But his heart is liable to give out if he keeps acting like a "type A" ass...........

My money's on both.

It's a modern phenomena for leaders to have to be attractive to qualify for office.

It is said that they had to install an oversized bathtub for him.

I won't use that F word because a few people will get upset at an entirely accurate description of what the guy is. I think he has way more "fatty tissue" than William Howard Taft--who was our largest President, but I think WHT walked a bit more than CC ever did. WHT certainly looks--even with a massive gut--like he's got a little more muscle on his frame than CC.



Taft and Christie are close in height--Taft was five eleven and a half, Christie is five eleven.

Would his idiotic policies be any better if he was skinny?

Look, I saw your post on another thread, asking how this "solves the problem" of obesity.

It's not our job to solve anyone's problem, here. Your insistence that people not mention how (f word deleted) people are because it might hurt feelings is just not living in the real world.

Let's not talk about anorexics, either, because that might offend them as well.

Let's pretend it isn't an issue, even though, just looking at the guy, it's plain that his unhealthy size which causes him to be unfit and wheeze, is the elephant in the room.

Should we not talk about what idiots smokers are for continuing to pursue a deadly addiction because their feelings might be hurt?

How about not mentioning heroin addiction, or meth heads with their funky teeth and ghastly grey skin, because it might make them uncomfortable and feel bad about themselves?

I see that you got a handle on your addiction, and good for you--you have every right to be justifiably proud of yourself. But a demand by you or anyone else that people pretend to not notice that a guy who is enormous and horribly unhealthy is just not realistic. The fact that he belongs to the party of greed and excess is, forgive the expression, icing on the cake.

Here's an opportunity for you to use that HIDE THREAD option Skinner gave us, if you don't like the tone or commentary in this thread. If you really don't like what I'm saying, or the OP's opinions, that IGNORE thing will work, too.

Censoring speech--particularly when it is not a personal attack, that is, an attack directed at you or another DUer-- is just not conducive to discussion. If you don't like the comments, you have the tools to avoid them. I encourage you to use them.

Which does two things in a political debate:

1) Downplays the very real idiocy of his policies -- the things that are actually dangerous about him being in office.

2) Makes us look bad -- all we care about is his substantial appearance, not the lack of substance to his ideas.

we notice what people look like.

That's why you'll have to look hard to find a bald president (it helps if you were a five star general during wartime). That's why, in the age of popular photography, looks became important--they helped put an idiot like Warren G. Harding over the top.

In the land of the blind, no one cares how others look. In the land of the sighted, looks matter. I don't think anyone will be wanting to chisel my ass in marble anytime soon, so I am not talking from the perspective of one of the Beautiful People, but I am not so naive as to think that the average human discounts appearance when they interact with others--because, like it or not, they don't.

Occasionally, people can, through outrageous wit, through great intelligence, through some other skill or talent that captures the imagination, overcome their lack of good or even average or nondescript looks, and people become used to their appearance and like them anyway, even though they aren't classically attractive or even genially appealing--the "He is so ugly he is cute" or "She has an INTERESTING face" mitigations.

I don't think people expect everyone in public life to look like a clothing model, but they do have a "range of normal" (and it is a fairly wide range) that they expect, and when that paradigm is broken, people do notice. And when they notice, they usually MENTION it. Demanding that people don't talk about things they notice is just unreasonable.

That's why, if that kind of stuff is bothersome, make your point if you'd like, but don't expect people to necessarily agree with you. Or, if it's just too offensive for you, personally, hit the HIDE THREAD button.

I really don't think we have a right to be entirely unoffended here (we certainly aren't out in the real world, now)--if everyone on DU is happily unoffended, this place WILL suck, because it will be boring as hell.

You just can't please all of the people all of the time. I think all of us will be happier if we start avoiding shit that bothers us, and that's where HIDE THREAD and IGNORE can be helpful.

And I need a report on Christie's actual health, not an assumption.

Either get away from appearance-based prejudice, OR get a report on his health.

That said, I addressed his readily apparent health downthread. You don't have to be Doctor Oz to figure out that someone who walks up five stairs to a podium on a stage and has to stop to catch his breath has fitness issues.

Ever stop to think that constantly fat-bashing and idealizing unhealthily thin people is what contributes to eating disorders, not acknowledging they exist?

When people call Kim Kardashian and Beyonce fat, and a model with a 17.2 BMI is fired for being too fat and Photoshopped to have hips smaller than her head, who is encouraging unhealthy behavior?

I do agree with you that the media does offer idiotic images up and pass them off as normal. I suspect it's because these overpriced designers only know how to sew a straight line, and if they actually had to fit their overpriced, stupid shit to a real person, they'd have trouble doing it and making the garments look good. Ergo, they hire coat hangers with heads.

But that's not the point here--Chris Christie is not a fashion model, Kim Kardashian, or the victim of Photoshop. He is a very enormous guy who eats too much and does not exercise.

You are being VERY selective in your outrage solely because the weight issue thing is near and dear to your heart.

Will you stand with the smokers and say "Oh, don't talk about how they engage in that unhealthy, life shortening habit, because it will hurt their feelings?" I doubt you will, because that's not your issue. I'll bet we could find a few smokers who think they're habits are off limits, though. "I'm not bothering you, leave me alone!" sort of thing. Same with drinkers, heroin addicts, meth heads...you name it.

The guy is BIG. He's big because he eats too much and does not exercise. What's unrealistic is to expect people to pretend not to notice, to put on blinders and act as though there's nothing out of the ordinary with the guy, when it's plain he is way bigger than most people and it's because he ingests too many calories for his frame and doesn't burn them off.

Eating disorders are medical conditions, not lifestyle choices.

