Intelligent Chat (new thread)

The only reason that Hillary would be a better alternative than any other female is because she is married to Bill Clinton.

Other than that, it would be politically absurd to vote a woman into office.

Women do not have the worldly status than men do, and especially because we deal with the middle east so much, it would not be smart to have a woman heading our country.

Women simply do not have the political pull and respect that men do, the world is not ready for a female president of the USA.

While other countries have done it before, they were not nearly as influential as the US is, and our image needs cleaning up after Bush, not to be made more of a joke.

It's not that a woman CANT do the job better than a man, it is all political.

But I will again refer to my first statement: If A woman can do it, it will be Hillary (just because of Bill).

I agree with Kaitlin. Here in the united states we as women have a lot more freedom than most other countries, and it's because of that that a woman wouldn't be proper for president ( at least at the moment) There's not enough respect towards women shown in the other countries and thus it'd be a suicide beckoning.
Not to mention ( again) that after the economic fall from bush's presidency we need to focus more on that than on gender presidency.

Woman, man, black, white... it's all suplurfluous.

Hiliary will win in the next election because she is a woman, not because she is the more worthy candidate.

She's not better, no more worthy than McCain or anything else. She'll be the democratic choice and more women will turn out as a result, nothing more.

I was born under and grew up with Margaret Thatcher as my political leader.

I'd choose her over Hiliary every day of the week. Why? She's stronger, more determined and not afraid to make the toughest of choices for the betterment of the country.

Hiliary will be driven solely by her socialist agenda and to hell with anything conservative that makes more sense.

Good luck.

I never said that throughout history they have not been respected.

None of them have ever headed the largest superpower of the world, however.

We are dealing very closely with countries that have no respect for women; it would not be politically smart for us to vote a woman into office.

Hillary will not win because she is a woman, she will win because she is married to Bill Clinton.

And her aims will be socialist, but because of how Bill helped the economy during his presidency and practically erased the national debt, people will associate her with the act and think that they will unbury us... again.

She will try to patch up foreign relations, which is a good thing, and she will be very economically conscious, which is another good thing. She doesn’t seem like a wartime president, so she will try to keep peace above all, and Bill will be a great side benefit. I don’t think she's strong enough to run the country necessarily how it SHOULD be run, but it may be good to get a damage control president in there the next time.

I still don’t think it would be best to have a female president... yet.

And Bret, it is superfluous, not suplurflous.

Depends on what point she is making...

Elaborate.

And Bret, it is superfluous, not suplurflous.

The cold medicine is still affecting the old synapses. ;¬)

It would be a smart thing for Hillary to do something like that, but I doubt she ever would.

And Bret, you know I love you regardless of the cold medicine induced mental lapses... I dont hold you too accountable ;)

lol.

Sweet of him.

Women have been controlling the world from behind their men (behind the scenes) for a long time.

Hey now, I know far too many "women" that arent worthy of the title, I'm probably more woman than most men could handle anyways ;)

Bob and I are alike on so many levels.. I'm looking forward to the immense wisdom when Im older.

India has had some rocking female prime ministers too.

I'll handle you, Bob ;)

*

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... that was retrospect 30 years ago ;)

ehem, back to the topic*

India then and America now are in two totally seperate leagues. Whoever heads America basically heads the world in a number of ways, and I dont think ALL of the world is ready for that yet, however, we shall see.

Awww come on! We all know Hiliary backed Kerry so he'd fall and she'd be set for 2008. What's more we know she'll win too.

Looks like the world had better adapt PDQ.

SOS, the world better adapt PDQ, if not we're SOL, stuck with our cigars being baggage handlers for the PMS they have to put up with.

They should post Hillary's "cycle" on the internet so that other countries know when it would be best not to mess with us.

Like I said before, the world isnt ready for it. Even if Americans do make the mistake of getting Hillary into office, it will do more harm than good on a global scale.

Bring on the middle aged white men.

Anyway, the American Idol concept is interesting, but did anyone pick up on the fact that pop culture did get involved in the last election? MTV, Hollywood, celebrities, etc. Not that it changed the outcome or anything, the older and more powerful vote (the richer and more Christian vote) still won out in the end, and it always will. The votes of the people matter very little, and the government is the one who does the voter tallying... which makes you wonder... does voting matter at all? Politics over the people, it always wins out in the end.

It's not right, but the country isn't near ready to have a female president.

A woman would probably do an excellent job in the whitehouse, if she was taken seriously.
No doubt sexism isn't a HUGE issue, but it still exists, and for the country to suddenly be introduced to a female leader would be too soon, unprepared, not good.

