We are largely a nation of spoiled brats who never learned the art of compromise. How can we expect our elected representatives to be any different?
We are largely a nation of spoiled brats who never learned the art of compromise. How can we expect our elected representatives to be any different?
In reply to Flight Service:
I'd be happy with one election cycle with no incumbent winners.
Nice.
If Time is for him.... it's because they can kneecap him when Hillary runs. Bank on it.
The republican party needs some sort of healing before they can nominate someone that can get elected. As long as the tea party is driving the nomination process, they'll continue to put divisive people out there for many people to shun. I think the country would elect Christie, but I don't think the republicans will nominate him.
bravenrace wrote:z31maniac wrote:Not always. And it's not relevant to the point either. We shouldn't elect a president based on his/her weight any more than we should skin color.bravenrace wrote:Skin color is not a choice. Being overweight is. (Not that I care either way.)aircooled wrote: Stupid tangent: Is he too fat to be president?Wouldn't that be similar to not electing a president because of his skin color? Only in this country (well maybe not) do we have to worry about a person's weight preventing them from winning an election instead of their qualifications for the job.No really. I know most of the US is pretty fat, but will they elect one? (I believe he had the stomach bypass thing done though, right?)
The VAST majority of the time it is.
And it's perfectly relevant because you brought it up.
Being morbidly obese means he can't, or refuses, to make correct decisions regarding his own health, why should I trust him with the well-being of others or the country? I feel the same about Obama's smoking habit.
The hilarious part is that anyone thinks it matters who gets elected. They all represent the same big corporate interests.
In reply to z31maniac:
Its ok, the guys in the white house's storage center can pull this behemouth back out.
Also, judging someone due to looks and assuming he cannot be a good leader is pretty shallow....
Some of the greatest leaders known in modern history had personality traits or habits you would find undesirable....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sZXy6Lho8
yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: Its ok, the guys in the white house's storage center can pull this behemouth back out.
I can assure you, I couldn't care less.
I was pointing out what I saw as flawed logic in bravenrace's initial assertion. Nothing more, nothing less.
In reply to z31maniac:
And I'm pretty sure your logic is flawed, so I guess we're even.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to z31maniac: And I'm pretty sure your logic is flawed, so I guess we're even.
I guess either way you're a bigot (not you, someone who wouldn't vote for someone based on a physical characteristic).
Just saying one is a choice, one isn't.
We can disagree. Doesn't hurt my feelings. 
In reply to z31maniac:
You've obviously never had a problem with managing your weight (although I'm sure you'll tell me differently). It is not a choice for many, many people. I'm not obese, but I've fought weight problems my entire life, and can tell you it's not a choice. That is really just an ignorant thing to say.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to z31maniac: You've obviously never had a problem with managing your weight (although I'm sure you'll tell me differently). It is not a choice for many, many people. I'm not obese, but I've fought weight problems my entire life, and can tell you it's not a choice. That is really just an ignorant thing to say.
I'm actually trying to lose weight right now. I'm 5'8" and 200lbs, down from about 215. I've fluctuated between 185-215 since college. So I believe I'm still technically obese. You call pull up the weight loss thread on here if you think I'm just saying this to be convenient.
And it is 100% because I get lazy with exercise, eat too much or too bad foods, drink too much, etc. No thyroid, or other physical problems, I know because I've had blood work done.
It's purely because I don't force myself to stick to eating healthy and exercising 5-6 times per week. When I do, I start losing weight. When I don't, I put it back on.
z31maniac wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to z31maniac: You've obviously never had a problem with managing your weight (although I'm sure you'll tell me differently). It is not a choice for many, many people. I'm not obese, but I've fought weight problems my entire life, and can tell you it's not a choice. That is really just an ignorant thing to say.I'm actually trying to lose weight right now. I'm 5'8" and 200lbs, down from about 215. I've fluctuated between 185-215 since college. So I believe I'm still technically obese. You call pull up the weight loss thread on here if you think I'm just saying this to be convenient. And it is 100% because I get lazy with exercise, eat too much or too bad foods, drink too much, etc. No thyroid, or other physical problems, I know because I've had blood work done. It's purely because I don't force myself to stick to eating healthy and exercising 5-6 times per week. When I do, I start losing weight. When I don't, I put it back on.
