PDA

View Full Version : Obama Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance


R8RFAN
05-16-2013, 05:32 PM
Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html#ixzz2TUuJ38RP

Garcia Bronco
05-16-2013, 05:40 PM
Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html#ixzz2TUuJ38RP

These kinds of studies are worthless IMO.

patteeu
05-16-2013, 05:43 PM
I have to admit, I'm kinda right wing.

cosmo20002
05-16-2013, 05:44 PM
Could be true

R8RFAN
05-16-2013, 05:47 PM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjzj11ttwKaXDNbrvzOnFgQLp0qNCBqcC748v-ZyXqETYkVMDBdw

BucEyedPea
05-16-2013, 05:49 PM
Rambo comes to mind.

LiveSteam
05-16-2013, 05:54 PM
Rambo comes to mind.

Rambo's a pussy
Tango & Cash (1989)

WhiteWhale
05-16-2013, 06:01 PM
Measuring a bicep is not the best way to determine upper body strength.

Arms get fat too.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2013, 06:29 PM
Rambo's a pussy
Tango & Cash (1989)

Never heard of them. Musta' gone to video real fast.

I was gonna say Arnie, BUT he's really a Prog. No wonder he's turned to flab.LMAO

LiveSteam
05-16-2013, 06:31 PM
Never heard of them. Musta' gone to video real fast.

I was gonna say Arnie, BUT he's really a Prog. No wonder he's turned to flab.LMAO

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KU2N56ixpxE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

listopencil
05-16-2013, 06:34 PM
This is your brain on politics
Posted: 10/31/12 @ 4:15 PM | Updated: 11/02/12 @ 4:56 PM | Permalink (http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5107)
By Jeff Stensland, stenslan@mailbox.sc.edu, 803-777-3686

USC neuro-science reveals brain differences between Republicans and Democrats

With the U.S. presidential election just days away, new research from the University of South Carolina provides fresh evidence that choosing a candidate may depend more on our biological make-up than a careful analysis of issues.

That’s because the brains of self-identified Democrats and Republicans are hard-wired differently and may be naturally inclined to hold varying, if not opposing, perceptions and values. The USC study, which analyzed MRI scans of 24 USC students, builds on existing research in the emerging field of political neuroscience.

“The differences are significant and real,” said lead researcher Roger D. Newman-Norlund, an assistant professor of exercise science in the Arnold School of Public Health and the director of USC’s new Brain Simulation Laboratory.

The study focused on the mirror neuron system, a network of brain areas linked to a host of social and emotional abilities. After declaring their political affiliation, The subjects were given questionnaires designed to gauge their attitudes on a range of select political issues. Next, they were given “resting state” MRIs which made it possible to analyze the strength of connections within the mirror neuron system in both the left and right hemispheres of their brains; specifically the inferior frontal gyrus, supramarginal gyrus and angular gyrus.

The results found more neural activity in areas believed to be linked with broad social connectedness in Democrats (friends, the world at-large) and more activity in areas linked with tight social connectedness in the Republicans (family, country). In some ways the study confirms a stereotype about members of the two parties -- Democrats tend to be more global and Republicans more America-centric -- but it actually runs counter to other recent research indicating Democrats enjoyed a virtual lock on caring for others.

“The results were a little surprising,” Newman-Norlund said. “This shows the picture is more complicated. One possible explanation for our results is that Democrats and Republicans process social connectedness in a fudamentally different manner."

While political neuroscience and study is still largely in its infancy, the implications for future races could be big as politicians and campaign strategists learn how to exploit brain differences to make more effective, biologically targeted appeals to voters.

The research also suggests that maintaining an open mind about political issues may be easier said than done. In fact, bridging partisan divides and acting contrary to ideological preferences likely requires going against deeply ingrained biological tendencies. And while there is evidence that mirror neuron connections can change over time, it’s not something that happens overnight, Newman-Norlund said.

“The (brain) differences could be a result of genetics, experiences, or a combination of both,” he said. “It takes a lot of effort to see the other side and we’re not going to wake up one day and all start getting along.”

Understanding the differences and their origins, however, is a step in the right direction, he said.

http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=5107#.UZVsecr_hkY

BucEyedPea
05-16-2013, 06:35 PM
Tang & Cash video

Hmmm, Rambo looks good in a suit too! Now, I'll have to rent it.

listopencil
05-16-2013, 06:38 PM
Public release date: 13-Feb-2013
Contact: Esther White
pressoffice@exeter.ac.uk
44-139-272-2307
University of Exeter
The party in your brain

A team of political scientists and neuroscientists has shown that liberals and conservatives use different parts of the brain when they make risky decisions, and these regions can be used to predict which political party a person prefers. The new study suggests that while genetics or parental influence may play a significant role, being a Republican or Democrat changes how the brain functions.

Dr. Darren Schreiber, a researcher in neuropolitics at the University of Exeter, has been working in collaboration with colleagues at the University of California, San Diego on research that explores the differences in the way the brain functions in American liberals and conservatives. The findings are published in the journal PLOS ONE on 13 February.

In a prior experiment, participants had their brain activity measured as they played a simple gambling game. Dr. Schreiber and his UC San Diego collaborators were able to look up the political party registration of the participants in public records. Using this new analysis of 82 people who performed the gambling task, the academics showed that Republicans and Democrats do not differ in the risks they take. However, there were striking differences in the participants' brain activity during the risk-taking task.

Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness. Meanwhile Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in the body's fight-or-flight system. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk.

In fact, brain activity in these two regions alone can be used to predict whether a person is a Democrat or Republican with 82.9% accuracy. By comparison, the longstanding traditional model in political science, which uses the party affiliation of a person's mother and father to predict the child's affiliation, is only accurate about 69.5% of the time. And another model based on the differences in brain structure distinguishes liberals from conservatives with only 71.6% accuracy.

The model also outperforms models based on differences in genes. Dr. Schreiber said: "Although genetics have been shown to contribute to differences in political ideology and strength of party politics, the portion of variation in political affiliation explained by activity in the amygdala and insula is significantly larger, suggesting that affiliating with a political party and engaging in a partisan environment may alter the brain, above and beyond the effect of heredity."

These results may pave the way for new research on voter behaviour, yielding better understanding of the differences in how liberals and conservatives think. According to Dr. Schreiber: "The ability to accurately predict party politics using only brain activity while gambling suggests that investigating basic neural differences between voters may provide us with more powerful insights than the traditional tools of political science."

Copyright ©2013 by AAAS, the science society.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/uoe-tpi021113.php

LiveSteam
05-16-2013, 06:39 PM
Hmmm, Rambo looks good in a suit too! Now, I'll have to rent it.

I walked out. Stallone sucks.

Rain Man
05-16-2013, 06:46 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger must be a fascist.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2013, 06:53 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger must be a fascist.

Well, yes, a Progressive is a fascist to a degree. Remember, fascism is on the left.

LOCOChief
05-16-2013, 07:48 PM
water is wet.

Saul Good
05-16-2013, 09:36 PM
Makes sense. I can't imagine Magnus VerMagnuson being a liberal, and I can't imagine Steve Urkel being a member of the NRA.

GloucesterChief
05-16-2013, 11:19 PM
The study is bunk because the whole right wing-left wing axis is a false dichotomy. The whole democrat -republic divide is really about rooting for a team rather then actual philosophical differences between the two.

Psyko Tek
05-16-2013, 11:30 PM
water is wet.

so is bullshit

Psyko Tek
05-16-2013, 11:33 PM
Well, yes, a Progressive is a fascist to a degree. Remember, fascism is on the left.

really , I equate facism with nazis and that is totalitarianism, means the control every thing right?


thinking that is more of what wall street and the big banks are doing right now, citizens united,


am I wrong

Psyko Tek
05-16-2013, 11:35 PM
The study is bunk because the whole right wing-left wing axis is a false dichotomy. The whole democrat -republic divide is really about rooting for a team rather then actual philosophical differences between the two.

n00b, is right
so carry on your pissing contest while both sides tear the country the fuck up

Pawnmower
05-17-2013, 12:51 AM
Do you even lift, commies?

listopencil
05-17-2013, 02:15 AM
really , I equate facism with nazis and that is totalitarianism, means the control every thing right?


thinking that is more of what wall street and the big banks are doing right now, citizens united,


am I wrong

Depends on who you talk to. Everyone wants the Nazis to be on the other side of them.

Sorter
05-17-2013, 02:17 AM
How does technique factor into this?

RubberSponge
05-17-2013, 06:07 AM
Do you even lift, commies?

Calm down, JaRule.

blaise
05-17-2013, 07:20 AM
The study is bunk because the whole right wing-left wing axis is a false dichotomy. The whole democrat -republic divide is really about rooting for a team rather then actual philosophical differences between the two.

I think that's true a lot of the time.

Iowanian
05-17-2013, 07:23 AM
I don't know about this but I know if someone has a dead fish handshake, they're 99% change of being a lib.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-17-2013, 07:28 AM
oh thtop it.

Prison Bitch
05-17-2013, 08:37 AM
I don't know about this but I know if someone has a dead fish handshake, they're 99% change of being a lib.

98% chance if they're a black female, according to exit polls this year.

Comrade Crapski
05-17-2013, 10:51 AM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjzj11ttwKaXDNbrvzOnFgQLp0qNCBqcC748v-ZyXqETYkVMDBdw

Amnorexia has that poster on his bedroom wall.

Cannibal
05-17-2013, 07:14 PM
If the right wingers are stronger, the liberals are more intelligent.

There may be a bit of truth to both stereotypes.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2013, 07:19 PM
really , I equate facism with nazis and that is totalitarianism, means the control every thing right?


thinking that is more of what wall street and the big banks are doing right now, citizens united,


am I wrong

If you use a scale that places no govt on the right, and total govt on the left—all forms of BIG govt including totalitarian are on the left by degree. That's the spectrum I use because the left-right spectrum from the French Revolution is outdated and doesn't work. It has no place for anarchy or anything in between anarchy and total govt. It's two-valued logic.

This should clear up why I say, and not just I say it, fascism is on the left.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2013, 07:20 PM
If the right wingers are stronger, the liberals are more intelligent.

There may be a bit of truth to both stereotypes.

Yet they're not wise. Book smart perhaps but not on things that actually work in the real world. That requires common sense and wisdom. Otherwise, they wouldn't embrace socialism...but they do, despite it's never having worked anywhere. Unless, you want to embrace primitive societies with tribes. Cause that's what uses that model.

listopencil
05-17-2013, 07:45 PM
If you use a scale that places no govt on the right, and total govt on the left—all forms of BIG govt including totalitarian are on the left by degree. That's the spectrum I use because the left-right spectrum from the French Revolution is outdated and doesn't work. It has no place for anarchy or anything in between anarchy and total govt. It's two-valued logic.

This should clear up why I say, and not just I say it, fascism is on the left.

Here's an article I found that mentions this and provides an experimental "spectrum" that the author created:

http://wesleygant.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/spectrum_diagram-only.jpg?w=480

http://wesleygant.com/2009/01/05/political-ideology-spectrum/

BucEyedPea
05-17-2013, 08:22 PM
Thank you Listo. I Just don't really care for those scales. Sure it does illustrate what he is writing about, but I don't see those as the issue as much.

I use the one from the Federalist society, which is what I described. It illustrates what the Framers were discussing and trying to do. Find a balance between too much govt and too little or none. So that linear scale can be bent into a U or circle.

The guy in your link is illustratiing morality, liberty and equality or individuals v the state but has society as the same as the state. I believe that to be an error of logic.

Although, I agree with this part of what he says:

Most traditional political diagrams show a horizontal line with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right. This is confusing, and somewhat misleading. The concept (and the terms used) came from the French Revolution, when the people who were for radical change sat on the left, and those that wanted to hold onto some traditions and allow change to occur gradually sat on the right. So today the terms seem out of place.

He's confused about what liberalism is or that it should be liberalism v conservatism. He's basing his scale off of popular arguments based on words being redefined to suit the agendas of some political types. Mine illustrates how much govt is necessary. Fascism is simply socialism while maintaining the facade of property being privately held. It need not have the racist element for fascism to exist. Today's liberals are not liberals in the classical sense.

Also, it was the aristocrats that sat on the right. It wasn't just holding onto traditions with them. They were connected to state power.

cosmo20002
05-17-2013, 08:28 PM
If you use a scale that places no govt on the right, and total govt on the left—all forms of BIG govt including totalitarian are on the left by degree. That's the spectrum I use because the left-right spectrum from the French Revolution is outdated and doesn't work. It has no place for anarchy or anything in between anarchy and total govt. It's two-valued logic.

This should clear up why I say, and not just I say it, fascism is on the left.

Creating new definitions for things is pretty convenient.

cosmo20002
05-17-2013, 08:33 PM
Yet they're not wise. Book smart perhaps but not on things that actually work in the real world. That requires common sense and wisdom. Otherwise, they wouldn't embrace socialism...but they do, despite it's never having worked anywhere. Unless, you want to embrace primitive societies with tribes. Cause that's what uses that model.

BEP, pretty much every single philosophy and principle you believe in can be described as "doesn't work in the real world."

BucEyedPea
05-17-2013, 08:36 PM
The American Revolution's ideas are dead to you, you skinny weakling.

cosmo20002
05-17-2013, 08:42 PM
The American Revolution's ideas are dead to you, you skinny weakling.

Unbending ideology is always going to be a failure, no matter where on the spectrum it originates. You are an rigid ideologue.

Count Alex's Losses
05-17-2013, 08:48 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/922962_505514759502694_981188391_n.jpg

Cannibal
05-17-2013, 08:48 PM
Yet they're not wise. Book smart perhaps but not on things that actually work in the real world. That requires common sense and wisdom. Otherwise, they wouldn't embrace socialism...but they do, despite it's never having worked anywhere. Unless, you want to embrace primitive societies with tribes. Cause that's what uses that model.

Leave the complicated things like economic theory to the intelligent liberals. Perhaps you could use your hulking strength to pound sand in your back yard?

listopencil
05-17-2013, 09:25 PM
Thank you Listo. I Just don't really care for those scales. Sure it does illustrate what he is writing about, but I don't see those as the issue as much.

I use the one from the Federalist society, which is what I described. It illustrates what the Framers were discussing and trying to do. Find a balance between too much govt and too little or none. So that linear scale can be bent into a U or circle.

The guy in your link is illustrating morality, liberty and equality or individuals v the state but has society as the same as the state. I believe that to be an error of logic.

Although, I agree with this part of what he says:



He's confused about what liberalism is or that it should be liberalism v conservatism. He's basing his scale off of popular arguments based on words being redefined to suit the agendas of some political types. Mine illustrates how much govt is necessary. Fascism is simply socialism while maintaining the facade of property being privately held. It need not have the racist element for fascism to exist. Today's liberals are not liberals in the classical sense.

Also, it was the aristocrats that sat on the right. It wasn't just holding onto traditions with them. They were connected to state power.

Yeah, his design doesn't sit perfectly with me either. In every scale or spectrum I've seen there is a bias for showing that the other guys are just a few steps away from every evil leader that ever lived. I've seen a horseshoe shaped one as well, but I think there may just be inherent flaws in the concept of a political "scale" itself when attempting to show a link between multiple variables.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2013, 09:27 PM
Leave the complicated things like economic theory to the intelligent liberals. Perhaps you could use your hulking strength to pound sand in your back yard?

I do. The real ones—the classical liberals such as Smith, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and their contemporaries such as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul.

Not a bunch of left leaning progs, who are just economic fascists thinly disguised as liberals. Liberal meant free markets because markets were controlled by states under the previous era of mercantilism. Ya' know controlling outcomes. Control ideologies, ( fascism, socialism, communism, mercantilism, mixed-economies) love that type of thing. The people who like it are imo, control cases.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2013, 09:31 PM
Yeah, his design doesn't sit perfectly with me either. In every scale or spectrum I've seen there is a bias for showing that the other guys are just a few steps away from every evil leader that ever lived. I've seen a horseshoe shaped one as well, but I think there may just be inherent flaws in the concept of a political "scale" itself when attempting to show a link between multiple variables.

This forum had a few long discussions on this. My stand is that you can probably use any scale you want—depending on what you're trying to illustrate. It's just a graphic for what a person is analyzing.

I like the simple concept of too much or too little govt. It takes care of many multiple variables without having to be complex about what they are. In our original system the many variables aren't even supposed to be dealt with by the federal govt as per Federalist #45.

listopencil
05-17-2013, 09:31 PM
Unbending ideology is always going to be a failure, no matter where on the spectrum it originates. You are an rigid ideologue.

That's kind of funny considering that you typically just repeat Democratic talking points and either don't understand or pretend not to understand anything that conflicts with them, real or hypothetical.

BucEyedPea
05-17-2013, 09:38 PM
That's kind of funny considering that you typically just repeat Democratic talking points and either don't understand or pretend not to understand anything that conflicts with them, real or hypothetical.

Yup.

Besides, there's nothing rigid about free-markets and liberty—they change and are in flux when there's competition. Nothing rigid about allowing things to flow and allowing outcomes. It's the ideology of cosmos that actually promotes true rigidity. That's okay, because the black market is burgeoning under Obama just as it did in the Iron Curtain countries. It always has the last say. Can't control natural law.

I'd rather be a rigid ideologue for non-rigid outcomes or results.

MOhillbilly
05-17-2013, 10:16 PM
14/88

LiveSteam
05-17-2013, 11:05 PM
I wash my face in a frying pan & comb my hair with a wagon wheel.

listopencil
05-17-2013, 11:08 PM
I wash my face in a frying pan & comb my hair with a wagon wheel.

You wash your face and comb your hair? Pussy.

cosmo20002
05-17-2013, 11:24 PM
That's kind of funny considering that you typically just repeat Democratic talking points and either don't understand or pretend not to understand anything that conflicts with them, real or hypothetical.

Perhaps "Democratic talking points" aren't rigid and unbending. For example, despite the rantings of the frothing nutjobs, Ds are fully in favor of capitalism. But anyone with common sense knows that pure capitalism is as untenable as pure socialism. A modern civilized and productive society has to have some socialized services, regulations, etc. To the modern right, that makes you worse than Hitler.

Yes, there are conflicts and it will always be a struggle to find a perfect balance, which will never exist because its a big and complicated world out there and circumstances change. Ds can accept that and deal with it. Modern Rs prefer to live in denial for some reason to honor principles they discovered about 4 years ago.

listopencil
05-17-2013, 11:26 PM
Perhaps "Democratic talking points" aren't rigid and unbending. For example, despite the rantings of the frothing nutjobs, Ds are fully in favor of capitalism. But anyone with common sense knows that pure capitalism is as untenable as pure socialism. A modern civilized and productive society has to have some socialized services, regulations, etc. To the modern right, that makes you worse than Hitler.

Yes, there are conflicts and it will always be a struggle to find a perfect balance, which will never exist because its a big and complicated world out there and circumstances change. Ds can accept that and deal with it. Modern Rs prefer to live in denial for some reason to honor principles they discovered about 4 years ago.

http://uphillwriting.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Spoonfed_Baby.jpg

cosmo20002
05-17-2013, 11:44 PM
:shake:

I see you are having one of those weeks where you act like a cross between BEP and Comrade Crapski. Have fun--

Prison Bitch
05-17-2013, 11:59 PM
What evidence is there that liberals are intelligent? Obama won only becuase he dominated the HS dropout vote.

BucEyedPea
05-18-2013, 02:35 PM
Perhaps "Democratic talking points" aren't rigid and unbending. For example, despite the rantings of the frothing nutjobs, Ds are fully in favor of capitalism. But anyone with common sense knows that pure capitalism is as untenable as pure socialism. A modern civilized and productive society has to have some socialized services, regulations, etc. To the modern right, that makes you worse than Hitler.

Yes, there are conflicts and it will always be a struggle to find a perfect balance, which will never exist because its a big and complicated world out there and circumstances change. Ds can accept that and deal with it. Modern Rs prefer to live in denial for some reason to honor principles they discovered about 4 years ago.

Nope. The left spectrum is full of folks with an anti-capitalist mentality in varying degrees. Ranging from this fascist/progressive view here to communism.


5:45
"There has never in history been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the free market. The period in which you had the greatest improvment in the lot of common men was the period of the 19th and early 20th century."

We are the heir of that. Yet progs attack it. If you look at the real problems, they are nearly all the result of govt action.


<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rls8H6MktrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

notorious
05-18-2013, 03:27 PM
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rls8H6MktrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4580081123197646&pid=15.1

Wildcat2005
05-18-2013, 04:06 PM
Is the article defining "upper body strength" as just the size of one's bicep?

Also did it mention the sample size or who they sampled?

You can't conclude someone's strength based on the size of their bicep; this looks like a horribly inefficient survey

BucEyedPea
05-18-2013, 04:23 PM
Is the article defining "upper body strength" as just the size of one's bicep?

Also did it mention the sample size or who they sampled?

You can't conclude someone's strength based on the size of their bicep; this looks like a horribly inefficient survey

Yeah, they should have measured the length and width of men's dicks too.

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2013, 04:31 PM
That's kind of funny considering that you typically just repeat Democratic talking points and either don't understand or pretend not to understand anything that conflicts with them, real or hypothetical.

Pretty much. I don't think he is as left as he lets on. I think often he is just going for a rise~

Wildcat2005
05-18-2013, 05:21 PM
Yeah, they should have measured the length and width of men's dicks too.

bicep size doesnt mean anything though

People can have big biceps and poor upper body strength; ie fat people

It is a meaningless comparison

WhiteWhale
05-18-2013, 05:33 PM
bicep size doesnt mean anything though

People can have big biceps and poor upper body strength; ie fat people

It is a meaningless comparison

I'm assuming they simply measured the upper arm, since I don't know how you measure only the bicep muscle. People with big arms usually have large tricep muscles. I've seen skinny guys with bigger biceps and smaller arms than me.

As I said earlier, fat people can have fat arms.

It is, just as you say, a meaningless way to measure upper body strength.

RedNeckRaider
05-18-2013, 06:13 PM
I'm assuming they simply measured the upper arm, since I don't know how you measure only the bicep muscle. People with big arms usually have large tricep muscles. I've seen skinny guys with bigger biceps and smaller arms than me.

As I said earlier, fat people can have fat arms.

It is, just as you say, a meaningless way to measure upper body strength.

I went to school with a guy that was built. He had big muscles and looked like he could lift a house. I would destroy him in the weight room. To be perfectly honest I would have traded my strength for his build lol He wasn't the strongest in the weight room but he looked like he was~

Pitt Gorilla
05-18-2013, 10:18 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/922962_505514759502694_981188391_n.jpghttps://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/971383_10151440243751275_734180981_n.jpg

BucEyedPea
05-19-2013, 09:17 AM
bicep size doesnt mean anything though

People can have big biceps and poor upper body strength; ie fat people

It is a meaningless comparison

Some woman say size doesn't matter too. :p

LiveSteam
05-19-2013, 09:18 AM
Some woman say size doesn't matter too. :p

I can touch the bridge of my nose with my tongue.

Comrade Crapski
05-19-2013, 09:37 AM
Dunno this guy could probably do a push-up...

http://blurbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Sarah-Hall-Ingram.jpg

LiveSteam
05-19-2013, 09:40 AM
Dunno this guy could probably do a push-up...

http://blurbrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Sarah-Hall-Ingram.jpg

Time has not been a friend to Kato Kaelin

Comrade Crapski
05-19-2013, 09:41 AM
Time has not been a friend to Kato Kaelin

ROFL