OT: Anyone watch the debate tonight?

Submitted by D4pp3rD4n on

The one on ESPN, of course.

SpazCarpenter

August 7th, 2015 at 12:07 AM ^

A hot dog is a fucking hot dog and goes on a hot dog bun, which unlike a fucking sandwich has only one piece of bread. Am I right? I miss John Stewart already. :(:(:( god damn it all to hell.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Hail-Storm

August 7th, 2015 at 11:58 AM ^

You can't say it's just one piece of bread, because all buns and loafs are one piece until sliced.  The bun has two pieces that are not fully sliced. 

Bread + Meat + condiments + other crap. Sounds like a sandwich to me. 

I find Hot dog buns in the same aisle as the bread. I find hot dogs right next to the lunch meat. Hot dogs are already cooked, so if you are some deranged person, you could eat them cold. I consider them the equivalent of a thumb to the fingers. 

Blue_sophie

August 7th, 2015 at 12:14 AM ^

According to John Hodgman,
A sandwich must be commonly cut in half, like a BLT or a hoagie. Only a true monster (or a small child) would cut a hot dog in half.

CRISPed in the DIAG

August 7th, 2015 at 12:48 AM ^

In exection, I think a hot dog should be considered a sandwich.  The origin of the sandwich, far as I can tell, was to deliver meats and cheeses without the aid of silverware.  It was the lunchtime meal of salarymen and construction workers who didn't have the wherewithal to enjoy a sit-down.  In the same way, the hot dog is basically a sausage eaten without the aid of silverware - usually outside (eg, picnic or ballpark).

I'm going to bed now. 

ClassOf14

August 7th, 2015 at 1:33 AM ^

Of course a hot dog is not a sandwich. Maybe technically but no one will ever consider it such. Imagine if I asked you if you'd like a sandwich, you asked what kind, and I said a hot dog. The surprise and confusion that you'd have is exactly why it shouldn't be considered a sandwich



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

SwitchbladeSam

August 7th, 2015 at 2:10 AM ^

I'd actually like to debate politics on this board, especially during offseason. Many educated, snarky and just damn good posters. I understand why it's forbidden. I also think it would be entertaining.

Oh well. Season is approaching. Go Blue!



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

flashOverride

August 7th, 2015 at 5:41 AM ^

For too many people it's too difficult to have a political discussion without becoming irrational, condescending, or holding grudges against people they debated. Next thing you know it's actual football season and people here are remembering certain screen names and for some it's, "Oh, fuck anything that guy says, he's a <insert political label>". I would think Brian wants the atmosphere to be that when it comes to Michigan athletics, we are all, for the most part, on the same side. Even if we may not be in other arenas. 

mgobleu

August 7th, 2015 at 6:33 AM ^

going to take; probably a massive disaster, naturally, economically, etc., but someday people on both sides are going to have to figure out a way to carry a conversation about politics with mutual respect and some modicum of understanding. It'll probably be another generation before it's even possible; people are so jaded about who the "other side" is and what they're about. I'm as guilty as anyone else, but I sincerely wish this country could have grown up conversations about stuff that matters and decide on it. Or, F-it, let's watch football...

flashOverride

August 7th, 2015 at 7:05 AM ^

My personal, apolitical take is that very few people today on either side of any issue, political or otherwise, think they should have to compromise or even consider the idea. It should just be my (or my tribe's) way or the highway. Social media, and really all mass media, have made it so easy to delegitimize the opinions and perspectives of the other side so as to completely dismiss their status as fellow citizens and even fellow humans. "We got our 50%+1, that was all we needed, piss on what the losers want." I don't know that we can ever fix that mentality. Probably, as you say, an unprecedented disaster. Even then, we'll first have to get past the part where we assert that we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with if not for "them". 

late night BTB

August 7th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^

once people come to the realization that money runs everything, look at the biggest contributors to each candidate.  They are the same groups.  They have money on both sides, so it doesn't really matter who is elected.  95% of the future issues will be passed by either group and then there'll be a deathmatch spent on the remaining, petty 5%.

People pin their hopes their guy, whom they think will improve their lives.   I'm 30 and have never voted and likely never will, because i realized the money thing early on, and because I realized that my quality of life will be determined by myself, not by some person elected.  

Use the time you spend watching tv, the news, debates, getting worked up over politics and better yourself.  Your mental health will improve as well.

TIMMMAAY

August 7th, 2015 at 3:59 PM ^

Is that there is no "other side". There really isn't. It's just one big shell game, a massive con and most people have bought in hook, line, and sinker (I don't know what that means, but sounds good). It will take a massive shift in the public perception, and an even bigger shift in media.

I'm not holding my breath. People are dumb, fickle animals, and our collective attention span is just embarassing. 

oc michigan fan

August 7th, 2015 at 9:20 AM ^

The obsession with what I put on my weiner and in my mouth is creepy. 

 

I'll go to the Hot Dog Shoppe for lunch, order a bacon wrapped, peanut butter & jelly dog with jalapenos, and he'll turn to the grill guy and say, "we need a #14." Mention ketchup and it's ANGER from like 2 people who think they know what the majority of the country hasn't figured out. I've never understood it.