Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 81 of 93 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391 ... LastLast
Results 6,001 to 6,075 of 8309

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm not seeing them make any points different than what were made about Trump. Which are bad points.

    The key difference between her and Trump is that Trump wanted to run and was planning for a long time. Oprah is just media hubbub.
    Oh, wuf, I was not aware of your telepathic abilities, please tell me more about Oprah's inner thoughts.

    I can guess that you'll have some lame reply ready to go about how Trump had been making noises about running for office for a long time, etc. I mean, if you're tempted to go here, just don't. You're playing at mind reader, and it's hard to read it as anything more than partisanship. There are a lot of similarities, and it's really grasping at straws to try to distinguish her potential run from his in this way.
  2. #2
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Oh, wuf, I was not aware of your telepathic abilities, please tell me more about Oprah's inner thoughts.

    I can guess that you'll have some lame reply ready to go about how Trump had been making noises about running for office for a long time, etc. I mean, if you're tempted to go here, just don't. You're playing at mind reader, and it's hard to read it as anything more than partisanship. There are a lot of similarities, and it's really grasping at straws to try to distinguish her potential run from his in this way.
    lol ok
  3. #3
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Yeah there will be a week of this shit, and then it'll be back to mah Russia.
  4. #4
    No it's literally just what I said it is. He says things that are big in the news and will get hits so he gets more followers and grows.

    You need to realise things like that, it's important.
  5. #5
    The premises of this argument seem to be that a) Oprah pays attention to what Adams says; and b) that he knows she does; and c) that he is trying to persuade her not to run using 3D chess tactics; d) he is a good enough persuader that he can succeed in doing so; and therefore e) Oprah probably won't run.

    I think Savy's interpretation is a bit more elegant.
  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The premises of this argument seem to be that a) Oprah pays attention to what Adams says; and b) that he knows she does; and c) that he is trying to persuade her not to run using 3D chess tactics; d) he is a good enough persuader that he can succeed in doing so; and therefore e) Oprah probably won't run.

    I think Savy's interpretation is a bit more elegant.
    His interpretation is ALSO good.

    Believe me when I tell you he does many things for self-promotion as well as to attempt to change perspectives.
  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    No it's literally just what I said it is. He says things that are big in the news and will get hits so he gets more followers and grows.

    You need to realise things like that, it's important.
    I have literally said on this forum that he does this. I am keenly aware of many of the nuances involved.
  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have literally said on this forum that he does this. I am keenly aware of many of the nuances involved.
    Ye you're a smart person, I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know apart from that fact that this is literally the only reason. He isn't trying to influence who wins the election, not even who runs for it. Even the bit I said about having something to reference so he can make out he predicted it is just a byproduct of him publicising himself.

    Maybe it's happened enough now that he realises this, I imagine so.
  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    He isn't trying to influence who wins the election, not even who runs for it. .
    How do you know this?

    We don't know one way or the other.

    Given what I know about him, it is very unlikely that he is not trying to influence.
  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    How do you know this?

    The same question applies to you both.

    The difference is Savy's interpretation is more believable because it rests on the straightforward premise that the guy is looking out for his bank account. Yours assumes he not only cares about what he's talking about but is trying to influence the outcome through some kind of double-reverse 3D psychology - reverse psychology being telling someone they can't do something so they try to prove you wrong, double-reverse 3D psych being telling them they can, then telling them they have no chance, thus making them not try. It makes no sense really.

    In reality, build-up/tear-down is a pretty good motivating technique for a lot of people. That's why so many coaches use it.

    Still, all of this assumes Adams has any kind of influence on what Oprah does or doesn't do, which I think might overestimates his influence.
  11. #11
    I think if Oprah runs, her run may suffer from being anointed before the primaries even have started just like Hilary suffered from the same. If her goal is just to become president, fine, roll the dice-- but if her goal is to affect change, she may be better off just stumping harder then hell for her preferred candidate.
  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I think if Oprah runs, her run may suffer from being anointed before the primaries even have started just like Hilary suffered from the same. If her goal is just to become president, fine, roll the dice-- but if her goal is to affect change, she may be better off just stumping harder then hell for her preferred candidate.
    I agree with that.

