gnuv Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 But wouldn't people just toe the party lines if it was two women or two black men running against each other? That's all that happens now anyway. Possibly. But it might also cause someone of the same [whatever] to at least look at the opponent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 "american dream under attack" awesome, thanks for providing even more divisive and extreme rhetoric. facepalm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 "american dream under attack" awesome, thanks for providing even more divisive and extreme rhetoric. facepalm With about one out of every 10 people out of work, I'd say the American dream kind of sucks right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yes, it would just be limited to typical political vitriol, instead of a combination of racial, gender, and political vitriol. Nah. The "who's blacker" dialogue would start up instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That would be a spectacular sight. Sadly, I also think that a presidential election cycle of two black men (or two women, or two whatever non-white males) is probably the only way we'd have an election where people actually vetted the candidates fairly.If two brothers are running for President, I'm not voting for Cain. If I learned anything in Sunday school, it's that Cain was the evil one.And seriously, a black guy was the President of "Godfather's Pizza?" Only in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 With about one out of every 10 people out of work, I'd say the American dream kind of sucks right now. That's the correct way to express it. Saying it is under attack implies someone is purposefully trying to destroy it, which is asinine and stupid rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Nah. The "who's blacker" dialogue would start up instantly. But there would be no debate about that one. Cain wins that, hands-down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 That's the correct way to express it. Saying it is under attack implies someone is purposefully trying to destroy it, which is asinine and stupid rhetoric. But do they have to be referring to someone ? Could it be circumstances that are un-intended, indirect results of actions of people who are not qualified to deal with it ? I could say that I've got cancer now, and under attack, but does that mean I'm directly blaming it on a person ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 If two brothers are running for President, I'm not voting for Cain. If I learned anything in Sunday school, it's that Cain was the evil one.And seriously, a black guy was the President of "Godfather's Pizza?" Only in America. Glad I'm not the only one who read "Godfather's Pizza" and expected to see some Italian guy. And I love how it works: you don't announce your candidacy, you announce you're forming a committee to explore whether or not you should run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuv Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 But there would be no debate about that one. Cain wins that, hands-down Wouldn't it be ironic for Obama to lose because he was too white? As an aside, if >90% of black people voted for an insane, right-wing ****** (i had to guess here) that was black, does that still mean he was far and away the best candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Glad I'm not the only one who read "Godfather's Pizza" and expected to see some Italian guy. This is corporate america we're talking about. There are no stereotypes when it comes to running million-dollar fast-food places. As far as I know, Taco Bell isn't run by a Mexican CEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 But do they have to be referring to someone ?Could it be circumstances that are un-intended, indirect results of actions of people who are not qualified to deal with it ? I could say that I've got cancer now, and under attack, but does that mean I'm directly blaming it on a person ? You don't think that leaving it open allows, or prompts, listeners to fill in the blank? Especially his followers, who are activists and probably looking to assign blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Well hell guess that means one of the top issues facing the next President will be why some pizza places like Pizza Hut charge an additional $2 when ordering X-Tra cheese even on deals that include toppings. What's up with that? Way I figure it, Haliburton and Golden Nut Sacks bought the government this past decade so why can't a pizza business loser get in on the action too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 With about one out of every 10 people out of work, I'd say the American dream kind of sucks right now. Bootstraps! Didja break em or something? ---------- Post added January-13th-2011 at 03:52 PM ---------- Wouldn't it be ironic for Obama to lose because he was too white?As an aside, if >90% of black people voted for an insane, right-wing ****** (i had to guess here) that was black, does that still mean he was far and away the best candidate? Dunno. Ask Alan Keyes how well he's done so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 That's the correct way to express it. Saying it is under attack implies someone is purposefully trying to destroy it, which is asinine and stupid rhetoric. You don't think that leaving it open allows, or prompts, listeners to fill in the blank? Especially his followers, who are activists and probably looking to assign blame. Much like Obama calling Republicans the enemy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Much like Obama calling Republicans the enemy ? Exactly, although he did issue a correction of that I believe, but yes, that's another example of what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Is there a rule that says that in order to own a pizza chain' date=' you have to be an insane, right-wing *******?[/quote']I finally was able to watch the vids. What is it about him that is insane? sadly, I think he is a lil too tea-o-con for my taste, but I will keep looking into him anyway (mainly because he seems better than the rest of the crap that might be running thus far) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I hope the grown ups get more say in the primaries and someone like Romney gets the nod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 I hope the grown ups get more say in the primaries and someone like Romney gets the nod I don't think it was the young crowd that picked John McCain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I don't think it was the young crowd that picked John McCain Nope but the religous right were attacking him for being a Mormon I think him with someone like Condi Rice as a VP may do a good job By grown up I mean not the extemists, the people who want litmus tests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Didn't Condi say she wanted no part of that job ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Didn't Condi say she wanted no part of that job ? Probably though I think her brains and persepctive would bring a lot to the job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I hope the grown ups get more say in the primaries and someone like Romney gets the nod Guelph Ontario ?? Why does it even matter to you and why, oh why would you want the side burn sportin neo-con? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Guelph Ontario ??Why does it even matter to you and why, oh why would you want the side burn sportin neo-con? The actions countries take affect one another And being half American you also want what is best for your family living in a particular country I think in somethings Romney is very smart and has a good handle on things I do not see foriegn politicy as a strength for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 Guelph Ontario ??Why does it even matter to you and why, oh why would you want the side burn sportin neo-con? How do you know he's not an American citizen who fled to Canada when Obama was elected, and it waiting until calm returns, before he comes back to the States ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.