Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
i mostly agree...as long as that $2m more added some value to the campaign. if he overpaid by $2m, then as taxpayers, we should all be unhappy with that move.
I can add this to the list of stuff the gov't overpays for. It would be way down the list.
"Of course that screwdriver costs so much. Not only doesn't in screw things in, it also unscrews things."
I can add this to the list of stuff the gov't overpays for. It would be way down the list.
"Of course that screwdriver costs so much. Not only doesn't in screw things in, it also unscrews things."
that may be a good point, but it doesn't mean it should be ignored just because it's common place. that argument really annoys me. but like i said before, I doubt the ad campaign was a major issue. i don't mind investigations into government expenses though, as that's how abuse is uncovered.
how huge is this guy? 500 lbs? the bridge emails didn't hurt his chances at a national run, his addiction to food did. The days of electing morbidly obese people is over. They could hide Barry smoking his cigs, but you can't hide a half ton of lard in a suit.
so, given all the questions you have, the next question for me is....why would his aides do this all on their own, for just one mayor, unless they had some reason to believe Christie wanted to get back at this specific mayor, or for some larger reason (as theories have been thrown out there)? of course, this is pure speculation, but given all the questions you just posted, that's what leads me to it being hard to believe that he didn't know at least that this type of stuff was going on, even if he didn't "order" it.
Christie had to be worried about the fire. If he did know about it, it's entirely possible he was able to not worry about it while there was a massive fire going on, no?
As for the study....even if he was lied to...if you were in his shoes, wouldn't you be looking for proof of this study? That's the piece that gets me. He just said "oh, ok, you're doing a study" and never worried about it again?
I really don't know. That's the thing. I have questions and some confusion but I'm not jumping to conclusions. Right now, he says he didn't know and until proved otherwise I'll believe him because in reality we know nothing else.
Yes, but Kelly didn't seem too worried about the fire even though it was right in front of her, literally, they were standing on the boardwalk and she's pictured glued to her phone. We all know what she was actually worried about. I don't know, it's just odd to me.
Well, I read the full transcripts that were released as of late last week of all the conversations, and they mention a traffic study, also mentioning Westfield and Springfield in regards to a study (not sure if it was the same supposed study, more confusion). I don't remember if they mentioned any specifics or law enforcement or anything, but it may have been used as a cover and I'm not sure who knew the truth in full. What about the PANYNJ? What were they told? What was NY told? More questions.
how huge is this guy? 500 lbs? the bridge emails didn't hurt his chances at a national run, his addiction to food did. The days of electing morbidly obese people is over. They could hide Barry smoking his cigs, but you can't hide a half ton of lard in a suit.
Really? Is that necessary? So according to you morbidly obese people can't govern or get elected, huh? I guess Christie just was magically put into the Governor's chair without an election?
Listen, I am so sick of fat bashing. We all have unhealthy behaviors at one point or another. People who are obese just have issues that are VISIBLE but that doesn't make them open season for derision. Besides, there are many reasons for weight beyond food addiction. It is truly not that simple.
To me, getting on the "fat" bandwagon is ignorant, unkind and simple minded. It is bigotry, plain and simple. To simply assume that being fat is an addiction is also ignorant--there are a myriad of contributing factors. I am not saying we need to go out and celebrate obesity or to pretend it's not harmful--but equally, it is morally repugnant to excoriate someone strictly because of their body mass.
If weight loss was easy for everyone--or if it was simply a matter of exerting some discipline as people believe--then we'd have a lot many more thin people. There are complicated factors at work that are not helped by the issues with the American food supply.
Further--being fat is like getting in debt--once you're there, it can take YEARS to get it off. It's not a matter of just eating less--it's a matter of eating less, over a long period of time and being more active and for people who are already obese, these are not small obstacles.
What causes obesity? All kinds of things including grief and depression, anxiety, endocrine disorders and sometimes just CHOICE---but whatever the reason, what is amazing about it is this: despite the obesity, they are still fully formed, competent human beings deserving of the same dignity and respect you'd probably ask for yourself.
Ben Franklin was fat. Winston Churchill---fat. Oprah Winfrey is also overweight. Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Arethra Franklin. Andy Rooney. Louis Armstrong. Leonardo DaVinci. Ulysses S Grant. John Quincy Adams. Herbert Hoover. Edward Kennedy. Rosemary Clooney. Madeline Albreight. Pavarotti. Melissa McCarthy....and I could keep going.
I will pit any of their contributions against yours any day--and guess what, they managed to do it despite their body mass.
What have you brought to the table besides your snide commentary?
Is being fat optimal? NO. But it should not be an open invitation for derision. Now being a bigot, on the other hand.....
Yes, exactly. Good points on all counts, I didn't want to quote the entire post.
