Is it just me, or..?

She wont be wearing a tank top anytime soon she is a woman in her 50s you cant expect her to look like jessica simpson she is a woman but a tough one thats why i admire her some of you people here are so ageist how old are you?

and remember one day that will be you.
..........um, no it won't


1. I'm black
2. My 91 y/o Nanna looks better than she does......less makeup, more style
 
check out the before picture:o

clinton_bill_hillary_young.jpg
 
I see no difference in the face, other than wrinkles.
 
I see a pretty big difference. Maybe it's the makeup.
 
You guys are insane. If Bill Clinton gives that pootang his stamp of approval, you best believe it must be good!

Hilary=MILF. :up:

Now, Chelsea Clinton is one buttt ugly broad. I swear she must be adopted, because the Clintons are a good looking couple. :huh:
 
he only went after it cause he knew it was extra tight.
 
Bill knows that the ugly broads are the best in bed.
 
Sorry. I meant "more eager."
 
See? This is what I'm sayin' People have said things along the line of "Richardson won't win because he's fat and ugly." I've been saying for months that ALL the candidates are fugly. I can't think of any good-looking candidate ever in the history of the US Presidential election.

Don't even give me that Kennedy crap either. Dude looked like Butt-Head.
 
See? This is what I'm sayin' People have said things along the line of "Richardson won't win because he's fat and ugly." I've been saying for months that ALL the candidates are fugly. I can't think of any good-looking candidate ever in the history of the US Presidential election.

Don't even give me that Kennedy crap either. Dude looked like Butt-Head.

Regardless, people who heard the debate on the radio, and people who saw the debate reacted completely differently. Nixon or whoever it was apparently debated much better, yet he look pallid, sweaty, and generally dislikable in contrast to the confident Kennedy.

For the most part Politics is a joke nowadays, partly because voters hardly trust that the candidate they'll pick will come threw with what they promised, and also because decisions are based on soundbites and slander.

The fact that some people would not vote for someone just because they aren't pleasing to the eye is ridiculous. Then again, with the level of deception that voters experience, you'd think politics would have to have a huge change imposed upon it.
 
The fact that some people would not vote for someone just because they aren't pleasing to the eye is ridiculous. Then again, with the level of deception that voters experience, you'd think politics would have to have a huge change imposed upon it.
Ridiculous? Yes. Unheard of? Nope. I once took part in a chilling survey in one of my political science courses in college. We found that hair cuts, suits and smiles are much more important to voters than these weird annoyances called issues. Sad but true.
 
Ridiculous? Yes. Unheard of? Nope. I once took part in a chilling survey in one of my political science courses in college. We found that hair cuts, suits and smiles are much more important to voters than these weird annoyances called issues. Sad but true.

Must be in the way we are "programmed".
Materialism works out fantastically for the powers that be. I agree that it is quite sad, and basically insurmountable, up too the point where people really get a feel for how shafted they've been.
 
Must be in the way we are "programmed".
Materialism works out fantastically for the powers that be. I agree that it is quite sad, and basically insurmountable, up too the point where people really get a feel for how shafted they've been.
I am curious to see what would happen if it became illegal for politicians to be on television and other visual forms of media. I suppose voters would actually have to get involved. Imagine that.
 
I am curious to see what would happen if it became illegal for politicians to be on television and other visual forms of media. I suppose voters would actually have to get involved. Imagine that.
Politicians would just go back to the radio, and people would vote based on who had the sexiest voice.
 
I am curious to see what would happen if it became illegal for politicians to be on television and other visual forms of media. I suppose voters would actually have to get involved. Imagine that.

Thats a toss up.
Maybe voters would get involve, come to know the issues, enforce commitments, and actually make things like a real democracy.

Or maybe the amount of voters would drop drastically, the majority voting being upper middle class and higher. The rest being further inundated with diversion, further removed from the world around them.

Basically ending up living in a pacifist sort of fascist state, where peoples rights are being trampled, the government and corporations do what they want, yet the populace is rendered so detached that these actions go unchallenged.
 
Thats a toss up.
Maybe voters would get involve, come to know the issues, enforce commitments, and actually make things like a real democracy.

Or maybe the amount of voters would drop drastically, the majority voting being upper middle class and higher. The rest being further inundated with diversion, further removed from the world around them.

Basically ending up living in a pacifist sort of fascist state, where peoples rights are being trampled, the government and corporations do what they want, yet the populace is rendered so detached that these actions go unchallenged.
That very well may be too :(
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,080,366
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"