• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Chris Christie Is Joining the White House to Fight Drug Addiction

Status
Not open for further replies.

Horse Detective

Why the long case?
Yawn. It's not that it's an inaccurate point, how can a fat person be trusted to do anything, right? It's that I appreciated that my post, relevant to the OP, upset someone, meanwhile the half dozen posts that are about Chris Christie being fat are relevant, quality posts to that person, and that's who I was replying to.

The thread should just be called "Chris Christie is Fat" and it should be photos of Chris Christie eating cheeseburgers. In fact, every thread ever mentioning Chris Christie again should just be "Chris Christie is Fat" and it should be photos of him licking cheeto dust off of his grubby thumbs.

I think you are being very dramatic.

The things you are complaining about probably wouldn't be as prevalent if his stance on marijuana wasn't as comically ironic and aggressive as the quote in the OP implies. I wasn't even aware of the scandal detailed in that Forbes article, but it doesn't help.
 

rjinaz

Member
I've been banned for Chris Christie fat jokes, tread carefully.

I think fat jokes are immature, and honestly one of the only issues the Left is not PC about which I find unfortunate, not even on GAF generally.

Now that said, if you're going to shame others for addiction when you obviously have a weight problem, you brought it on yourself. That's what being a hypocrite will get you.
 
I think you are being very dramatic.

The things you are complaining about probably wouldn't be as prevalent if his stance on marijuana wasn't as comically ironic and aggressive as the quote in the OP implies. I wasn't even aware of the scandal detailed in that Forbes article, but it doesn't help.

You're right, I am being dramatic. I get tired of Internet Argument Specialists (not you) who are more interested in finding "logical fallacies with an internet argument" than talking about the actual content of a thread, which is why I responded to that person as such.

Like I said it my first post, Christie is a total hypocrite, and as far as I know he's probably ignorant to the evidence that suggests that marijuana can be effectively used to help treat opioid addicts going through withdrawals. But if Trump were adding any Republican governor to a panel or group to try to address opioid epidemic, Christie actually has some experience signing legislation on this, and it was Democratic legislation.

So, estimated ~75% of the replies in this thread leading up to my post were about how Chris Christie is fat, even the OP itself had a 2015 photo about Christie's assinine position on marijuana, and then a joke about Christie being fat. I don't even like Chris Christie, so I don't like being in the unenviable position to be somehow defending him, but I think it's worth giving him some credit for working with Democratic legislature in his state to sign what should hopefully help curb the rampant over-prescription of opioid drugs. And if there's one Republican governor who may actually have some worthwhile experience working on this issue, Christie or Charlie Baker (who signed similar Democratic legislation a year earlier) would be qualified. So if 75% of the posts were "Well, Christie has some experience with this issue in New Jersey and signed a Democratic-sponsored bill on it we'll see if that'll get through to Trump..." and then one or two were jokes about him being fat, then I wouldn't have been motivated to reply, but the reality was that the majority ignore what's relevant and just talk about how he's fat. If my post had just been an irrelevant joke about him being fat, it wouldn't have bothered anybody else.
 

Wilsongt

Member

Consider his stance on MJ, I find it highly unlikely he is going to try to do anything positive for them.

Also, with the GOP's crusade against healthcare in general, it's hard to see him having any sway when jt comes to actually helping with the opioid epidemic on a national scale.

Sessions rather throw non-violent drug offenders into prison to make them an example as opposed to spending more time and effort to combat actual violent drug offenders.

Christie lost all credibility to fight drugs when he said he was basically going to strip away state's right to sell weed.
 

xnipx

Member
Funny how Opiod addiction is such a problem now but nobody ever cared(still don't care) about the crack/heroin era(current problem)....
 
Echoing what others have said, he needs to work on self-control at the buffet table before he starts criticizing others for lacking it.


EDIT: That is really good to see. Still think his comment is hypocritical, but I was not aware of any of this. Must be more competent at this than I (and many) have given him credit for.
 