    She *could* avoid the pitfall you mentioned, but that doesn't mean she would. She would probably fall right into it like you said.
  13. #13
    I have half a mind that Hillary plans to run again.
  14. #14
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,668
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I have half a mind that Hillary plans to run again.
    Yes, so Trump can beat her again, this time convincingly.



    This is the reason why you Americans will always lose. The Establishment.

    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  15. #15
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,668
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    And more. Bernie's wealth is a problem.



    US Politics is a fucking joke
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  16. #16
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    And more. Bernie's wealth is a problem.



    US Politics is a fucking joke
    It's not his [newly acquired] wealth [that he only gained through his miserable failure of a presidential run] that's an issue against him for the purposes of politics in the media. It's his hypocrisy.
  17. #17
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina


    The Kadian Noble case by itself would crush any campaign she got going before it even started.

    And it's not like Oprah would get anywhere with any kind of presidential run nonsense with the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls turning into a hotbed for getting sexually assaulted.

    "There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die."
    This direct quote about her feelings on how groups of Americans just have to die won't help the situation either.
  18. #18
    That and his inability to say things remotely correct.
  19. #19
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,668
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    It's not his [newly acquired] wealth [that he only gained through his miserable failure of a presidential run] that's an issue against him for the purposes of politics in the media. It's his hypocrisy.
    Explain his hypocrisy to me please?

    Even though this was already addressed in the video, as to how dense you have to be to view any of his shtick as hypocrisy, I'd still like an account from someone with boots-on-the-ground on this talking point


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That and his inability to say things remotely correct.
    #bernieiswrong?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  20. #20
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Explain his hypocrisy to me please?

    Even though this was already addressed in the video, as to how dense you have to be to view any of his shtick as hypocrisy, I'd still like an account from someone with boots-on-the-ground on this talking point.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    It's not his [newly acquired] wealth [that he only gained through his miserable failure of a presidential run] that's an issue against him for the purposes of politics in the media. It's his hypocrisy.
    Again, for the purposes of politics in the media, he has multiple houses and a net worth in the seven-figure range (largely thanks to donations that suckers made during the election, but that's a different story) but thinks people should be forced to give up what they work for because mah socialism.
  21. #21
    My man Sowell. Always with the bantz.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    My man Sowell. Always with the bantz.

    He should have been more greedy with the dictionary.

    Greed means wanting things in excess. If a billionaire gives nothing to charity because he doesn't want to have less money himself, then yeah, that's being a greedy cunt. If a starving person asks someone else for money to feed himself, that's not being a greedy cunt.
  23. #23
    nm
  24. #24
    Is the drip drip drip of Obama's crimes preparation to get the country behind indicting him for his crimes?
  25. #25
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Is the drip drip drip of Obama's crimes preparation to get the country behind indicting him for his crimes?
    #lockhimup
  26. #26
    Selfishness is thinking you're entitled to what other people have.
  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Selfishness is thinking you're entitled to what other people have.
    No it's not. Selfishness is something we all have to differing degrees, it's that part of us that gives more of a fuck about oneself than others.

    If I smoke around someone who doesn't like smoke, I'm being selfish, despite me not feeling entitled to anything they have.

    On the other hand, if someone owes me money, and they're not paying it me back, I'm not being selfish by feeling entitled to what they have.

    Selfishness is a lack of consideration for others. It's not desire or envy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    On the other hand, if someone owes me money, and they're not paying it me back, I'm not being selfish by feeling entitled to what they have.
    Good point. I certainly didn't mean that.

    When something is more rightfully Bill's than rightfully Ted's, if Ted acts upon his a feeling of deserving what is more rightfully Bill's, Ted is selfish.
  29. #29
    Sure, wanting what isn't yours is selfish, but selfish isn't wanting what isn't yours. You got it the wrong way round, even without me being a pedant about things like debt.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sure, wanting what isn't yours is selfish, but selfish isn't wanting what isn't yours. You got it the wrong way round, even without me being a pedant about things like debt.
    I get the confusion, because the way I worded it looks likes the description is the entire set of selfishness. When I typed it up, I saw that possible confusion, and wondered if the phrasing is common enough that it wouldn't cause confusion. I thought it is common enough, but maybe it's not.
  31. #31
    It's probably ok, it's just I'm a pedant who can't just leave this shit alone. I think there's something wrong with me to be honest.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #32
    I find it profound because it highlights that many people think that wanting somebody else's money is not excess beyond what they should while wanting to keep what one has earned is considered excess.