And deciding to make fun of a politician for a medical condition instead of discussing his views is neither classy nor productive.

it--it's a nicotine addiction. Nor is alcohol addiction. Or drug addiction. That doesn't mean we should pretend not to notice these people with these issues for fear of "hurting their feelings." That's called ENABLING in some quarters.

Just because someone has a "medical condition" doesn't mean that they don't have any capacity to change their circumstances, either. They have TV shows (The Biggest Loser) devoted to people, with their own individual willpower and adherence to a fitness and eating regimen, changing their "medical condition." After all, you managed it. Why should Christie be any more "special" than you? He's not powerless. The tools are out there and that bastard probably has better health insurance to tackle his weight issues than any of us on this discussion board. If he doesn't want to be noticed for his obvious excess weight, he can do something about it. He, more than many who don't have access to medical care or healthy food choices, has the power to fix his "medical condition."

I seem to remember that a crowd of "Smoking Nazis" were all over Obama for his nicotine addiction--they wouldn't let up, they hounded him mercilessly. They refused to "be nice" or "not mention it"--they were vicious, many of them.

Why should Christie get a pass, when Obama didn't?

Human beings will notice the appearance and behavior of other human beings.

It's just what we do.

Or Obama for smoking.

It's what people come up with when they can't find a policy point to discuss.

They don't mention that Ted cut back on his alcohol use after his drinking caused him so many problems, and that it was hard for him. Or how Obama has managed to cut down his smoking quite a bit, even if he occasionally sneaks one.

Or mention this article that came out on Wednesday:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/02/chris-christie-trying-to-lose-weight-115178.html

Just because people do it doesn't make it smart or right.

(Edit to fix the date on the article)

Not by a LONG shot.

Teddy had a HUGE, debilitating, shitloads-of-blow-in-the-top-right-drawer, snorting-in-the-Senate-offices, nasty ass coke habit around the Chappaquiddick era that really fucked up his judgment. The first hugely stupid thing he did was challenge an incumbent President and help to hand the damn reins of power to the GOP (it wasn't all his fault, certainly, but he didn't help the situation) as a consequence. He had a few "ineffective" years on the Hill where he was a total asshole and was relying almost entirely on the hard work of his very talented staff--particularly the senior leadership on that staff-- to carry him.

And--for the record--he was my Senator and I liked the guy. Voted for him at every opportunity, even did a little campaign work for him a time or two.

But for a bit there, he was a fuckup, and addiction was what made him fuck up.

Fortunately, he saw the error of his ways, got off the coke, Vicki (his savior, really) got him straightened out and off the hooch, and he got back on track. He was redeemed and went on to do great things.

See--you may have been looking for me to say "Oooooooooooh, noooooooooo--don't say anything bad about Saint Ted, now!" but it didn't work, now, did it?

Let those chips fall where they may. He was an imperfect creature, as are most of us.


As for your linked article--why do you think it is the 'duty' of the OP (or anyone else) to "mention" it? You are entirely free to do that in rebuttal to him, if the topic bothers you so much, but don't insist that he is somehow wanting for not fighting YOUR battles for you. You've got to make your own arguments, not approach them from the "You shouldn't say that/Why didn't you say this," POV.

And why do you insist that everyone MUST have a "policy point" to discuss? Since when is that a hard-and-fast rule? "I don't like your topic" is never a winner argument, IMO. We talk about stupid crap here at DU all the time--it's fun, sometimes.

This OP does have a point, actually, (that Christie isn't a healthy officeholder) and it also has a grand dose of rude snark (the "round" bit). It is what it is. You don't have to agree with any of the points the OP makes, but I don't think it is appropriate to try to shut the guy up because you don't like the topic of conversation, either. Argue it out. If you can't come to terms, agree to disagree. Or use the "I don't like this shit and I don't want to deal with it" buttons that Skinner, et.al. have provided to us.

It's just the internet, after all.

.... that your points have gone from "It's fine to make fun of him because it's his fault" ...

Then when it was pointed out that compulsive overeating is a medical condition, you went to "It's fine to make fun of him because he has the tools to fix it and isn't using them..."

Then when it was pointed out that he is using them, you went to "It's fine to make fun of him because everyone judges on appearance and he's still fat now." That just because people are superficial that it's right to be that way and that the behavior should be tolerated or even encouraged.

Never acknowledging that it's not easy. Not even saying "I'm glad he's trying" when your first post on the matter was so sanctimonious with artificial concern about his health. It took me nearly three years to get to where I am today -- and I have a lot better of a chance of keeping it off because I lost it slower and made incremental changes to my life rather than trying to do it all at once. You point out that all these addictions. Have you ever battled one? If you have, was it easy? If you think about it, it's a hell of a lot easier to deal with coke or booze or meth addiction than an eating disorder -- we have to eat to survive, whereas a person addicted to booze can choose to just never drink again. Finding a balance is a hell of a lot harder than teetotalling, which is why a lot of treatments modalities for alcohol addiction recommend not even trying learn to drink in moderation.

The only thing his health, or lack of it, will do is influence the likelihood of whether he can serve out a term if elected. His policies are far more dangerous, as they have bearing on what he WILL do in office, not the possibility he won't be able to serve it out entirely.

This is GD, not the Lounge. Even the Frothy comments were earned by a statement with relevance to political discussion.

But come up with decent counterpoints and don't make untrue suggestions about what people actually say.

Stop telling people how they are "supposed" to feel or act, first off.

And where did I say "It's his fault?" I did say he is obese because he eats too much and does not exercise (what--that's fiction? Not true? The "Plump Flesh Elf" puts the weight on him against his will while he sleeps? He said as much to Imus and Piers Morgan and others). Some things ARE "cause and effect." I also indicated that he is the agent of his own solution to his problem--he can exercise, he can get a trainer, he can get medical/psychiatric help, he can push away from the table--but I never said "He deliberately visited this condition upon himself." So don't put words in my mouth--it's uncool.

