Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Study: Physically Weaker Hollywood Stars More Likely to be Left Wing

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Why do i get the feeling that this article is trying to make men of a smaller physique say to themselves " well, im small so maybe i should vote obama in nov".




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
Why do i get the feeling that this article is trying to make men of a smaller physique say to themselves " well, im small so maybe i should vote obama in nov".


Actually, I posted this study because of another study, posted on ATS a few months ago, that claimed liberals were more intelligent than Republicans.

It went down a storm with the liberals.

We shouldn't really take any of these academic studies too seriously though as many of them are written by people who have already decided the conclusion before they do any research. The state of much of Western academia is shocking.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




I didn't think anybody was taking this thread seriously.

Well, if you want to talk realistically, Tom Cruise kicks Arnold's butt, Monday thru Saturday, and twice on Sunday.

We are men, we don't fight like bears or lions, big isn't an advantage, it's a handicap. If you want to see a real fighting man, look up Audie Murphy. We fight with guns, which means being quick and small is the biggest advantage, and also when it comes to operating machines. Look at the size of the average Nascar driver.

It has been that way since man fashioned the first blow dart. Even on a field of battle with swords and shields, 5'8" is about the best height, like in soccer or rugby. On a ungroomed field with uneven ground, holes, rocks, and other stuff, being tall is a serious disadvantage, cause you are more likely to fall and hurt yourself. Especially considering that the bigger you are, the proportionally heavier the armor you would have to carry.

Riding a horse, big is a disadvantage.

More important, it isn't the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Best weight for a pit bull is 40 lbs. All these giant 70 plus pound pit bulls would be dead in a dog fight with the real deal.

As far as the fight in Obama is concerned, he has a lot more fight than GW or Cheney ever did, and more than Romney. Sure, Romney is good at acting tought, but when the odds aren't in his favor, and push comes to shove, he is the guy who gets weepy and starts trying to a deal.

By the way, the right is just as politically correct as the left. The whole attack on Clinton for being the kind of guy who fools around was total bogus BS. A real man in a position of power is going to get a little on the side, and that has been going on forever. These days a man has to be so politically correct to get into office, I am surprised they don't require him to be castrated.


edit on 22-4-2012 by poet1b because: incorrect word usage.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Yeah, I thought that thread was totally bogus. Can't remember if I posted on it. Just couldn't resist with this thread putting Arnold up as the ultimate male.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

You make an interesting point.

However why do you appear to assume that intelligence and strength are mutually exclusive?

Surely being both physically strong and intelligent is an evolutionary advantage?



Just a follow up on dubious "studies"....previously claimed that conservatives in general are not as intelligent as liberals.

I do not assume they are mutually exclusive..I have no doubt that some people "have it all". But if you excelled in one area and not so much in the other..perhaps one would tend to focus in areas that they excel.

If I can't seem to solve problems very well with my intellect and my brawn has done the trick before..perhaps I give more credence to this way of problem solving.

If I do not excel physically...yet my intellect seems to help me get by..perhaps this is the area I lend credence when problem solving.

Peace

Not that I place too much value on these studies. I have a feeling that whomever conducts these studies does so with an agenda. But I guess they are interesting in a tabloid kind of way.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

I didn't think anybody was taking this thread seriously.

Well, if you want to talk realistically, Tom Cruise kicks Arnold's butt, Monday thru Saturday, and twice on Sunday.


Indeed.


Originally posted by poet1b
We are men, we don't fight like bears or lions, big isn't an advantage, it's a handicap.


If you put a middleweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight, it is a case of waiting for which round the middleweight gets knocked out. Boxing and MMA have weight divisions for a reason.


Originally posted by poet1b
More important, it isn't the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. Best weight for a pit bull is 40 lbs. All these giant 70 plus pound pit bulls would be dead in a dog fight with the real deal.


I have never heard of that before.


Originally posted by poet1b
By the way, the right is just as politically correct as the left. The whole attack on Clinton for being the kind of guy who fools around was total bogus BS. A real man in a position of power is going to get a little on the side, and that has been going on forever. These days a man has to be so politically correct to get into office, I am surprised they don't require him to be castrated.


I'm not sure that the right is just as politically correct. Just as moralising perhaps?

I agree with you about Clinton. It was a disgrace the way Republicans attacked him for knocking off an intern. Isn't that what interns are for?


Only joking. It really was a disgrace trying to get him impeached.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



If you put a middleweight boxer in the ring with a heavyweight, it is a case of waiting for which round the middleweight gets knocked out.


Throw a weapon into the mix, and that changes completely.

As an aside, back in the day before boxing gloves, when men fought until one won, often far more than 12 rounds, the typical heavyweight champion was slightly over 180, and 5'10 to 6', not big hulking guys. As they have made the gloves bigger and shortened the rounds, then the size of the champs got bigger.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I've seen studies that propose city-dwellers are oftentimes liberal in stance, but I think this also suffers from bias since liberals are probably more attracted to living in cities where others can provide for them. The thought of living outside cities scares them and brings to mind the horror stories they've read about or seen in movies. So the act of living in a city won't make a conservative liberal.


Maybe city dwellers are liberal because they tend to be more educated.

I am physically strong, and I am going wilderness camping this summer for fun. My ability to live without fear is the primary reason I am liberal. I am not fighting to get what is mine like a Republican, I am living to give.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join