US Presidential Candidates: which one will....?

Wouldn't it be lovely to have a woman president

NutterAlert wrote: Wouldn't it be lovely to have a woman president

It would be lovely, but would Hillary be the best President?

Maybe better than McCain or Obama, but really the question is whether she could tackle the problems facing Iraq if elected.

NutterAlert wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: ^ Why? Wouldn't it be best to have the best possible candidate. Why would having a woman be lovely.   I'm just thinking of Italian politics where Chicolina (sic) the porn model rose to power, but slightly more seriously because woman don't tend to have a track record of being war-mongering idiots like the present incumbent, and some of his predecessors.   Look at what is happening in politics in Africa, Germany and other places. Strong women talking sense. We had Thatcher is England, but we will have to wait for an autopsy to determine whether she was carbon based or from the pits of hell before we classify her gender.   Would be interesting to see what a strong woman did in this role, not suggesting Hillary as I know little about her, just a woman in general.

Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2007 at 12:43

Nancy Pelosi!

Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2007 at 18:10

Forgotten Son wrote: marktheshark wrote: ...doesn't subscribe to a bunch of that far left kook crap...The rest of the Dems are just a bunch of hypocritical socialist phonies. The majority of Democrats can in no way be described as entertaining "far left" ideology (I think describing such ideologies as "kook crap" is rather offensive, unless you'd be willing to specify what "kook crap" specifically refers to) nor can they be said to be socialists, unless the "phonies" refers to the fact that they pretend to be socialist, of which I've seen little evidence.This Gravel chap sounds interesting, though I doubt he has a chance.

Like hell they don't entertain kook crap! They push the same sort of socialist BS like what you got there at home. Only they just disguise it more with catch phases like "a level playing field" or "it would be more fair to...whatever" Look at what Microsoft (a company I'm very well related to BTW) has to deal with in your UK. They're forced to give up their own technology because it's just not fair to have a company full of geniuses who can out do everybody else.

The Dems have even been looking at restricting our own 1st Ammendment by incorporating The Fairness Doctrine which restricts the view points of broadcast media in order to keep a so-called "balanced" view. Oh nevermind what the people want to see or hear, we can't have that! The people are just too stupid to make the right choices! Now there's something to be offended by!

Sorry FS, if you want to have the government on your back, that's your prerogative, but not here on my watch. Our Forefathers designed this country to NOT be like England and some of us would like to keep it that way. No offense, I got all the respect in the world for England's culture and durability, but I just can't deal with that much government and especially that much in taxes!

I really just want a level-headed, intelligent, somewhat independent candidate who will rely on diplomacy and a non-aggression policy.

Defense = good, Open hostility = bad.

Don't care which party either. Republican are running on war and abortion, basically. I'm liberal and I think abortion is horrible. Just the irresponsibility of it all gets me. If a woman is irresponsible enough to get pregnant, she should have the child and have to deal with it. That should give her a sense of responsibility. No application for rape/serious health concerns for the woman, though.

marktheshark wrote: Proletariat wrote: Oh and by the way when you say that "The people are just too stupid to make the right choices!" you sound more like a faciast than anything, democracy is based on the idea that people are right. So when you say that balancing media is wrong it sounds like your saying "but only if the dems do it" I was being sarcastic! Of course the people are right! That's my whole point! The Dems want to balance the media by way of the government and NOT the free market. Get it? Hello?

JJLehto wrote: Dems socialist??? ...........

i would rather write in vote my cat than vote for Hillary.  She's just too overhyped and overrated.  She's not as smart as she claims to be and her politics are too vague.

I'm an Obama man for the moment (I'm not actually a Democrat though - I'm a totalitarian monarchist)

Proletariat wrote: marktheshark wrote: Proletariat wrote: marktheshark wrote: Proletariat wrote: Oh and by the way when you say that "The people are just too stupid to make the right choices!" you sound more like a faciast than anything, democracy is based on the idea that people are right. So when you say that balancing media is wrong it sounds like your saying "but only if the dems do it" I was being sarcastic! Of course the people are right! That's my whole point! The Dems want to balance the media by way of the government and NOT the free market. Get it? Hello? then again you are talking to someone who thinks that free market is bull, its not free at all, free market simply transferes the power from politicians to CEO's. the corperations are the ones that really controll the country right now, the president is more of a figure head, a puppet if you will, diffrent componies back different canidates, who pass laws in that componies favour, making the corperation stronger, so that they can get more politicians into offices where they can pass favourable laws, so that the CEO's can get rich while starving workers overseas die of hunger. but thats just my opinion. Look my friend, I'm 50 years old and have been an independent businessman for about 17 years, and I don't deny the corruption that happens in the free market. But these situations like ie Enron, Wal-Mart or whatever need to be dealt with individually and not used as some vehicle to scrap the whole system. And BTW, have you ever thought about just how MORE hungry these overseas workers would be without their jobs? What do you suggest, we pay them CEO salaries? The problemm lies within their own oppressive dictatorship governments. Don't go pointing the finger at our own free market system, that's just too easy of a target. Oh and far as Dems being capitalists, it sure comes in handy when lining their pockets with cash. But it's a different story when it comes to lining their pockets with votes! see, but your still looking at things through the lens of capitalism. I am a Communist. Say what you will I still belive that one day the worlds poor hungry masses will rise up against capitallism and found a communist system. (not like the soviet union) I think that in a world where the concern is not about money we could focous our energys on productive endevors such as finding a way to save this planet before we kill ourselves. oh and as for the workers, they lived fine before they went to the factories and could still live without them.  They starve just as much with subsistance farming as with factory wages, and no I dont suggest paying them ceo wages, I suggest paying CEOs worker wages, which would be considerably higher if they were all paid the same.

I'm not wealthy, I'm just a small businesman and believe me I've been up against THE MAN several times. Usually in the form of government intervention and NOT some big corporate big-wig bullying me.

Communism has been tried almost every which way but loose and has always failed. Why? Simple, there's an obsacle called freedom that seems to get in the way. Freedom is not a want or a desire, but simply an instinct! An instinct that a lot of people seem to fear. We hear this saying that some people or countries are not ready for freedom or it's not for them. Bull manure! It's for everybody! Freedom takes courage, it's never easy and it depends on the individual and not the collective.

Yes, there are more poor people than there are rich people in this world and that is unfortunate. But just what are your definitions of poor people? The poor people here in the US today are living like the middle-class in the 70's. Maybe even better. So how do you judge a standard of living? Where do you set the bar? Sounds like you're going down a slippery slope of religious judgmentalism of some sort.