Main Menu |
Most Favorited Images |
Recently Uploaded Images |
Most Liked Images |
Top Reviewers |
cockalatte |
650 |
MoneyManMatt |
490 |
Jon Bon |
408 |
Still Looking |
399 |
samcruz |
399 |
Harley Diablo |
377 |
honest_abe |
362 |
DFW_Ladies_Man |
313 |
Starscream66 |
289 |
Chung Tran |
288 |
lupegarland |
287 |
nicemusic |
285 |
You&Me |
281 |
George Spelvin |
280 |
sharkman29 |
260 |
|
Top Posters |
DallasRain | 71028 | biomed1 | 65070 | Yssup Rider | 61777 | gman44 | 53911 | LexusLover | 51038 | offshoredrilling | 49139 | WTF | 48267 | pyramider | 46388 | bambino | 43244 | The_Waco_Kid | 38332 | CryptKicker | 37323 | Mokoa | 36497 | Chung Tran | 36100 | Still Looking | 35944 | Mojojo | 33117 |
|
|
08-13-2012, 07:47 PM
|
#1
|
Pending Age Verification
|
Presidential election: The Hair Factor
In the television age appearance appears to have determined who would win Presidential nominations and elections.
No grey or bald man has ever been nominated or elected since television came into the picture.
The candidate with the most robust and youthful hair always won, and height and stature were critical as well.
In television and film "hair" is everything. A leading man must have exceptionally thick hair. Even young men are out of the business if their hair is fine, much less thin.
By this standard alone nominating anyone like Gingrich would be impossible. Anyone can see that, like Ronald Reagan, Romney has exceptionally good hair for a man his age....no thining of any kind anywhere, and a low, youthful hairline.
Romney always looked like the nominee, and his goofy-looking sidekick has a hairline like a chimpanzee.
How can they lose given the now greying mellon presented by Obama.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 07:58 PM
|
#2
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaustinescorts
In the television age appearance appears to have determined who would win Presidential nominations and elections.
No grey or bald man has ever been nominated or elected since television came into the picture.
The candidate with the most robust and youthful hair always won, and height and stature were critical as well.
In television and film "hair" is everything. A leading man must have exceptionally thick hair. Even young men are out of the business if their hair is fine, much less thin.
By this standard alone nominating anyone like Gingrich would be impossible. Anyone can see that, like Ronald Reagan, Romney has exceptionally good hair for a man his age....no thining of any kind anywhere, and a low, youthful hairline.
Romney always looked like the nominee, and his goofy-looking sidekick has a hairline like a chimpanzee.
How can they lose given the now greying mellon presented by Obama.
|
so much for that theory eh dipshit ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/dwi...er-picture.jpg
no gray here either
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/...ure.gi.top.jpg
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 08:23 PM
|
#3
|
Pending Age Verification
|
Learn to read...and then learn to be civil.
You might try repeating kindergarden or pre-school.
I said "since televsion," and that doesn't include the Eisenhower era. Televsion became a factor in 1960 with the campaigns of Kennedy and Nixon, and Kennedy had the better hair.
Then Nixon won against Humphrey in 1968, who had very thin hair which made even Nixon's aging pate look youthful.
And the pic you put up of Romney is a lighting trick and doesn't match any other normal pic of the guy. He has greying temples and that's all.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 08:30 PM
|
#4
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 7, 2010
Location: two steps ahead of the posse.
Posts: 5,356
|
Substance
I believe that you have raised a semi-valid point in probably the only facetious way that such a frivolous subject could be broached..
I believe that any rational person today would agree that the hair or lack thereof on a candidates head should absolutely bear no relevance to his preconceived or actual competence in high office by anyone of discernment.
This subject really is only cocktail gossip trivia and barely at that, without any bearing on anything of substance approaching competence.
. . . Is there anyone who disagrees with me and can provide a rational explanation - with a straight face?
![No2](https://cdn-w.eccie.net/images/smilies/modern/no2.gif)
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 08:40 PM
|
#5
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaustinescorts
Learn to read...and then learn to be civil.
You might try repeating kindergarden or pre-school.
I said "since televsion," and that doesn't include the Eisenhower era. Televsion became a factor in 1960 with the campaigns of Kennedy and Nixon, and Kennedy had the better hair.
Then Nixon won against Humphrey in 1968, who had very thin hair which made even Nixon's aging pate look youthful.
And the pic you put up of Romney is a lighting trick and doesn't match any other normal pic of the guy. He has greying temples and that's all.
|
me learn to read?
ok, you learn history.
By 1947, when there were 40 million radios in the U.S., there were about 44,000 television sets (with probably 30,000 in the New York area). [79] Regular network television broadcasts began on NBC on a three-station network linking New York with the Capital District and Philadelphia in 1944; on the DuMont Television Network in 1946, and on CBS and ABC in 1948. By 1949, the networks stretched from New York to the Mississippi River, and by 1951 to the West Coast. Commercial color television broadcasts began on CBS in 1951 with a field-sequential color system that was suspended four months later for technical and economic reasons. The television industry's National Television System Committee (NTSC) developed a color television system based on RCA technology that was compatible with existing black and white receivers, and commercial color broadcasts reappeared in 1953.
civil?
you talkin to me, you graying melon headed chimpanzee ?
