Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
W
Warik
Guest
Here we go.
Let's think of this logically.
1) I, personally, would describe someone who votes for the President of the United States based on his looks.
2) It is common knowledge that Clinton had a great deal of support from women in the first election.
3) I doubt that men who did vote for Clinton voted for him because they thought he was handsome - they simply voted for him because they, too, are dumbshits. (if there were some who did, however, the number is not significant in this argument, nor is the number of dumbshit men who voted for Clinton because they thought he was a swell guy).
Now, if someone who votes for the President based on his looks is a dumbshit, and Clinton had a great deal of support from women in the first election because they thought he was a nice looking fellow, and the number of women voting for Clinton for such reasons vastly outnumbers that of men, then I have no choice but to conclude that the reason Bill Clinton defeated George Bush Sr. is because a bunch of dumbshit women voted for him because they thought he was handsome (and, a bunch of dumbshit men voted for him because they were dumbshits... I guess I'm sexist against men too).
Well it also presumes that women are socialists.
LOL.
HOW SO? If the group in question here is the group of women who voted for Clinton based on his looks, then what the hell does socialism have to do with them? Anybody who would vote for the President based on his looks is too stupid to even know what capitalism, socialism, or even COMMUNISM is.
The fact that you make such commentary with your knowledge of my grammatical mastermindedness shocks me to no end. You should know just as well as anyone else that if I intended to label women as socialists, I would have described those who did vote for Clinton based on his looks as dumbshits AND socialists. I did not, however, use the "socialist" adjective to describe anyone but Slick Willie himself.
Ok. My defense is done. Next volley of liberal anti-sexist propoganda, please?
-Warik
Let's think of this logically.
1) I, personally, would describe someone who votes for the President of the United States based on his looks.
2) It is common knowledge that Clinton had a great deal of support from women in the first election.
3) I doubt that men who did vote for Clinton voted for him because they thought he was handsome - they simply voted for him because they, too, are dumbshits. (if there were some who did, however, the number is not significant in this argument, nor is the number of dumbshit men who voted for Clinton because they thought he was a swell guy).
Now, if someone who votes for the President based on his looks is a dumbshit, and Clinton had a great deal of support from women in the first election because they thought he was a nice looking fellow, and the number of women voting for Clinton for such reasons vastly outnumbers that of men, then I have no choice but to conclude that the reason Bill Clinton defeated George Bush Sr. is because a bunch of dumbshit women voted for him because they thought he was handsome (and, a bunch of dumbshit men voted for him because they were dumbshits... I guess I'm sexist against men too).
Well it also presumes that women are socialists.
LOL.
HOW SO? If the group in question here is the group of women who voted for Clinton based on his looks, then what the hell does socialism have to do with them? Anybody who would vote for the President based on his looks is too stupid to even know what capitalism, socialism, or even COMMUNISM is.
The fact that you make such commentary with your knowledge of my grammatical mastermindedness shocks me to no end. You should know just as well as anyone else that if I intended to label women as socialists, I would have described those who did vote for Clinton based on his looks as dumbshits AND socialists. I did not, however, use the "socialist" adjective to describe anyone but Slick Willie himself.
Ok. My defense is done. Next volley of liberal anti-sexist propoganda, please?
-Warik
