Romney has the 'good looks' appeal, but he, as Governor, passed that RomneyCare health 'insurance' that he just can't seem to accept is a total failure. He keeps trying to compare the two 'Care' packages, when he should actually be telling the voters he wants to attract that it was a horrible mistake...that he tried it out as an experiment and enough time has gone by that even HE realizes it was the wrong thing to do. And both of the "Paul's" are a little too forceful, even if they might have a few good ideas, for the voters to accept and get behind them. Santoro, Pawlenty, and a few others actually HAVE to get a little more forceful in order to be taken seriously. I would love to see Paul Ryan enter...and am seriously disappointed in Scott Brown AGAIN voting against the Republicans in the Senate regarding Ryan's budget that passed in the House. He was such a hopeful and has turned out to be an "I'll say anything to get elected and then do what I want" candidate like so many others before him.

- Collapse -
RE: Digging dirt, .............................To bury him?

Since he's know affectionately as "Round Boy" that could be quite a feat.

- Collapse -
Think about those machines that dig out large trees with the

roots still attached. It'd be perfect, and leave a nice little mound for the plaque too Laugh .


- Collapse -
from what little I have seen of Christie, I like the guy.

I can imagine why the GOP might be interested in getting him to front the next election. Especially after the recent non-start / melt down of Newts early campaign kick off. With Huckabee out of the race, the only obvious front runner this early in the game is Romney, and of course he could stumble on the same broken glass that Newt hamstrung himself with.

- Collapse -
I think 24/7 news bears some blame as well

Both on TV and the Internet. With the news "on" constantly, news outlets have to push the boundaries of what constitutes news further and further in order to fill all that time. Often that results in the networks creating their own "news" rather than just reporting it.

- Collapse -
(NT) Don't you love it when newies interview each other?
- Collapse -
weak candidates bring out the sharks

Blood is in the political waters and they are circling Obama.

- Collapse -
(NT) Savage River. Rob
- Collapse -
you're willing to trust a single "unfairly biased" Fox News

"news" item as a true and accurate source on this issue? Why should they be? Their entire existence is based on distortion and fabrication, and the Iron Editorial Fist of Roger Ailes, that well known proponent of free speech (if only from one side). And how do you know that they're Obama's people? "Hi, I work for President Obama, and I was wondering if you knew any dirt about Chris Christie? No? Okay, and if anybody asks, just tell them we were here trying to dig up dirt on the Governor."

Is there any reason or rationality on the Right, or do you just believe whatever you're told?


- Collapse -
Come on Rob ?!?!?!
"Is there any reason or rationality on the Right, or do you just believe whatever you're told?"

Come on Rob, you have seen many of the conservative blogs that are used as concrete "evidence" by the far right... and you still have to ask that question ?

- Collapse -
"unfairly biased" Fox News

I suppose you believe that all of the liberal news programs, such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. aren't 'unfairly biased' and therefore are all legitimate news channels? Even though there are mostly liberal news programs/channels across the USA, and BO considers Fox News to not even be a legitimate news source (at one time he actually blacklisted them and attempted to block their ability to take the front row vacant seat after that fat broad was kicked out after years because of her slurred statements regarding Israel and ALL of the news correspondents rallied behind Fox and got them that seat), FoxNews on cable has a higher consistent rating and audience than ALL of those other liberal news channels COMBINED. How can you possibly consider that FoxNews is an unfairly biased news source when they have liberals on their payroll in order to bring a balanced source for both sides of any debate......NONE of the other news channels even ALLOW conservatives to have a voice in their programs. What you have on those other channels is literally a round-robin table with ONLY people who totally agree with each other...there is never a debate covering both sides of an issue. IMO, FoxNews is the ONLY legitimate news source available to anyone who wants ALL of the information so that we can make good decisions for ourselves and aren't forcefed liberal one-sided garbage anymore.

- Collapse -
Shouldn't 'All' News Reporting be unbiased and impartial?

Even commentaries?

In the UK we don't have any affiliated news channels; even Murdoch's Sky News here remains impartial when reporting news events.