    I certainly never thought of it that way until I saw what Sowell said. But I come from the Bernie Sanders side of things, where I used to think it was totally normal that wanting to take from others was philanthropic and moral (as long as it's filtered as "fair" and "helping the poor") while wanting to keep one's own was greed.
  33. #33
    It all depends on where on the spectrum you put 'excess' I suppose. If you think a rich man should have 3 yachts, 6 houses, and 12 cars rather than 2 yachts, 4 houses, and 5 cars, so as to keep poor people from starving, and him resisting that makes him greedy, that's one thing that most people wouldn't dispute. If you think a middle-class family that doesn't want to give their money to a programme that gives every lazy bum a free vacation is being greedy, that's quite another that most people would agree is retarded.

    The problem with his wording is that he doesn't indicate where that line should be drawn, but rather implies that it's morally fine for the billionaire to have what is clearly in excess of what he could possibly ever need while the poor man starves, and if the latter expects help from the former that makes the poor man the greedy one.
  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It all depends on where on the spectrum you put 'excess' I suppose. If you think a rich man should have 3 yachts, 6 houses, and 12 cars rather than 2 yachts, 4 houses, and 5 cars, so as to keep poor people from starving, and him resisting that makes him greedy, that's one thing that most people wouldn't dispute. If you think a middle-class family that doesn't want to give their money to a programme that gives every lazy bum a free vacation is being greedy, that's quite another that most people would agree is retarded.

    The problem with his wording is that he doesn't indicate where that line should be drawn, but rather implies that it's morally fine for the billionaire to have what is clearly in excess of what he could possibly ever need while the poor man starves, and if the latter expects help from the former that makes the poor man the greedy one.
    That's the frame that is used to make it seem not greedy to want to take from somebody while being greedy to want to keep one's own. I liked what Sowell said back when I first saw it because it showed me that this frame isn't reality but a frame.
  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That's the frame that is used to make it seem not greedy to want to take from somebody while being greedy to want to keep one's own. I liked what Sowell said back when I first saw it because it showed me that this frame isn't reality but a frame.
    So the billionaire who pays no taxes but enjoys all the benefits of gov't isn't being greedy, is that it? He just wants to keep what he has?
  36. #36
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I find it profound because it highlights that many people think that wanting somebody else's money is not excess beyond what they should while wanting to keep what one has earned is considered excess.

    I certainly never thought of it that way until I saw what Sowell said. But I come from the Bernie Sanders side of things, where I used to think it was totally normal that wanting to take from others was philanthropic and moral (as long as it's filtered as "fair" and "helping the poor") while wanting to keep one's own was greed.
    A few weeks ago or so, I mentioned that I'd previously endured a lot of suffering behind the idea that everyone was equal. This seems like the same type of deal for you.
  37. #37
    Another problem with this concept is the idea of 'keeping what you've earned'. Did you earn the road you drive to work on? No? Then get the fuck off it. So you're sixteen and both your parents just died in a car crach, but you haven't earned anything in life and need a leg up? Tough shit.

    Moreover, 'earned' and 'deserved' don't always go hand in hand. Some people acquire a lot more wealth than they arguably deserve and others just the opposite. If you inherit a fortune did you 'earn' it? If your house burns down and the insurance company bails on paying you, did you 'earn' that loss?

    The whole premise that people get what they deserve in life ignores how much variance there is out there.
  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Another problem with this concept is the idea of 'keeping what you've earned'. Did you earn the road you drive to work on? No? Then get the fuck off it. So you're sixteen and both your parents just died in a car crach, but you haven't earned anything in life and need a leg up? Tough shit.

    Moreover, 'earned' and 'deserved' don't always go hand in hand. Some people acquire a lot more wealth than they arguably deserve and others just the opposite. If you inherit a fortune did you 'earn' it? If your house burns down and the insurance company bails on paying you, did you 'earn' that loss?

    The whole premise that people get what they deserve in life ignores how much variance there is out there.
    So the billionaire who pays no taxes but enjoys all the benefits of gov't isn't being greedy, is that it? He just wants to keep what he has?
    These are generally good points worth addressing.

