Weak Men Are More Likely To Be Socialists

[4/15]

Translation: Every conservative Republican I've met has been a savvy businessman and I keep getting stuck doing the labor.

Quite the opposite is the case. I avoid hiring them as I would need more workers and lose money with them.

 

[Spamature]

Can anyone say they're shocked by this story? It makes perfect sense. Weak men, really, weak people, are more likely to want to rely on others to provide for them. What a shocker, yes? While this study covers physically weak men, I believe this applies to people of both sexes (and yes leftists, there are only two sexes) who are weak either physically or in character. I believe the study's scope is limited in scope at least in part by the funds and/or complexity of approaching this logic from a broader perspective.

I am all for helping those truly in need. But does anyone here really believe 43,000,000 Americans need help feeding themselves? Of course most of them don't. They are weak people. Weak in character.

And ever notice how the Democratic Party attracts the biggest losers? Coincidence? Of course not. The Democratic Party/American Left is home for the various dregs of society. How can a political party remain strong when their platform attracts only the weak and the losers? Is it any wonder Democrats are losing so many elections?

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/new-study-finds-wimpier-guys-are-more-likely-be-socialists

Just because a guy is small does not mean he's a wimp. You likely bigger than Manny Pacquiao at 5' 4" , but I doubt if you would get in his face and call him a wimp.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Just because a guy is small does not mean he's a wimp. You likely bigger than Manny Pacquiao at 5' 4" , but I doubt if you would get in his face and call him a wimp.

Physical size has nothing to do with it. Try again.

 

[Spamature]

No one take this the wrong way, but in more normal times our society was self-correcting. Goofy stuff was properly stigmatized. Laziness, mooching, dressing like some princess-with-five'oclock shadow, etc...these things were met with social mores that drove them into hiding (or into freakshow enclaves like the Castro, the French Quarter, etc.).

And, when the subtle nudge of normal social convention could not be conveyed culturally...a pickup truck chock full of flannel-clad, bat-wielding good ol' boys would look after it...

Ok, buttboys...queue the chorus of wrist-flitting safe-spacers with the obligatory sissified non-sequiturs... waxing both Godwinian and Jim Crowian themes.

Do you think our lefty twinks in this forum roll their R's to compensate for the lisp?

Are you saying you would be on the back of that truck ?

 

[Spamature]

Physical size has nothing to do with it. Try again.

No it was specifically mentioned in the article.

 

[Drumcollie]

All I can say is it is the conservative republicans who are leeches in construction. As for socialism it is a nice thing to think about but will never be a viable political situation. To many conservative fascists that want every dime they can steal/con from anyone dumb enough to believe them. They do not WORK for living that is my experience.

If actually worked your experience would be different. He is a shovel now go do my job.

 

[Drumcollie]

The person you describe is Trumputin. I know what I am speaking of and you, ha ha, don't. Every conservative republican I have ever met was a leech looking for the easy money. There work ethic was just like trumputins, sell bogus education and go bankrupt so you don't get sued.

Listen George Corley Wallace... The party of handouts and paid off is complaining the Republicans are making money.

 

[Drumcollie]

Quite the opposite is the case. I avoid hiring them as I would need more workers and lose money with them.

Translation: I wont pay my fair share.

 

[Drumcollie]

Just because a guy is small does not mean he's a wimp. You likely bigger than Manny Pacquiao at 5' 4" , but I doubt if you would get in his face and call him a wimp.

When he looks like a girl riding a girls bike. It is what it is.

 

[Drumcollie]

No it was specifically mentioned in the article.

So size matters to you. You are a body shamer.

 

[Drumcollie]

Are you saying you would be on the back of that truck ?

Says the Party of lynching black folk. No wonder you brought that up and then blamed someone else.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

No it was specifically mentioned in the article.

Yes, height was measured, obviously as measuring physical strength as it relates to physical size. A 5 ' 4" guy who benches 300 pounds and a 6' 4" guy who benches 300 pounds mean two different things. Nowhere does the article state or even insinuate being short is equivalent to being weak.

Please think before you babble. Now wipe that drool off your bib.

 

[RickWA]

Are you saying you would be on the back of that truck ?

I may just operate a fleet of 'em.

;-)

 

[Spamature]

Yes, height was measured, obviously as measuring physical strength as it relates to physical size. A 5 ' 4" guy who benches 300 pounds and a 6' 4" guy who benches 300 pounds mean two different things. Nowhere does the article state or even insinuate being short is equivalent to being weak.

Please think before you babble. Now wipe that drool off your bib.

He was also only 129 lbs when he captured his first championship. Which put in on the low side in regards to weight as well. So he started out as a small skinny guy who eventually ran as a liberal for elective office.

 

[Spamature]

I may just operate a fleet of 'em.

;-)

But fleet or no you'd still be on the back of one of your many trucks ready to carryout some street justice on the people you deem as undesirables, correct ?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

He was also only 129 lbs when he captured his first championship. Which put in on the low side in regards to weight as well. So he started out as a small skinny guy who eventually ran as a liberal for elective office.

His weight nor height are the issue. The study is about physically weak men. Obviously this study has struck a nerve with you. Why else would you insist on rambling on with this irrelevant nonsense?

 

[RickWA]

But fleet or no you'd still be on the back of one of your many trucks ready to carryout some street justice on the people you deem as undesirables, correct ?

No, not really. I have a wife and three kids to look after...as well as countless slacker mooches who refuse to pull their own weight. It's a tough slog being everyone's pack mule.

 

[Spamature]

His weight nor height are the issue. The study is about physically weak men. Obviously this study has struck a nerve with you. Why else would you insist on rambling on with this irrelevant nonsense?

It has nothing to do with me. I have been 5'4" since the 6th grade I suppose. Maybe it gives you comfort to image liberal men as weaker than you are. But as the article points out you cons have to think in that primitive way in order to have any confidence in yourselves.

 

[Spamature]

No, not really. I have a wife and three kids to look after...as well as countless slacker mooches who refuse to pull their own weight. It's a tough slog being everyone's pack mule.

So you're just going to be one of those Mullahs who convince young and stupid people to do what you won't do ? That is the role in this societal cleansing you have imagined for yourself ?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

It has nothing to do with me. I have been 5'4" since the 6th grade I suppose. Maybe it gives you comfort to image liberal men as weaker than you are. But as the article points out you cons have to think in that primitive way in order to have any confidence in yourselves.

Liberal men ARE weak. No imagination necessary. This study only proves what everyone already understands via basic logic. But it's nice to see you realize your Manny Paquiao (sp?) example wasn't cutting the mustard.