That way, we see the news as it is and we tend to trust what they say. The proof of that is with the BBC. Successive governments always accuse the BBC of bias to the opposing parties, and yet on each change of government the reporters and commentators don't change.

Is there an 'unbiased' news channel in the US?


- Collapse -

Commentaries by their very nature are biased at least somewhat. Fox reports the facts very fairly. People confuse editorializing with "news."

- Collapse -
"Fat broad?"
- Collapse -
That network lies on a daily basis.


- Collapse -
Already provided (see link)

If you want more, just tune to Fox and watch for a few hours.

- Collapse -
Where did they lie?

Seems to me they were dead on. The jerk compared the GOP to Nazis. Maybe you intended another link? It's not true just because Job Stewart says it is.

- Collapse -
Do try to follow

They lied when they said THEY never do that, and then Jon Stewart produced a series of clips showing them doing exactly what they had just denied ever doing.

- Collapse -
I watched it...

Maybe they were "exaggerating for effect." At best that was ONE lie (not really a lie) by one person once. Hardly lying on a daily basis like you said.

- Collapse -
(NT) None are so blind as those that will not see
- Collapse -
Juan Williams is a liberal

and very credible, for one example

The DAILY SHOW???? Are you serious about suggesting that Stewart is a 'news' source and not the entertainer, like Jay Leno David Letterman Conan O' Brien Craig Kilbourne Bill Maher all are. They're freaking talk show hosts for crying out loud....are you going to call up Oprah now as another news source, considering she not only endorsed BO, but campaigned for me.

Are you also one of those ones that during a live newsfeed during the tea party protest or the union protests in Wisconsin held up signs saying "Fox Lies" and can't give one credible instance of it when asked for that information? Happens all the time to liberals....but conservatives can give instance after instance right off the top of their heads when asked regarding any of the liberal news stations. Maybe it's because conservatives actually understand when any newscasters speak, can distinguish between trash talk and the facts, and aren't parroting garbage untruths that liberal newscasters would have you believe.

When conservatives turn the channel to a liberal news station, most will tell you that our heads start spinning faster than Linda Blair's did in the Exorcist just trying to sort out how rational people come to the 'facts' that get spewed out by those newscasters and how other rational thinking people could actually believe any of it. As Chris Matthews so eloquently put it....BO gives them a thrill up their leg just listening to him speak....obviously, it doesn't seem to matter WHAT he's saying, just that he is SPEAKING. I'm going to go throw up now...

- Collapse -
Sadly, Jon Stewart is a credible source...

to liberals. He is compared to the other sources they use, like Media Matters and Huffpo and MSNBC which actually DOES lie on a daily basis. Ever watched Ed Shulz?

- Collapse -
And sadly

very few of their 'news sources' are actually news channels, (mostly are entertainers), and the 'news sources' that are actually 'journalistic' types that are SUPPOSED to report actual news, only report their 'panic' side without getting all the facts. Liberal news sources don't have 'investigative' reporters...if they actually got off their duffs long enough to actual INVESTIGATE the news before reporting it, they might have some credibility with a wider audience. As it stands, the reason FoxNews has a total audience that is larger than ALL of the liberal news channels COMBINED is because they actually investigate and verify before reporting anything. If something is 'mentioned' rather than actually being 'reported', they actually say that they are checking into it and will report more once they do...and they follow up with either the nod or the thumbs down. When UBL was killed, for example, all the news channels including FoxNews cable ran the story for days on end....but the big difference was that the liberal news channels were high-fiving BO for a job well done, even tho all the policies that brought UBL down were put into place by Bush and ONLY Gates gave credit to Bush during his acceptance speech for the appointment BO offered him, FoxNews actually was giving credit to the SEALs who came up with the plan, practiced it for months, including building a replica of the entire compound, and pulled it off...and SEALs were being interviewed constantly in order to get more factual information about what 'probably' went down during that raid. As stated by someone else in this thread, the news is on 24/7 now so something has to fill in the 'dead' spots....liberal channels filled it in by making caustic remarks about something the Republicans were 'probably' doing, praising BO, etc. Fox filled it in with really information interviews that actually benefited military families whose sons or daughters are SEALs and usually have very little information about what their jobs are about since none of them talk much about what they do.

