Thread: Is the world ready for this?

Originally Posted by LucidApple

What I ment Oneironaught was that with the present attitude the Usa has in relation to world politics, having a female or male president is just an extra detail, sure, but not the base for feeding the mainstream hate from islamic regions, that hate is already there and for some part the Usa is also self responsible for it.

And what I meant is that for cultures that despise women to take seriously and "answer to" a nation having a women President - especially if that country were to be America (their sworn enemies) - is nigh unto ludicrous. It will only fuel the fires and give them fodder for what they consider to be a "just cause": the killing of millions of innocents simply because they don't subscribe to their bullsh!t fanaticism and oppression.

Btw Oneironaught, I was not talking about Hillary but just about a female president in general.

Yes, that part I understood.

Originally Posted by Howie

What an oxymoron.
Do you want to talk some facts or hide behind your political correctness?
Maybe you should run for president.
If you read the entire post, you may get something more than bias out of it.

Oxymoron..? As in... the linguistic device where one puts nouns or adjectives with opposite meanings together? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you explain?

I wasn't replying to your post though, really.

However, I don't think we can start analysing how different men or women's brains are and how suited each gender might be, therefore, for the job. Such things are only ever general patterns anyway.

If the individual is suited to the job, then that's all that matters, and both men and women are perfectly capable, some women being better suited than some men, others worse. And that's really all there is to this.

And one other thing; I'm completely anti-PC. Are you saying that egalitarians are all just trying to be politically correct? Don't be ridiculous. I believe in equality, that's got nothing to do with censorship.

If Condoleeza Rice ran for president, I would vote for her. There is nobody on Earth who would get my vote before her. No matter what can be said about how most women would handle that job, I think she would be incredible at it. Along with having extreme knowledge, intelligence, and communication skills (which would be a big relief after eight years of Bush), she stayed completely calm and composed in every interview I have ever seen her in, no matter how heated the interviewer tried to make the interview. She is much more level headed than any man I know of in a high office. She wouldn't fit the female stereotype and start crying because a political rival hurt her feelings and lock herself in her room or start screaming incoherently because she is in a bad mood. So my point is that some women are very cut out for the job.

I also think it would be hysterical to watch Democrats get a chance to put a black female in the White House and do everything they can to stop it from happening. Then Republicans could start calling them racist and sexist every day to attack the Democrats with their own bullshit. Plus, I think Rice is the one person who could easily beat Hillary.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

...Condoleeza Rice...

I actually thought about mentioning her earlier. She's got to be the most qualified female for the job.

Interesting post Universal Mind, Condoleeza Rice is indeed very professional!

Originally Posted by LucidApple

Interesting post Universal Mind, Condoleeza Rice is indeed very professional!

I agree totally. However she is tainted under the Bush administration, unfortunately.

Xei

We're resorting to Darwinism now? Jeez, just drop the bias already. In case you hadn't noticed, culture has come a long way since everybody was called 'Ug' and we wore bones in our beards.

Yes I had noticed the culture coming a long way. Hence bringing up evolution.
I read it as it is clear that your statement seems clearly to point out evolution but you then call it bias.
Maybe I misunderstood.
For the reasons I did state, I do think certain groups of people were oppressed, which in all likelihood would lead them to be behind in whichever area they had been neglected. Don't you think?
I don't see that as bias.

UM - Carter is a P---y! :p
Where is Jessie Venturia? -seriously

What would happen if we dipped seeker in brown paint, gave him a sex change then forced her to run for president?

Would the world be ready for that?

what happens when the brown paint drys and starts chiping?

Originally Posted by freefire

what happens when the brown paint drys and starts chiping?

Micheal Jackson

Originally Posted by freefire

what happens when the brown paint drys and starts chiping?

More paint!

It's an excellent question, and I'm 100% sure our answer will emerge as either "black" or "female" president in '08 (Dude, it's either Hilary or Obama. There is no possible way the majority will be voting Republican next year)
In my opnion, gender creates more of a difference than race.
And what I think is that people are ready for a HUGE difference...
So I'd have to go with the "Female" choice...

But I think Obama will beat her - I dunno, it's just that it feels like he as a lot more potential than her...

I just hope that the countries mindset of indefinite change does not cloud their judgement.

