Jim Rockford because the Magnum mustache just is so child molester!!! Not jus that but Rockford was more humble, no like the flashy F@g-num!!
2007-02-01 03:10:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, they were both good role models in the fact that they both got the really attractive ladies. But, I would have to say that Thomas was the better overall role model. Magnum was a combat veteran war hero who managed to find a way to live in a huge mansion and drive a Ferrari. Rockford was an ex con who had to get a pardon to work, lived in a trailer on a parking lot at the beach and drove a Firebird. I would rather have Magnum's life. I also am just trying to look busy without actually doing anything, so, don't take this answer too seriously either.
2007-02-01 03:12:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by anchorworm 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Jim Rockford
2007-02-01 03:28:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by White Shooting Star of HK 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
would say that magnum was the better role model. He leads a far cushier lifestyle than Rockford. Jim's tendencies to break the law lead me to believe that he is a poor role model for young children. Rockford is more fun to watch though cos Magnum's gay baiter 'tache does not tickle my fancy.
2007-02-01 03:10:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Magnum substitute into "cooler" together with his ferrari and a strategies for the girls yet we had reruns of each and all of the Magnum PI shows ever made final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days in eire on Saturday and Sunday mornings, it substitute into dire. I had to have intercourse with my b/f one Sunday I merely could not stand gazing Higgins and his brother (him in conceal) as an Irish priest.
2016-10-16 10:03:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
rockford by far- god he was a good looking guy.
2007-02-01 03:12:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by racer 51 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
rockford
2007-02-01 03:16:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by wonder woman 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know about role model, but Tom Selleck is freaking HOT!!
2007-02-01 03:11:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by bamba_k 2
·
0⤊
1⤋