- Collapse -

.....I should stick to more credible sources such as WorldNetDaily and whatever right-wing blog site James links to for his Birther posts.

(and by the way, I'm not a "liberal")

- Collapse -

Yesterday, on the Ed Show, which is MSNBC, former RNC chairman Steele was on to comment on the 26th district Republican loss. I don't think you spend too much time watching other news casts since you seem biased, but if you think Fox isn't biased, in any way shape or form, you have been drinking there kool-aid for way too long.

Instead of consistanty pounding what media is constantly saying, every single day, what always gets lost is the issues this country faces, but I digress, when folks are always driven by idiologies instead of what really matters and it always the demogoging-fear-factoring that is spewed out by every media outlet in America.

- Collapse -

The ONLY news I watched until three years ago was CNN.....a very liberally slanted cable news station, and it was on from the minute I woke up until I went to bed. It was after I bounced back and forth between CNN and FOXNews during reporting going on during the 2008 campaigns, debates, and election night, that I realized how slanted CNN was when a panel would be discussing what their take was on each event. There was never any criticism against a Democrat candidate but there was always plenty regarding the Republican candidate on CNN....whereas FOX actually found things to criticize regarding both party's candidates. I don't even bother changing to CNN anymore but have also switched over to other liberal news stations, including my local channels and found the same thing going on. I don't even know if there are cable news stations that are 'conservative' so I watch FOX because I find their reporting to be at a higher standard than anything else and it really IS 'fair and balanced'.....much more so than you would give them credit for....when compared to the others.

- Collapse -
Toni, you flopped!

By your own self admission your political affiliations have changed. In your own mind (opinion) you feel FN is where its at, for what ever reason, you "re-booted" to believe the retoric that is the Rush, GB, Hannity garbage.

BTW, FN ratings have come down. Do you think that people are starting to wake up?

Like, Ryan's budget for instance. Seniors know that this type of "right-wing engineering" if I can coin from Gingrich, is effectively ending Medicare, in lieu of a voucher system. Romney flip-flopping on his health care philosophies for the country when he said it was good for Massachussettes. This is just a couple of recent examples of what is really wrong with conservatives.

I don't believe everything the progressive liberals are always saying, but you have to agree that you certainly know when you are being BS'ed, and know the difference between right and wrong

- Collapse -
I have never flip-floppped

on my political affiliations. I've always been a conservative. I just happened to always watch CNN news because I believed during those years that it was a station that could be trusted to report the truth. During the elections and campaigns and debates of 2008, I realized that CNN was only hyped up on the liberal candidates, and began a love fest with BO so much so that you could almost see the commentators swooning over him...and it hasn't ended. I prefer FOX news because I get a wider perspective of what's going on with the world and the coverage is more detailed rather than flowered over.

Seniors (I am one, you know) do realize that Medicare will have to eventually end...that's why the Ryan budget keeps it going for the people already on it or at an age where they will be shortly. Social Security and Medicare was brought into being originally ONLY for widows of military men. Neither was intended to take care of everybody in their old age....that's something that the progressive Democrats decided to put into place and although it has had its life, it's time for it to die out. You can blame Ryan for this idea all you want to, but ObamaCare will also end Medicare down the road because everyone will be required to buy his plan instead.

Romney created political suicide, IMO, when he allowed that crappy healthcare system to be put into place in Mass. He claims that RomneyCare is 'different' from ObamaCare and that's why he promises to repeal OC if he gets into office. I don't care what he promises, what he should be telling potential voters is that he made a serious mistake and that it's a dismal failure and that he is going to encourage the Governor of Mass to also repeal it. But, unfortunately, he won't.

