Loading ...
Corzine’s dangerous snack at intersection
23
February
2/23/2008:
Governor Jon Corzine is the most powerful politician in New Jersey, and a resident of Hoboken. You’d think he’d be able to pitch in and help us with our parking, intersection and pedestrian safety issues. You want to know why he doesn’t?
Because he’s part of the problem!!
One reader ran into him and his army of security personnel last weekend over at Anthony David’s.
Taken from the pages of the user comments here on Hoboken411:
“I had dinner at Anthony David’s on Sunday evening and apparently Governor Corzine had the same idea.
30 minutes prior to Corzine arriving, three massive black GMC Yukons showed up and parked at the intersection of 10th and Bloomfield. Each SUV was filled with about 4 troopers and each one parked on different corners of the same intersection, blocking pedestrian paths and a fire hydrant. They remained in their vehicles with the engines running. At first we thought there was going to be a raid of some sort on a local residence, but eventually we came to the conclusion Corzine was probably around. 30 minutes later a Mercedes E-Class wagon pulls up with Corzine and woman stepping out. They proceeded to enter the restaurant with security escort and join a party of 15 or more. The security detail continued to monitor the street corners walking around in the rain a bit, while most remained in their vehicles.”
I wonder what their excuses and reactions would have been if there was an accident and someone got hurt. Surely it wouldn’t have been their fault, right? “The Governor is more important than any peon that would have gotten hurt anyway!”
75 Responses to ** Corzine’s dangerous snack at intersection **
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 26th 2008 - 11:53:13 |
Katie_Scarlett wrote:
I’m tempted to ask if you honestly believe GWB wouldn’t install another dictator if he could find one? But you are missing the point. The war is bankrupting our country. How will we pay for it?
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 11:56:46 |
KenOn10 wrote:
I don’t have an answer to that.
But I’d rather that we were fighting over there than over here. And I truly believe that if we pull out, we’re going to see (eventually) a rise in terrorists coming here.
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 11:57:01 |
If anyone really belives that if elected Obama or Hillary will withdraw all of our troops from Iraq you might want to buy this great old bridge I am selling that goes from lower Manhattan to Brooklyn.
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 12:08:32 |
YipYap wrote:
No, I don’t think they’re going to remove all the troops, but I don’t think that they’ll see this through either.
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 12:32:51 |
Katie_Scarlett wrote:
Seeing as how Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda prior to our 2003 invasion, do you think they’d be cool with us using their country as an arena, to “fight them over there”? We got their permission ahead of time, right? 100,000+ Iraqi deaths and plunging their country into civil war as a side effect – they were okay with that?
If you can connect the dots and show me how what we’re doing today leads to a decrease in extremist animosity towards the USA, I’d love to hear it. What’s our goal – kill every terrorist and everyone who would ever become one? Or continue to perpetuate this black and white view of the conflict (good guys vs. bad guys) while we end up making the world less safe?
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 12:58:13 |
Katie_Scarlett wrote:
Yes, because since we’re in Iraq, it’s impossible for a Saudi to buy a plane ticket.
Brilliant logic.
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 14:07:40 |
homeworld wrote:
BINGO!!
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 14:25:03 |
Yes, leaving Iraq unstable would not cause something like what happened in Afghanistan (you know, where terrorists are right now) to happen in Iraq.
You’re right, we leave, they live peacefully ever after. What was I thinking?
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 14:37:02 |
Interesting how it only took six comments for the justification to go from “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” to “we need to stay there to stabilize the country”.
So if you had a brother in the military, who signed up to defend his country, and instead was told to risk his life to clean up this colossal mistake – that’d be okay?
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 14:52:39 |
Re-read my original post, and tell me how I changed my beliefs. I expanded on the “eventually” part of my first post to indicate that destabilization of Iraq through withdrawal will lead to future terrorists here, not unlike Afghanistan post USSR occupation.
What would I feel if my brother was over there? That’s irrelevant to this conversation.
Katie_Scarlett wrote:
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 16:02:41 |
It’s already done.
October 13-21 over…
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 17:26:31 |
Katie_Scarlett wrote:
That’s what she said
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 19:19:11 |
MidnightRacer care to elaborate?
Does this video make you nervous?
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/02/diebold-acciden.html
Login or Register to reply
February 26th 2008 - 19:59:40 |
YipYap, has nothing to do with that. It’s about the underground water.
Login or Register to reply
February 27th 2008 - 11:03:18 |
just want to touch on various points. one, regarding something someone said (think it may have been a ken?)about neither party having creative spending cut solutions. well…have the republicans even had a shot? i mean the dems dominate the legislature and the governorship. so is this a fair statement?
two, the stem cell issue…it’s ironic that creating jobs comes up as a possible factor for why this guy wanted to pass this initiative, when he is the head of a party that believes people should be paid to sit on their ass. his position COMPLETELY overlooked the moral issues that may be present here; it frankly was a very unsophisticated position.
finally…what does all of this have to do with iraq? from what little i can gather, it seems that those who lean toward supporting/defending corzine had to resort to talking about George Bush and Iraq – for some strange reason. maybe watching too much bill maher or something, i dunno.
Login or Register to reply