I think I have a lot more in common(and more of a genuine beef) with Conservatives, as Liberal as I am, than I do with Republicans, who have become moustache twirlers of late.
{twirls 'stasche} Hey HEY Don't ruin the buzzkill with that libel talk. Pass the dutchie to the left hand side and don't bogart the cheetos.
Muchos wurstel!
Is that like Toaster Strudel?
You really need to quit reading the Huffington Post. That's a rumor that hasn't been substantiated.edit: and her name is Gretchen CarlsonYeah, how did that affair of hers with a married co-worker turn out several years ago? Harpy.
I only started reading Huffington this year. Nice try, Tex. Do something else. Like chasing Lohan or whomever you're preying upon now. :p
Damn it. You're right. Urizen might have hit it himself.How do you know Urizen doesn't have "first hand knowledge"?You really need to quit reading the Huffington Post. That's a rumor that hasn't been substantiated.edit: and her name is Gretchen CarlsonYeah, how did that affair of hers with a married co-worker turn out several years ago? Harpy.
If you mean, I swing my trouser llama like a louisville slugger with a donkey punch, then yes. I confess.
I only started reading Huffington this year. Nice try, Tex. Do something else. Like chasing Lohan or whomever you're preying upon now. :pYou really need to quit reading the Huffington Post. That's a rumor that hasn't been substantiated.edit: and her name is Gretchen CarlsonYeah, how did that affair of hers with a married co-worker turn out several years ago? Harpy.
I told you bunghole that I've given up stalking Lohan. I'm stalking Summer Glau now.
Yeah, how did that affair of hers with a married co-worker turn out several years ago? Harpy.I don't see what that has to do with anything. Just sayin'.
BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.
The irony is her taking the conservative stance how she believes Obama isn't a 'tr00 Xtian' while she doesn't take umbrage to letting a couple of the bigger commandments slide by the wayside. I know there's like 10 big ones, but a total of 613 altogther? I mean, that's a lot to keep up with. Pick and choose and make things a little gray that goes your way.
I jumped off that Titanic long ago. I'm sure you did too. :p
Muchos wurstel!Is that like Toaster Strudel?
Depending on which country you live in and the units of measurements involved. I think.
I told you bunghole that I've given up stalking Lohan. I'm stalking Summer Glau now.I only started reading Huffington this year. Nice try, Tex. Do something else. Like chasing Lohan or whomever you're preying upon now. :pYou really need to quit reading the Huffington Post. That's a rumor that hasn't been substantiated.edit: and her name is Gretchen CarlsonYeah, how did that affair of hers with a married co-worker turn out several years ago? Harpy.
Oh Jebus! My apologies, sir! Carry on, then!
Depending on which country you live in and the units of measurements involved. I think.Muchos wurstel!Is that like Toaster Strudel?
I like to measure everything in scruples.
Edit: And sometimes Steradians...
BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.
Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so, under the exact same values of criteria, depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
It brings up another good point - why can't we throw rocks at hot chicks to get their attention?
If you mean, I swing my trouser llama like a louisville slugger with a donkey punch, then yes. I confess.Damn it. You're right. Urizen might have hit it himself.How do you know Urizen doesn't have "first hand knowledge"?You really need to quit reading the Huffington Post. That's a rumor that hasn't been substantiated.edit: and her name is Gretchen CarlsonYeah, how did that affair of hers with a married co-worker turn out several years ago? Harpy.
I'll have to ask Mindy how big it really is. I'm betting she'll tell me it's about 3 inches. ;)
It brings up another good point - why can't we throw rocks at hot chicks to get their attention?
Wait -- that explains what I've been doing wrong...
BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
It's a big deal for me, but less so for some of the guys I know.
It brings up another good point - why can't we throw rocks at hot chicks to get their attention?Wait -- that explains what I've been doing wrong...
You could also try hitting them over the head with a club and dragging them off by their hair. That's how my dad met my mom.