- Collapse -
The Social Security Act of 1935

Fist time I heard that the original intent was only for service dependents. And if you're going to say that Medicare time is pass and phase it out, how young do you have to be to be phased out? while they're paying Medicare taxes to pay for you and I? at least I hope to live long enough to qualify. I just hope I can keep working past 65 honestly, physically that is, since I'm sure even those under 65-70 now will see benefits curtailed as they age into SS and Medicare.

But regarding the 1935 Social Security Act..................

The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]PREAMBLEAn act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes........................

For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to aged needy individuals,..........

From the sums appropriated therefor, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to each State which has an approved plan for old-age assistance, for each quarter, beginning with the quarter commencing July 1, 1935,(1) an amount, which shall be used exclusively as old-age assistance, equal to one-half of the total of the sums expended during such quarter as old-age assistance under the State plan with respect to each individual who at the time of such expenditure is sixty-five years of age or older and is not an inmate of a public institution, not counting so much of such expenditure with respect to any individual for any month as exceeds $30, and .....................

a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:........

(c) The term qualified individual means any individual with respect to whom it appears to the satisfaction of the Board that-
(1) He is at least sixty-five years of age; and
(2) The total amount of wages paid to him, with respect to employment after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, was not less than $2,000; and
(3) Wages were paid to him, with respect to employment on some five days after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty-five, each day being in a different calendar year.

SECTION 301. For the purpose of assisting the States in the administration of their unemployment compensation laws, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $4,000,000, and for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of $49,000,000, to be used as hereinafter provided.............

For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to needy dependent children, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $24,750,000, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this title...............

SECTION 501. For the purpose of enabling each State to extend and improve, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, services for promoting the health of mothers and children, especially in rural areas and in areas suffering from severe economic distress, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $3,800,000.............

More people covered by benefits by the 1935 act at site, cripple children, etc.

- Collapse -
Medicare of 1965

Given how much employers are cutting health insurance or raising cost of insurance, I hope I have affordable insurance at work until I retire and I hope there is some help with medical cost, otherwise, we should probably legalize self euthanasia and not penalize survivors by refusing death benefits, pathetic as they may be and life insurance policies (over a year old anyway).

I don't believe insurance companies will be in a struggle to sign up old people for insurance except at exorbitant rates and justifying the rates by statistics. Unless you would agree to requiring the same rates for all ages with penalty rates only for voluntary risk taking?

The Medicare and Medicaid programs were signed into law on July 30, 1965. President LBJ is pictured at the signing ceremony in Independence, Missouri at the Truman Library...........

The most significant legislative change to Medicare--called the Medicare Modernization Act or MMA--was signed into law by another President from Texas, George W. Bush, on December 8, 2003. This historic legislation adds an outpatient prescription drug benefit to Medicare and makes many other important changes. ......

In 1965, the passage of the Social Security Act Amendments, popularly known as Medicare, resulted in a basic program of hospital insurance for persons aged 65 and older, and a supplementary medical insurance program to aid the elderly in paying doctor bills and other health care bills............

Between 1950 and 1963, the aged population grew from about 12 million to 17.5 million, or from 8.1 to 9.4 percent of the U.S. population. At the same time, the cost of hospital care was rising at a rate of about 6.7 percent a year, several times the annual increase in the cost of living, and health care costs were rapidly outpacing growth in the incomes of older Americans.

Private insurers had long considered this illness-prone population a "bad risk." A broad debate about the need for a social insurance program to provide older Americans with reliable health care coverage started within the Social Security Administration and in Congress...............

the debate did not intensify until 1960, when it became clear that private insurers were becoming increasingly incapable of providing comprehensive, affordable health care coverage to the rapidly growing population of older adults. .....................

Votes by party in 1965. Majority of both parties supported act.

Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older..... Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons ..................

The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.

On December 8, 2003 President George W. Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act into law. This landmark legislation provides seniors and people living with disabilities a prescription drug benefit, more health care choices and better benefits. "By reforming and modernizing this vital program, we are honoring the commitments of Medicare to all our seniors," President Bush said.................

CNET Forums