Would you vote for a person who smokes?

[Nitro Express]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: Would you vote for a person who smokes?

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]

Re: Re: Would you vote for a person who smokes?

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]

Re: Re: Re: Would you vote for a person who smokes?

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!!

[Steve Savicki]

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]

I would totally vote for a candiate who smokes

WEED!WEED!

[Supernaut73]

disclaimer

don't smoke and post, just run the country with that hit motherfucker

[Seshmeister]

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



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!

[Seshmeister]

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]

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. 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!

[Ellyllions]

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]

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