Daddy Bush wants son Jeb to run for President...

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:25 pm

Yes, I am a registered voter.

The thought of a woman wielding that much power while being controlled by their reproductive cycle frightens me.

Azlana · Post by **Azlana** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:40 pm

Right.
Sadly, the US has fallen further and further behind the rest of the world on social issues for quite some time now, due to that kind of thought process.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/00women2.htm

Tadpole · Post by **Tadpole** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:43 pm

That is an interesting piece of info. I'm hoping a woman gets elected president in my life-time...

Diekan · Post by **Diekan** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:47 pm

I wouldn't have a problem with a woman president as long as she was qualified and could do the job. The problem is that, in this day and age, if a woman were to run she'd get votes just BECAUSE she was a woman and not because of her qualifications. That's just how stupid the American voter is.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:51 pm

Harrison, both women we are talking about are way past there reproductive years.

Post by **Gidan** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:59 pm

I was reading a bunch of stuff about electing a woman into office. A bunch of women were posting about how they could do just as good or better as persident then men. They all had the same arguments. Women are smarter and that they would never send their children to war. What strikes me as odd is that the idea of never sending their children to war was actually considered a good things by them. They actually thought it was a selling point for electing them to being the commander of the US military! Not wanting to goto war is one thing but being unwilling is completely different. It would weaken us as a country.

I am not aposed to a woman in the white house, however it would need to be a woman that could controle her emotions. A women in office can not attribute their actions to PMS, they cant play the stupid mind games with world leaders. They can not act like they are the mother of the country, the citizens of this country can not be treated like children or protected like children.

This woman would also have to be somone willing to put her job before her family. You can not put off or cancel trips abroad because you want to spend time with your children. Men tend to have a much easier time putting off the idea of family then women do. Men tend to be willing longer and harder hours then women. If a women is willing to do that and holds herself to that, then that woman has the potential to be just as good a president then anyone else.

Some women may hate me for the way I feel, thats fine. I just feel there are some traits that tend to effect women more then men would make it much harder for a woman to be an effective world leader.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:08 pm

Edit: Not worth arguing over.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:16 pm

The thought of a woman president who is an atheistic liberal/socialist scares the HELL out of me. Seriously. However, a woman who is very conservative on social issues... I would welcome with open arms. If she screws up too bad she'll just get impeached and the VP will take over anyway so I say give the woman a chance. :balloons:

As long as she's a conservative republican. :cool6:

Post by **Arlos** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:47 am

Since when is Hillary Clinton an atheist? Last I checked she was one of the protestant denominations. Baptist, I think. And Mindia, you'd welcome a week-dead retarded muskrat into the White House if it had previously espoused social conservative republicanism. You've already done it the last 2 elections...

Anyway, on "Women never sending their children off to war"... Margret Thatcher sure had problems with that, huh? (see: Falklands)

-Arlos

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:07 am

Azlana wrote:Right.
Sadly, the US has fallen further and further behind the rest of the world on social issues for quite some time now, due to that kind of thought process.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/00women2.htm

By all means, lets be lemmings and do something just because everyone else does and not because it's right for us. When we do elect a woman president I hope to God it's because she's the best for the job and not because of the perception that we have to be the same as everyone else.

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:21 am

Arlos wrote:Anyway, on "Women never sending their children off to war"... Margret Thatcher sure had problems with that, huh?

I was just thinking of her. Mags is proof a woman can run the show just as well as a man, and without an ounce less toughness.

Personally, I want a woman President just so those Sheikh fucks have to come over here and cowtow to a girl they believe should be walking three paces behind them buried in sheets. The amusement from that possibility is endless.

veeneedefeesh · Post by **veeneedefeesh** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:28 am

lyion wrote:Personally, I want a woman President just so those Sheikh fucks have to come over here and cowtow to a girl they believe should be walking three paces behind them buried in sheets. The amusement from that possibility is endless.

Personally I would rather if the sheikh fuckers wouldnt come over here at all.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:37 am

Gidan wrote:I was reading a bunch of stuff about electing a woman into office. A bunch of women were posting about how they could do just as good or better as persident then men. They all had the same arguments. Women are smarter and that they would never send their children to war. What strikes me as odd is that the idea of never sending their children to war was actually considered a good things by them. They actually thought it was a selling point for electing them to being the commander of the US military! Not wanting to goto war is one thing but being unwilling is completely different. It would weaken us as a country.

I am not aposed to a woman in the white house, however it would need to be a woman that could controle her emotions. A women in office can not attribute their actions to PMS, Wow, another idiot male. She is WAY PAST her PMS years, sounds like another excuse to make the man feel like he is better.they cant play the stupid mind games with world leaders. They can not act like they are the mother of the country, the citizens of this country can not be treated like children or protected like children.

This woman would also have to be somone willing to put her job before her family. You can not put off or cancel trips abroad because you want to spend time with your children.Do you mean like Bush did? He spent less than a month's time doing work in the first 6 months he was in office because he was on vacations with his family. Men tend to have a much easier time putting off the idea of family then women do. Men tend to be willing longer and harder hours then women. If a women is willing to do that and holds herself to that, then that woman has the potential to be just as good a president then anyone else.

Some women may hate me for the way I feel, thats fine. I just feel there are some traits that tend to effect women more then men would make it much harder for a woman to be an effective world leader.

I don't hate you, I just think you should think before you speak.[/b]

Post by **Gidan** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:42 am

So I am an idiot male for hearing women complain left and right about how moody they are and that PMS makes them do the things they do? I am not the one using it as an excuse/reason. How am I the idiot, maybe the idots are the people who use it as the excuse. And when you say She is WAY PAST her PMS years. Who exactly are you refering to? I was refering to women in general not a single woman.

As for the 2nd comment. When have I ever said I liked bush? The fact that he spent more time vacationing then in the white house is just more proof to me that he shouldn't be there.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:47 am

No, you inferred in your statement that a woman would not be a good president because she could blame everything on PMS, which she could not do, because a.) she is past her PMS years, and b.) you would think that if a woman were chosen to lead a nation, she would do her best not give all women a bad name and make a fool out of the country like Bush has been doing.

Then you inferred that if a woman were to take office that she would want to take vacations with her family instead of work. I merely pointed out that the male in office now did the same thing, so you can't really say that is something that a woman would do.

Azlana · Post by **Azlana** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:41 am

Martrae wrote: By all means, lets be lemmings and do something just because everyone else does and not because it's right for us. When we do elect a woman president I hope to God it's because she's the best for the job and not because of the perception that we have to be the same as everyone else.

I just want to make sure I understand this....someone, Darcler I think, says that a woman wouldn't make a good president...and I post a link listing a series of female presidents, that as far as I know have done a fine job, and from that link you deduce that I'm implying that we should elect a woman as president ONLY BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE - rather than pointing out that other countries move past age old stereotypes and sexism far faster than our nation. (?) I'm totally surprised at you Martrae, that's what Finawin would have gotten out of my statement. Whoa.

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:53 am

Nah, I just know people who would do that for no other reason than Europe has and you sparked a thought. It was very early when I posted that.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:53 am

No, I don't read what you type 90% of the time for anything but my own amusement. When I do I completely understand your viewpoint; I just completely disagree with it out of common sense.

Blame society, blame sexism, blame anything you want to. I look at it objectively and know I don't want a woman as president 8 times out of 10.

Azlana · Post by **Azlana** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:01 pm

So, you don't read what I write for "anything but [your own] amusement"? Okay got it, clear as mud, thanks Finawin.

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:16 pm

Azlana wrote:I just want to make sure I understand this....someone, Darcler I think, says that a woman wouldn't make a good president...and I post a link listing a series of female presidents, that as far as I know have done a fine job, and from that link you deduce that I'm implying that we should elect a woman as president ONLY BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE - rather than pointing out that other countries move past age old stereotypes and sexism far faster than our nation.

Yes, lets look at what you posted, shall we?

You posted a list of countries mostly with puppet people pushed through fascism, nepotism, or communism and compare it to our election system and called them advanced? Forgive me if I think your post here is of the utmost silliness, Azlana.

Here's many of the countries you are saying are forward.

Mongolia - Until June 27, 2004 the predominant party in Mongolia was the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party or MPRP, which was formed by Mongolia's communist leaders Not too forward. Not a good example. Maybe the next ones will be better.

Peoples Republic of China - Yes, they put a woman puppet in. Although since they are a fascist communist regine, I'm not sure their wonderful forward thinking has been free for everyone to see. Hello, Tianamen Square!

San Marino - <Of which she's Co Captain. Go team!). Are we talking countries or swim teams? Since we're talking about countries smaller than my household, you should simply include all the Single Mothers in the US. They essentially have similar GDP. Not a good example.

Sri Lanka - Woot another Socialist Country marred by ethnic conflicts and more human rights abuses than one can shake a stick at! Yes, lets use them as a basis of comparison.

and Indonesia - A Muslim country that has a form of Sharia Law imposed. Feel free to google the number of issues that country faces and especially women.

Really, you haven't helped your cause with that link, and if anything have hurt it.

Let the men stick to the arguments and discussions, Az. You are out of your league, just like a woman in a GOP primary would be.

(Funny alert. This is not meant to be serious. Hormonal females please remain calm!)

Viva La Geraldine Ferraro!

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:20 pm

Hey now! I'm perfectly capable of arguing and discussing!

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:46 pm

Get in the kitchen and fix me a turkey pot pie. :spam:

Post by **Martrae** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:24 pm

Azlana · Post by **Azlana** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:46 pm

Yeah, you're right Lyion, I DO think they're advanced on some social issues. Let's face it, the U.S. is nigh brimming with ultranationalists who think we're so far superior to every nation on EVERY issue, and it's just not true. Which countries have previously elected female presidents isn't really the issue, the fact that any have at all is evidence of a more accepting society. I love how you point out the shortcoming of some of those countries, as though we have a pristine record ourselves. :rofl:

Besides, you left out a good number of countries...I'm sure you can come up with some things to say about how they don't count either in your next post.
I mean, it's fine, I just think it's sad that so many U.S. citizens are stuck in the 50's mentality of 'over their dead body will any of them damn niggers, fags, or broads be in the white house'.

Snero · Post by **Snero** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 3:47 pm

lyion 5 choices among 50 hardly constitutes many

this quote

You posted a list of countries mostly with puppet people pushed through fascism, nepotism, or communism and compare it to our election system and called them advanced? Forgive me if I think your post here is of the utmost silliness, Azlana.

is flat out wrong