Well, especially among people who are highly involved in political discussions (such as most of us in this particular thread), I've noticed a rather steady pattern. Those who point out a politician, newscaster, or the like as being "attractive" nearly always agree with their point of view, and people on the other side who disagree with the person in question are just as swift to decry them as "not attractive". It very, very rarely ever works out in the opposite manner, and many times seems to even trump prior attraction/lack thereof - the big one on that is actors and other Hollywood types, where if they keep their politics quiet they can be admired by all but the instant they take a side several will decry them while others will adore them all the more.
It really may come down to nothing more than being drawn towards those of similar morality and politics, essentially the political variant of "I love him/her for his/her mind", but it's something that has my curiosity.
BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
Boy, youse gots purty lips. Can youse squeel like ah pig fer me?
I'll have to ask Mindy how big it really is. I'm betting she'll tell me it's about 3 inches. ;)If you mean, I swing my trouser llama like a louisville slugger with a donkey punch, then yes. I confess.Damn it. You're right. Urizen might have hit it himself.How do you know Urizen doesn't have "first hand knowledge"?You really need to quit reading the Huffington Post. That's a rumor that hasn't been substantiated.edit: and her name is Gretchen CarlsonYeah, how did that affair of hers with a married co-worker turn out several years ago? Harpy.
Heh. Ask Solnes why she was kind enough to give me the manager special when she took some of us over to Badd Kitty. From there, you can draw conclusions. BIG conclusions. Preferably with either a #2 pencil or colored chalk. :p
Two inches. But if you've seen measurements in pants in men versus women, you know they're measured differently. Just don't pretend we're onto their secret. They think they tricks us, the precious!
ghost YAAAAAAAAAAAK!
Well, especially among people who are highly involved in political discussions (such as most of us in this particular thread), I've noticed a rather steady pattern. Those who point out a politician, newscaster, or the like as being "attractive" nearly always agree with their point of view, and people on the other side who disagree with the person in question are just as swift to decry them as "not attractive". It very, very rarely ever works out in the opposite manner, and many times seems to even trump prior attraction/lack thereof - the big one on that is actors and other Hollywood types, where if they keep their politics quiet they can be admired by all but the instant they take a side several will decry them while others will adore them all the more.
It really may come down to nothing more than being drawn towards those of similar morality and politics, essentially the political variant of "I love him/her for his/her mind", but it's something that has my curiosity.
I love her college days spent on the set of straight-to-DVD hentai films. Big fan. Tentacles rawk.
Boy, youse gots purty lips. Can youse squeel like ah pig fer me?
*chases EBM with swords*
Calm down, Susan Atkins.
|
Well, especially among people who are highly involved in political discussions (such as most of us in this particular thread), I've noticed a rather steady pattern. Those who point out a politician, newscaster, or the like as being "attractive" nearly always agree with their point of view, and people on the other side who disagree with the person in question are just as swift to decry them as "not attractive". It very, very rarely ever works out in the opposite manner, and many times seems to even trump prior attraction/lack thereof - the big one on that is actors and other Hollywood types, where if they keep their politics quiet they can be admired by all but the instant they take a side several will decry them while others will adore them all the more.
It really may come down to nothing more than being drawn towards those of similar morality and politics, essentially the political variant of "I love him/her for his/her mind", but it's something that has my curiosity.
There's a shortage of attractive liberal politicians.
You guys get Scott Brown and Sarah Palin.
We get Barney Frank and Janet Reno.
Well, especially among people who are highly involved in political discussions (such as most of us in this particular thread), I've noticed a rather steady pattern. Those who point out a politician, newscaster, or the like as being "attractive" nearly always agree with their point of view, and people on the other side who disagree with the person in question are just as swift to decry them as "not attractive". It very, very rarely ever works out in the opposite manner, and many times seems to even trump prior attraction/lack thereof - the big one on that is actors and other Hollywood types, where if they keep their politics quiet they can be admired by all but the instant they take a side several will decry them while others will adore them all the more.
It really may come down to nothing more than being drawn towards those of similar morality and politics, essentially the political variant of "I love him/her for his/her mind", but it's something that has my curiosity.
Hmmm, I don't know. I didn't know who that woman (nope, don't remember her name :P) was until this thread. Never heard her speak, or even seen a video. My opinion was strickly based on a few headshots from a 3 second google search.
