m Signing comment by SuperJerms - "→Nice Try All You Biased So-Called "NPOV" Wikipedians: " |
68.41.55.171 (talk) |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
:::Come to think of it, does the campaign-related stuff really have much bearing on the sitting Governor? It seems like it should be split off to another article on the election (combined with whatever is on the Corzine page), so that this article can deal with substantive issues related to the office. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SuperJerms|SuperJerms]] ([[User talk:SuperJerms|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SuperJerms|contribs]]) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:::Come to think of it, does the campaign-related stuff really have much bearing on the sitting Governor? It seems like it should be split off to another article on the election (combined with whatever is on the Corzine page), so that this article can deal with substantive issues related to the office. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SuperJerms|SuperJerms]] ([[User talk:SuperJerms|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SuperJerms|contribs]]) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==Don't feed the Trolls??== |
|||
So now, anyone who challenges the liberal HEGEMONY on wikipedia is an...er...TROLL?? |
|||
Hold up.... I thought you liberals didn't believe in name calling as it was dehumanizing! haha |
|||
The place is run and CONTROLLED by left wing ZEALOTS. Pure and simple. |
|||
There is NO legitimate alternative view. Now recently, and PURELY as a PR move, wik |
|||
has PRETENDED to be more fair and balanced. But they always get busted. |
|||
This article on Christie being Exhibit #12,302,493. |
|||
A HUGE section on alleged controversies regarding Christie but NONE, or virtually none, on his then opponent Corzine?? |
|||
And your only response is - Hey Troll it's not quite 1/3, man! lol |
|||
It reads like a HIT piece. A |
|||
Good luck getting people to take Wikipedia seriously? bahahahahaah |
|||
PS The MOST damning evidence that Wikipedia is basically just a LEFT WING pipe organ is your |
|||
responses to criticisms that you are basically just a LEFT WING pipe organ. haha [[Special:Contributions/68.41.55.171|68.41.55.171]] ([[User talk:68.41.55.171|talk]]) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:03, 2 June 2010
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Education
"He has cut hundreds of thousands of dollars from school budgets all over the state because of the out of control budget deficit in New Jersey. The NJEA Teachers Union has also decided against resonable means to negotiate, as Christie has offered budget increases for districts in which has taken pay-freezes/cuts." This seems a little biassed to me, particularly the second line. Possible revision?? Xylogirl07 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Please upload official portrait
Can be obtained here: http://www.nj.gov/governor/library/imgs/20091208GovChristie.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.78.69 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Pandering to Illegal Immigrants
On April 28, 2008, New Jersey's top federal prosecutor told a Latino group it's a civil offense, not a crime, for immigrants to live in the country without proper documentation, a comment that a spokesman later said was aimed at a narrowly worded question. U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, widely considered to be a leading GOP contender for governor next year, spoke Sunday in response to a question on illegal immigration at an open forum that grew heated. He said living in the U.S. without immigration paperwork is "an administrative matter" that federal immigration officials are supposed to address through deportation.
Critics categorized Christie's remarks as soft on illegal immigration. In a statement clarifying the remarks, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said that although lacking documents is not necessarily a crime in itself, it is a federal misdemeanor to enter the country without going through the proper immigration channels, or to enter by using fraudulent documents.
Christie "did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act. It is not," Drewniak said in a statement. An immigrant could be in the country illegally without making an illegal entry or using fraudulent documents if he or she overstayed a visa.
Of course, as Christie had to know, there are at least 12 million immigrants in America who could indeed -- quite fairly and quite accurately -- be classified as illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.148.23 (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Added to the Controversy segment of this page. As I read in another spot, foot in mouth, even though he may be technically right!
- The American public feel strongly for the topic and you have to think that he WOULD go this path in this atmosphere, as you can think he is seeking votes.
- I tried to be neutral on the posting, I think? But I have to agree with society.
- paradiver 02:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The controversy portion takes up too much of the article. It is disporportionately large. Gregweitzner (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I can try to help but I also noticed the statement "Christie has not said how he would recoup these tax revenues" or something along those lines. I just deleted it because although it is said in an unbiased manner the connotation of it is biased. In other political articles no one says "so-and-so politician has not yet stated where he will get the revenue to pay for this project" unless there is a direct source. This statement in my opinion is underlying bias unless we are to question every policy with its fiscal impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregweitzner (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Freeholder
To be more balanced I would like to see a mention that Christie had served as a Republican Morris County Freeholder and had raised $100,000 in 2000 for George Bush. There is public criticism, valid or not, that Christie was a republican with no criminal justice or law enforcement experience who was placed in the office by a politician he had assisted through fundraising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njsamizdat (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
And yet...
