....in four years she will be attempting to win the Democratic nomination.
A downside to the Bush victory....
- Thread starter Damn True
- Start date
Hate to say it, but I don't think much of the country is ready for a woman.....at least not in the oval office - and a lot of it not anywhere else either
Nope.
McCain vs Feingold. A win-win.
Please. Please. Please.
McCain vs Feingold. A win-win.
Please. Please. Please.
Jr_Bullit said:
Id have no problem voting for a woman, but NOT THAT ONE. Seriously, if a qualified woman who I felt had the right ideas, conviction, and leadership were to run, Id vote for her.
Though I have concerns about how much respect a female POTUS would get from misogynistic countries in the middle east Asia and Africa.
When Albright was Sec-State the Arab world was for the most part like: "Pffft, whatever biotch. Go bake some cookies."
And how is our oh-so educated and wonderfully diverse US any different?Damn True said:
And if by qualified you mean some meek, plain, leather faced widow who wears black and worships her deceased husband - sorry - I'll pick the educated woman who loves the fact she is woman - who thinks for herself and needs no man to try shoving his opinions down her throat. Like I said - the US isn't ready for that on the whole. I live in one of the "liberal strongholds"...and while I wouldn't say I'm a liberal - I have to say the respect given to women here is far and above what's found throughout the rest (yes I travel and teach on a regular basis, not to mention I work with school districts around the US 6am to 6pm 5 days a week)
No, by qualified I mean someone with a background that has actually prepared them for the highest office in the land. Someone who has held executive office on the state level, or held a high ranking office in an office involved in international policy...preferably both but you can't have it all.Jr_Bullit said:
But thanks for assuming you know what I am thinking.
hrm...and how does all that describe a single one of the men who have held office thus far?
Bush - Gov of Texas (executive office in a very large state 22 electoral votes I think and a very diverse populace)Jr_Bullit said:
Clinton - Gov of Arkansas (uh........)
Bush Sr. - U.S. congressman from Texas (1966-1970), ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1974); Special Envoy to China (1974-1975); Republican National Chairman (1975-1976); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director (1976-1977); vice president of the U.S. (1981-1989)
Reagan - Gov of CA (most populace state in the Union)
Carter - Georgia State Senate, Gov of Georgia
Ford - State Senate, US House, VP
Other than your own personal opinion of what the qualifications of those offices entail beyond a personable demeanor and understanding of how to appease the popular vote in the US - in what way did either Bush demonstrate skill in the international arena? Diversity of thought?
Other than Bush Jr's choice for Secretary of State - what intelligent decision has he made that endeared us to other nations?
Clinton, at least, chose Madeleine Albright for his Sec of State - and demean her all you want as someone who should be baking cookies and popping out children, I worked under her, in her departments, and share a cultural heritage with her...so unfortunately I am biased...
Reagan - sweet man, ****ed us up royally in our economy, didn't do so bad internationally, had some unique ideas about how to defend the US
Carter - no argument
Ford - admitedly need to study up on his administration.
What makes a president is the contents of his administration. The current president's administration...I say run...especially with a majority of Repubs in Senate, House, and Jucial branches of gov't. time for some crazzy sheeot to hit the fan when the balance of power goes out the window.
Other than Bush Jr's choice for Secretary of State - what intelligent decision has he made that endeared us to other nations?
Clinton, at least, chose Madeleine Albright for his Sec of State - and demean her all you want as someone who should be baking cookies and popping out children, I worked under her, in her departments, and share a cultural heritage with her...so unfortunately I am biased...
Reagan - sweet man, ****ed us up royally in our economy, didn't do so bad internationally, had some unique ideas about how to defend the US
Carter - no argument
Ford - admitedly need to study up on his administration.
What makes a president is the contents of his administration. The current president's administration...I say run...especially with a majority of Repubs in Senate, House, and Jucial branches of gov't. time for some crazzy sheeot to hit the fan when the balance of power goes out the window.
i would never vote for madeleine albright. i much prefer hrc over her. why? kosovo. my own analysis is that she somehow felt the need to horribly overcompensate for her jewish/holocaust family background (discovered late in life), and painted milosevic as hitler even tho he wasn't, and the u.s./nato action led to quite the mess, and quite the spilling of blood.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6eede67d66.htm <-- from harvard international review supposedly, not just some forum post. and no, i don't read free republic, got this via google + following links.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6eede67d66.htm <-- from harvard international review supposedly, not just some forum post. and no, i don't read free republic, got this via google + following links.