Plus, Palin is hot.
There's a shortage of attractive liberal politicians.
You guys get Scott Brown and Sarah Palin.
We get Barney Frank and Janet Reno.
I'm purty.
|
Well, especially among people who are highly involved in political discussions (such as most of us in this particular thread), I've noticed a rather steady pattern. Those who point out a politician, newscaster, or the like as being "attractive" nearly always agree with their point of view, and people on the other side who disagree with the person in question are just as swift to decry them as "not attractive". It very, very rarely ever works out in the opposite manner, and many times seems to even trump prior attraction/lack thereof - the big one on that is actors and other Hollywood types, where if they keep their politics quiet they can be admired by all but the instant they take a side several will decry them while others will adore them all the more.
It really may come down to nothing more than being drawn towards those of similar morality and politics, essentially the political variant of "I love him/her for his/her mind", but it's something that has my curiosity.
There's a shortage of attractive liberal politicians.
You guys get Scott Brown and Sarah Palin.
We get Barney Frank and Janet Reno.
Yes if only Sarah would not open her mouth. Or rather keep something stuck in it.
Well, especially among people who are highly involved in political discussions (such as most of us in this particular thread), I've noticed a rather steady pattern. Those who point out a politician, newscaster, or the like as being "attractive" nearly always agree with their point of view, and people on the other side who disagree with the person in question are just as swift to decry them as "not attractive". It very, very rarely ever works out in the opposite manner, and many times seems to even trump prior attraction/lack thereof - the big one on that is actors and other Hollywood types, where if they keep their politics quiet they can be admired by all but the instant they take a side several will decry them while others will adore them all the more.
It really may come down to nothing more than being drawn towards those of similar morality and politics, essentially the political variant of "I love him/her for his/her mind", but it's something that has my curiosity.
I've seen more
Pro-Person: "They are smart, attractive, and well spoken."Anti-Person: "I'd nail them." (see above post as an example)
|
BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
I think my wife and I might be a case study on that, when we got together we held very few political ideologies in common. (me being libertarian, and her being a christian conservative that votes democratic) now we have a lot more shared views, but we still come from pretty disparate viewpoints.
I think my wife and I might be a case study on that, when we got together we held very few political ideologies in common. (me being libertarian, and her being a christian conservative that votes democratic) now we have a lot more shared views, but we still come from pretty disparate viewpoints.BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
*nodnod* I know a handful of families who are like that, but it tends to be the exception more than the rule. (I'm not sure I could stand an arrangement like that myself...)
|
|
*nodnod* I know a handful of families who are like that, but it tends to be the exception more than the rule. (I'm not sure I could stand an arrangement like that myself...)
Heh here are a few fun examples of me and my wife
Were we disagree:
I don't really think our nation needs borders at all, I think our ideals are universal and that anyone who wants to share those ideals should be able to come and do so. My wife hates illegal imigration and thinks those that do so are a slap in the face to those who came here legally.
I support Gay marraige, my wife thinks it's against god so even though she does have gay friends, she doesn't believe they should be allowed to marry.
I think pot should be legal my wife (who smokes it mind you) thinks that legalization will hurt people as since theres nothing stopping them, they'll just go crazy with the stuff.
I like and appreciate Obama, but couldn't vote for him due to fundamental disagreements with his policies on taxation. My wife also disagrees with Obama's policies but felt that voting for him was the right thing to do.
Were we agree:
My wife since getting to know my positions has shifted to be more libertarian herself, we both support the fair tax and would vote for Ron Paul if he was on a ticket.
We both think president Obama is doing the best job he can with the shit storm he inherited, so even though I don't like everything he's doing once again due to fundamental disagreements on taxation and political philosophy. We both get upset at the stupider things being cried foul on by both sides of the political Aisle. (what's funny though, is that while I seriously think Bush was one of the worst presidents ever, or at least top 10, I was as adamant about defending him as I am about defending Obama because I seriously dislike the amount of disrespect we show to the presidency anymore)
we both hate the estate tax.