Not even all this has to do with sexism, that's really a tiny issue. But truth is, the country is used to having male leaders. (at least at this level of the presidency)
though we are growing, and women are becomming more powerful in the office, we have not yet reached that level. Not everyone is ready to listen to a women or take her seriously as our country's leader, and the president of the United States needs authority and a powerful image. A woman, at this time, does not acquire that.

I think that's an area we need to more work into than to just rush into at first call. I know that it has been something talked about ever since the first women's movement, and everyone does make quite valid responses on there being other strong female leaders, but again I think it's a bit too soon for an action as such: Even if the woman is a good choice.
I'm sure if we actually looked we could find an equally good male choice to hold out for the moment until the world is ready for the change.

I think a woman may run and fail a couple times before ACTUALLY being voted into office.

Considering what's being discussed from both sides of the American political aisle, it's a distinct possibility that we'll have two female candidates in 2008... Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton.

And quite frankly, Kaitlin, from many polls over the last 15-20 years, it's less likely for women in the US to vote for a female candidate than for men to do so. Not sure what that says about the women in our country, because from what studies I've seen, other countries do not have that reticence.

As to your point regarding how others around the world would take a woman President, I think that she was President of the United States would garner sufficient respect in her dealings.

And if we're being specific, yes... Bill Clinton brings a great deal of credibility to the White House, however he's there. After all, it was only the sexually repressed in this country that truly had a problem with his dalliance.

It didn't change the fact that he did far more good for this nation and the world in his 8 years than nearly any other President in our history, and definitely more than any one President in this century since probably FDR.

Of course, I know the conservatives will disagree, but hey... this is still a free country so we can have disagreements. We _are_ still free, aren't we? *peer*

ANYway... I know a woman could do just as good a job as a man, and I think this country needs to show the world that we know that.

Because if we _are_ so powerful, so enlightened, so full of freedom, then we need to demonstrate that to the world in myriad ways... including respecting a woman enough to be our President.

I agree, and in a perfect world that would work and be fine and dandy, but I dont realisically think that everyone is ready for that much progressivism at this time.

Man or woman, I dont really care, as long as they are capable.

I actually wish we could get good ol' Bill back in office, that is, if Mcdonalds doesnt give him a heart attack first ;)

mmm this doesn't really relate to the forum, but I saw eveyone's praise for Bill clinton and I just had to make a note:

Bill, was no where close to a good president. There are accomplishments taken into his name, but if you studied these achievements and how they were brought about, he had almost nothing to do with them.
bill wasn't a good or bad president, he was a puppet.

(not to mention what others said about the more negative things that took place in his power...I hardly think he's worth praising. REAGAN, now there's someone to praise.)

Miles, you say that Clinton had credibility and only the sexually repressed took offence.

How about people like me who didn't care about the act but going against his marriage vows made before God? I see that indescretion to be far more serious. If you can't trust a man to keep his word how can you trust him to be President?

Getting a BJ doesn't make you untrustworthy, betraying your word and your supposed most loved one does.

exactly.

Personally, I don’t care if our president goes around screwing every prostitute in LA (a whole a lot of them too). If he is a good leader, I wont be taking his moral inventory.

Most of the great presidents in the past have drank, smoked, cheated, etc. and that is his personal business, whether I personally agree with his actions or not.

I don’t expect our president to be Jesus; in fact, if he weren’t Christian at all I may jump for joy.

[Not that that'll happen], ok, moving on...

I think that public speaking skills, charisma, and good speeches alone are about 75% of what MAKES a good president. Clinton=good public speaker, Bush=BAD, BAD, BAD public speaker (I like to watch him stutter over his speech's on TV, point, laugh hysterically, and call him a turtle)

I think that the president has little control of what ultimately happens to the nation and that they pretty much all have been willing puppets. The long-standing people are really running the country, corruptly, I may also add.

I would love to get a bad ass, kick ass president in there who means business and who straightens this nation out. I don’t care if he cheats on his wife, I just want him to lead our country well and make it what it used to be (around Clinton time). What people seem to not understand, or conveniently forget, about the American government is that the checks and balance system is designed to be very S*L*O*W... the things that happen during each presidents term are normally NOT his doing, but the one before him. There is an after swing that affects EVERYTHING, and the second president either takes the downfall or eats up the credit for whatever bad or good happens to the nation.

Not that it matters, the presidents don’t really do crap.

The biggest influence that the president has is whether he is republican or democrat, not his personality. There is power in numbers, not power in one person that is new to office. It's not the president who runs the country, it's his people. He is too busy traveling the world and going to Camp David.

Maybe I'm getting too carried away...

Bottom line, give me an ass kicking president and he can drink, smoke, cheat, do whatever he likes, as long as he is a strong leader and promotes positive progression.

A President who is a-moral is open to corruption.

Look at the Mafia links to JFK for example.

A leader should lead by example not live by a 'do as I say not as I do' perspective. Simple as that.

If Clinton was single he could have boinked all the secretaries in the Senate for all I care.

Strong leadership skills are SO much more important than if his dick is interested in the secretary.

If I had to choose, strong leader all the way.

So you'd have a strong leader even if he was a puppet for the Mafia or National Socialists or Cuban drug runners?

Integrity comes first.

I'm not saying that I wouldnt LOVE to have a president with integrity, I'm just saying that their personal lives are their business, and I wont be judging them apart from how well they do at their jobs- and their job is to run our country... WELL.

Integrity, personally and professionally, would be a great thing, but if I had to rank the skills that MAKE a good president, it would go like this:

1. Ability to pursuade (public speeches, good social skills, charismatic, etc.)
2. Ability to lead (self explanitory, run this country how it was SUPPOSED to be run, how the forefathers wanted it)
3. Professional integrity (doing what they say they will do)
4. Accountability (claiming his victories and his defeats without sugar or mud coating it)
100,009. Good personal life (doesnt cheat, doesnt smoke, doesnt drink, etc.)

See how it jumps from 4-100,009? There are SO many things that make for a good president before I start taking his personal moral inventory. His personal life= his business.

Lead us, lead us right.

Anyhow, the only thing that pissed me off about Billy boy is that he lied under oath, which is like spitting on the very legal system that he is supposed to be overseeing.

Not to mention a bad example for the children.

But I dont hold the actual CHEATING against him; just the lying. The cheating is between he, the dress ;), and his wife- and his wife stayed, so why should the country being the one pulling the hard line?

Anyhow... me? Politics? I think I'm far too opinionated to be a bobble head. I piss too many people off. Maybe a lawyer. Arguing is a strong point for me ;). Thank you for the compliment though, you're a sweetie.

I think he was a strong leader and a bad husband; but then again, I also dont think that the president does much.

He was very good at the first thing that makes a good president, the ability to pursuade. That at least gives the impression that he's a good leader, plus, nothing bad happened during his term (like 9/11), so I dont know how he would handle the situation HAD something not gone to plan, in any case it comes down to personal opinion.

The cheating is between he and his wife, and if the only thing wrong with a good leader was that he is having an affair (when "About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage" -http://www.manhaters.com/p_catchacheaterstats.asp), he wont lose my vote.

Damned straight, Matt.

Leaders MUST lead by example.

The presidents hardly handle anything themselves, it's all their "people."

And Clinton should have nixed Osama and Saddam when it was more convenient and before they decided to make a few of our planes into their flying grenades.

No one cares though, like you said, Mike, the economy was fantastic.

The job discription isnt for a moral or religious leader.

The president doesnt have to stand for anything necessarily, he just has to be a strong leader.

It's passing judgement on his personal life, which is really none of our business as long as he does his JOB right.

But I would love a president with good moral value... after strong leadership skills.

This is getting redundant... next....

Oh, don't kill it, change the subject!

Next up...

Alcohol and Tobacco.

Thoughts?

Alcohol: Has its uses, but can also be extraordinarily detrimental to any person, relationship, or life. My brother and sister are 3 years sober and my dad has gone through phases of what I would consider "alcoholism" throughout his life, and I have seen it do just as much damage as any other drug out there. It's ridiculous that it is not looked upon AS a drug in the eyes of the public. I watch people drink wine at dinner and wonder why they don’t serve joints, not that I have problems with people drinking. It just seems funny to me.

Smoking: Pure stupidity, although Mr. Shank rises a good point. Why are they getting blamed for everything when almost every other thing man made does its damage to our bodies and the eco system? There are no benefits to smoking besides weight loss, after that it is an addiction like anything else; of course it causes an emotional reaction (as drugs induce chemical rushes that ARE received by emotional receptors, heroin releases peptides which cause emotion, for instance).

Smoking and the chemicals spurred another thought for me. Even "organic" does not ensure purity any more. Almost everything we use has chemicals that are detrimental to our health or in the long run fatal. The prescriptions that we take, the food we eat, the detergents we use. Crystal Methamphetamine is made from household products and detergents combined together and cooked. It eats through plastic baggies and makes holes in the brain. In almost every body wash and shampoo you will find sodium laureth sulfate- which is seriously harmful and is known to cause all sorts of health trouble. Good luck finding a shampoo that doesn’t have this chemical as the second ingredient after water.

The oxy moron is that the chemical, that as I mentioned before is used in shampoos, causes hair loss. Kind of like tobacco companies kill their customers. Hmmmm.

Info on SLS:

http://www.healthy-communications.com/slsmostdangerousirritant.html

lmao, too funny.

Post 69. That's my number.