But the campaign goes towards actual victims, too: those who own businesses. I'm not about to say it's ALL about the business owners, it's for the state itself too, but the point of an advertising campaign is to bring people to a place so they can spend money: whether it's money that goes directly to the state or money that goes directly to business owners, who were heavily affected by Sandy. There were people who lost a business and a home. They're absolutely the victims here, as well. It was important to make sure people would still visit the Jersey Shore post Sandy, especially that first summer, and IMO even with the campaign, tourism still seemed down at least where I spent time (Seaside Park/Heights). I wonder how it would have been had it not been for the commercial: I'm sure even worse.
It's common for a governor to appear in a state tourism commercial, and I never had a problem with he and his family representing NJ and the family friendly Jersey Shore. Christie legitimately worked hard for us in the days after Sandy. Things haven't gone perfectly but no one should expect them to. Cleanup and recovery from a storm like Sandy is not easy and is not going to be done in a year or even 3. Look at New Orleans. Christie worked hard during and after Sandy, I believe he is still working hard. I also believe he is passionate about the issue. He became a familiar face through Sandy nationally, what's so wrong with him appearing in a state tourism commercial, having said all I just did, as governor of the state? I really don't see an issue.
I know this is now a bit off topic as it's not about "Bridgegate", but it's about a new "controversy" that has come out, nice timing with this btw whoever started this in the media/state.
So once again, the state MANDATED laws and regulations don't apply to the governor?
LOW BID. If he wanted to be in commercials, AT ELECTION TIME, he should have paid for them himself. Using Hurricane Sandy money that could have actually GONE to businesses or actual people suffering while STILL having an advertising campaign (by an award winning firm btw) is not only the legal thing to do, it is the MORAL thing to do. Shame on him, and shame on you if you think he has the right to take relief money and spend it on commercials for his own campaign.
I heard Obama okayed the use of funds for the commercial and found this:
In a statement on Monday, Christie's office said the "Stronger than the Storm" campaign was part of an "action plan" approved by the Obama administration and developed with the goal of showing that the New Jersey shore was open for business just several months after the storm.
"Federal agency reviews are routine and standard operating procedure with all federally allocated resources to ensure that funds are distributed fairly. We're confident that any review will show that the ads were a key part in helping New Jersey get back on its feet after being struck by the worst storm in state history," according to the statement issued in response to questions from CNN.
If the President okayed this plan, then I especially don't see a problem. We know the two worked together on Sandy (which I don't see a problem with: it was necessary). I guess we'll find out for sure when the report is released.
Because he wasted 2 million dollars just so he could be in the commercials. He was supposed to take the lowest big, which was over 2 million dollars less money.
And the lower bid planned to use someone like Bruce or Jon Bon, people way more famous than the governor, and more likely to attract tourists.
Because he wasted 2 million dollars just so he could be in the commercials. He was supposed to take the lowest bid, which was over 2 million dollars less money.
And the lower bid planned to use someone like Bruce or Jon Bon, people way more famous than the governor, and more likely to attract tourists.
Do you know that for a fact? Because it sounds like an RFP to me, not a bid. In a bid, the state would be dictating exactly what the campaign would entail and everyone would be bidding on the exact same scope of work. In an RFP, the vendors would propose what they are going to do. The RFP scenario is not always a lowest-price situation, which I explained upthread. If they picked firm A because it used Christie instead of Firm B's Bon Jovi, that's NOT a bid, because the state would have specified in the bid documents who would be used.
Almost all of the people you mention aren't morbidly obese, they are just fat.
The opera singer was gigantic, and ate himself to death, but he was an artist not a po9litical figure. Artists have addictions. Who cares that he couldn't even walk towards the end and had to ride around on a rascal. It was his business not the publics.
Most of the others are not morbidly obese.
Oprah? not morbidly obese, but unfit for any public office for a myriad of reasons.
ditto all the others.
Teddy K was no where near as huge. But he drove that poor woman into the water and was a general sleeze, so big Chris has that on him.
Didn't Chris go on Letterman and eat a doughnut that he pulled out of his pocket?
How come Barry didn't light up a Marlboro on Letterman and joke about it too.
Can't wait until we get another Rob Ford or Marion Barry.
Last edited by RidingThat; 01-14-2014 at 03:46 PM..
Do you know that for a fact? Because it sounds like an RFP to me, not a bid. In a bid, the state would be dictating exactly what the campaign would entail and everyone would be bidding on the exact same scope of work. In an RFP, the vendors would propose what they are going to do. The RFP scenario is not always a lowest-price situation, which I explained upthread. If they picked firm A because it used Christie instead of Firm B's Bon Jovi, that's NOT a bid, because the state would have specified in the bid documents who would be used.
Thank you for bringing logic and reason to the chaos. You are absolutely correct in your assessment.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