That's you, not me or thousands of other people. Just because for you it is a choice does not mean it is for others. With all due respect, that's just an ignorant viewpoint to have.
bravenrace wrote:z31maniac wrote:That's you, not me or thousands of other people. Just because for you it is a choice does not mean it is for others. With all due respect, that's the ignorant part.bravenrace wrote: In reply to z31maniac: You've obviously never had a problem with managing your weight (although I'm sure you'll tell me differently). It is not a choice for many, many people. I'm not obese, but I've fought weight problems my entire life, and can tell you it's not a choice. That is really just an ignorant thing to say.I'm actually trying to lose weight right now. I'm 5'8" and 200lbs, down from about 215. I've fluctuated between 185-215 since college. So I believe I'm still technically obese. You call pull up the weight loss thread on here if you think I'm just saying this to be convenient. And it is 100% because I get lazy with exercise, eat too much or too bad foods, drink too much, etc. No thyroid, or other physical problems, I know because I've had blood work done. It's purely because I don't force myself to stick to eating healthy and exercising 5-6 times per week. When I do, I start losing weight. When I don't, I put it back on.
Yes, SOME are different. I get it. But for most people eating healthy and exercising works quite well.
In reply to z31maniac
I think my last sentence sums up what I think. No need to elaborate..
z31maniac wrote: Yes, SOME are different. I get it. But for most people eating healthy and exercising works quite well.
For almost everyone without a thyroid or hormone disorder, it does work. But I'd say that for a lot of people eating is an addiction. Certainly is for some folks I'm close to, and it then leads to various degrees of anorexia and other eating disorders (apart from the obvious one of overeating).
I'd even argue that I am addicted. I have a nearly insatiable appetite. I eat fast and I eat a lot. You put food in front of me, and I will eat it well past the point of satisfaction. It is why I don't buy any potato chips, or candy, or cake, or pie, etc., and when I do, I buy the single serving for 3/4 of the price of the full "bulk" item because I know I can sit down and eat a full bag of Dorito's, and then go eat a full dinner, and still eat dessert.
What you both are incorrectly assuming is that everyone with a slow metabolism has the physical ability to exercise, which is not the case.
If you just reduce the amount or type of food you eat, your metabolism slows down to store energy. If you can't exercise, you just keep eating less and less and don't lose weight, because your metabolism slows down with the reduction in eating.
In reply to z31maniac:
Technically obese and actually being obese are two completely different things. The target weights on those seem to be for concentration camp survivors. 
I also have to agree that Braven is making a bit more sense than you are right now.
yamaha wrote: In reply to z31maniac: Technically obese and actually being obese are two completely different things. The target weights on those seem to be for concentration camp survivors.
Less than 5% of the population have thyroid related problems.
As far as the metabolism thing, I believe Osterkraut has posted numerous links about that being a myth/misinterpreted before.
I'm completely agree with bravenrace that for SOME people, diet and exercise is not enough. But I'll handily stand by my assumption that for MOST people it's plenty. And by diet I mean a lifestyle change, not eating weight watchers for 6 months only to gain the weight when you stop the "diet"
twice even, nice
In reply to z31maniac:
It's amazing how you know all these things about other people. I mean, it's like magic, dude.
It's impressive what the berkeley the people on this forum will argue about.
FACT: For the vast majority of overweight people, it's a choice.
Argument: Well i think the actual percentage is blah blah blah and we need to cater to the smaller amount so this dude can be elected president or whatever the berkeley.
REALLY?
Goddamn i can't believe i got suckered into another one of these threads. It's like an anti-flounder.
I just came in here to make a post poking fun at how huge Christie is, and to point out that there have been MULTIPLE articles saying the same thing that Z31maniac is: That it's unlikely he'll be elected BECAUSE of his weight. Whether or not that makes it right is beside the point.
In reply to Swank Force One:
It's not a fact unless you can back it up with more than your interwebz craft.
"Whether or not that makes it right is beside the point" - NO, that is exactly the point. And a much more worth while discussion than speculating as to why people are overweight.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
