Originally posted by 2001frontier:
I would vote for that bitch with WilMac's fingers.

Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
Women, in my opinion, should stay at home and take of the children. When women left the home for the workplace our society started to decline. Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?

Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:

How many countries in the world have a woman leaders? There are a few, but how big and/or successful are they?

Originally posted by WilMac1023:

Quote:

Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
[b]Women, in my opinion, should stay at home and take of the children. When women left the home for the workplace our society started to decline. Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?

1948 called. They want their opinion back.[/b]

Originally posted by Mobycat:

Quote:

Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
[b]
How many countries in the world have a woman leaders? There are a few, but how big and/or successful are they?

Hmm... Indira Ghandi, Gold Meir, Margaret Thatcher. There's been a number of successful queens (that actually have/had power). Does it matter how "big" they are? If they are successful, they are successful.

Quote:

Women are not genetically made up to make tough decisions. They are nurturers(sp?); not fighters. That is a fact. Most women cannot decide what shoes to wear that matches their purses. How can we expect one to make a life-threatening decision?

[/b]

Originally posted by Stonecoldchavez:
Margaret Thatcher- Prime Minister. No REAL power. You didn't mention any women, from really influental countries.

Originally posted by Lazza:

Shahram's bullshit in bold.

You know, during the last presidential campaign the Republican party was successful as brandishing anyone who considered themselves on the left as un-American, un-Christian, anti-family, pro-queer, blah-blah. Very negative, polarizing .. and just plain ugly.

That's why Karl Rove makes the big money. It worked. Poison tongue smack talkin' sells, almost as well as sex does. Ain't you heard, man? America's UNDER ATTACK!!! It's time to stop the faggoty liberal freedom haters before they send us into a den of sodomy and sound Gabriel's mighty horn!!!

The Democrats refrained from labeling right wingers as bible-toting, homophobic, xenophonic, NRA-loving, militaristic Nazis...

They didn't need to. The right wing element in this country (sometimes mistakenly called "conservatives" that could be more accurately described as "Police State Liberals") actually ARE a bunch of sick fucking wannabe fascists.

or at least delegated the name calling duties to Michael Moore and Howard Dean.

I disagree, at least about Dean. Dean had a classy run, and was the ONLY Dem candidate that offered a true opposition to the current regime.

It's not surprising that more than a third of registered voters didn't go to the polls in the 2004 election; why vote for people who spend millions spouting out hateful rubbish?

Or, more importantly, why bother voting, when neither viable candidate is acceptable, and there is no "No Confidence" vote. I still vote, but I know my vote is meaningless, because I refuse to vote for either of the two major parties.

Let's just hope in 2008 there is more constructive dialogue.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAGH!!! Constructive dialogue!!! HA!!! Eh, smoke another one bro!!!

Should Hilary run I don't want to hear about the Monica Lewinsky shit, much like I didn't want to hear about Swift Boat ads or Dubya's elusive "military record".

What is it 2001Frontier keeps telling people? Oh yeah, move to another country if you don't like how this one is run. Shit, you'd get more honest elections in Zimbabwe or El Salvador then you will here at home in '08.

Likewise polarizing issues such as gay marriage and abortion actually directly impact a minority of people (5% of folks are gay, most women do not get abortions, and I assume very few gay women get abortions ) ... and they lead to very ugly campaigning.

Horrible, ugly, successful campaigning, that brings out the hordes of recently bipedal Neanderthals, who normally don't vote because the true issues are WAY the fuck beyond their scope, to throw their salvo at the faggoty Volvo crowd, who normally don't vote because the true issues are WAY beyond their scope, and vice versa.

Economic, education, welfare and foreign policy matters are boring BUT these should be the headline issues.

Of course they should, but what do you want from the candidates, a ten-point plan highlighting how they're going to fuck you up the ass, steal your shit and give it to their friends? Why not talk about gay marriage instead?

Hilary Clinton, with her hubby in the background, is capable of understanding and working economic, education, welfare and foreign policy matters.

Good point. Billy boy was the best Republican president we ever had.

I don't give a poop about her views on abortion and gay rights because ultimately the courts will drive these matters in on direction or another .. and these issues don't impact my life.

Nice. You're half-way there, my friend...

I suppose then my only wish wrt these issues is that whomever gets into office he/she selects "balanced" individuals to lead the higher courts.
So let's wait to see how Hilary handles the important issues. Yes, she is certainly one "un-huggable" individual.

Her nomination would be political suicide for the Democrats in '08 for that very reason. She's a smart lady, and has run a successful political machine, but she is unlikable, and for good reason. She lacks that genuine quality that guys like Dean and McCain have, that vehement sincerity, that quality that keeps them out of the White House. I also feel the same way about GW, I think he's a fucking fraud, but his cutesy cowboy act seems to have won over a lot of people, some in present company.

As a former New Yorker I was *very* unhappy when she waltzed in from Arkansas to become senator of my home state. But much to my chagrine she seems to be doing a capable job.

Stepping off my soapbox...

_Lazza

PS - other folks have posted suggesting Rudy Guilliani would make a good presidential candidate. Unfortunately although he may be well-liked overall I cannot envision the Republican party endorsing someone who isn't part of their establishment. The same holds true for John McCain.

Giuliani's still in the running for future positions, but you're right, he's not part of this particular crowd. He kisses enough of their asses in my opinion, but he hasn't put in his dues with them. The problem with Giuliani is he's apparently got mad skeletons in his closet. John McCain is the most unelectable motherfucker out there. He's too much of a cowboy, and the last thing either party needs is some Golden Boy messing things up because he wants to do the "right thing."

Originally posted by Lazza:
Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems?

Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems? Hilary is very polarizing but she might win a majority of the women Republican voters .. just because getting a woman in the White House is more important than the policies she represents.

Originally posted by Lazza:
Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems?

Originally posted by porsche996:

Quote:

Yet if Hilary doesn't run in 2008 who else could win it for the Dems? Hilary is very polarizing but she might win a majority of the women Republican voters .. just because getting a woman in the White House is more important than the policies she represents.

Contrary to your popular belief, Republican women wouldn't vote for Hilary, just because she's a woman. You're forgetting something very, very important... Women who are Republicans don't give a shit about "women's lib"... Hell, even my mom, a former hippie, who spent most of the late 60s, 70s, and 80s going to boycotts, stand-ins, sit-ins, bra-burners, etc., wouldn't vote for Hilary. And she even voted for freaking Dukakis!

Originally posted by DocNo:
I just wish we had instant run-off elections.

Vote for your top two choices. Would inject some true diversity instead of this "two party" system we have now - where both parties, when you get down to it, really are the same: look out for me and my buddies best interests and damn everyone else