I think the government has worked long and hard to earn my disrespect.
Apparently people hyperventilating about this don't watch a lot of television, where this sort of thing happens all the time.
Who cares?
Being that this exact kind of shallow diversionary criticism is a main-stay of political commentary from the left and has been for years, I'd think they would care.
From Reagan to Quayle to Palin and many other in between, cherry-picking a goof and looping it over and over until it becomes falsely accepted as typical is old hat.
I'll admit to a bit of joy in the "how's it feel"? of it all. But ultimately I'd far prefer both sides work the issues.
But I'd hope the left would keep this crap in mind next time a conservative gets a few bloopers out of 24/7 coverage blown out of proportion.
Apparently people hyperventilating about this don't watch a lot of television, where this sort of thing happens all the time.
Who cares?
Being that this exact kind of shallow diversionary criticism is a main-stay of political commentary from the left and has been for years, I'd think they would care.
From Reagan to Quayle to Palin and many other in between, cherry-picking a goof and looping it over and over until it becomes falsely accepted as typical is old hat.
I'll admit to a bit of joy in the "how's it feel"? of it all. But ultimately I'd far prefer both sides work the issues.
But I'd hope the left would keep this crap in mind next time a conservative gets a few bloopers out of 24/7 coverage blown out of proportion.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that last part.
I think the government has worked long and hard to earn my disrespect.
I agree, and I'm only 25 so that's saying something :P
|
|
I think my wife and I might be a case study on that, when we got together we held very few political ideologies in common. (me being libertarian, and her being a christian conservative that votes democratic) now we have a lot more shared views, but we still come from pretty disparate viewpoints.BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
I have often wondered about things like this. Does the person with the more dominant personality, I don't want to use the word impose, adjust the partners viewpoint or do you come to an agreement over time on most things?
I have often wondered about things like this. Does the person with the more dominant personality, I don't want to use the word impose, adjust the partners viewpoint or do you come to an agreement over time on most things?I think my wife and I might be a case study on that, when we got together we held very few political ideologies in common. (me being libertarian, and her being a christian conservative that votes democratic) now we have a lot more shared views, but we still come from pretty disparate viewpoints.BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
I imagine it's highly variable depending on the relationship dynamics and personalities involved, and I imagine it would apply to most value systems similarly, so I imagine the process wouldn't be too different from when people with different religious backgrounds become a couple.
I imagine it's highly variable depending on the relationship dynamics and personalities involved, and I imagine it would apply to most value systems similarly, so I imagine the process wouldn't be too different from when people with different religious backgrounds become a couple.I have often wondered about things like this. Does the person with the more dominant personality, I don't want to use the word impose, adjust the partners viewpoint or do you come to an agreement over time on most things?I think my wife and I might be a case study on that, when we got together we held very few political ideologies in common. (me being libertarian, and her being a christian conservative that votes democratic) now we have a lot more shared views, but we still come from pretty disparate viewpoints.BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
I agree, it probably isn't always one or the other. A lot of times it probably depends on who is more passionate about a certain thing.
Reading threads like this makes me happy we have a King ;-)
Well, especially among people who are highly involved in political discussions (such as most of us in this particular thread), I've noticed a rather steady pattern. Those who point out a politician, newscaster, or the like as being "attractive" nearly always agree with their point of view, and people on the other side who disagree with the person in question are just as swift to decry them as "not attractive". It very, very rarely ever works out in the opposite manner, and many times seems to even trump prior attraction/lack thereof - the big one on that is actors and other Hollywood types, where if they keep their politics quiet they can be admired by all but the instant they take a side several will decry them while others will adore them all the more.
It really may come down to nothing more than being drawn towards those of similar morality and politics, essentially the political variant of "I love him/her for his/her mind", but it's something that has my curiosity.
There have been studies that address this issue. Back when I was in psych 101 I recall reading about a study where they asked supporters of two different presidential candidates about the height of their favorite candidate. I can't remember who the two contenders where but it was back before even Reagan times. Now one of the candidates was clearly taller then the other - like 7 or 8 inches taller. What was interesting was that supporters of the other candidate pretty uniformly said that the candidates where about the same height.
Hence it would seem we ascribe positive physical attributes ( height in the case of males) to those we agree with.
I realize what was meant.Given the strides in civil rights in the last 100 years, I'm not so sure that will be considered too noteworthy in 2110. There's still a long way to go, but 100 years is a fairly long way off.
But, yeah, even if so -- will he be remembered for anything else? Unless a third world war breaks out, or the South secedes again, I'm guessing "no."
Tricky, tricky.
Yeah I have to agree with you - if its not friggen earth shattering he'll be forgotten in 100 years. I mean I'm pretty good at this sort of thing and I've now spent two days trying to remember who was president of the USA in 1910 - without looking it up I just have no idea. I know who was president when the US entered World War I and II and the presidents during Vietnam but most of them are just blanks until we get presidents that presided during my life time.
*nodnod* I know a handful of families who are like that, but it tends to be the exception more than the rule. (I'm not sure I could stand an arrangement like that myself...)I think my wife and I might be a case study on that, when we got together we held very few political ideologies in common. (me being libertarian, and her being a christian conservative that votes democratic) now we have a lot more shared views, but we still come from pretty disparate viewpoints.BTW, and equaly beside the point: she really doesn't look that hot. I can throw a rock when school is in session near where I live (ASU) and have a good chance of hitting a better-looking woman.Actually, this brings up a rather intriguing point.
Just how much of our value of attraction is affected by the person in question's agreement with us on various controversial issues? Can someone truly be regarded as attractive or not so (with all other values of criteria for one's preferences of appearance being considered equal) depending on where they stand on a particular question? How much does that sort of thing, especially in today's heavily-charged climate, affect our judgement of the physical appreciated attributes of another person?
Food for thought.
I think that we have a rural/urban divide in this regards. I know a couple of families with significantly different political view points as well and generally they come from a rural background - if only one girl/guy likes you in a 30 mile radius you tend to end up together and politics be damned. If you live in a city then the groups one hangs out with tend to share a similar political ideology and the people you meet who might, one day, become your spouse where probably originally met through some group you hang out with. Could happen at work too but a lot of the time what people work at in the city is a reflection of a political ideology.
I know who was president when the US entered World War I and II and the presidents during Vietnam but most of them are just blanks until we get presidents that presided during my life time.
That was my point. You remember the leaders who presided over major historical events in the history of your country. I happen to think the fact that he got elected in the first place is a major historical event.
Greg
Did you win yet?
|
|
I realize what was meant.Given the strides in civil rights in the last 100 years, I'm not so sure that will be considered too noteworthy in 2110. There's still a long way to go, but 100 years is a fairly long way off.
But, yeah, even if so -- will he be remembered for anything else? Unless a third world war breaks out, or the South secedes again, I'm guessing "no."
Tricky, tricky.
Yeah I have to agree with you - if its not friggen earth shattering he'll be forgotten in 100 years. I mean I'm pretty good at this sort of thing and I've now spent two days trying to remember who was president of the USA in 1910 - without looking it up I just have no idea. I know who was president when the US entered World War I and II and the presidents during Vietnam but most of them are just blanks until we get presidents that presided during my life time.
TAFT!
But then, I'm abnormal.
I realize what was meant.Given the strides in civil rights in the last 100 years, I'm not so sure that will be considered too noteworthy in 2110. There's still a long way to go, but 100 years is a fairly long way off.
But, yeah, even if so -- will he be remembered for anything else? Unless a third world war breaks out, or the South secedes again, I'm guessing "no."
Tricky, tricky.
Yeah I have to agree with you - if its not friggen earth shattering he'll be forgotten in 100 years. I mean I'm pretty good at this sort of thing and I've now spent two days trying to remember who was president of the USA in 1910 - without looking it up I just have no idea. I know who was president when the US entered World War I and II and the presidents during Vietnam but most of them are just blanks until we get presidents that presided during my life time.
TAFT!
But then, I'm abnormal.
...Taft eh, well know I know I was never going to remember 'cause there is no way Taft would have come to mind.