Here's the bottom line--you control YOUR behavior. You do not control the behavior of others. You can argue with them, you can cajole them, you can try to convince them--but you cannot simply "declare" that their views are bad and yours are good because YOU SAY SO. You can reject all of my reasons if you'd like--I don't mind. But do stop trying to tell me what I "should" say or think about that shithead of a governor.

Here's what I think about Chris Christie. I don't CARE about him or his weight problems. I think he's an asshole. I think he's a wicked, uncaring, greedy cretin, a bad governor, a mean guy who is a bully, who doesn't care about the least among us or public/social services. I don't have sympathy for him. NONE. I am not "glad he's trying" so don't try to suggest that I should be--I wish he'd resign and disappear. I really don't care if he gains another two hundred pounds. And you can't MAKE me feel sorry for him or his inability to get a handle on his "medical condition" with attempts to shame me for not feeling like you do about this topic. This is "your issue." If you wanted to convince me to feel as you do about it, you really shouldn't be trying guilt and shame tactics--they don't work, they just make YOU look "sanctimonious."

And speaking of that, my first post wasn't "sanctimonious" and didn't express any "concern" about Christie's health--it was solely an exercise in pointing out, with pictures, the friken obvious, that the guy is massive, unhealthy, and probably even less fit that Taft-- which, here on DU, in some corners, can be a crime to even mention, apparently.

Whether or not I have "battled an addiction" is irrelevant. If I said yes, you'd probably cry bullshit, if I said no, you'd say "Well then you couldn't POSSIBLY understand." It's a no-winner. I don't do "Justification via anecdote." Besides, this thread is not about me and my personal experiences. If you want to play the "share" game, that's your choice, you go right ahead, but that doesn't mean others must be roped in as well. This thread is about Chris Christie, his poor health due to substantial overweight making him a bad candidate for public office, with a side order of snark. You're the one making repeated demands (feel bad, empathize, I don't like your reasons, you aren't allowed to respond with more than one justification, this belongs in the lounge, on and on with one thing after another) from me. You're unlikely to get satisfaction, because I don't give a crap about this guy and I don't think your counterarguments are valid.

You control how you feel about things. You don't--and you cannot-- control how others feel. Trying to "guilt" people into shutting up doesn't work with most. It does not work with me, I can tell you that.

Like I said, you have options if you don't like to read or see this stuff. Telling people to shut up or not hold the opinions that they hold, though, are not very good ones.

.... anything is free game for a progressive website?

For the record, I agree with you that he's a jerk and doesn't need to be in office. But it's not because he's fat.

And yes, the entire point behind anti-fat bigotry is that it lets people feel morally superior to others. The very definition of "sanctimonious". The thread was a rimshot, nothing more. If you actually think the OP was meant to start a serious discussion of his fitness for office and would have actually discussed real issues if someone hadn't spoken up, you're deluding yourself.

... because he's a Republican jerk.

It's a fact that Black people's bodies have decreased ability to handle the salt in the American diet, which leads to high blood pressure and increased cardiac risk. It's a fact that they respond differently to some high blood pressure medications than white people -- they market some of them specifically for that reason. It's a fact that they are more likely to develop kidney damage from it than their white counterparts. African Blacks don't seem to have the same problems when they eat the diet that their bodies evolved with them eating.

So if he were Black and had high blood pressure, would it be any more fair for me to make fun of him for it, than if he were what he is? No.

It's a fact. I was not the one casting judgments. I wouldn't be surprised at all if maybe the physiological difference has more to do with the body learning how to retain water to prevent dehydration in a hot enviornment, like genetic predispositions toward obesity have to do with the body learning how to retain body fat to prevent starvation and keep insulation in a cold enviornment. Insulin resistance helps the body not burn fat, salt retention helps the body retain water. Would a person with sickle cell anemia be to blame for their ancestor's genetic trait that helped them deal with malaria, any more than a person with cystic fibrosis is to blame for their ancestor's genetic trait that helped them deal with cholera? No!

I'm not saying blame.

You were laying blame, casting judgments. Because you blame Christie for being fat, and think it's a character flaw. You were the one who said that physical appearance is everything in this culture and that's fine and dandy. So why is it any better to judge a person for the amount of skin they have than to judge them for the color of it? NEITHER has anything to do with fitness for office.

You're the one defending bigotry.

black people for not processing the American (i.e. white) diet and having kidneys that could not accommodate it. You also suggested they were wanting for not being able to process "white" blood pressure medications.

If you cannot see what you have been saying, i can't help lift the blindfold from your eyes. Suffice it to say that your comments come across as very racist.

I am not "defending" anything, casting judgments, or laying blame. I pointed out a few facts and you had a problem with them. I didn't "blame" Christie for being fat, I simply pointed out that his actions led to consequences. He can stop overeating and start exercising. You tell me how someone can stop being black, and maybe I'll try to process your rather offensive and extremely bigoted attempt at comparison.

Health has everything to do with fitness for office--and that's where my first post started--go back and read it. It said--in case you forgot: He's UNHEALTHY.

Skin color has nothing to do with fitness for office, unless you are a racist. Then it might be an issue for you.

But if I didn't specifically state what the difference is, THAT's what it is, if you didn't know. It might not be important for you to know. I'm abnormally curious. Chris Christie can't process the calories/carbs in the white American diet well enough, either -- there's no way at his weight that he doesn't have Metabolic Syndrome. Am I blaming him for having pancreas that can't hold up to the job of processing our awful food? And you act like I'm actually defending the American diet too and saying it's better than the diet of traditional cultures anywhere... and THAT's a load of hooey. I'd say ANY traditional cultural diet has got to be better than our crap.