    What I'm saying I find interesting is the idea that we can all take from you and that's not greedy but if you want to keep it you're greedy.
  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What I'm saying I find interesting is the idea that we can all take from you and that's not greedy but if you want to keep it you're greedy.
    This idea characterizes how quite a number of people view the world. And that view is justified with things like "majority rule" or "but he has this percentage more than another." I'm not saying those views are altogether wrong. I am saying they need to be thought about a little more deeply.
  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    What I'm saying I find interesting is the idea that we can all take from you and that's not greedy but if you want to keep it you're greedy.
    It's only greedy to want to keep what you have if you already have too much. And if you want things you need and don't have, that's not greed.

    If one guy says to another 'you have ten cars, six yachts, three mansions, and seven ivory back scratchers, ditch something so me and my family who all lost our arms and legs in a lawnmower factory explosion can eat for a year', that's not being greedy. If the guy comes back and say 'no fuck you i'm keeping it all because it's miiiiiine', then you wouldn't think that's being greedy?
  41. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    A few weeks ago or so, I mentioned that I'd previously endured a lot of suffering behind the idea that everyone was equal. This seems like the same type of deal for you.
    Could be. I'm not sure what to think about my personal experience on this.
  42. #42
    I can envision a world in which we could say "yeah actually we are being greedy by taking from others" AND ALSO "it's the right thing to do for such and such reason."

    But we can't even get to that point. Instead it's "there's nothing greedy about wanting to take from others by force but they are greedy if they protest."
  43. #43
    Wuf, you're talking about people who undergo some kind of lifestyle change from prosperity, to poverty. Yes, in that instance it's going to be a little tougher to make wholesale changes to a person's moral compass.

    I'm talking about people who were born, raised, and currently live in poverty. Those people are concentrated in certain areas, and those areas also happen to be the most crime-ridden. What's hard to understand?
  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm talking about people who were born, raised, and currently live in poverty. Those people are concentrated in certain areas, and those areas also happen to be the most crime-ridden. What's hard to understand?
    Given points I've seen you make recently, I would think you would think that the ethic of the home and community would be the most important factor here. Do you think that adding wealth to a crimey situation would make it less crimey?
  45. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Given points I've seen you make recently, I would think you would think that the ethic of the home and community would be the most important factor here.
    They are. Those are factors driving poverty. And poverty is a factor that drives crime. Why do you insist on separating all of these things?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do you think that adding wealth to a crimey situation would make it less crimey?
    Yes. If a school has enough money for a basketball team, that's 20 kids who won't be slinging drugs after school. Now imagine if that school has enough money for a football team too. And a baseball team. And a chess team. And a debate club. See where this is going??

    If a community has enough money to fund a community college or career training center......that will reduce poverty, and therefore crime.

    Also money buys things like alarm systems, gates, and more cops. Security measures that reduce crime.

    If people have more money, in general they are happier. That means less dysfunction and depression... both major indicators of drug prevalence. And using drugs, is a crime.

    Do I have to keep going?
  46. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    They are. Those are factors driving poverty. And poverty is a factor that drives crime. Why do you insist on separating all of these things?
    As we just discussed, that is not known. They may both be epiphenomena of something else that is causing crime and poverty. There are plenty of wealthy criminals and poor law-abiding citizens.

    Yes. If a school has enough money for a basketball team, that's 20 kids who won't be slinging drugs after school. Now imagine if that school has enough money for a football team too. And a baseball team. And a chess team. And a debate club. See where this is going??

    If a community has enough money to fund a community college or career training center......that will reduce poverty, and therefore crime.

    Also money buys things like alarm systems, gates, and more cops. Security measures that reduce crime.

    If people have more money, in general they are happier. That means less dysfunction and depression... both major indicators of drug prevalence. And using drugs, is a crime.

    Do I have to keep going?
    This assumes that's how the money will get used and that the communities value that use. Many (all?) of these places that are currently destitute once had more wealth and more productive institutions. And then that went away.

    Do you think the data show that throwing more money at problems fixes them.

