http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_5046442 (http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_5046442)
hmm, he does have a good resume...:rolleyes:
Maybe he will be good
So that makes a Latino, a chick, and probably a black guy running for president (besides the usual white guys). The vote is really gonna be split on this one...
Quote from: rabbit on January 20, 2007, 07:08:28 AM
So that makes a Latino, a chick, and probably a black guy running for president (besides the usual white guys). The vote is really gonna be split on this one...
now they need a gay and a jew
If we get anything but a white heterosexual Christian male, America is doomed. Sorry, that's just how it is.
Quote from: OG Trust on January 21, 2007, 12:30:13 AM
If we get anything but a white heterosexual Christian male, America is doomed. Sorry, that's just how it is.
Hrmm.m.. I'm thinking of a word. Can you unscramble it: ttrealnion? This word describes people like you.
Basically, what I got is that you're saying you think white, straight, Christian males are more fit to do important jobs. Is that a fair assessment?
Seriously, what does it matter if someone is white, black, Asian, etc.? What does it matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual? What does it matter what their religious beliefs are? Why does gender matter? Seriously, I don't care about any of this crap as long as the person is qualified and able to do his/her job.
intolerant? Why not just say it?
And no, that's not what I'm saying. There are plenty of people who don't fit that criteria who do important jobs exceptionally well. Examples include Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Meg Whitman, and the list continues. However, there is not only a tradition associated with the presidency but also the need to avoid unfair treatment.
A woman would obviously focus on more social programs, especially womens, and probably be soft on security.
A black or other minority would be liberal with social programs, specifically favoring their ethnicity, and for example a hispanic could be easier on immigration.
A gay would ruin marriage, that's my only problem with that. They would legalize gay marriage and that is something I strongly oppose, and so does most of America.
America was founded on Christian values, we can't have a Hindu president or something like that because that disrupts what our country was founded on. You can claim "religious freedom" but everyone knows damn well that the countrys founding of religious freedom was so that Protestants could freely worship, and it had nothing to do with non-Christians. I'm not saying I oppose freedom of religion, as I most certainly don't. But I think just out of respect for tradition this is how it should be. Plus, we want God's protection - not Buddah. It's a non-issue though, as no other religious group has enough people to win the presidency.
I don't care if you find me intolerant, because that's not why I think this. If we change what we've been doing for the past 200 years we're going to disrupt the balance between different types of social programs and military programs.
I figured I'd let you think on it.
How the hell do you know if any of that would occur with a President who isn't as you think he should be?
Seriously, there are women and minorities who hold conservative values. I know many blacks that think affirmative action and other programs that help only them are bullshit.
As for the gay ruining marriage thing, how the hell would he do that? Magically get Congress to go along?
Finally, religion doesn't matter as there isn't a massive difference in values. Really, every non-Christian person I've met has treated me with respect, and I have done the same. They may not worship God, but it's not like they endorse treating people like shit.
Our country was founded on slavery, too. We changed that; were we wrong to do so? Of course not! Women weren't allowed to vote; should that have stayed the same?
As far as I'm concerned, if we don't change what we've been doing for the last 30 years, the USA is going to be in serious trouble; our deficit is out of control. What happens if the rest of the world loses faith in the dollar?
It's a nonissue because the majority of votors are white, Christian, males - as that is what makes up the majority of the country. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Only time will tell who is correct.
btw, nearly (if not) all civilizations were founded on some form of slavery. Look at Rome, arguably the greatest empire of all time. Slaves were a very large part of daily life - politically, socially, and economically. Without slavery in the US we would probably not have prospered as much as we did so quickly. Sure, enslaving another human being is completely immoral and wrong - but you can't deny it played a great role in shaping America into such a powerful country.
If we hadn't have had such a strong dependence on slavery, the industrial revolution would have taken place much much sooner.
Let's also not forget that Roman slaves were treated as people.
There's not getting to Trust. He wants to be an 1850's plantation owner and he's never going to change.
Quote from: rabbit on January 21, 2007, 07:51:20 AM
Let's also not forget that Roman slaves were treated as people.
Except when they were beaten and then fed to lions for entertainment.
Those were criminals, not slaves.
Quote from: OG Trust on January 21, 2007, 01:02:17 AM
A woman would obviously focus on more social programs, especially womens, and probably be soft on security.
A black or other minority would be liberal with social programs, specifically favoring their ethnicity, and for example a hispanic could be easier on immigration.
A gay would ruin marriage, that's my only problem with that. They would legalize gay marriage and that is something I strongly oppose, and so does most of America.
And a straight white male wouldn't put people with alike interests above others?
People are all people
Quote from: CrAz3D on January 21, 2007, 01:01:34 PM
People are all people
Yes, but apparently, straight, white, Christian males are superior people. :-\
Quote from: rabbit on January 21, 2007, 09:41:43 AM
Those were criminals, not slaves.