And the only reason I can figure why you think I'm laying blame is that you are projecting your own blame on me.

some of your remarks, I think they are quite disgraceful, and I really don't want to lose my temper.

This thread isn't about black people, blood pressure medication, or even about "the American diet" (which I'm guessing a rich guy like Christie could avoid if he were motivated to so do). This thread is about a guy whose obesity and poor health/lack of stamina make his fitness for public office questionable.

If the person is a Republican jerk. That physical appearances were fine to judge a person on. I wanted to find out if that was true. It's not. Racism crosses a line for you. Good, it does for me, too.

What about sexism? And for the sake of argument, let's say the person wasn't arguing policies that are inherently sexist. You can't change your race, but you can change your gender (even if that's going to put you in a category that's even more hated). No?

What about homophobia? Again, for the sake of argument, let's say the person wasn't arguing policies that discriminate against sexual orientation. The people who have claimed to have changed their orientation are out there, and they claim it's difficult but not impossible. Changing it puts you into a better social category insofar as the amount of people who judge you for it, and gets you benefits that currently aren't available to gays. Some claim it helps your health. No?

So what is it that makes fat people okay to make fun of if you hate the person who is fat? You said you don't give a rat's ass about his health, that you hope he drops dead. Why should his health have bearing on whether or not a Democrat would want him in office?

What makes your bigotry better than others?

If you don't want to answer, that's fine. You made my point already.

characterizations.

You're the one taking offense here, characterizing commentary, and making racist comparisons. Not me.

All of my comments originated out of, and amplified, a single comment--He's UNHEALTHY. That's not "bigotry"--that's the damn truth.

The fact that he is a GOP asshole is a complete sidebar.

I'm really done this time. You HAVE made your point--and it's an ugly one.

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You kept saying there weren't. That it's my fault I took offense at an OP that was a rimshot joke at a discriminated minority. That it's "my issue". That "It's just the Internet!"

Take some of the shit you were writing and change the behavior you are defending to a different type of bigotry, and you'll understand. Or at least I hope you will.

The reason I chose race is that it's just as easy to take one look at a person and judge them based on their weight as it is to take a look at a person and judge them based on their color -- it's not something that you have to speak to a person to see about them. Nationality not always so much. And I was having an extremely difficult time making the comparison -- because changing the words others have posted in this thread and others about fat people myself to point out the double standard resulted in sentences that were so disgusting there were no way I would let come out of my mouth or fingers, even in rhetoric. There's no way I'd repeat the rimshot jokes I've heard growing up in the South.

Racism is wrong because it's bigotry and prejudice -- pre-judging a person based on one outward trait. So is fatophobia. Health concerns have nothing to do with the false character assumptions that people make about a person when they see that they are fat. They experience discrimination in employment, as this rimshot joke led to even you justifying, in far less essential offices than the Presidency -- and fortunately for many other reasons the man is not a contender this year. Because they're pre-judged lazy and weak-willed. "Just look at them!" Kids are bulled for it. Men and women have been assaulted in restrooms for it. I don't have statistics for you because they don't keep them, on any of those instances.

One form of bigotry is not better than the other. There is no "good" or "justified" prejudice based on appearance. Tolerating one is tolerating the behavior behind all. Just because people do it doesn't make it right.

I'm done. Have a good day.

-----

BTW: for the record: I'm not comparing being fat with being black as you seem to think. I'm comparing fatophobia with racism -- they are both bigotry, but one is accepted and encouraged, and we've mostly as a society learned that the other is wrong. A person who +1s a joke comparing a person to an animal because of a physical trait is a bigot.

--is stay out of the sun. When I do that, my skin invariably is lighter. If that doesn't work for black people, they must be doing it wrong, or lying about sun exposure.

... "If a person doesn't like dealing with racism, all they have to do is ignore the threads. After all, it's just the Internet!"

I'm astounded.

... and make the comparison yourself. Comparing a person to an animal based on physical appearance is wrong.

... except when given its most extreme example.... they don't understand why it's wrong.

They are justifying the human fear of that which is different, instead of working to overcome that fear and distrust. They are advocates for what they claim to hate.

Either both are acceptable, or neither are acceptable. (I vote for neither, myself.)

And it would pretty damned well disqualify any candidate for office.

If the "defense" here is that Christie has a psychological disorder, then what's the bottom line on relevance?

.... I'd feel the same way.

between making jokes about someone's appearance and making a point about the behavior that may have lead to that appearance?

If you're talking about meth, is the best approach to that laughing at toothless addicts?

Making fun of them not so much.

I almost mentioned another issue that's dear to my heart when MADem spoke of other addictions. My dad named me after his favorite drug -- hi, my name is Crystal.

Taking the first hit, drinking the first drink, smoking the first cigarette, eating a dish of ice cream, deciding to fast or purge... all of those are choices. But when those unhealthy solutions end up being psychologically reinforcing, and the person learns to cope with stress by doing those things... that's when it becomes an addiction. My father wished he could quit. He saw the effects on his family. He saw the effects on himself -- a dirty needle gave him HIV, he died July 21, 2009. But even with all of that... he couldn't stop.

Is it just a lack of willpower or laziness? No. After a certain time your brain wires itself differently -- even the thought of the unhealthy coping mechanism releases dopamine, the reward neurotransmitter. It's extremely powerful. It's NOT easy to fight.

And the people who say that it is have never faced the battle, have never had to rewire their brains.

I am talking about this insistence that some feel they have the absolute right to demand that they must always be "unoffended." That's a very different perspective.