    If it is that poor function of a community reflects that community's values, then adding wealth will just contribute to the value system.
  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If it is that poor function of a community reflects that community's values, then adding wealth will just contribute to the value system.
    It also adds the incentive of not wanting to lose wealth.

    The way you're talking, there would be no way to reduce crime. You would just have to apprehend, incarcerate, and hopefully rehabilitate criminals (different thread) until there weren't anymore. We know that doesn't happen.

    Many (all?) of these places that are currently destitute once had more wealth and more productive institutions. And then that went away.
    Maybe there was a factory in town that employed a lot of people that moved overseas. Is that a reflection of the community? Is a dysfunctional system of community values that's making that town poor?

    Could introducing wealth to the town reverse that process? Probably. Build a better highway, or a more accessible exit and suddenly your location is more attractive because of convenient shipping routes. there are lots of other ways to attract new businesses, but most all of them cost money.
  48. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    As we just discussed, that is not known. They may both be epiphenomena of something else that is causing crime and poverty. There are plenty of wealthy criminals and poor law-abiding citizens.
    Use your google machine man, the data is out there.

    I did a google search for "does poverty cause crime" and just scanning the results it seems like 5 out of 6 links will bring you to some document that ultimately concludes "yes".

    On the other side, the 1 out of 6 seem to be flimsy at best. One in particular is an opinion piece in the National Review where a guy pretty much just says "I know that if I were poor, I wouldn't commit a crime", and that's his evidence.
  49. #49
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,668
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker


    LOL Democrats
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  50. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post


    LOL Democrats
    Do you believe that he is not saying something false when he says that the whole position of the Republican Party is to take away peoples' healthcare?
  51. #51
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do you believe that he is not saying something false when he says that the whole position of the Republican Party is to take away peoples' healthcare?
    I'd like to point out that insurance is not healthcare, which seems to be trivially obvious to some while completely escaping the understanding of others.
  52. #52
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    She don't want none.
  53. #53
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I was hitting the points of the court cases over the decision, which was the scope of the discussion, not specific recount- or voting-driven issues of that particular elections, of which there are plenty in every election.

    Moreover, I'm sliding over to the elections thread to continue this discussion to keep it on-topic.
    So we were talking Bush vs. Gore and the whole Florida recount thing. You guys brought up the issue of black votes being disproportionately thrown out for various reasons. One of the main reasons for this was poor instructions on some of the ballots themselves that spanned multiple pages leading people to vote for more than one person for president (because the list itself spanned multiple pages, which was confusing for some). This happened disproportionately in black-heavy districts purely because of the method of voting that happened to be used in those districts.

    This is yet another reason why we need voter ID and a uniform standard for the ballot so that rightful voters (including people who can't figure out that they can only vote for one person for president) can be protected.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 01-14-2018 at 03:00 PM.
  54. #54
    Yes that's true.
  55. #55
    True. Obamacare gave some people insurance while taking away healthcare from so many of those same people and others.

    Government promises are nominal.
  56. #56
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    I'm not going to lie. Even at whatever huge ass age she's at, I'd fuck skinny Oprah like how she is right now.
  57. #57
    Eh I never thought she was ugly. But as we know I've always liked black chicks though I'm not particular like I once was. Hell even Michelle Obama is bangable.
  58. #58
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Eh I never thought she was ugly. But as we know I've always liked black chicks though I'm not particular like I once was. Hell even Michelle Obama is bangable.
    I'd rather jerk off with a wet newspaper.
  59. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I'd rather jerk off with a wet newspaper.
    This rather aptly sums up my feelings towards both Oprah and Michael Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #60
    she's not great
  61. #61
    Yeah, I'm not seeing the attraction to Michelle.

    I'd show Omarosa one hell of a time though
  62. #62
    if we're going hardass crazy bitches then hurricane katrina
  63. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    if we're going hardass crazy bitches then hurricane katrina
    I thought we were talking about exotic amazonian black women.

    But if we're gonna go down the cable-news pundit bang-list, Kim Guilfoyle is at the extreme top of mine. Holy fucking shit I would suck her farts.

    EDIT: Actually the whole FoxNews line up is drop dead sexy. I dare you to watch 'Outnumbered' without a boner.
  64. #64
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I thought we were talking about exotic amazonian black women.

