Christie is a straight-talking, no-nonsense tough guy - right, ladies?

[Anonymous]

the guy is a bellicose bully, plain and simple.

he's a tough talking dooshbag (who also happens to have moments of real integrity, though they seem to be a minority of his verbal diarrhea) who has far more bark than bite from all available evidence ... he would have a run getting reelected in NJ now, let alone anything wider than that....

[TheManWithAUsername]

takoma wrote:Aren't we over-interpreting a spur-of the-moment comment that did not get enough forethought to even assume that the words actually fit whatever thought led to their utterance?

I know that in similar circumstances I have blurted things out and realized after the fact that the actual meaning of the words did not match what I intended. Sometimes my meaning got across because of the context, sometimes I had to work after the fact to clear up misunderstandings.

I guess he can say that, but don't hold your breath, because the Reps like the fact that they can play both sides on these kinds of things - let the apologists say, "that's not what he meant" and let the boneheads say, "fuckin' A!" Until he does say something like what you're saying, I don't know why we'd assume that his words were meaningless.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:The audience hooted because he slammed the peanut gallery.

The natural reading is NOT that the take down will be done by the heckler. I don't see how you get there at all.

No one took it that way. Read.

I'll keep waiting for someone who thinks it was a fighting reference to tell me who was supposed to be going down for the count that night...

[Anonymous]

The OP is batshit insane to read sex into that quote. How absurd.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:The OP is batshit insane to read sex into that quote. How absurd.

Still waiting for an explanation, if you can take a break from your shouting...

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The audience hooted because he slammed the peanut gallery.

The natural reading is NOT that the take down will be done by the heckler. I don't see how you get there at all.

No one took it that way. Read.

I'll keep waiting for someone who thinks it was a fighting reference to tell me who was supposed to be going down for the count that night...

I went back and reread the post where you meant to ask this and even now knowing what you meant to ask that post is ambiguous. I did read.

You are looking for a specific that isn't there. He was challenged by a heckler and he said something that was the verbal equivalent of hiking up his balls.

If you think this is a question with a coherent answer, what's your guess?

[Anonymous]

how in the hell is "something going down tonight" about sex? that is ludicrous. something going down means something is happening, which could be anything. it is nothing to do about sex. wow. we know what is on your mind.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:I went back and reread the post where you meant to ask this and even now knowing what you meant to ask that post is ambiguous. I did read.

I don't understand what you're talking about. The Slate writer and I contend Christie was referring to oral sex, not fighting - that's why your criticism made no sense.

Anonymous wrote:You are looking for a specific that isn't there.

I'm challenging his defenders to find one; I agree that it isn't there if it's a fighting reference, which is why that interpretation makes no sense. There is a specific if it's a sexual reference - "the heckler," as in "the heckler will be going down (on some unidentified male) tonight."

Anonymous wrote:He was challenged by a heckler and he said something that was the verbal equivalent of hiking up his balls.

Right (to the degree that I understand what "hiking up his balls" means). The issue is what he chose to say. Michael Richards was challenged by a heckler a few years back - he gets a pass for what he said?

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is a question with a coherent answer, what's your guess?

Seriously: what's with the reading problem? I posted an entire article with my "guess" (it's a conclusion, not a guess). I made clear in my first post that I contend it's a reference to a sexual act, that he was clearly implying that the heckler would be sucking someone's dick that night, if that's clear enough for you. Somehow you (alone) have missed all that, so here it is again very clearly:
- he suggested that someone or something would be "going down tonight"
- in general, "going down" is either a reference to conflict or oral sex, arguably more commonly the former
- if it's a reference to conflict, it only makes sense if there was some conflict to be resolved that very night
- since there wasn't (and since the whole little bit was full of gender references), we can only reasonably conclude that it was a sexual reference.

Tell me where that's faulty.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:something going down means something is happening, which could be anything.

So...what was it? Just anything? The stars coming out?

Why did Christie think it was a witty retort? Why did the Rep establishment who proudly posted it?

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:something going down means something is happening, which could be anything.

So...what was it? Just anything? The stars coming out?

Why did Christie think it was a witty retort? Why did the Rep establishment who proudly posted it?

you have honestly never heard the expression "going down tonight"? i.e., a party going down, or a rumble going down, or an event going down. alternatively, it might be a sports type expression - the yankees are going down tonight, the mets are going down tonight, as in "losing". either way, it is just a stupid New Jersey type expression, and I guess his supporters liked it. he likes to berate and bully and intimidate, and this expression fits right in.

[Anonymous]

I'm backing off. I can handle someone misreading and being unclear in their own posts but I draw the line at their turning around and claiming the same of others.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:something going down means something is happening, which could be anything.

So...what was it? Just anything? The stars coming out?

Why did Christie think it was a witty retort? Why did the Rep establishment who proudly posted it?

you have honestly never heard the expression "going down tonight"? i.e., a party going down, or a rumble going down, or an event going down. alternatively, it might be a sports type expression - the yankees are going down tonight, the mets are going down tonight, as in "losing". either way, it is just a stupid New Jersey type expression, and I guess his supporters liked it. he likes to berate and bully and intimidate, and this expression fits right in.

So...what was it? What or whom was he suggesting was going to go down that night, such that this would be a retort?

We've yet to hear anyone - here or anywhere else that I've seen - suggest anything or anyone that was implied to be going down non-sexually, whether in a fight, party, or event. I've been openly taunting you all to shut me up with just one sensible answer to that question, and out of all these posts there isn't a single proposed answer. It's hilarious that the other poster claims not even to understand the question.

If not the heckler, sexually, who or what was Christie suggesting would be going down that night, such that his statement was a retort?

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:something going down means something is happening, which could be anything.

So...what was it? Just anything? The stars coming out?

Why did Christie think it was a witty retort? Why did the Rep establishment who proudly posted it?

you have honestly never heard the expression "going down tonight"? i.e., a party going down, or a rumble going down, or an event going down. alternatively, it might be a sports type expression - the yankees are going down tonight, the mets are going down tonight, as in "losing". either way, it is just a stupid New Jersey type expression, and I guess his supporters liked it. he likes to berate and bully and intimidate, and this expression fits right in.

So...what was it? What or whom was he suggesting was going to go down that night, such that this would be a retort?

We've yet to hear anyone - here or anywhere else that I've seen - suggest anything or anyone that was implied to be going down non-sexually, whether in a fight, party, or event. I've been openly taunting you all to shut me up with just one sensible answer to that question, and out of all these posts there isn't a single proposed answer. It's hilarious that the other poster claims not even to understand the question.

If not the heckler, sexually, who or what was Christie suggesting would be going down that night, such that his statement was a retort?

The efforts including those that night would result in the liberal dems including the heckler losing in the general (aka. going down).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The efforts including those that night would result in the liberal dems including the heckler losing in the general (aka. going down).

Not being sarcastic here: was there a typo in there? I didn't quite understand.

We're looking for something that is going to go down that night, agreed?

[TheManWithAUsername]

That was me - lost my log in.