PDA

View Full Version : Would you vote for a person who smokes?



Ellyllions
01-10-2007, 04:53 PM
Would you vote a person into the Presidency based on whether or not the candidate smoked cigarettes?

Guitar Shark
01-10-2007, 04:55 PM
Doesn't matter.

I wouldn't date a smoker, but that's entirely different.

Why do you ask?

LoungeMachine
01-10-2007, 04:58 PM
I don't care if they're on crack....

Just don't do anything remotely resembling the Bush / Cheney Regime and it would be an improvement.

Ellyllions
01-10-2007, 05:24 PM
I heard some twat bubble talking about Barak Obama today. Saying that Obama was un-electable (what ever the fuck that is..) because he's a smoker. The news anchor was saying that if they can just get a shot of Obama in an alley with a cigarette in his hand, the White House dreams would be over.

And the whole time, I'm sweeping up thinking.....is that really all we have to be worried about in this country is whether or not a candidate smokes cigarettes?

The FUCKING MAYOR of DC was caught with a crack pipe in his hand and the mentality is that we don't want a President who smokes a friggin' cigarette?

How fucked up is that?

LoungeMachine
01-10-2007, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I heard some twat bubble


My new favorite phrase :D

Ellyllions
01-10-2007, 05:30 PM
Can you use it in a sentence like I did?


I think not.

LoungeMachine
01-10-2007, 05:54 PM
I liked how the little twat bubble's non sequitor didn't faze the interviewee in the slightest.

Ellyllions
01-10-2007, 07:12 PM
nope.
not as creative.

I'm smarter.

LoungeMachine
01-10-2007, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
nope.
not as creative.

I'm smarter.

well, duh.

FORD
01-10-2007, 07:40 PM
Greatest President of the 20th Century........

http://www.jolaf.com/lindsey/art/fdr.jpeg

Yeah, it's a disgusting habit. But it didn't seem to hurt FDR all that much.

Guitar Shark
01-10-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Greatest President of the 20th Century........

http://www.jolaf.com/lindsey/art/fdr.jpeg

Yeah, it's a disgusting habit. But it didn't seem to hurt FDR all that much.

Uh, I don't think that's the real FDR, Dave. :D

But your point is taken. ;)

FORD
01-10-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I heard some twat bubble talking about Barak Obama today. Saying that Obama was un-electable (what ever the fuck that is..) because he's a smoker. The news anchor was saying that if they can just get a shot of Obama in an alley with a cigarette in his hand, the White House dreams would be over.

And the whole time, I'm sweeping up thinking.....is that really all we have to be worried about in this country is whether or not a candidate smokes cigarettes?

The FUCKING MAYOR of DC was caught with a crack pipe in his hand and the mentality is that we don't want a President who smokes a friggin' cigarette?

How fucked up is that?

If the twat bubble in question happenned to vote for Chimpy, you might want to direct them to the BCE Christmas card photo (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42455)

From what I heard, he hasn't quit. Neither has Pickles. Or Poppy, Babs, or Jenna & Tonic for that matter.

But then, the tobacco industry funds the Republican party very well, so why should they?

sadaist
01-10-2007, 08:16 PM
I wouldn't care. Smoking & drinking are still legal here, so why should we hold our politicians to a different standard?

ppg960
01-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Wouldn't matter to me.
Just do the best you can for the country.
And don't tax the population to death!!

blonddgirl777
01-11-2007, 02:08 AM
Just when I thought I've heard it all! :rolleyes:

jhale667
01-11-2007, 02:12 AM
That does seem odd. I mean, how would that impact one's ability to govern?!?! Plus, it's not like they're gonna come over and stink up MY upholstery, so who gives a shit?

blonddgirl777
01-11-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by jhale667
... who gives a shit?

We'll see!

Ellyllions
01-11-2007, 07:46 AM
I guess it just goes to show how truly out of touch the wankers in DC are with the general public. The argument was that how can a Democrat who is a smoker honestly stand for better healthcare for the country.

What they don't understand is that the general public is getting a little wise about this whole smoking thing. Yes, it's a nasty habit. Yes, it causes incurable diseases. Yes, smokers utilize the healtcare system. BUT....when a person is admitted into an emergency room with a heart attack, breathing problems, and such the patient is asked a series of questions looking for possible causes. 9 times out of 10 if that person says, "I'm a smoker" the hospital administration stops there and reports the incident as a cigarette related illness. Doesn't matter if the person is 450 lbs, hasn't exercised in decades, eats a pound of bacon a day, or works in a coal mine. If they tell the Dr. that they smoke their incident gets added to a list that they use to prove that smoking is the cause.

It's a fad right now to be anit-smoking. And this pontiff was trying to make a case against Obama because he's a smoker. Even used the phrase, "The money shot" when talking about hopefully getting a photo of Obama smoking. Even went on to describe the scenerio by saying "in a dark alley behind a government building" to set the scene as a dark guilty act.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Here we are....the President all but admits that we're in BIG trouble in Iraq, the Congress is carrying on a "cold-shoulder" war, laborers are losing jobs in droves, and the baby boomers are hoping they have a Social Security check to look forward to and this fucker wants to convince the public that because Obama smokes he won't be a good candidate for President?

Call the presses, we're obviously in better shape than we think in this country if that's all we have to be concerned about.

FORD
01-11-2007, 07:55 AM
I'm not so sure it's anti smoking as much as it is pro hypocrisy. Chimpy snorted coke, for fucks sake. And despite his claims of being "sober" since "meeting Jesus" at age 40, it's obvious to anyone who has any sort of experience dealing with alcoholics that the monkey boy is still drinking. Often. And smoking, for that matter.

But the holier than thou Republican twat bubbles (that's a great name for them BTW) would never question the morality of a Republican. Unless they're caught doing something "gay" like Mark Foley or the Colorado fundagelicals.

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. Guess it's time for another President FORD??

ULTRAMAN VH
01-11-2007, 09:37 AM
I could care less if someone smokes, and I really have mixed feelings about these witchhunt style smoking bans on bars and restaurants. I do not smoke, but I think it is wrong for the Government to tell citizens that they can't smoke in a bar or other public place of rest and relaxation. That is why they have designated smoking areas in restaurants. This is more BIG brother bullshit. I guess Obama will have to chat with Pelosi, because she just stated "The days of smoke filled rooms in the United States Capital are over".

knuckleboner
01-11-2007, 09:37 AM
ok, to be honest, all other things being equal (which almost NEVER are), i do personally hold a slightly negative connotation towards smoking.

i think it's a stupid habit. i think that smokers today KNEW it was harmful and addictive when they first tried it, but they tried it anyways.

so do i think smokers are stupid...uh, no. but i DO think they made a stupid decision. and to some extent, i think they continue to make stupid decisions when they continue to smoke.

again, IF everything else was equal in my choice of two candidates (which of course, there NEVER will be such a situation), then yeah, i'd vote for the non-smoker. every time.


but two candidates are never otherwise equal. to me, actual issues are about 1 billion times more important then whether somebody smokes and their positions on the various issues will actually be the only thing driving my vote.


however, is using smoking as your main litmus test any more foolish than people using the abortion issue at local level elections (where it's never part of local governance) to determine who you vote for?

FORD
01-11-2007, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
I could care less if someone smokes, and I really have mixed feelings about these witchhunt style smoking bans on bars and restaurants. I do not smoke, but I think it is wrong for the Government to tell citizens that they can't smoke in a bar or other public place of rest and relaxation. That is why they have designated smoking areas in restaurants. This is more BIG brother bullshit.

Actually it's not. But I'll save that debate for another time.


I guess Obama will have to chat with Pelosi, because she just stated "The days of smoke filled rooms in the United States Capital are over".

I see Ultradouche took his FAUX One a Day Stupidity Vitamins this morning. "Smoke filled rooms" in this case is a political slang term for backroom deals and such, not a literal reference to an unhealthy work environment.

knuckleboner
01-11-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by FORD
"Smoke filled rooms" in this case is a political slang term for backroom deals and such, not a literal reference to an unhealthy work environment.

actually, it's literal. she banned smoking in the speaker's lobby:

cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/house.smoking.ap/index.html)

FORD
01-11-2007, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
actually, it's literal. she banned smoking in the speaker's lobby:

cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/house.smoking.ap/index.html)


Which, being the Speaker, she has every right to do. But that doesn't mean the previous quote wasn't also meant in the rhetorical sense.

knuckleboner
01-11-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by FORD

Which, being the Speaker, she has every right to do. But that doesn't mean the previous quote wasn't also meant in the rhetorical sense.

touche'. a more open-doored congress would not be a bad thing...

Lqskdiver
01-11-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Can you use it in a sentence like I did?


I think not.

My current contribution to this thread;

That twat's bubble burst when he thought he had a shot at getting laid.

Ehh!!

:cool:

Ellyllions
01-11-2007, 11:38 AM
nope.
incorrect syntax.

I'm smarter.

Lqskdiver
01-11-2007, 11:41 AM
Damn...I was hoping you wouldn't catch that. Just prove's yer right.

Oh, well, still made the correction.

:)

ULTRAMAN VH
01-11-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Actually it's not. But I'll save that debate for another time.



I see Ultradouche took his FAUX One a Day Stupidity Vitamins this morning. "Smoke filled rooms" in this case is a political slang term for backroom deals and such, not a literal reference to an unhealthy work environment.

WASHINGTON - Smokers may be one minority in Congress with even fewer rights than newly demoted Republicans. Now they are losing one of their last, cherished prerogatives — a smoke break in the ornate Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor.

ADVERTISEMENT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., announced a ban Wednesday, effective immediately.

"The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over," Pelosi said. "Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example."

Lawmakers will be free to light up in their own offices. But no longer can they mingle in the Speaker's Lobby in a haze of cigarette smoke during House votes, as they did just Tuesday night while passing anti-terrorism legislation.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, is a heavy smoker, often found at the center of a group puffing away in a corner of the lobby. He had little to say Wednesday about Pelosi's move. Questioned at a news conference, Boehner described it as "fine." He did not elaborate.

Smoking is banned in most federal buildings. The District of Columbia recently barred it in public areas, as has Pelosi's home district of San Francisco and a few other cities.

So congressional smokers will be forced outside — onto the balcony off the Speaker's Lobby, perhaps.

"That's how life is now. They're banning smoking everywhere," said Rep. Devin Nunes (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., an occasional smoker.

The scent of California GOP Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record)'s cigars has filled the third floor of the Capitol, especially during visits from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But Dreier took Pelosi's decision in stride.

"I like to have an occasional cigar in my office," Dreier said, but "she's the speaker of the House, she can make these kinds of decisions. ... No one wants to encourage smoking."

The news had not filtered to everyone early Wednesday. There were still ash trays in the Speaker's Lobby and around noon a House official sank into an armchair and lit a cigarette. Informed about the hours-old ban, he made his way to the balcony.

By the time the first House votes came in the late afternoon, the ash trays had disappeared.

"It was so bad I couldn't even come into the Speaker's Lobby," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), one of the House's most vocal opponents of smoking, breathing deep to relish the clear air. "The whole place was quite polluted," said Waxman, D-Calif.

Capitol Hill smokers have seen their habitat shrink for more than a decade. In 1993, then-Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., banned smoking in hallways and other public areas. Last year, smoking was banned within 25 feet of the entrances to House office buildings.

Reminders of the days when tobacco was king remain throughout the Capitol.

Tobacco was a leading export of the early colonies and a mainstay of the economy well into the 20th century, a fact recognized in the tobacco-leaf motifs carved into the top of many of Capitol's columns.

Cigarettes can be purchased in a House store and are sold by the carton at a sundry shop underneath the Hart and Dirksen Senate office buildings where the phone is answered, "Hart tobacco shop."

There is no smoking in public areas near the Senate floor. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record) is trying to get rid of cigarette sales at the tobacco shop.

www.ap.org

blonddgirl777
01-11-2007, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by FORD
I'm not so sure it's anti smoking as much as it is pro hypocrisy...

Hypocrisy, yes... but also (and again) wanting a president that will not necessarely work for and represent the citizens as they are but "show a good exemple" by acting and being above human.

I think that Americans tend to chose a man for what he appears to be as a whole, more than strictly for what he can do for the country. Smoking and drinking are not illegal actions, just considered immoral by certain people. And immorality has to play a big role, when running for pres... people want "perfect"... at least on the surface...
That's what I call; LIVING IN AN UNREACHABLE BUBBLE!

We had a provincial prime minister that was always cheating on his wife, drinking and smoking heavily... and among many other great accomplishments, he is the one responsable for the *best public health care PLAN in this country... Many of our primes cheated on their wives (and lied about it) and we didn't care except for laughing at the whole thing... I'm not saying that we make better choices at election time, but at least, we don't consider private life and personal affairs when doing it!

I really hope that the American citizens will SHOW THE TWAT THAT no matter what they come up with to make Obama look inapropriate, it won't be taken into consideration, but his overall plans and intentions will...

Come on neighbors; SHOW THE TWAT THAT LIVING IN AN UNREACHABLE BUBBLE is not gonna happen this time!





*I am not debating how it all went wrong, when other parties took over and screwed it all up, after...




http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e92/blonddgirl777/rene.jpg
R.I.P. René, your cigarette kept you up for us... but unfortunately... put you down too soon!

Nitro Express
01-11-2007, 05:42 PM
I only vote for presidents who dip their cigars in young intern cunts.

ppg960
01-11-2007, 10:57 PM
Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his wife had an open marrige! He's the most popular PM we ever had. We all knew that they ran around on each other. The voting public in Canada all turned a blind eye; nobody gave a shit.
The smoking bans in Canada have went to far and right out of hand as well.
If you go to a bar you can't smoke?? What happened to free choice?? This country is now run by a crew of Pinko Communists!!
We feel your pain!

ppg960
01-11-2007, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
I only vote for presidents who dip their cigars in young intern cunts.

I still don't get why they Impeached Clinton for this??
His private life is his own business. The public should stay out of it.;)

Seshmeister
01-11-2007, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by ppg960
Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his wife had an open marrige! He's the most popular PM we ever had. We all knew that they ran around on each other. The voting public in Canada all turned a blind eye; nobody gave a shit.
The smoking bans in Canada have went to far and right out of hand as well.
If you go to a bar you can't smoke?? What happened to free choice?? This country is now run by a crew of Pinko Communists!!
We feel your pain!

The US was created by all the fucking religious nuts that were too wacky even for Europe. People with deep seated issues about sex and superstitions and about imaginary 'gods'. These Europeans found a new continent and wiped out all the people that lived there already in the name of some invisible cloud fellow. Whilst worshipping some imaginary Christ god of love cult they somehow reconciled that with getting rich on the backs of slave labor.

That attitude still exists today to a certain extent and just like backward places like Iran or Saudi it's going to take a while before they get civilised.

Cheers!

:gulp:

jhale667
01-11-2007, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
The US was created by all the fucking religious nuts that were too wacky even for Europe. People with deep seated issues about sex and superstitions and about imaginary 'gods'. These Europeans found a new continent and wiped out all the people that lived there already in the name of some invisible cloud fellow. Whilst worshipping some imaginary Christ god of love cult they somehow reconciled that with getting rich on the backs of slave labor.

That attitude still exists today to a certain extent and just like backward places like Iran or Saudi it's going to take a while before they get civilised.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Excellent post. Sad but true.

rustoffa
01-12-2007, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
The US was created by all the fucking religious nuts that were too wacky even for Europe. People with deep seated issues about sex and superstitions and about imaginary 'gods'. These Europeans found a new continent and wiped out all the people that lived there already in the name of some invisible cloud fellow. Whilst worshipping some imaginary Christ god of love cult they somehow reconciled that with getting rich on the backs of slave labor.

That attitude still exists today to a certain extent and just like backward places like Iran or Saudi it's going to take a while before they get civilised.

Cheers!

:gulp:

In other words, or layman's terms? The entire situation is the work of time-travelling dopplegangers. That's right, Ponce DeLeon took a break in Puerto Rico before forcing pagan beliefs on the NEW WORLD! Pilgrims my ass...the REDCOATS were playing hit-and-run all the way to Florida! Some years later, there were witch-hunts and shit way up the coast. This is often referred to as "the process of getting new teef."

In the end, you can either discount the majority of it (other words) to opinionated ballyhoo, or subscribe to all of it.

:D :) :cool:

Nitro Express
01-12-2007, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by ppg960
I still don't get why they Impeached Clinton for this??
His private life is his own business. The public should stay out of it.;)

That's right. It was consentual and in private. Once the right wing got a hold of it they printed the Star Report and spread it around the country. My hell, the religiouse right were screaming the details of oral sex, shooting semen, vaginal exploration like it was nothing. Kids got an earful from the people who accuse the Democrats of wanting to pervert our kids in the schools.

The Star Report was like Penthouse Forum. It was such a joke. Nobody got killed and you don't have an abortion when the sperm ends up on the woman's dress. LOL!

Nitro Express
01-12-2007, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
The US was created by all the fucking religious nuts that were too wacky even for Europe. People with deep seated issues about sex and superstitions and about imaginary 'gods'. These Europeans found a new continent and wiped out all the people that lived there already in the name of some invisible cloud fellow. Whilst worshipping some imaginary Christ god of love cult they somehow reconciled that with getting rich on the backs of slave labor.

That attitude still exists today to a certain extent and just like backward places like Iran or Saudi it's going to take a while before they get civilised.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Sigh. My ancestors came here to escape the potato famine and make money. My great grandfather came to Montana to make $$$$$ in the mining boom.

There's a puritan element to the US but thank God it's not the whole enchalada. If we could get rid of Utah and the Bible Belt things would be much better for sure.

Nickdfresh
01-12-2007, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
I only vote for presidents who dip their cigars in young intern cunts.

:D

Nickdfresh
01-12-2007, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by ppg960
Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his wife had an open marrige! He's the most popular PM we ever had. We all knew that they ran around on each other. The voting public in Canada all turned a blind eye; nobody gave a shit.
The smoking bans in Canada have went to far and right out of hand as well.
If you go to a bar you can't smoke?? What happened to free choice?? This country is now run by a crew of Pinko Communists!!
We feel your pain!

Mrs. Trudeau was fucking Geraldo!! :confused:

FORD
01-12-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Mrs. Trudeau was fucking Geraldo!! :confused:

Don't know about that, but she was fucking this guy for a while........

http://www.siol.net/novice/XP_Images/4106061816593916-0.jpg

Of course the press got it all wrong at the time.... they thought she was fucking Mick!

blonddgirl777
01-12-2007, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Don't know about that, but she was fucking this guy for a while........



Among many others...

blonddgirl777
01-12-2007, 02:18 PM
Pierre E. Trudeau was a great womenizer...
Eaven if he looked like Mr. Burns, every women thought he was very charming... and the men where not jealous because he was a good prime minister (despite of his mistakes)...

blonddgirl777
01-12-2007, 02:19 PM
If I'm corect... back in the J.F.K. days, nobody cared that he was cheating on his wife right and left?

FORD
01-12-2007, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by blonddgirl777
If I'm corect... back in the J.F.K. days, nobody cared that he was cheating on his wife right and left?

It probably wasn't widely known outside of the White House inner circle and certainly not outside the Washington DC beltway. Most of the tabloid stuff about Marilyn Monroe and all that didn't come out until years later, and by then, everyone involved in the story was dead.

Certain factions in the Republican party hated Kennedy enough to kill him. It would have been arguably easier for them to just disgrace him with a sex scandal at a time when a lot of people actually WOULD have given a shit - unlike what they did to Clinton 35 years later.

This was only a few years after the King of England abdicated his throne because he dared to fall in love with a divorced "commoner". Prince Chuckles did more or less the same thing just recently and nobody blinked - even when it became public knowledge that Charlie was fucking that horse faced bitch pretty much the entire time he was married to Diana.

So, it's obvious that public tolerance of personal behaviour is different than it used to be. Despite the few red(neck) states who still try to cash in on it.

Nitro Express
01-13-2007, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by blonddgirl777
If I'm corect... back in the J.F.K. days, nobody cared that he was cheating on his wife right and left?

The press and opposition in those days stayed out of the president's sex life. The Star Report in the early 1960's would be considered pornographic and it would insult a lot of people both Democrat and Republican. You also have to remember Kennedy wasn't president for long and many say his ledgendary womanizing would have surfaced in his second term and caused a stir.

The Secret Service hated Kennedy's womanizing because they were concerned that the Russians could get a female opperative in with the president alone.

blonddgirl777
01-13-2007, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
... The Secret Service hated Kennedy's womanizing because they were concerned that the Russians could get a female opperative in with the president alone.


Maybe they watched one too many James Bond movie?

FORD
01-13-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by blonddgirl777
Maybe they watched one too many James Bond movie?

That would be a good theory.... except the first James Bond movie came out in 1962, so they only would have had the one example.

They might have read the books though. Tom Clancy books weren't around then, so it sounds like something spooks might read in their spare time.

Nickdfresh
01-13-2007, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by blonddgirl777
Maybe they watched one too many James Bond movie?

Actually, he was a big fan of the books though supposedly (which was why he was infatuated with the cloack-and-dagger stuff as well as the Special Forces and SEALS)...

Coyote
01-13-2007, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Would you vote a person into the Presidency based on whether or not the candidate smoked cigarettes?

Are you quoting Monty Python? 'Cause that question is very silly indeed.

blonddgirl777
01-13-2007, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Coyote
... that question is very silly indeed.

What's silly is not the question...
It's the fact that some people wouldn't (vote for someon JUST 'cause he's a smoker)!

ppg960
01-13-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by blonddgirl777
What's silly is not the question...
It's the fact that some people wouldn't (vote for someon JUST 'cause he's a smoker)!

Very True. Smoking has a real stigma attached to it now. It's not thought of as being glamerous as it once was.

As far as Trudeau goes, if she was Hot and had a pulse he was there!!:cool:

Steve Savicki
01-13-2007, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I don't care if they're on crack....

Just don't do anything remotely resembling the Bush / Cheney Regime and it would be an improvement.
But crack could alter their brain to become like Bush/Cheney.

Supernaut73
03-07-2007, 09:10 PM
WEED!WEED!

Supernaut73
03-07-2007, 09:11 PM
don't smoke and post, just run the country with that hit motherfucker

Seshmeister
03-07-2007, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by FORD
This was only a few years after the King of England abdicated his throne because he dared to fall in love with a divorced "commoner". Prince Chuckles did more or less the same thing just recently and nobody blinked - even when it became public knowledge that Charlie was fucking that horse faced bitch pretty much the entire time he was married to Diana.


Not a few years, nearly 30. Also there was quite a lot of blinking by the kind of people that give a fuck about the Royal family but whatever.

I think the problem is that particularly in the US but also a bit here, to get elected to high office you need to sell the whole package of great guy family man, wholesome and promoting 'family values'.

I inherently dislike politicians but the electorate has to take some of the blame for this too. That said politicians are often complicit in using their family as an election tool when it suits them. Whoever's fault it is when they then do get caught it smacks of hypocrisy.

On a related note

http://sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2007/02/galvotefor.gif

A women in charge of your country? Total madness...:)

Anyhoo it seems to show that there is nothing worse to the electorate than having a president who isn't superstitious. Funnily enough Brazil as the biggest catholic country in the world has an athiest president.

Does that make the US less civilised than Brazil where street kids are often killed by the state(allegedly)?

Cheers!

:gulp:

Seshmeister
03-07-2007, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by FORD
That would be a good theory.... except the first James Bond movie came out in 1962, so they only would have had the one example.

They might have read the books though. Tom Clancy books weren't around then, so it sounds like something spooks might read in their spare time.

They did come up with the 'genius' plan of sending exploding cigars to Castro which is actually more Roger Moore Q branch Bond than the books.

Maybe they were ahead of their time...:)

Seshmeister
03-07-2007, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by blonddgirl777
Pierre E. Trudeau was a great womenizer...
Eaven if he looked like Mr. Burns, every women thought he was very charming... and the men where not jealous because he was a good prime minister (despite of his mistakes)...

Nothing gets a womans juices going more than power.

It's all very primal going back to the caveman days of trying to get the pack leader to impregnate you.

There is all sorts of worrying empirical scientific research(for guys at least) about the close links and motivations of women today based on brain physiology and how it can be related back to our ancient ancestors from people like Professer Susan Greenfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Greenfield). The argument basically goes that the relatively rapid ascent of humans means that a lot of what goes on in our heads has not had time to evolve from our primative ancestors. I don't know if you are a parent but for example I noticed with my own kids that at around 2 they suddenly refused to eat vegtables and berries and stuff like that. The thinking is that this an inbuilt protection system to stop toddlers picking poisonous stuff off bushes and so on.

I got halfway through one of her books and stopped reading it because it was so depressing(again as a guy). There is all sorts of research which seems to show for example women who use contraception have increased attraction to a guy other than their partner during ovulation traced back to avoiding the sterile guy in the tribe. Other stuff about women becoming more horny towards other guys early during pregnancy particularly those in positions of power in order to cast some doubt on the father of their offspring to give it maximum protection within the group in the future is also not great fun for a guy to read.:) An anonymous survey in the UK a few years back found that around 24% of fathers on a housing estate were bringing up kids which unknown to them were not theirs.

It could turn the most secure well adjusted guy into a raving jealous paranoid mess.:)

Anyhoo I'm rambling...again.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Ellyllions
03-08-2007, 07:38 AM
Ah, Shesh is rambling into my favorite foray...psychology.

Now, that you've studied the female side of inherent primative thinking that could drive behavior. Do the same to the male side.

In studies, the male brain has been shown to use the most primative portion of the brain more than the females do when it comes to choices of mates. Ever wonder why you like big breasts or larger butts on the female body? Because you're looking for the most fertile of the species in which to raise your offspring. The large breasts tell your hypothalamus that she has a better capacity to feed your child and the larger backside actually indicates that she has more eggs in which to fertilize.

And men aren't (supposedly) to be inclined to mate for life. Males are driven to create as many offspring as possible and fertilizing various females will ensure the most number of offspring. One woman can only carry one child at a time. And there is competition.

Ever wonder why you tend to get more "attention" when you're "taken" as opposed to when you're "available"? A brand new study came out in the last couple of weeks that has found that males who watch porn of a man and a woman together will be more fertile than males who don't. Also, if the male watches only females together or only males together they will actually be less fertile than a male who doesn't watch porn at all. The study suggests that while the male is watching the sex act, his brain triggers the production of more aggressive sperm as a subconscious desire for his sperm to impregnate the woman in competition of the man in the porn. Leading researchers to believe that a males are quite possibly more attracted to females who aren't single as opposed to single available females.

Now what were you saying about turning into a raving jealous paranoid mess? LOL!

FORD
03-08-2007, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
A brand new study came out in the last couple of weeks that has found that males who watch porn of a man and a woman together will be more fertile than males who don't. Also, if the male watches only females together or only males together they will actually be less fertile than a male who doesn't watch porn at all. The study suggests that while the male is watching the sex act, his brain triggers the production of more aggressive sperm as a subconscious desire for his sperm to impregnate the woman in competition of the man in the porn. Leading researchers to believe that a males are quite possibly more attracted to females who aren't single as opposed to single available females.


Assuming all of that is true, then why wouldn't the man have a subconscious desire to impregnate BOTH chicks in the Lesbo porn?

I know that's what I'm thinking when I watch it. Well, not neccessarily impregnate, but at least performing the physical requirements neccessary. :D

Ellyllions
03-08-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Assuming all of that is true, then why wouldn't the man have a subconscious desire to impregnate BOTH chicks in the Lesbo porn?

I know that's what I'm thinking when I watch it. Well, not neccessarily impregnate, but at least performing the physical requirements neccessary. :D

:D I know that's right, and while yer sticker might be pokin' out, yer little swimmers could care less.