Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
weight??



He's a fairly hefty man bordering on the excessively obese range but take a stab at his approx weight and BP?? I've heard he was on diet program and his size did play a huge role (no pun) in him not getting on the short VP list for Mitt.



I'd put him some where north of 325lbs and south of 345lbs?? And his BP has to be wicked bad.

Nexus242
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Big guy for sure. Not sure if those pics are current or not. I thought he look like he had lost a little weight the last time I saw him. Maybe not.

As for his weight being a factor in him not being picked for VP, I doubt it. Both he and Marco Rubio had stated early on that they had no interest in running either as the head of the ticket or the running mate.

Nobody was more vocal about that than Christie. Rubio was vetted briefly and removed himself from contention by not returnning the required documentation the party requested to complete the process.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can probably find some nameless source who will be more than happy to confirm that his weight was an issue. But, I really doubt it was a factor.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,042 Posts
DILLIGAF






Sent from my right shoe using the Motorcycle app
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,340 Posts

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
It's simply not healthy to be that far overweight. For a politician it's bad for two other reasons: it implies a lack of discipline and it encourages subliminal concern that a vote for him is wasted, since his brain or heart might explode any day now.

For Republican, it has an additional political debit. The GOP touts "personal responsibility" as the guiding light for society. Making a habit of bad personal decisions undermines Christie's ability to literally embody that principle. It will be interesting to see whether Christie is able to follow Mike Huckabee's path to health through weight loss.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Yeah srsly his heart must be twice the size of a normal heart. I bet he's not gonna put a size size soda ban in place in NJ

Sent from my left testical using Motorcycle.com Free App
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Tru dat Randy but back then we ate steak and potatoes daily. There was no such thing as exercise and coronary bypass surgery wasn't invented. Vastly different times back then.

Sent from my left testical using Motorcycle.com Free App
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,333 Posts
Tru dat Randy but back then we ate steak and potatoes daily. There was no such thing as exercise and coronary bypass surgery wasn't invented. Vastly different times back then.

Sent from my left testical using Motorcycle.com Free App
more importantly, they didn't have television, plenty of people still eat meat and potatoes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
It's simply not healthy to be that far overweight. For a politician it's bad for two other reasons: it implies a lack of discipline and it encourages subliminal concern that a vote for him is wasted, since his brain or heart might explode any day now.

For Republican, it has an additional political debit. The GOP touts "personal responsibility" as the guiding light for society. Making a habit of bad personal decisions undermines Christie's ability to literally embody that principle. It will be interesting to see whether Christie is able to follow Mike Huckabee's path to health through weight loss.
It also has a political benefit that is well in line with what a LOT of people are feeling right now regarding Bloomberg's soda restrictions. The desire to tell government to mind their own business.

As for personal responsibility, it's been my experience that it's a concept that comes far more into play when somebody makes a bad decision than a good one. Christie isn't the one out there suing McDonalds because their burgers made him fat.

He never claimed to be perfect. I'd much rather have somebody whose mistakes are there for everybody to see and owns up to them rather than claiming to be a second coming while blaming every mistake and failure on somebody else.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,213 Posts
Being freakishly fat is not a "political benefit" no matter how hard you try to spin this.

This is not the case of someone being "overweight". I'm overweight and I weigh about 180 pounds (5'9'').
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
It also has a political benefit that is well in line with what a LOT of people are feeling right now regarding Bloomberg's soda restrictions. The desire to tell government to mind their own business.
That's a reach. I don't think being very overweight in a society which every day becomes more aware of the adverse health consequences of obesity can be thought of as conferring "a political benefit."

As for personal responsibility, it's been my experience that it's a concept that comes far more into play when somebody makes a bad decision than a good one.
My point (and perhaps it wasn't clear) was that Christie accumulated that weight by making a series of bad, poorly informed and eventually evident bad decisions over the course of decades. He ignored the growingly apparent consequences of overeating and didn't learn from them. That doesn't fit the personal responsibility mold. [/quote]

Christie isn't the one out there suing McDonalds because their burgers made him fat.
I actually represented food companies a decade ago when that McDonald's obesity case was filed and eventually dismissed. Your use of the present tense ("suing McDonald's") suggests you believe there are famously pending lawsuits alleging that. As far as I know, there aren't. And those which might have been filed are not legally sound.

I will tell you, based on my personal experience with food industry executives, that the food industry took that threat very seriously, even though in the instance of the NYC McDonald's case it was dismissed. Fast food restaurants are much more aware of the nutritional aspects of their menu items now, and have made very public efforts to offer healthier foods including fresh fruits and vegetables. Food processors looked for new ways to bring fresher, less-processed, more inherently nutricious products to grocery shelves. In may circumstances a case like Perlman v. McDonald's Corp. which calls attention to a problem but fails legally, can be just as effective in increasing awareness and altering behavior than a long, hard-fought case that goes to trial.

I'm sure you think plaintiffs lawyers are largely a loathsome underclass. (I'm a defense lawyer. :nana:) But they have been an agent of social benefit, making products safer.

He never claimed to be perfect. I'd much rather have somebody whose mistakes are there for everybody to see and owns up to them rather than claiming to be a second coming while blaming every mistake and failure on somebody else.
This is kind of a straw-man argument. I don't know if you're pointing a finger toward somebody who claimed to be perfect. Are you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
If a man has almost the same or a bigger bra size than his woman it's time to lay down the fork once in a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
That's a reach. I don't think being very overweight in a society which every day becomes more aware of the adverse health consequences of obesity can be thought of as conferring "a political benefit."
The society may well be more aware of the consequences. They're also more aware of the constant non stop unconstitutional meddling of government in our lives.

My point (and perhaps it wasn't clear) was that Christie accumulated that weight by making a series of bad, poorly informed and eventually evident bad decisions over the course of decades. He ignored the growingly apparent consequences of overeating and didn't learn from them. That doesn't fit the personal responsibility mold.
Oh, your point was clear and I don't even disagree with it. My point wasn't that his decisions were good. My point is that you have a larger group of people in this country right now who are concerned about being able to send a message of F/U toward government then they are about the particular issue the message is being attached to.

Your use of the present tense ("suing McDonald's") suggests you believe there are famously pending lawsuits alleging that
No. I was referencing the ongoing trend toward blaming other people for our own mistakes and then expecting something out of it. And, if that weren't true, the following wouldn't be...

I will tell you, based on my personal experience with food industry executives, that the food industry took that threat very seriously, even though in the instance of the NYC McDonald's case it was dismissed.
I have no doubt that they do.

Fast food restaurants are much more aware of the nutritional aspects of their menu items now, and have made very public efforts to offer healthier foods including fresh fruits and vegetables.
True, and by and large better choices are a good thing, so long as it's public demand that's fueling it rather than pressure from government. You may have a lot of experience with the corporate heads in these situations, and that's fine. But they're not the ones who are ultimately paying this bill. With the vast majority of chain restaurants being franchised there aren't the huge gobs of money at the local level to deal with these choices.

There is a price to be paid for the ability to have those more nutritious options constantly available to a segment of the food industry whose primary customer base wasn't asking for those options to begin with. Unless, of course, you actually believe that a handful of lettuce and a couple of pieces of chicken is worth $5. All the while ignoring that the cost of everything else went up to pay for the rest of it.


I'm sure you think plaintiffs lawyers are largely a loathsome underclass. (I'm a defense lawyer. :nana:) But they have been an agent of social benefit, making products safer.
I think lawyers, in general, are a loathsome bunch. That doesn't dictate that they aren't necessary, though.

Again, I'm all for better options so long as there is actually a demand for them. The issue isn't whether or not there is any benefit to it, or even whether or not that benefit is offset by something else.

My position on this is pretty much the same as it is on most things. There is no government authority to be involved.

The fact that fast food isn't healthy does not dictate that it's defective. I have no problem busting businesses for asserting that something is healthy when it's not. I do have a problem with government dictating the products a business caries and the options we as consumers and citizens have access to because they decided we weren't making the right decisions.

I don't tell politicians they can't smoke or drink. I don't need them telling me I can't have popcorn popped in coconut oil or french fries fried in lard.

Again, I'm not arguing whether or not the choices being made are good ones. I am simply stating that the purpose of government is not to protect people from their own bad decisions.

This is kind of a straw-man argument. I don't know if you're pointing a finger toward somebody who claimed to be perfect. Are you?
No, of course not. I mean, a politician who blames all of his/her mistakes on somebody else. Who ever heard of such a thing.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top