People in the real world DO notice how people behave and look. They comment on it. Their comments may not always be kind. I am not making this up--this is simple truth, and we all know it.

If we want DU to be an "offense free" zone, it will suck. I am "offended" that others are trying to shut down conversations because they are offended by some things that are said. It "offends" my First Amendment sensibilities that people can't just walk away from a conversation they don't like, or make their point without saying some variation of "SHUT UP! Don't say that! I don't like it, so we cannot have it here!!!"

Sure, we have an overarching TOS here that we all agree to before we walk in the door, that keeps out the GOP assholes, and that's fine, and we have guidelines for forums and groups, where some are safe havens and you've got to mind your P's and Q's in those, but beyond that, people ought to be able to discuss subjects like we would in The Real World without the Fickle Finger of Alert constantly hovering over them. If you don't like what someone says, argue it out with them. You will make your point, your sparring partner will rebut, and if you do it well, you may change a mind.

Or maybe not--the point is, telling people they are "bad" and shutting down their conversation for noticing someone's appearance, conduct, or what-have-you will only cause them to resent the finger wagger. It won't be good for DU, either.

This is the internet--we need thick skins and debating skills, not anxious fingers smacking that alert link every time we get our nose out of joint.

we are rightly alarmed. We know there is a serious problem there. Grappling with the anorexic's polar opposite, the morbidly obese, we feel the same alarm. I think Christie has tipped over into the "alarming" category. That should be our concern, not "overweight" per se.

Even though both groups are tackling a potentially fatal eating disorder.

Not saying people don't make fun of anorexia.... as part of my therapy I joined an eating disorders group and they experience a lot of damaging ignorant comments themselves. Saying "Why don't they just eat a sandwich" is just as ignorant as saying "Why don't they just get off their lazy ass?" A lot of people develop anorexia or bulimia as a way to lose weight, instead of dealing with their issues with food. It's part of the reason my therapist thought that group would be good for me, to make sure that I didn't trade one disorder for another in my attempts to lose weight.

disorders. Frank Bruni writes about this in his wonderful NYT columns. His stuff has been enlightening. I hope you have been reading his OpEds...

I was watching the Grammy Awards - I had never seen or heard of Adele before - but thought she looks fine but I bet she gets those comments too.

I remember looking at the photos of Kate Winslett that were supposed to prove her "porky" and I was So stupid!

Madonna looked good when she was younger, but she caved and became a rail.

See, you noticed his appearance! Amazing how the Dog Roofer can manage to look like a dork in a single still shot!

To go to the outhouse. It's right there is the Texas text books. You know the ones without Latinos, or slaves. I like the freedom to choose my own history. LOL! At least Gov Crisco can say he didn't get fired because he was gay. I wounder if he will connect the two.

dysfunction, one only needs to read a compilation of the myriad sociopathic quotations easily found online



start here:

http://www.nj.com/ledgerlive/index.ssf/2011/01/new_jersey_gov_chris_christies.html

and just for fun, if you think freeperville is the apotheosis of crazy, check some of these maniacs, among whom Con. West is apparently their top gun:

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/23/report-chris-christie-having-second-thoughts-will-decide-in-days/

I'm amazed at the wingnuts eating their own in the second link! They certainly aren't afraid of hurting anyone's feelings, are they?

look like plato's republic

one thing I find very interesting, as you say, is the amount of support for West, which, if nothing else, shows that these trogs are moving away from their core racist beliefs....into what, I can't even begin to describe

if Obama wins this year, look for even more burgeoning support for West, assuming he expands his psychotic base at the rate it's happening today

Fat, but carried it well, and looks much healthier than Christie.

He golfed--enjoyed it a great deal too, apparently--and that was before golf carts:

http://www.thegolfballfactory.com/the-golf-course/hole18/President-Taft-the-first-golfing-president.htm

This was after NJ citizens paid for a chopper ride to his son's baseball game.

Someone in better shape could have walked those 100 yards.

This is, plain and simple, making fun of someone for their weight. No substantive critique, no issues with their actions, just mockery. If it were a joke about a paralyzed person not being able to "run" for office, it would be smacked down in an instant. I don't see how it's any more okay to bash someone for being overweight.

Of course, Christie should be mocked.

If he was mocked enough ahead of time, that would have save the people of New Jersey the (wide) load of grief that they're dealing with right now.

No more playing nice with these fuckers… They're dangerous.

There's no "will power" that can cure paralysis.

Christie, absent an out-of-control thyroid or other hormonal imbalance (and he says that's not the issue), has the tools in his own toolbox to fix his problem. He's not been inclined to take any action, from getting a psychiatrist, or a trainer, to doing a few push-aways from the table.

Should we not mention that smokers are fouling up their lungs, the air, the health of themselves, never mind others around them, because it will make them feel bad, too? How about people who drink too much? Shhhh....don't say anything to that guy slumped in the corner who has peed himself, you might hurt his feelings!

we have a high rate of obesity in this country.

One can often gain weight back again after dieting, too, so it's not that simple, really.

I used to think that way back when I was thin, too, because it's comforting and means it is never going to happen to you. NEVER. I had a skinny metabolism. Then I turned 40. I eat half of what I used to. It's just not that simple.

What if our candidate was fat? In fact, Bill Clinton was said to eat unhealthily. He wasn't fat, but he did end up having heart attacks later. But he was a great President.

Christie sucks because he is a Republican. I don't care how healthy and thin he might be, he would still suck.

It's not just "fat." Fat is NOT where it is at. This man is beyond portly, beyond fat, even beyond "morbidly obese." He is what the doctors call "super obese." It's scary to look at him. Anyone who does not "notice" it because of some misguided sense that they are being "mean," is being willfully, deliberately obtuse.