I'd like to hear your milosevic summary - because I gots to help put together some of the US State Dept materials on him for Foreign Service Officers during my stint there and found him to be a rather repulsive individual, as well has his wife, by the end.Toshi said:
my take on milosevic is unoriginal, as in i don't have any original thoughts to offer. however, from what i have heard from friends from the general former-yugoslavia region i can say that the issue was not nearly as clean cut as albright and the UN attempted to make it out to be. both sides were engaging in a slaughter. note that this includes the albanians. thus our black and white vilification of milosevic was an injustice to the whole region -- milosevic was no saint, sure (see the UN claim of "extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons") but he was no hitler (see the UN claim of "extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons"). painting him as such, implied by the first link below, couldn't find a direct "hitler" quote, can thus be seen to be an overreaction by albright, with the trivial psychoanalysis that she was so concerned with stopping a potential holocaust II that the bombing of innocents was no big deal.
http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990328.html
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm
http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990328.html
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm
The other downside is listen to the guy who shares my office bitch. I wish Kerry won for that reason alone.
I personally feel that Hillary would probably be a pretty good president. The fact that the populus of the US is unwilling to accept a female in such a role is evidence of so many problems with the general US mentality. It's probably the same reason 5.6 liter V12 engined cars are popular.
I don't think America is unwilling to accept a female as President.....but I do think they are unwilling to elect that particular female.
I know there was a thread on this earlier, but remind me again - why is it everyone has such a problem with her? She's a strong, independent woman, mother, and wife. If I recall, it had little to do with her politics, and everything to do with her definition as a woman and how she works with her husband.
You and N8 are definately of one mind... total. And that is being generous.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101677
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101677
Because right now the conservative religious groups have the power, and most conservative religious do not allow women to take on leadership roles.Jr_Bullit said:
The men in these groups are threatened by the thought of a women being in control and they will do everything they can to prevent it. This thread and the one I cited above are proof - they are and have been attacking her presidential bid before she has even gotten an opportunity to campaign for it!
Gee Thanks Slugman....I never realized I come across as a right wing conservative bush lover...Slugman said:
considering that I'm not any of those things :eviltongu
Changleen said:
you dont say? 
Seriously, I dont think its a woman issue. Id vote for Condoleeza, but that Hillary is a heinous b!tch.
She will ATTEMPT it.Damn True said:....in four years she will be attempting to win the Democratic nomination.
Something all y'all Hillary h8ers will enjoy
http://usaattacked.com/coercion.htm
Personally I think it is a non issue. America is not ready to elect a women president. There are too many people including women that fully beleive that women deserve equal rights but won't go for one in charge of them other than their mothers. If the Democrats nominate her even another republican knob would win. Imagine Cheney 08.
http://usaattacked.com/coercion.htm
Personally I think it is a non issue. America is not ready to elect a women president. There are too many people including women that fully beleive that women deserve equal rights but won't go for one in charge of them other than their mothers. If the Democrats nominate her even another republican knob would win. Imagine Cheney 08.
Jesse Helms/Strom Thurmond -- we're takin' it back fo' the South
Slugman said:Oops... sorry - I meant to quote DamnTrue.
that makes more sense 
You mean a Democratic ticket of Sen. Robert Byrd/Strom Thurmond -- they're takin' it back fo' the South....
Apparently nobody is actually READING and they are just making knee-JERK assumptions of what I think.
read what I wrote on the first page of this thread ya goon
read what I wrote on the first page of this thread ya goon
Agreed. I haven't heard her speak a word that sounded like an original thought....but then it isn't her job to do so.Toshi said:
well there goes the democratic parties candidate winning, man that'll make a 12 year streak
then again you never know how bad the republican side guy will be...they could put up another woman....hmmmm that'd probly lead to the first green party win lol
True,Damn True said:
You obviously just havent been paying attention then. One of her best thoughts IMO, is that America's greatest rivalry is still with Russia and not with China as most seem to think. She breaks this down in great detail and she's a very sharp woman with alot of ideas. Id recommend looking into it sometime.
Then she's still stuck in the cold war era. Russia is fading fast. Demographics are going to kill them. They happen to be dangerous because they've got so damn many nuclear weapons, but that's about it.BurlyShirley said:
You want rivalry? China and India.
I dont have a link. I was reading some stuff on her in a magazine about alot of her views on the world and found them pretty interesting. Dont recall which it was...Toshi said:
And silver, as for rivalry, she didnt mean on the same plane as china/india, but more militarily speaking. Wish I knew where I read that. Seems like it may have been an excerpt from a book she possibly wrote, but I couldnt say for sure.
But back to the original point, she's far more than a Bush lapdog as some have suggested.
I'm talking miltarily. Russia has no money. Zip...zero...and once the price of oil goes down, they are going to have even less.