^Ah, true, true.
But I suppose the common mindset is that things now are "waaay" different than how they'd like things to be...
But who knows...I don't think race or gender could significantly change the decisions a president would make...unless they have some hidden agenda they keep quiet until Election Day.
I guess the biggest difference is that the President represents the country...and Bush has made us look like fools, sadly.
I think, though the people would probably be more prepared for Hilary, since she's got all that history and is a well known figure.
Obama, in my opinion, would make us look a little more...open, as a people, you know? More diverse than our track record has shown.

Originally Posted by Armageddon_Heaven

I don't think race or gender could significantly change the decisions a president would make...unless they have some hidden agenda they keep quiet until Election Day..

I have to somewhat disagree with you here.
To have either an African American OR a woman would be a huge, just huge time in history. Arguably the most powerful country in the world with this massive change in the nations entire history of politics.
How much will a woman or a minority have to tread lightly in an ettempt to appease their people?

The world is ready for RON PAUL!!!!


RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

Yeah, true, totally true.
But I think the President has more important things to do than appease their race or gender, they're gonna have to play by the rules and keep it in line-
I wouldn't expect them to be any different, President-wise...well, at least I'd hope not. If they did it would be wrong.

One would hope that a black/female president wouldn't go about giving any special treatment for their catagory - you'd hope they'd be just a good, fair president - the only important thing is that they're the first female/black Commander and Chief. Not what they have done/can do, but just for who they are.
A nice little American Historical Trivia, nothing less. Cuz if you seriously take into consideration the President's Race/Gender when voting for them, I don't think you've made a qualified vote, because their physical attributes should not make the slightest difference in how they run the country.

Have any of you bothered to look at a platform other than the "Top 10" style pop presidential icons?
There is one that continues to be over-looked yet comes out on top of every presidential debate. Ron Paul is a true patriot and the BEST thing that America could have right now.
Abide by the law of the land ---your Constitution and forget about nation building in places such as the middle east. He really has a wide scope on the politics of the foreign policy that America has been slipping away with yet appeals to the reasoning that Americans do not have to give up their freedoms for security. Sadly, RON PAUL is not advertised as strongly and repeativily as the main contenders..(clinton, obama, guilliani, etc...)

Anyone in this thread have any opinions on RON PAUL, let alone heard of him as a candidate?

Originally Posted by Armageddon_Heaven

There is no possible way the majority will be voting Republican next year)

Of course it's possible but, the historical odds of any party holding the Presidency for over two terms is rare. The last time was quite some time ago. The reason is because once any one party has reached it's second term there's already a "cry for change".

And what I think is that people are ready for a HUGE difference...
So I'd have to go with the "Female" choice...

Maybe. But if so, the kind of change people are calling for is policy change. There's not much yelling about a race or gender chance that I hear. If it happens it happens but it shouldn't be its own reason for happening.

But I think Obama will beat her - I dunno, it's just that it feels like he as a lot more potential than her...

I seriously hope neither does.

Originally Posted by Armageddon_Heaven

^Ah, true, true.
But I suppose the common mindset is that things now are "waaay" different than how they'd like things to be...

And always will be, no matter who's in charge of the big red button.

...Hilary, since she's got all that history and is a well known figure.

Yeah, she's got all that history of flip-flopping and backpedalling, such as when she was all in favor of - and voted for - the war in Iraq. Then when the popular tide shifted, she acts like she was always against it. Right, Hilary, right

- the only important thing is that they're the first female/black Commander and Chief.

You're really going to go with that?

Not what they have done/can do, but just for who they are.

What? The most important thing in a President is their race and gender? Really? Are you sure it's NOT what they have done and can do? Cuz that's what I thought a President was about.

Cuz if you seriously take into consideration the President's Race/Gender when voting for them, I don't think you've made a qualified vote, because their physical attributes should not make the slightest difference in how they run the country.

Now you're making sense.

Originally Posted by Armageddon_Heaven

But I think Obama will beat her - I dunno, it's just that it feels like he as a lot more potential than her...

Obama has shown that he doesn't grasp foreign policy like a president needs to. He wants to invade Pakistan. Finishing presidential politics 101 class would have taught him that that is an insane idea. He also said he would not use nuclear weapons against terrorists. Even if not using nukes is the best policy, you don't tell the terrorists you are taking anything off the table. Obama would be a foreign policy disaster.