Poppy

Member
why do conservatives hate drugs so goddamn much

does hate make their lives that much easier to live that they never need a fucking break or what
 

Hale-XF11

Member
How about we get somebody to help fight addiction who actually has experience with drugs and is able to show compassion to their fellow human beings?

I guess that would make too much sense though.
 

Maxim726X

Member
I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But if Christie subscribes to the Marijuana-is-a-gateway-drug nonsense, this could very well be a bad appointment.

I look at it this way:

1) This party will *never* legalize marijuana while they're in power. So Christie isn't going to effect any change here... Just toeing the party line.
2) As a conservative, he'll always defer to state rights when it comes to this or just about any other issue. So if you're in a state that has legalized either medical or recreational marijuana, you're safe.

So with that in mind- Has he actually done something to try and curb the opioid epidemic? Yeah, he has... So I can't see how anyone can see this as a negative appointment
 
I look at it this way:

1) This party will *never* legalize marijuana while they're in power. So Christie isn't going to effect any change here... Just toeing the party line.
2) As a conservative, he'll always defer to state rights when it comes to this or just about any other issue. So if you're in a state that has legalized either medical or recreational marijuana, you're safe.

So with that in mind- Has he actually done something to try and curb the opioid epidemic? Yeah, he has... So I can't see how anyone can see this as a negative appointment

The OP has an actual quote from Christie where he expresses the exact opposite opinion - that he does not defer to states' rights on the issue of marijuana legalization.

This is viewed as a negative appointment because Christie will no longer have the benefit of working with a Democratic legislature to craft sensible legislation on this issue. He is now re-entering the Trump team that minimized and dominated him throughout the campaign. He's not calling the shots or working with Democrats; now, he's (back to) taking marching orders directly from Trump and his ilk.

So, let's see: has expressly disavowed a states' rights approach to legalization, is now working for a my-way-or-the-highway administration that believes a border wall will cure the opioid epidemic and has also indicated future crackdown on marijuana legalization.

Do you now see why some people might view this as a "negative appointment"?
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
I look at it this way:

1) This party will *never* legalize marijuana while they're in power. So Christie isn't going to effect any change here... Just toeing the party line.
2) As a conservative, he'll always defer to state rights when it comes to this or just about any other issue. So if you're in a state that has legalized either medical or recreational marijuana, you're safe.

So with that in mind- Has he actually done something to try and curb the opioid epidemic? Yeah, he has... So I can't see how anyone can see this as a negative appointment

You are just going to ignore his quote in the picture of the OT?
 

Dude Abides

Banned
2) As a conservative, he'll always defer to state rights when it comes to this or just about any other issue. So if you're in a state that has legalized either medical or recreational marijuana, you're safe.

This isn't really true. Most Republicans are fair-weather federalists. Ashcroft's DOJ cracked down on medical MJ in CA.
 

dLMN8R

Member
Boy how nice of them to speak words about fighting the opioid epidemic in the same breath as they plan to cut $12.6 billion from Health and Human Services.

https://twitter.com/anamariecox/status/842412132499054592

7zAV1ds.png


C7DZXoJV0AA1a3F.jpg
 

Wilsongt

Member
Boy how nice of them to speak words about fighting the opioid epidemic in the same breath as they plan to cut $12.6 billion from Health and Human Services.

https://twitter.com/anamariecox/status/842412132499054592

7zAV1ds.png


C7DZXoJV0AA1a3F.jpg

It's okay. We can't ask a single mother of 2 to help pay to curb the opioid crisis, but we can ask them to pay for our defense.

Just imagine how SAFE AND DEFENDED these people are as they shoot themselves up with heroine and struggle with their painkiller addiction.
 
Though to be fair, as someone who lives in NJ and completely despises Christie, he has tried to do better things to curb opioid/narcotic overdosing.

Though his stance on marijuana is utter nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom