These gutless political pundits are all afraid

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
wbtravis007
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

These gutless political pundits are all afraid

#1 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:44 pm

to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.

I guess I can kind of see why there might be some reluctance to dwell on this, but still ... you'd think that we'd at least hear something about it.

User avatar
TheConfessor
Posts: 6462
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:11 pm

#2 Post by TheConfessor » Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:29 pm

Okay, so here are the individual rankings. Did you obtain the actual data through a Freedom of Information Act request? In most cases, we don't know how these guys would have fared against each other in different matchups.

Hoover < FDR
Landon < FDR
Willkie < FDR
Dewey < FDR
Dewey < Truman
Stevenson < Eisenhower
Nixon < Kennedy
Goldwater < Johnson
Humphrey < Nixon
McGovern < Nixon
Carter < Ford
Carter < Reagan
Mondale < Reagan
Dukakis < GHW Bush < Clinton
Dole < Clinton
Gore < GW Bush
Kerry < GW Bush

User avatar
KillerTomato
Posts: 2067
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:41 pm

#3 Post by KillerTomato » Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:56 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.
TheConfessor wrote:Okay, so here are the individual rankings. Did you obtain the actual data through a Freedom of Information Act request? In most cases, we don't know how these guys would have fared against each other in different matchups.

Hoover < FDR
Landon < FDR
Willkie < FDR
Dewey < FDR
Dewey < Truman
Stevenson < Eisenhower
Nixon < Kennedy
Goldwater < Johnson
Humphrey < Nixon
McGovern < Nixon
Carter < Ford
Carter < Reagan
Mondale < Reagan
Dukakis < GHW Bush < Clinton
Dole < Clinton
Gore < GW Bush
Kerry < GW Bush

Nonononono...obviously you're being to narrow, Col. Travis. It's not wookus size.

My theory, as borne out by the vast majority of the results posted by the Confessonator above, is that each winner just had bigger balls than the loser. Look at Nixon's two wins, f'rinstance. That man had the biggest balls in history. And Slick Willie (despite the wookus-y name) had a pretty big set, too.

Which means that, since Hillary still has that particular set in a vice grip, she's pretty much a shoo-in.
There is something wrong in a government where they who do the most have the least. There is something wrong when honesty wears a rag, and rascality a robe; when the loving, the tender, eat a crust while the infamous sit at banquets.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll

wbtravis007
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

#4 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:51 pm

KillerTomato wrote:
wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.
TheConfessor wrote:Okay, so here are the individual rankings. Did you obtain the actual data through a Freedom of Information Act request? In most cases, we don't know how these guys would have fared against each other in different matchups.

Hoover < FDR
Landon < FDR
Willkie < FDR
Dewey < FDR
Dewey < Truman
Stevenson < Eisenhower
Nixon < Kennedy
Goldwater < Johnson
Humphrey < Nixon
McGovern < Nixon
Carter < Ford
Carter < Reagan
Mondale < Reagan
Dukakis < GHW Bush < Clinton
Dole < Clinton
Gore < GW Bush
Kerry < GW Bush

Nonononono...obviously you're being to narrow, Col. Travis. It's not wookus size.

My theory, as borne out by the vast majority of the results posted by the Confessonator above, is that each winner just had bigger balls than the loser. Look at Nixon's two wins, f'rinstance. That man had the biggest balls in history. And Slick Willie (despite the wookus-y name) had a pretty big set, too.

Which means that, since Hillary still has that particular set in a vice grip, she's pretty much a shoo-in.


Hmmm. An interesting theory. We don't have much of a sample yet to know whether size -- (whether we're talking about the wookus here or the balls, as KT posits) -- can be imputed to a spouse.

I don't suppose anyone would seriously suggest that Pat Nixon (spouse of #1 in KT's rankings) would have been a benificiary of any of that in a political race, but she wouldn't have really been considered to have a "vice grip" on anything, for that matter, either.

This is kind of new territory, this Hillary stuff. I think that someone should research this for a dissertation or something.

Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably). Compare and contrast imputation of husbands' stuff. (Wookus, as my research shows, or balls, as KT suggests.)

I guess somewhere in all of that strap-ons might come into play.
Last edited by wbtravis007 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
VAdame
Posts: 1877
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:42 am
Location: da 'Burgh!

#5 Post by VAdame » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:28 pm

Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably).
I think you mean "vise grip."

Vice = immoral action, bad habit, flaw

Vise = a clamping tool

Eh.....I just looked it up, & found that "vice" is an acceptable alternate spelling for the clamping device. But I'm gonna nitpick anyway!

User avatar
Ritterskoop
Posts: 5879
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

#6 Post by Ritterskoop » Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:02 pm

VAdame wrote:
Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably).
I think you mean "vise grip."

Vice = immoral action, bad habit, flaw

Vise = a clamping tool

Eh.....I just looked it up, & found that "vice" is an acceptable alternate spelling for the clamping device. But I'm gonna nitpick anyway!
My dad used to remove our loose teeth with vise grips. That string and doorknob thing was just silly. The string always came untied. Vise grips stay on.
If you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at what inappropriate port you find yourself docked. - Tom Robbins
--------
At the moment of commitment, the universe conspires to assist you. - attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
PlacentiaSoccerMom
Posts: 8134
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Placentia, CA
Contact:

Re: These gutless political pundits are all afraid

#7 Post by PlacentiaSoccerMom » Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:13 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.

I guess I can kind of see why there might be some reluctance to dwell on this, but still ... you'd think that we'd at least hear something about it.
Here at my house, we consider Georgie Bush, Junior, to be a dickless wonder. Going by your theory, then Kerry and Gore must be even more dickless.

How do they pee?

User avatar
mrkelley23
Posts: 6544
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair

#8 Post by mrkelley23 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:16 pm

Sitting down, duh.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

wbtravis007
Posts: 1594
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: These gutless political pundits are all afraid

#9 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:31 pm

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:
wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.

I guess I can kind of see why there might be some reluctance to dwell on this, but still ... you'd think that we'd at least hear something about it.
Here at my house, we consider Georgie Bush, Junior, to be a dickless wonder. Going by your theory, then Kerry and Gore must be even more dickless.

How do they pee?
It's a matter of physics. When the head goes far enough into the rear-end, the wookus becomes riidiculously bulbous.

The other two that you name are a little above normal, according to my research.

It's just the head-up-the-ass aspect that they coudn't quite deal with.

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 16319
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

#10 Post by Beebs52 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:07 am

I'm sure you may have answered this in some fashion, but then again maybe not. I'm all about the symbolic and the metaphysical and the cosmic. Do metaphorical balls carry the same weight, or do vise-gripped metaphorical balls do so, as actual extant attached balls? Are we comparing associated or imputed balls on an equal basis? And if so, do the metaphorical balls have to have some sort of virtual specifications in order to be compared?

This is all bothering me greatly. Much more so, obviously, than the work I need to get done.

Oh. I guess metaphorical wookusi would fall into the same brushpile.
Well, then

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: These gutless political pundits are all afraid

#11 Post by Appa23 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:11 am

wbtravis007 wrote:to talk or write about the single most important factor that voters have taken into account since at least as far back as 1932: wookus size.

In every single election, with the exception of Ford in '76, the candidate with the bigger wookus has won.

It's obvious that Obama has a huge advantage here.
Are you sure? There may be questions even compared to "Hillary".

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#12 Post by Appa23 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:14 am

Ritterskoop wrote:
VAdame wrote:
Pat Nixon -- no vice grip. Hillary Clinton -- vice grip (arguably).
I think you mean "vise grip."

Vice = immoral action, bad habit, flaw

Vise = a clamping tool

Eh.....I just looked it up, & found that "vice" is an acceptable alternate spelling for the clamping device. But I'm gonna nitpick anyway!
My dad used to remove our loose teeth with vise grips. That string and doorknob thing was just silly. The string always came untied. Vise grips stay on.
<shudder>

Post Reply