He's not pleasingly plump like Adele or Queen Latifah, or "thick" like Bill Clinton back in his cheeseburger days. He's not even "Jackie Gleason big." He looks less healthy than John Candy did, right before the poor guy died. The governor does not look like he has any muscle tone. He looks like he doesn't move at all. Adele, Queen and Bill (even the fat Bill) didn't have any trouble MOVING. The first two can belt out a tune like no one's business, not wheezing after four bars, and Bill Clinton never had any trouble blowing the sax. And Jackie Gleason golfed and tap danced till the day he died, damn near. John Candy, unhealthily fat as he was, could move really well--he had both flexibility and muscle tone.

It's not simply " fat " that I am talking about, here. It's the complete absence of any kind of discernable fat-to-muscle ratio. It's a lack of fitness, of conditioning. He's not golfing every other day like William Howard Taft. He's not jogging like Chubby Bill Clinton. He's not doing "And A-waaaaay We Go!" television shows like Gleason, with all of the physicality entailed in those efforts. The guy looks like he doesn't have any bones, for chrissake.

As I have said, from the outset of my participation in this very curious thread, he is "unhealthy." Anyone who cannot walk a hundred yards, who needs a taxpayer-supplied golf cart to traverse that distance, who cannot speak a paragraph of a speech without sweating like a stevedore (no offense to stevedores), and having to gasp for air like he's ready to keel over, is UNHEALTHY.

There's where the issue of "fitness for office" comes in. It's not just "fat." It's the ability to move, to breathe, to have stamina. He has problems in these regards, and it's an issue. Yes, he is a GOP asshole, and a jerk, who would sooner fire a teacher and cut a pension plan as look at you. And that's certainly enough reason to dislike the twit. That said, his poor physical health would be an issue if he was a progressive Democrat who wanted to make FDR look like a meanie when it came to social programs. The guy is a ticking time bomb. Pretending he isn't is just whistling in the dark.

He managed to get elected there.

At any rate, there are no fitness qualifications. People can talk about it until they are blue in the face, but the voters may not care in the end.

IMO being old is worse, since the older one is, the more likely sudden health issues might pop up.

Not till they are blue in the face, or otherwise. The whole idea here is to shut people up when they attempt to discuss it, to call them mean, insensitive, "picking on" the guy for daring to mention the glaringly obvious.

"It" is the elephant in the room--forgive the expression. "Don't hurt his feeeeelings!" "Don't make people feeeeeel bad!" It's asinine.

No one is afraid to say "That Bob Dole/John McCain was too fucking old to run for the Presidency." No worries about making us geezers feel bad, not a whit of "shushing" there, was there? And McCain still can run up the Cap steps and not be out of breath at the top of them--even at his age, with his many, many ailments. And it doesn't bother me to factor age into a candidate's prospects. That President's job is a high stress game--it's for the fit and sharp; not the flabby or aged.

Why should it be a VERBOTEN topic to talk about a guy who doesn't appear to have a single muscle in his body, who can't walk the length of a room without wheezing, who looks like he's two donuts away from a coronary?

There's a big difference between the corrupt governorship of NJ and the Presidency, too. NJ can suffer their governor if they would like; don't make ME suffer the guy -- and likely have to deal with his shitty choice of a VP when he keels over after his heart turns to lard--as well.

Not talking about "it" isn't going to make it go away either--and for those who can't bear to see "it," there's always that HIDE THREAD option. That solves a lot, if not all, of the angst I'm seeing here.

And there were protests on DU at least, about calling McCain "Gramps" and so forth.

Fat people might handle stress better than thin ones, at least some individuals. Some fat people are quite organized and mentally energetic, or even physically energetic. It just depends on the person. It's a broad brush.

Anyone's health can turn suddenly.

I paid pretty close attention last go-round, and that doesn't ring a bell. I'm old, but not senile, and even I think he was too old for the Presidency--I thought, completely putting aside his "policies"--that his age was too advanced and his medical situation with the recurring cancer were disqualifiers.

Christie is not "physically energetic." He gets out of breath if he has to walk and talk at the same time. We aren't talking about generic "fat people," here--we are talking about one single uhealthily "super-obese" individual named Governor Christie. There is no "broad brush" happening--the focus of this thread is on one very large, very UNFIT person.

it is pointing out the right wing taliban that wants to tell women how to use their bodies but wont take care of his own.
Fucking hypocrite is what he is and should be called on it.

Interesting fresh view. Indeed.

One lionized on DU quite a bit.

Taft managed. He didn't turn the country into a pit or even die in office.

In the old days, fat meant prosperous - and in those days they did not even have medical assistance or knowledge about it. Shows how much it is all in our minds. Back then, thin women were considered shriveled up. There was a stereo type of the skinny old maid! It's all perception. So there is no reason to decline the contributions of talented people due to their weight, no matter which extreme it may be.

And who, in his earlier terms, could swim, vigorously, for hours, and wheel himself, and exercise, and stand, using braces and his own brute physical upper body muscle strength, for an hour at a time, and give a speech.

Christie can't talk for five minutes without wheezing.

Are you really suggesting a return to the "old days," where the public is "not to know" about the health of the people we spend millions to put in office, is a good thing?

In the "old days" people thought that mental illness was caused by demons, too. Those "old days" don't have all that much to recommend them.

This is not simply about "fat"--it is about fitness, strength, stamina. Christie has none of those.

It doesn't require "fitness and stamina." How do you know how far Christie can walk without "wheezing" and why does he "wheeze?"

Who cares what his health is? If he dies, the Veep can handle it. If the US wants to elect someone, we can elect them. The Constitution has no health qualifications. The FF lived in a time when death at younger ages was more frequent.