    But if we're gonna go down the cable-news pundit bang-list, Kim Guilfoyle is at the extreme top of mine. Holy fucking shit I would suck her farts.

    EDIT: Actually the whole FoxNews line up is drop dead sexy. I dare you to watch 'Outnumbered' without a boner.
    Conservatives are more attractive, on average, than their liberal counterparts.

    Conservatives really are better looking, research says

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e95c61fb2d95
  65. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Conservatives are more attractive, on average, than their liberal counterparts.

    Conservatives really are better looking, research says

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e95c61fb2d95
    I'm getting pretty fucking tired of you linking pay-walled content.
  66. #66
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm getting pretty fucking tired of you linking pay-walled content.
    It doesn't show up like that for me. It might be my ad blocker or something.

    Research has found that being attractive influences many things in a person’s life — their salary, their popularity and grades in school, even the prison sentences they receive. So why not their politics?

    A recently published study in the Journal of Public Economics concludes that the attractiveness of a candidate does correlate with their politics. They find that politicians on the right are more good looking in Europe, the United States and Australia.

    The study shows correlation, not causation, but the researchers float a simple economic explanation for why this might happen. Numerous studies have shown that good-looking people are likely to earn more, and that people who earn more are typically more opposed to redistributive policies, like the progressive taxes and welfare programs favored by the left.

    Economy & Business Alerts

    Breaking news about economic and business issues.

    Sign up
    The researchers also offer a more general psychological explanation for the trend: That good-looking people are often treated better than others, and thus see the world as a more just place. Past studies have found that the more attractive people believe themselves to be, the lower their preference for egalitarianism, a value typically associated with the political left.

    In their first experiment, the researchers showed respondents photographs of political candidates in Finnish municipal and parliamentary elections, members of the European Parliament, U.S. candidates for Senate and governor, and candidates for Australia’s House of Representatives. They asked participants to rate the photographs on a five-point scale. The results suggested that politicians on the right are more beautiful on all three continents.

    In a separate experiment, the researchers analyzed elections in Finland. They say these elections are easier to study because most races feature multiple candidates competing for office — in contrast to races in the United States, which typically have just two major candidates.

    The researchers found that Republican voters care more about appearance than Democratic voters do, but only if the voters don't have much information about the candidates and have to rely largely on appearance — in city-level elections, for example.

    But in elections that give voters a lot of information – like parliamentary elections when candidates are well covered by TV news and in the newspaper – politicians' appearance matters equally to voters regardless of party or ideology.

    In low-information city elections, a beauty increase of one standard deviation attracts about 20 percent more votes for the average candidate on the right and about 8 percent more votes for the average candidate on the left, the study finds. In high-information parliamentary elections, the figure is roughly 14 percent for candidates on both the left and right.

    The researchers also suggest that voters correctly see candidates who are more good looking as more likely to be conservative. When voters don’t know much about candidates, they tend to use beauty as a cue for ideology.
  67. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I'm getting pretty fucking tired of you linking pay-walled content.
    I didn't have a problem. Although I didn't read the article because I couldn't be fucked.

    Of course Cons are more attractive that Libtards. People become libs because they have discovered that being a victim is a career. Of course, attractive people aren't victims because they tend to be popular, they don't get bullied at school and don't resent everyone else for being happy. So they just get on with their lives while allowing others to do the same. Libs wish to make everyone else feel as miserable and victimised as they feel..
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    if we're going hardass crazy bitches then hurricane katrina
    If we're going natural disasters then I'd fuck the Japanese tsunami.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #69
    tfw when you're ugly
  70. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    tfw when you're ugly
    Yeah, but I'm a man. And apparently that means that young naive women have to do whatever I say.
  71. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yeah, but I'm a man. And apparently that means that young naive women have to do whatever I say.
    It was probably the threat of not getting home alive that did that.
  72. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    It was probably the threat of not getting home alive that did that.
    A dick is worth a 1000 words
  73. #73
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,668
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    tfw when you're ugly
    Isn't tfw that feel when?

    Kids and their chat lingos nowadays
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  74. #74
    Libs are uglier than cons because people like these "ladies" bring the average crashing down.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Libs are uglier than cons because people like these "ladies" bring the average crashing down.


    It's nice that all your exes get along at least.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •