U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 02-06-2010, 01:47 PM
 
2,828 posts, read 4,607,522 times
Reputation: 1505
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan View Post
Eating yourself to an early death or smoking or drinking yourself to an early death is just plain dumb and doesn't exhibit the type of good decision making I want to see in someone making decisions for me ?
The whole premise of this argument is totally false though. You're arguing that someone's decisions about their health show they are unfit for making other decisions. You have no proof of that. Evidently, in your view, people are either good decision makers or bad decision makers. In the real world, that's simply not true.

People who make excellent business decisions often make terrible decisions in their love life. People who make terrible political decisions are often in great shape health-wise. People who make great decisions about buying a car might make dumb decisions about buying a house. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. You can't judge someone's political decisions based on some other part of their life.

 
Old 02-06-2010, 02:38 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,510 posts, read 1,135,467 times
Reputation: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcity View Post
The whole premise of this argument is totally false though. You're arguing that someone's decisions about their health show they are unfit for making other decisions. You have no proof of that. Evidently, in your view, people are either good decision makers or bad decision makers. In the real world, that's simply not true.

People who make excellent business decisions often make terrible decisions in their love life. People who make terrible political decisions are often in great shape health-wise. People who make great decisions about buying a car might make dumb decisions about buying a house. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. You can't judge someone's political decisions based on some other part of their life.

Its not my premise.....I am merely agreeing with the original post of the OP and many others who have posted the same opinion in this thread but I'm make this simple.......image is everything and the image of "fat" gives a first impression of someone incompetent to make wise decisions regarding their own life style so how can they make wise decisions for a financially failing state. It doesn't matter whether its true or not.....most people go with their first impressions and you only get one chance to make a first impression.....I'm sorry if it offends but "fat" just doesn't speak well, especially for someone in a public position.
 
Old 02-06-2010, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ/Amagansett, NY
3,797 posts, read 4,292,751 times
Reputation: 2551
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan View Post
Its not my premise.....I am merely agreeing with the original post of the OP and many others who have posted the same opinion in this thread but I'm make this simple.......image is everything and the image of "fat" gives a first impression of someone incompetent to make wise decisions regarding their own life style so how can they make wise decisions for a financially failing state. It doesn't matter whether its true or not.....most people go with their first impressions and you only get one chance to make a first impression.....I'm sorry if it offends but "fat" just doesn't speak well, especially for someone in a public position.
I dont believe that physical image IS everything in politics. There are so many examples of successful politicians with poor physiques, let alone plenty of CEOs, lawyers, etc. Hell, in my daily life, I see plenty of DOCTORS who are successful in spite of their obesity. In the end, it is WHAT YOU DO that matters most to people. Otherwise, he would have never been elected in the first place.
 
Old 02-06-2010, 06:54 PM
 
6,730 posts, read 7,306,543 times
Reputation: 7849
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan View Post
Its not my premise.....I am merely agreeing with the original post of the OP and many others who have posted the same opinion in this thread but I'm make this simple.......image is everything and the image of "fat" gives a first impression of someone incompetent to make wise decisions regarding their own life style so how can they make wise decisions for a financially failing state. It doesn't matter whether its true or not.....most people go with their first impressions and you only get one chance to make a first impression.....I'm sorry if it offends but "fat" just doesn't speak well, especially for someone in a public position.
Maybe in NJ, maybe in parts of the US, and maybe in this decade. I recently read a UK survey which indicated that portly, bearded, pipe, cigar smoking types were given more respect, were more trusted than young skinny guys.

Please explain to me how an old, overweight, tobacco smoking, bacon eating Winston Churchill was stupid. His weight and habits may have been deemed more acceptable at the time, but he was very capable of tackling the task at hand. I am not comparing Christie, the man, to Churchill, merely pointing out that weight, habits, has nothing to do with intelligence.
 
Old 02-06-2010, 08:57 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,510 posts, read 1,135,467 times
Reputation: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerania View Post
Maybe in NJ, maybe in parts of the US, and maybe in this decade. I recently read a UK survey which indicated that portly, bearded, pipe, cigar smoking types were given more respect, were more trusted than young skinny guys.

Please explain to me how an old, overweight, tobacco smoking, bacon eating Winston Churchill was stupid. His weight and habits may have been deemed more acceptable at the time, but he was very capable of tackling the task at hand. I am not comparing Christie, the man, to Churchill, merely pointing out that weight, habits, has nothing to do with intelligence.

Churchill had built up a track record of success and respect dating back to the prior world war........Christie is basically an unproven commodity as an individual now working in an office that he virtually no experience in. Perhaps time will allow him to distinguish himself as a wise decision maker. I do agree with you though in that times were different for Churchill but today educated people are far less tolerant of overweight people or smokers simply because we know their poor health habits impact our health and wallets. No one wants to sit next to a smoker anywhere and no one wants the seat next to a "portly" individual on an airplane. Perhaps in the 1930s those health habits gained you respect but today most see those poor health habits as just plain disgusting.
 
Old 02-06-2010, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ/Amagansett, NY
3,797 posts, read 4,292,751 times
Reputation: 2551
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan View Post
...but today educated people are far less tolerant of overweight people or smokers simply because we know their poor health habits impact our health and wallets.
Again, the fact that Christie was elected disproves this point. Besides, weight is a lot less black and white than is smoking. People are overweight for any number of reasons. Granted, the majority are poor lifestyle choices, but even within THAT community, it is not quite as fair as smoking or not smoking. For example, plenty of people will be overweight at 3000 Kcal per day and average caloric expenditures. Plenty of people will be average weight with the same numbers, and there will even be a segment of the population that will be underweight with those numbers. Is it really fair to be more "disgusted" with the overweight person taking in 3000 Kcal than the underweight person taking in 3000 Kcal? I mean, we are talking genetics here. So you probably expect the person with the slower metabolism to eat less than the person with the faster metabolism, and I would agree that that is what needs to be done, but at the same time, doesn't the unfairness of the situation add to the gray area of "tolerance"?
 
Old 02-07-2010, 02:04 AM
 
1,645 posts, read 1,955,063 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan View Post
Churchill had built up a track record of success and respect dating back to the prior world war........Christie is basically an unproven commodity as an individual now working in an office that he virtually no experience in. Perhaps time will allow him to distinguish himself as a wise decision maker. I do agree with you though in that times were different for Churchill but today educated people are far less tolerant of overweight people or smokers simply because we know their poor health habits impact our health and wallets. No one wants to sit next to a smoker anywhere and no one wants the seat next to a "portly" individual on an airplane. Perhaps in the 1930s those health habits gained you respect but today most see those poor health habits as just plain disgusting.
First of all, Churchill was not widely respected in the United Kingdom prior to taking on his role as Prime Minister. During WWI, he authorized and helped lead the joint British/French/Commonwealth bombardment of the Dardanelles and invasion of Turkey/the Ottoman Empire. It was a massive failure and Churchill became a political pariah as a result. Just a historical note.

To address the common theme in your post: Others' tobacco smoking has nothing to do with your own health. I'm sick of hearing all the pathetic whining from grown men nowadays about secondhand smoke. It's just sad.
 
Old 02-07-2010, 04:07 AM
 
9,661 posts, read 8,181,302 times
Reputation: 4098
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan View Post
Churchill had built up a track record of success and respect dating back to the prior world war........Christie is basically an unproven commodity as an individual now working in an office that he virtually no experience in..

Churchill's war exploits didn't mean he would make a good PM. Check out Christie's record as heading up the office of US Attorney.

I (along with many others) thought Corzine's success as a CEO in the financial sector would help get NJ up to at least close to par. Look how that turned out.
 
Old 02-07-2010, 06:54 AM
 
1,608 posts, read 2,046,997 times
Reputation: 561
The last election was more voting against Corzine and not for Christie. Hence my reason for voting for Dagget
 
Old 02-07-2010, 09:41 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,510 posts, read 1,135,467 times
Reputation: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD View Post
Again, the fact that Christie was elected disproves this point. Besides, weight is a lot less black and white than is smoking. People are overweight for any number of reasons. Granted, the majority are poor lifestyle choices, but even within THAT community, it is not quite as fair as smoking or not smoking. For example, plenty of people will be overweight at 3000 Kcal per day and average caloric expenditures. Plenty of people will be average weight with the same numbers, and there will even be a segment of the population that will be underweight with those numbers. Is it really fair to be more "disgusted" with the overweight person taking in 3000 Kcal than the underweight person taking in 3000 Kcal? I mean, we are talking genetics here. So you probably expect the person with the slower metabolism to eat less than the person with the faster metabolism, and I would agree that that is what needs to be done, but at the same time, doesn't the unfairness of the situation add to the gray area of "tolerance"?
First......yes Christie was elected but that hardly disproves anything.....he was in most eyes the lesser of two evils......he ran against an opponent that had lost the respect and confidance of the public.....he may as well have run against Hitler.
Second......stop the nonsense with the calorie counts......people are far less "tolerant" concerning many issues today just because its become a much harder world to survive in, but especially concerning smoking and "fat"......people don't want to hear the "poor me" routine and pay for others health problems whether it be financially or through discomfort when all it takes to eliminate most of those health problems and discomfort is some will power......people have their own problems to deal with and find solutions for that they didn't create for themselves......what I and everyone expects is for people our us to act responsibly....if that means they have to exercise more because they are "afflicted" with slower metabolism rather than sit on the couch jambing Twinkies in their mouth then thats what I expect them to do.......not just gobble more Twinkies and then cry poor me when their bathroom scale disintegrates under their feet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top