Furthermore, FDR had every right to serve his fourth term, as he was elected.

the ability to climb a long flight of stairs. There is no terminal and no magic jetway--you climb those stairs and they are steep. Getting to Marine 1 necessitates a long walk across a lawn. It is a job full of long walks through tunnels, back kitchens, service passageways, etc., the need to climb stairs to stages and podia, and a schedule that is jam-packed from sunup to sundown and beyond, nearly every day of the week. It hasn't been a "desk job" for almost a century.

I have WATCHED the super-obese governor try to clamber up on a stage and gasp for breath. I've seen him get all excited and start wheezing and trying to catch his breath. I've seen him walk and stop, walk and stop. These aren't secret files--they're readily available on this thing called the internet.

FDR would not have been elected had the nation known how gravely ill he was. He lasted, what--six months into his final term? The voters certainly weren't enamoured of Truman--when FDR died, everyone girded their loins and prepared for the worst. We were very lucky that he rose to the challenge so admirably.

We, as a nation, spend a fortune every time we change leaders. We have a right to know if the candidates are capable of doing the job. It's why we have much more transparency than we did seventy or eighty years ago.

FCOL. They'd find a way to assist him.

FDR would have been re-elected - people were quite attached to him by then. The reason there is a Veep is to have someone to step in. The Veep is of the same party as the President is. People have to be prepared for that person to be President. People would have voted for Dewey because of FDR's health? Republicans will vote for Obama because Christie is fat? I don't see any Republicans doing that.

The President must travel to prosecute the nation's agenda around the world. And he has to be able to participate in arrival and departure ceremonies--they are part and parcel of the process. This is a media age--they can't use a crane to haul him up or down on a G8 or state visit. What, should we get him an escalator?

Here's a list of Obama's trips (and he's not the most "travelling" President we've ever had): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_trips_made_by_Barack_Obama

Even the ancient and lame Pope can manage the stairs on those tarmacs.

We don't elect "veeps." Veeps are what happens if our first choice goes to shit.

I can't believe your arguments! You're addressing everything but the actual issue.

FDR would not have been able to run had the public become aware of--and believed the truth about-- his health--that's why he and his staff made sure that information never saw the light of day. That is not something we, as a nation, should repeat. We got LUCKY with Truman--but the public did not think we did contemporaneously with his elevation to the Presidency. Most people thought we were fucked.

And where, pray tell, did I or anyone else say "Republicans will vote for Obama because Christie is fat?" Stop making stuff up. It's a lame way to (not) argue. That's not the issue nor the subject of this thread. You "won't see that" because it isn't happening, and no one said it was. The man is not on any primary ballots, and this thread is not about him running for office.

This thread is about his unfitness, not what he will or will not do, or what Republican voters will or will not do.

I've done it myself. Long flights on commercial airlines. AF1 would be a breeze.

It follows from what you said that if a fat person is unfit, if FDR was unfit, then you'd have voted for the other candidate, no?

If they can campaign, they are fit enough for the job.

No one suggested that "fat people cannot travel." Except you. We aren't talking about "fat people."

The topic is one person-- super obese Gov. Christie, and his poor fitness.

Most commercial airlines do not require passengers to board from the tarmac. AF1 does.

Perambulating down a jetway for a few steps isn't the same as climbing steep stairs. But that's not the point, anyway.

Stop trying to avoid the topic, like attempting play the "it follows" game--it does not follow. Again, the topic here is Chris Christie--not you, not FDR, not "the other candidate."

Your arguments look lame when you so obviously persist with "Ooooh--but look over here!!!" distractions. You haven't added anything of substance to the discussion for your last couple of posts.



Have a nice day.

If a disabled person had to get onto AF1, I think modern technology is good enough to find a way for that person to board. If Christie needed that, if he were elected President, we would do it. And you don't know that Christie can't get up those stairs.

That kind of thing would be the least of qualifications for the Presidency. I want to know where they stand on the issues and how smart they are - not make judgments about their physical being. If FDR ran today and were elected, they'd find a way to get him onto AF1. You're focusing on the most ridiculously small matters in order to facilitate your bigotry against fat people (or the disabled, since you seem to consider Christie's obesity to be that bad).

He said as much to Oprah.

A person who can't manage their personal life and their personal health is not a good candidate for office, even if he weren't a complete asshole. If he can't take care of himself, why should anyone expect him to be able to take care of the citizens of a state or a nation?

Look at what happened to Thomas Eagleton, when his health came into question. He didn't last long in the Number 2 slot, now, did he?

If FDR ran today, he wouldn't have been able to hide the fact that he was in a wheelchair, which is what he did when he was President. His health would be an issue. Stop dragging him up like he's a viable point of comparison. FDR didn't have control over his condition, first. Christie does--or could, if he were motivated and followed doctor's advice. Second, that was a different era. It bears zero resemblance to today--you might as well talk about George Washington or Andrew Jackson, for all the validity the comparison has.

It's not "ridiculously small matters." It's a sizable matter, having to do with a glaringly visible health problem--and denial by you, and your inappropriate protestations of "bigotry" for daring to mention the painfully obvious, isn't going to change that simple fact.

Question, what if a woman in her late 30s ran? Would you be concerned that she might get pregnant in office? Would that make her potentially unfit?

Let me break it down for you, since you're so charmingly unaware:

Super morbid obesity: Always a health PROBLEM.

Pregnancy: Almost NEVER a health problem.

Got it?

If a fat man can't run up those stairs, why can't a pregnant woman? Quit being rude - you are the one talking about the physical efforts needed, so what does it matter if it is a health problem or not? Granted a pregnant woman is not in poor health. But she can't run around as easily.

can get up a flight of stairs just fine. Your attempt to compare Christie's obesity to pregnancy is probably one of the most pathetic stretches I've seen on this board in a long time.

No one is demanding that anyone "run"--but Christie couldn't even WALK up those stairs without stopping every third or fourth step.

Finally, pregnancies have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Women don't walk around carting a massive fetus for the entire period they are pregnant. Months go by before anyone even notices that they are expecting. They might be inconvenienced for a month or three, tops--if that.

It's just not the same--stop trying to pretend that pregnancy and obesity have equivalence, because they don't.

I know Taft was big, but since then it seems everyone has too be thin to mildly obese.

I'd like to hang out with Chris Christie for a couple days to see what he actually eats.

It's got to be some sort of thyroid condition.

Clinton was kind of obese but it seemed like he lost a little weight during his 8 years.

I don't understand why they were all clamoring for him to run for president.
I watched that speech he gave with Romney in New Hampshire and it was nothing special.
He had to keep pausing to breathe, just to catch his breath from talking. I'm actually worried about his health.

from novelty catalogs. I look forward to what you do with "I'm With Stupid."

He can't get through two sentances without running out of breath.

As one who has fought weight battles for various reasons the better part of 15 years, I know first hand how an extra 50 pounds

can limit my activities. He's in no condition to be a governor nevermind a president.

I couldn't care less how he got that way. He is what he is. Too unhealthy to be president. Of course being a giant asshole disqalifies him first in my book.

but it isn't OK to make comments about regular people being overweight? Cause a week ago I made an observation about a couple that were both morbidly obese that was pulled due to the OUTRAGE of some people who read it. I was a really brief observation, too. And I was vilified for being insensitive. I have also been told that people that make comments about other people's weight are 'those people'. I am not really sure what THAT meant, because in that thread I made the comment that I thought that as long as the discussion was about weight in relationship to self-discipline or the health of the politician that it should be a topic for discussion. I was getting hammered for thinking that being overweight might indicate something about a person's self-discipline.

Anywho, now here is a whole 'let's make fun of Chris Christie for being fat' thread and it has been allowed to stand. Huh.

topic for discussion. I also feel like exploring the reasons behind morbid obesity such as Christie's would also be a legitimate topic. If he were an alcoholic or a drug addict, nobody would blink about talking about it. But because he is a foodaholic, it's out of bounds. And honestly, being THAT overweight does say something about a person. I am just not buying that he has no control over his weight and therefore it should be off topic. I wouldn't poke fun of him for being short. You can't help that. But you CAN control your weight. Yeah, its HARD. But that doesn't mean you are off the hook for being overweight just because losing weight is HARD.

No one would say "Oh, don't mention his alcohol addiction--that's rude. It'll make him feel bad. How could you be so insensitive!!!!"

He's actually not short, though--he's an inch under six feet, and a half inch shorter than Taft.

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

If no one had spoken up and the thread continued with the fat jokes, it would have done nothing except let people make themselves feel better by making fun of someone and feel superior.

---------

Edit to add:

One other point. I'm well aware it can be done. I was morbidly obese. I'm not even medically overweight now. I did it without surgery.

But it isn't easy, and anyone who thinks it is needs to have a reality check. Our bodies were designed by evolution to hold on to body fat reserves, and my ancestors survived to reproduce because they were able to survive times of famine better than those with faster metabolisms. After a certain point, the same biochemistry goes haywire -- look up "Syndrome X". Insulin resistance develops because of obesity, but the two reinforce each other, making it where a morbidly obese person can eat the same amount as an only moderately person and walk the same distance without losing a pound, where the moderately overweight person loses.

The dieting cycle also causes problems. Our metabolisms learn to survive on less food -- it thinks we're in famine mode. People will try VLCD diets without medical supervision, and downregulate their metabolisms. It's not just calories in/calories out. Nutrisystem counselors often recommend a person INCREASE their calories when they hit a weight loss plateau -- not with ice cream, but more protein. An extra greek yogurt in my diet a day ended a plateau and started me back burning calories instead of conserving them.

Then there's exercise. It is much harder on the body for a person carrying around an extra 100 lbs to exercise. The seated elliptical was my best friend because of my bum knee. Once I lost about 40 lbs, I could incorporate walking the path around my office on my breaks into my routine without causing myself further damage from the impact of the concrete, and just that little bit of exercise three times a day helped a lot.

But just because Freepers start threads with no point but making fun of Ted Kennedy's drinking problem doesn't mean we have to start threads with no point but making fun of Chris Christie's eating problem.

That's what I said. That if this thread was designed to discuss his weight as a topic of concern for his ability to govern, there is some room there for discussion. But just posting to rag on him for being fat is not what you would expect here.

Why are you letting them off the hook by not working on it?

The fat jokes get tired even when headlines like "Christie Hides Behind Obama" write them for us.

An entire thread devoted to them, that wouldn't have been a serious discussion unless someone had spoken up and gotten flamed for it.

If we use it on the obese, would it not be wrong then to chastise Republicans for using it on the sexually active beyond the bounds of marriage?

Self discipline may be a factor, but an ordinary non-able person can have a lot of it, and still not be as good at something as someone who is not always disciplined.

We find JFK to have been a good President, yet we should not have. We might have thought Taft was an OK President - back then.

Being overweight does not necessarily mean one is very unhealthy, but he is very, seriously, unhealthy. I excerize 4 days a week and am quite active despite my weight, Christie looks like any hard work would kill him.

To quit reporting when Christie goes swimming.
I guess the authorities were getting flooded with phone calls by beachgoers reporting seeing a beached whale all the time.

.... for calling me a "beached whale". I was maybe 20 lbs overweight.

Classy. Real classy.

Not.