Christie is the most successful US Attorney NJ has ever had. There is NO ONE in living memory who has rooted out more corruption than he has. Simplemines 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)simplemines
Seconded Radiocolin (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is disgraceful in how biased it is. The criticism page was larger than the rest of it combined and was laced with bias. I cut it down a little but some of the references got scrambled. Please help make this more objective and expand on other parts. Gregweitzner (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Greg, moderating biased language is fine with me, but chopping out well-sourced and notable criticism is not. As I suggested before, if you feel that the criticism makes up too large a share of the article, then help to add some more information on Christie's positions and achievements - as far as I know, I am the only one to add anything to the former of these. The article is not yet overly long, and more work needs to be done in these areas. --Wormcast (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are definitely right that more needs to be added to this article. However, much of what I found when going through the sources used in the criticism section was that much of it was taken out of context, or only gave one side of the story. Many of these criticisms themselves have been refuted. If you only use left-wing rhetoric in the criticism section without any refutations or doubts, then it is pure bias. Gregweitzner (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For instance, this sentence that I included in the criticism section, "However, these fees were found to be in line with similar services" keeps getting moved from where it would be cited. If you actually read the article that cites what comes before it, then you will see that that is in fact included in the article. However, whoever initially wrote the criticism section, selectively chose to ignore this very important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregweitzner (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary to defend him against all possible questions related to that contract, the public criticism was about him giving it to his former boss. Says me, the left-wing info-adder. (If it lets me off the hook, I also added background about his accomplishments as prosecutor up top!) It's difficult to create a balanced page during a hotly-contested election, so let's assume good faith! Njsamizdat (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the sentence "However, these fees were found to be in line with similar services" to the outside of the inline citations for the preceding information because these cited references do not (unless I missed something) support that claim. As it stood, it gave the appearance that the claim was supported by cited sources, when it was not. I did search for a source for the claim, but was not able to find anything. --Wormcast (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Greg, you have now cited two sources to support your claim that Ashcroft & Co.'s fees "were found to be in line with similar services":
- (1) 'The spokesman, Mark Corallo, called the fee structure "consistent with any other large scale-monitoring circumstances," but could not immediately point to similar cases' (Ashcroft's firm to collect $52M to monitor implant case), and
- (2) "Mr. Christie said that his office was too busy to regulate every aspect of an agreement, and that news reports indicated that Mr. Ashcroft’s fees were in line with what other firms charged to act as a monitor." (In Testy Exchange in Congress, Christie Defends His Record as a Prosecutor).
- The first of is a simple assertion of this claim by Christie's spokesperson, and the second, a simple assertion by Christie himself. Clearly, neither of these statements constitutes a reliable, objective source any more than a claim by Johnny Cochran that "O.J. is innocent" would be a reliable, objective source for stating that O.J. is innocent. Find a real source for this information, please! As it stands now, it is simply campaign propaganda. --Wormcast (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources
I don't think a website promoting Chris Christie for Governor - the Save Jersey Blog - is a reliable source for this article. I'd suggest finding citations in a more balanced source like politicsnj.com or newspapers. Njsamizdat (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are some articles on Christie's past political career, that could provide some additional background; I just don't have the time to write anything right now:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/gop_candidate_chris_christie_l.html
http://www.politickernj.com/max/29733/murphy-endorses-christie-governor
http://www.politickernj.com/max/26275/political-career-three-parts-chris-christie-freeholder
http://www.northjersey.com/news/njpolitics/Christie_remembered_for_bitter_conflicts.html
I think the most critical fact that needs to be added is his 1997 primary loss for re-election as freeholder, including some description of the political infighting that preceeded it, and the lawsuit that followed it. Neutron (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing about his traffic accident controversy?
Why not? 67.170.86.33 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Christie's weight is also an issue
The fact that Christie is relatively, err, volumically endowed, has crept into the campaign, even though it doesn't have any effect on his ability to govern. It has become notable, so I included a sentence or two. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] He does have a high body mass index, don't deny it. It's proper to point out that he's fat.192.12.88.7 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice Try All You Biased So-Called "NPOV" Wikipedians
The fact that Christie has an entire section called "Criticisms" which comprise nearly 1/3 of the entire article...and the fact that Jon Corzine has no such section...which is empirical proof that the authors of wikipedia are biased, had no effect on the outcome. I already know your excuses..."Well thats THEIR article...if they want to leave out a "criticisms" section, they can..." Isn't funny how it always works out that way? The republican gets the criticism section, the democrat does not, and the biased and (deceptive) wikipedia author always has the excuse "thats THEIR article, not THIS article"... On a Macro level, when it comes to elections, one thing is always certain...Wikipedia will bias left. But who is surprised? Wikipedia authors are mostly young white liberal males, mostly secularists, and leaning socialist. As hard as you tried to skewer the election, you failed. Sorry, my cute cuddly little socialist bias wikipedians. Your "NPOV" mask is a joke, the only people who actually believe your articles are NPOV is...well...you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.97.239 (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. And, thats not 1/3rd of the article... --Rockstone (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Measuring it out by length, it looks to be ~1/5 of the article. Not unreasonable for a high profile politician. And reading Corzine's page, while it may not separate criticisms into their own section, there are quite a few interspersed throughout. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since y'all seem to have some strong feelings, I'm going to post here before editing this article. I'm just a random viewer, with no dog in this fight. I came across the article, and I'm going to remove the monty python copyright thing. It's not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedic reference, and just comes across as a NPOV problem. If you feel strongly about saving it, find a copyright article that lists off various transgressions and include it there. SuperJerms (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, does the campaign-related stuff really have much bearing on the sitting Governor? It seems like it should be split off to another article on the election (combined with whatever is on the Corzine page), so that this article can deal with substantive issues related to the office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJerms (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't feed the Trolls??
So now, anyone who challenges the liberal HEGEMONY on wikipedia is an...er...TROLL?? Hold up.... I thought you liberals didn't believe in name calling as it was dehumanizing! haha The place is run and CONTROLLED by left wing ZEALOTS. Pure and simple. There is NO legitimate alternative view. Now recently, and PURELY as a PR move, wik has PRETENDED to be more fair and balanced. But they always get busted. This article on Christie being Exhibit #12,302,493.
A HUGE section on alleged controversies regarding Christie but NONE, or virtually none, on his then opponent Corzine??
And your only response is - Hey Troll it's not quite 1/3, man! lol It reads like a HIT piece. A Good luck getting people to take Wikipedia seriously? bahahahahaah
PS The MOST damning evidence that Wikipedia is basically just a LEFT WING pipe organ is your responses to criticisms that you are basically just a LEFT WING pipe organ. haha 68.41.55.171 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)