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Have any of you bothered to look at a platform other than the "Top 10" style pop presidential icons?
There is one that continues to be over-looked yet comes out on top of every presidential debate. Ron Paul is a true patriot and the BEST thing that America could have right now.

Ron Paul talks about 9/11 as if the U.S. is completely at fault for it, having not one word (when I have seen him speak) to say about the insanity of Islamofascism. He lacks a very important understanding. It would be way too dangerous to have him in the White House.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Obama has shown that he doesn't grasp foreign policy like a president needs to. He wants to invade Pakistan. Finishing presidential politics 101 class would have taught him that that is an insane idea. He also said he would not use nuclear weapons against terrorists. Even if not using nukes is the best policy, you don't tell the terrorists you are taking anything off the table. Obama would be a foreign policy disaster.

Yes, yes... Yes. That's exactly correct, especially the part about his saying the he would not allow nukes to be fired by the USA. The nukes are there for the fear factor. When you purposely take that element away you render them completely ineffective. And at the very same moment, you make the U.S. much, much weaker and more vulnerable. When I heard about that on the news a few days ago, I knew he was not the man for the job.

Ori^, yeah I didn't make sense for a while =P, but I sorta suck at explaining things so blah.
BUT, the thing about Hilary...any press is good press. the fact that she's so much more wellknown than Obama, be it in good ways or bad, gives her a major advantage.
I mean honestly, who, out of any of you knew about Obama and cared about his "foreign policy" before he entered this competition?

The reason Ron Paul speaks of the US foreign policy as it is flawed and how it is somewhat the US's fault that they are in this position, is to wake people up out of their sleep that they have been put into since 9/11.
All people have heard is that the US is going on their "mission" to defend their freedom and way of life. People need to hear that blowback does occur and perhaps even the occupation, bombing, and trying to convert a nation to democracy over many years is the reason that this "islamofascism" is as rampant as it is now.
Its a fact that so called terrorists have entered Iraq after the invasion to push their own cause with violence and that the level of violence has only increased instead of decreasing with US efforts.
This is no different with what the US had been doing in the mid east for years. They enter when it is beneficial to their own values or ecomomical interests.
Ron Paul is the only politician that i can say i trust to tell the truth over any other republican. He is upfront with telling the people of America what needs to be done regardless of how much of this sedated comfortable they may lose. Plus he is for abolishing the Federal Reserve along with the illegal income tax

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

The reason Ron Paul speaks of the US foreign policy as it is flawed and how it is somewhat the US's fault that they are in this position, is to wake people up out of their sleep that they have been put into since 9/11.
All people have heard is that the US is going on their "mission" to defend their freedom and way of life. People need to hear that blowback does occur and perhaps even the occupation, bombing, and trying to convert a nation to democracy over many years is the reason that this "islamofascism" is as rampant as it is now.
Its a fact that so called terrorists have entered Iraq after the invasion to push their own cause with violence and that the level of violence has only increased instead of decreasing with US efforts.
This is no different with what the US had been doing in the mid east for years. They enter when it is beneficial to their own values or ecomomical interests.
Ron Paul is the only politician that i can say i trust to tell the truth over any other republican. He is upfront with telling the people of America what needs to be done regardless of how much of this sedated comfortable they may lose. Plus he is for abolishing the Federal Reserve along with the illegal income tax

What do you mean by "so called terrorists"? They are terrorists. Ron Paul, like many, wants to ignore that. It is legitimate to discuss U.S. involvement in the Middle East and how that affects the attitudes and recruitment of terrorists, but focussing entirely on the U.S. and putting no blame on the terrorists shows a bias that is too out of touch with reality for a president to have.

The level of violence has decreased in Iraq, and this is only a transition phase. The Hussein regime had a reign of terror against Iraq and other countries. The mass graves show what Iraq was like under them. More importantly, the international terrorist threat of a suicide bomber government with WMD's (which they did have and did use and were working on) has been removed, and the people of Iraq have been given a chance to have a democracy for the rest of human history instead of what they had before. If Ron Paul can't say even one syllable of anything positive about that, he needs to stay out of the White House and work for a left wing blog site.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What do you mean by "so called terrorists"? They are terrorists. Ron Paul, like many, wants to ignore that. It is legitimate to discuss U.S. involvement in the Middle East and how that affects the attitudes and recruitment of terrorists, but focussing entirely on the U.S. and putting no blame on the terrorists shows a bias that is too out of touch with reality for a president to have.

The level of violence has decreased in Iraq, and this is only a transition phase. The Hussein regime had a reign of terror against Iraq and other countries. The mass graves show what Iraq was like under them. More importantly, the international terrorist threat of a suicide bomber government with WMD's (which they did have and did use and were working on) has been removed, and the people of Iraq have been given a chance to have a democracy for the rest of human history instead of what they had before. If Ron Paul can't say even one syllable of anything positive about that, he needs to stay out of the White House and work for a left wing blog site.

Where do you get your statistics to back up "the level of violence has decreased in Iraq?" Check out this vid while you look for them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD...elated&search=
Yes, this was 13 years ago but it applies all too well today, if not more than it did in 1994 since there are now MORE threats like you say with WMD's and all those scary things you hear about but they never found in Iraq (which, as a reminder has or had NOTHING to do with what the government claimed was the reason 9/11 happened or why they had to invade the middle east)

As for MASS GRAVES. Do we really need to talk about the hand that the US has had in the creation of graves and murder in many other countries, while profiting off of it? Its a nice shocking point that hits some who do not care to think past the obvious point that many countries have had some oppresive force in it at some time. I think that you should look under your own feet when talking of MASS GRAVES and realize what America was founded on way back when. Europeans did not exist in North America since the beginning. It took a lot of "converting", murder, sedation of will, and mass graves at the expense of a very peaceful Native nation to create the great land of the free. remember that.

Ron Paul gets to the root of the problem, the only place of a problem you can attack to rid yourself and your country of that problem. To only address the surface and the facade of a problem like focusing on how to control and eliminate the "terrorists" does nothing to solve why it is they continue to amass followers and constantly recruit and reproduce more and more people (fanatics) willing to kill themselves for an ideal. Violence begets violence and the original reasons idealists or terrorists or imperialists had for doing something slowly becomes hazy with each next surge of fighters and people willing to kill to make a point. They superimpose new reasons over the old, and add justifications as to why it is now okay to fight or kill for reasons that had nothing to do with their original mission.
Treating the issue this way is much like trying to rid yourself of an ant infestation by killing one ant at a time and not worrying about the nest that continues to output more and more ants.

Nation building is unfortunately something that the USA was founded on and we all realize what costs that ideal took from millions of Native Americans. If we can realize now in hindsight that the founders were willing to slaughter a peaceful nation for their own ends, then it is only icing on the imperialist cake that they have an "evil", "dark" , "freedom hating" country to apply the same means on.
Ron Paul is not looking to candy coat the issue and is trying to tell a very much ego-centric america that they need to wake up and realize that we all share this planet. The more america pushes their great society on other countries, the greater the chances that toes are going to be stepped on and negative results will follow.

Independance and freedom from oppression are great causes that are easy to fight for than uphold, especially when one type of oppression is substituted for another.

Also, tell me what is this idea of democracy that is being opposed on these Iraqis? Did they ask for it or are they just getting it? The last time i checked, the United states of America has less to do with Democracy and more to do with being a Constitutional Republic. America was not founded on democracy. Democracy eveolved from capitalism and this never-ending quest for the american dream. It is dangerous to impose such a wild ideal on a nation that has no experience with it and just out of the blue expect them to run their new lives and new country with it. This is another point that Ron Paul is trying to address to the american people and hopefully the world. When the USA has had so much time to perfect their system of democracy and then introduces it to another country as their new way of life, it automatically makes that country subserviant and dependant on the USA for help and aid while building from the bomb-shattered ground up.

Universal mind, why do you find a need to polarize viewpoints and ideas by being "left" or "right"? DO you not think that there is enough confusion and lack of cohesion in this world right now that you need to oust one person into a negatively perceived group of people, ie."left"? That is prejudice and very stereotypical in the worst sense. When ideas and thought (the most FREE things we have) are grouped together so easily and then negated because of how those thoughts are then perceived through a politically correct society does not examplify the freedom that America stands for.

I am not saying that Ron Paul is the new god of america or a perfect president but he is the bes thing that America can look toward to begin to pull them out of this slump they have fallen into with the international community and its own people.