I don't know. I think if it was done when Chris Christie shut down the beaches in NJ for the public and then took his entire family and friends there for the day... I'm thinking, well played!

Wow...really? What a stretch to shift the blame.
"We would like to welcome to the stage the candidates for the republican nomination for president...New Jersey Governor Chris Christy, (he walks out), Dr Ben Carson..." (he walks 1/2 way out, halts for no reason, waits, another candidate is eventually called and Carson is passed, is waved out by stage hands but ignores them, is joined by another brainless candidate, is passed again, is passed again, is re-called and finally goes out, Trump is re-called out, but still can't understand what to do, then Trump is again re-called and also finally emerges).
The moderators are facing the crowd, they don't see that some candidates were too dumb to come to the stage WHEN CALLED TO THE STAGE. That's in no way the moderators' fault. At this point, they should know how to enter a stage when their name is called, this is nothing new...how many debates have we had? And these fucktards can't figure out to GO ON STAGE WHEN CALLED?!? I mean, what did they think was happening? How many times did they expect them to call their names before they were supposed to go out? How did they not grasp it when they got passed by all the others? That's pretty damning, when they're applying for a job where they need to know how to operate properly in a difficult job, but these two can't grasp how to enter a stage when called after 12 debates and 4 forums.

The fuckup from the moderators was completely forgetting Kasich. They should all be fired.

The Evolution of Dad Dancing - Fallon and Chris Christie has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

The Evolution of Dad Dancing - Fallon and Chris Christie has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

The Evolution of Dad Dancing - Fallon and Chris Christie has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Fort Lee, New Jersey, politics' to 'Fort Lee, New Jersey, politics, Chris Christie, George Washington Bridge, bridgegate' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, Jon Stewart Covers Bridgegate - Chris Christie Scandal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No one said it was easy being Gov. Chris Christie's personal chef!

Wow, people have some short memories. He almost did run in 2012, but was basically told Americans wouldn't vote for a fat guy.

And he's definitely a republican...

Fixed!

>> ^PlayhousePals:

Uhoh ... restricted content =o(

*length=4:00

If it was up to Romney his buddy, Gov. Chris Christie, would be on his own in New Jersey. =o/

HA>> ^bareboards2:

I was being snarky. No snark button for titles!
>> ^KnivesOut:
Kudos to Chris Christie, but where does god come into the conversation? Neither he or the Scarborough guys mentioned it.

I was being snarky. No snark button for titles!

>> ^KnivesOut:

Kudos to Chris Christie, but where does god come into the conversation? Neither he or the Scarborough guys mentioned it.

Kudos to Chris Christie, but where does god come into the conversation? Neither he or the Scarborough guys mentioned it.

>> ^scannex:

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?
2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.
3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity
4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.
5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.
7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.
Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.
>> ^hpqp:

Words



It's a fair point to call me out on making presumptions about you and linking your comments to those I've been reading elsewhere; my apologies for that.

You cannot dissociate my first 2 points above from the third: you do not go telling strangers, even in a passive-aggressive way, that they are unfit to be in the public eye. For someone so quick to see personal attacks in comments about you, you seem rather impervious to those in the letter you defend (then again, 'tis true that I'm not very subtle when pissed). The real tangent, one I should probably not have given so much weight to, is whether or not obesity is something one can show/not show and induce simply by showing it (my argument remains valid, btw, it's just not so important as to repeat it all over, and your strawmen are so obvious as to no longer require pointing out).

Your point as I understand it is twofold: the letter-writer has a right to send the anchor his personal criticism and is right to do so. I only agree with the first part; he has a right to do so ((so long) as it is not harassment/threats), but she is also right to call him out for it, and point out that such behaviour is wrong, and that it participates in a culture that tolerates bullying, by letting people think it's fine to say whatever they think to whomever without questioning whether it might be hurtful or not. And nobody's saying that something like this is as bad as WBC-style bullying or systemic racist bs, just like nobody would argue that a female politician being meowed in a session by a colleague is as bad a case of sexism/misogyny as a continually harassed or beaten wife, for example. They are, however, on a spectrum with a unifying underlying belief, namely "I can and should voice my opinions/(dis)tastes about others without taking how it affects them into consideration (and society has nothing to say about it)".

The reason I projected the whole sexism/privilege thing on your comments is because they contain the same "it's harmless/no big deal" and "just poor me self-victimisation" and "what's with making a private event/exchange public?" and "you're trampling his rights!" dismissals. It was wrong of me to do so, but at least now you can understand why I did.

Speaking of projection, presumption and personal attacks, you sure are quick to jump to (and stick to) the conclusion that the anchor is overweight because she has poor lifestyle choices (the same assumptions behind the letter), which is why I (and @bmacs27) went on the tangent of "there's-more-to-obesity-than-being-a-lazy-junkfood-gobler". The assumption that an overweight person is that way because s/he choses so is insulting and ignorant in and of itself, the same way the GOP's "poor people are that way cuz they're lazy moochers who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps" is.

As for Chris Christie, I refer to point 1) of my comment above: public denunciation all 'round!

I hope that has clarified my argument. Otherwise, I refer you to @Thumper's comments, less contentious than mine and with which I wholly agree.