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 08:45 PM
|
#6
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Aug 4, 2012
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 112
|
You're only partly correct, but FG is right - substance over image; OR we could turn the whole thing into a beauty contest.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 10:33 PM
|
#7
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 4, 2010
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posts: 3,631
|
I guess I should run, with my THICK GRAY hair, my mom had gray hair in her early 20s
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 10:42 PM
|
#8
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Mar 10, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,740
|
If only the Republicans could nominate a full blooded Norwegian, we'd win for sure. I hear those guys are the master race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjlw4Edt-e8
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 10:47 PM
|
#9
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn
I believe that you have raised a semi-valid point in probably the only facetious way that such a frivolous subject could be broached..
I believe that any rational person today would agree that the hair or lack thereof on a candidates head should absolutely bear no relevance to his preconceived or actual competence in high office by anyone of discernment.
This subject really is only cocktail gossip trivia and barely at that, without any bearing on anything of substance approaching competence.
. . . Is there anyone who disagrees with me and can provide a rational explanation - with a straight face?
![No2](https://cdn-w.eccie.net/images/smilies/modern/no2.gif)
|
Are you kidding me? Are you so far gone that you think that the way a person appears and performs on television has no bearing on whether or not s/he can be elected? You, who made fun of Romney's gaffe referring to Ryan as the next President?
Hell, my mother hated Reagan, but voted for him because he was "so good looking."
Appearance is very important, to the country's detriment. Appearance and spin rule over substance and honesty. Pretty sad, but true.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 11:00 PM
|
#10
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Mar 10, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,740
|
I just stumbled across this picture of Nixon as a teenager.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-13-2012, 11:02 PM
|
#11
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Are you kidding me? Are you so far gone that you think that the way a person appears and performs on television has no bearing on whether or not s/he can be elected? You, who made fun of Romney's gaffe referring to Ryan as the next President?
Hell, my mother hated Reagan, but voted for him because he was "so good looking."
Appearance is very important, to the country's detriment. Appearance and spin rule over substance and honesty. Pretty sad, but true.
|
Let's not forget the COOL factor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AofWh...?v=30s6y-JCjuI
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-14-2012, 12:17 AM
|
#12
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jul 13, 2012
Location: North of the riff raff
Posts: 833
|
Simple. Direct. Nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn
I believe that you have raised a semi-valid point in probably the only facetious way that such a frivolous subject could be broached..
I believe that any rational person today would agree that the hair or lack thereof on a candidates head should absolutely bear no relevance to his preconceived or actual competence in high office by anyone of discernment.
This subject really is only cocktail gossip trivia and barely at that, without any bearing on anything of substance approaching competence.
. . . Is there anyone who disagrees with me and can provide a rational explanation - with a straight face?
![No2](https://cdn-w.eccie.net/images/smilies/modern/no2.gif)
|
Just chewing popcorn.... Nicely said, bro.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-14-2012, 12:22 AM
|
#13
|
Pending Age Verification
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7
me learn to read?
ok, you learn history.
By 1947, when there were 40 million radios in the U.S., there were about 44,000 television sets (with probably 30,000 in the New York area). [79] Regular network television broadcasts began on NBC on a three-station network linking New York with the Capital District and Philadelphia in 1944; on the DuMont Television Network in 1946, and on CBS and ABC in 1948. By 1949, the networks stretched from New York to the Mississippi River, and by 1951 to the West Coast. Commercial color television broadcasts began on CBS in 1951 with a field-sequential color system that was suspended four months later for technical and economic reasons. The television industry's National Television System Committee (NTSC) developed a color television system based on RCA technology that was compatible with existing black and white receivers, and commercial color broadcasts reappeared in 1953.
civil?
you talkin to me, you graying melon headed chimpanzee ?
|
All scholars of the relevant disciplines agree that television played no role in the elections of 1948, 1952 and 1956. In 1956 both Eisenhower and Stevenson were virtually bald.
The first time television played any significant role in an electoral outcome was in the campaign of 1960, where in the Presidential debates radio listeners gave Nixon higher marks than television viewers, who gave higher grades to Kennedy, with the biggest factor explaining such being the appearance of the candidates on television.
After 1960 you never saw a bald or grey Presidential candidate again, and in every case the candidate with the more youthful hair or taller stature prevailed.
This is not a joke.
This actually explains things, and ideology and other factors are bogus.
It's the unconscience man.
It's actually little more than appearance.
The majority of the American public are shallow sheep who have no idea what actually motivates them or why they do what they do.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-14-2012, 12:23 AM
|
#14
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jul 13, 2012
Location: North of the riff raff
Posts: 833
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bloe
I just stumbled across this picture of Nixon as a teenager.
![](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxyh26godP1qz84n6o1_500.jpg)
|
Looked like an asshole . Even as a kid.
That guy got a bad break. I assume at that level of political
power, every prez has done dirty shit. I presume it's a requirement
Of the occupation. I wish Forrest Gump hadn't seen those dang burglars .
Mind you, I'm a child compared to some of you geezers. So I was a wee tiny fella when you guys were witnessing this stuff. I only have good old fashioned
Liberal teaching from books and the history channel.
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
08-14-2012, 12:27 AM
|
#15
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
|
My family threw a party with cake and ice cream, balloons, etc. on the day Nixon resigned. It was a great day!
|
|
Quote
![Like](/images/like.png) | 1 user liked this post
|
|
AMPReviews.net |
Find Ladies |
Hot Women |
|