No, it was certainly customary for a master to beat their slaves to show dominance. Whether just to walk by and slap them or beat them for wrong doing, it kept them in line. I'm not saying that they didn't treat them humanely the rest of the time, but it's not like they were friends.
Furthermore, slaves were also used to fight in gladiatorial competitions (at the Coliseum and private fights) and it meant alot to be a gladiator. If you were a slave and a gladiator you could win your freedom.
And yes, Rabbit, my main ambition is to be a southern plantation owner. Exactly right! Just because I have an opinion on what physical characteristics we need for president. (And, it also makes sense. A radical muslim President (ie, when dealing with Iran) who sees women as less than equal is not going to take a woman president as seriously as a man. And sure, the southern life was nice in the 1800's if you owned a plantation...except for the part where they were invaded by the north or killed by a mob of slaves. That's not
exactly my goal.
Quote from: dark_drake on January 21, 2007, 01:44:36 PM
Yes, but apparently, straight, white, Christian males are superior people. :-\
Welcome to imperialist America. If you do not enjoy your stay and you are not white, it's ok. We don't much care.
Quote from: deadly7 on January 21, 2007, 02:12:28 PM
Welcome to imperialist America. If you do not enjoy your stay and you are not white, it's ok. We don't much care.
LOL!
A radical muslim would never be elected though, so what's it matter? What you're saying is you wouldn't let him run in the first place.
Anyway, I'm wondering how long you studied Roman history, because you're wrong. Slaves were NOT made into gladiators unless the committed a crime, and even then it was up to his owner if they would be put into the gladiatorial games or not. Criminals were made into gladiators. Prisoners of war were usually made into slaves. Children of slaves were slaves. Slaves could even earn freedom, or arrange it with their master.
Quote from: OG Trust on January 21, 2007, 02:04:15 PM
And yes, Rabbit, my main ambition is to be a southern plantation owner. Exactly right! Just because I have an opinion on what physical characteristics we need for president. (And, it also makes sense. A radical muslim President (ie, when dealing with Iran) who sees women as less than equal is not going to take a woman president as seriously as a man. And sure, the southern life was nice in the 1800's if you owned a plantation...except for the part where they were invaded by the north or killed by a mob of slaves. That's not exactly my goal.
NEED?...dude, uhm, that's pretty closed minded.
A woman would be fine...she might focus on different issues, so what, maybe we'd get things done in those areas and life in general would be better/
Other countries would take us less seriously.
rabbit:
QuoteThe Romans believed that the first gladiators were slaves who were made to fight to the death at the funeral of a distinguished aristocrat, Junius Brutus Pera, in 264 BC. This spectacle was arranged by the heirs of the deceased to honour his memory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/gladiators_05.shtml
Quote from: OG Trust on January 21, 2007, 05:25:16 PM
Other countries would take us less seriously.
::)
Grant it Kofi Annan & the UN amount to a bad Carlos Mencia joke, I'm sure there has to be *SOME* authority figure somewhere that has gone a good job.
Quote from: OG Trust on January 21, 2007, 05:25:16 PM
Other countries would take us less seriously.
Because we're not a laughing stock and generally hated already.
Quote
rabbit:
QuoteThe Romans believed that the first gladiators were slaves who were made to fight to the death at the funeral of a distinguished aristocrat, Junius Brutus Pera, in 264 BC. This spectacle was arranged by the heirs of the deceased to honour his memory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/gladiators_05.shtml
It's also believed that the universe was created 4000 years ago. That doesn't make it true. And who else would the first gladiators be? Volunteers? "Hey, want to go fight to the death?" "SURE SOUNDS LIKE FUN!" I think not.
Quote from: rabbit on January 21, 2007, 07:53:14 PM
Because we're not a laughing stock and generally hated already.
Why make foreign opinion of us worse?
Quote
It's also believed that the universe was created 4000 years ago. That doesn't make it true. And who else would the first gladiators be? Volunteers? "Hey, want to go fight to the death?" "SURE SOUNDS LIKE FUN!" I think not.
Chill, I was just proving you wrong. That's all.
But, you didn't. You proved that people are pretty sure that only the very first gladiators were slaves. Way to go!
Quote from: OG Trust on January 21, 2007, 05:25:16 PM
Other countries would take us less seriously.
rabbit:
QuoteThe Romans believed that the first gladiators were slaves who were made to fight to the death at the funeral of a distinguished aristocrat, Junius Brutus Pera, in 264 BC. This spectacle was arranged by the heirs of the deceased to honour his memory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/gladiators_05.shtml
I could be wrong, but isn't a head political figure in Germany a female? I think the Chancellor?
Anyway, I don't really care what race or sex or sexuality a person is that is running for office. All I care about is their views on important topics and how they plan on fixing it.
As I said, this is my opinion. I'm not getting mad at all of you for disagreeing or for having a different viewpoint.