Is the world ready for this?

I may be at risk of sounding chauvinistic in what I am trying to convey.
So I will first point out that I have not a problem in the world of woman being equally capable of the job.
The American Presidency.
It will be particularly difficult to remain unbiased because the most likely candidate is Hillary Rodham Clintion. There are many views that she has that don't follow suite with my own beliefs.
So let's forget about her and try to gauge how the world would react towards a woman president. whether that be Clinton or Paris Hilton for that matter.
Much of the world does not respect woman in such a high profile position. Arguably the most powerful person in the world.
Yes, there are are countries that have woman in high positions, but they are merely figure heads, as other countries know this. The United states president is in large part a figure head too, however no where near that of any other country.
Our country is sooo set on change that they, the people may grasp at anything new. Enough so that it may cloud our judgement
It is at a most precedent of times. What we have are two front runners that have never held a position in the Oval Office.
An African American and a woman.
In the face of racing nations like Iran, North Korea and most obvious Iraq and even Russia positioning for power, will this significant amount of change be so paramount that it will in effect take away our power to negotiate, demand and gain respect from a global aspect?

Sorry -I did not proof read my thoughts as I am multi tasking. :bang:
Busy busy busy

Well, as far as negotiation abilities go, I'm not too worried about it being a woman. People that don't respect the idea of women in power usually have the ass-backwards view that women belong in the kitchen and all that leftover cruft from the past. But a guy going into a negotiation with that image will get his balls served to him on a platter by a strong, confident woman, cause they won't know how to handle a situation they aren't used to acknowledging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

Well, as far as negotiation abilities go, I'm not too worried about it being a woman. People that don't respect the idea of women in power usually have the ass-backwards view that women belong in the kitchen and all that leftover cruft from the past. But a guy going into a negotiation with that image will get his balls served to him on a platter by a strong, confident woman, cause they won't know how to handle a situation they aren't used to acknowledging.

---

I am not saying that the right woman could NOT do the job.
But we HAVE to deal on a global scale. That is not going to change and that will not change their view of either an African American or a woman. Ass backwards or not, sadly.

I personally don't think having a woman president would be a problem. She would have to set the bar for all future women, so she probably wouldn't screw up much. The only downside is that the first woman president would proabably be inactive, and too afraid to make decisions. This has nothing to do with her being a woman, but that a woman getting a bad image would ruin any chances of another female president.

America's enemies may know this, and would make their moves during this period. Terrorists would absolutely hate seeing a woman in control of their countries, and I have to ask, would the first woman president start a war if she needed to?

Any woman who is ruthless enough in politics to get to that position is going to be just as competent as a male president. The first step of elelcting one is the biggest problem for a woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I personally don't think having a woman president would be a problem. She would have to set the bar for all future women, so she probably wouldn't screw up much. The only downside is that the first woman president would proabably be inactive, and too afraid to make decisions. This has nothing to do with her being a woman, but that a woman getting a bad image would ruin any chances of another female president.

America's enemies may know this, and would make their moves during this period. Terrorists would absolutely hate seeing a woman in control of their countries, and I have to ask, would the first woman president start a war if she needed to?

Any woman who is ruthless enough in politics to get to that position is going to be just as competent as a male president. The first step of elelcting one is the biggest problem for a woman.

---

That is a very good perspective and more points to ponder.
me thinks :tomato:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

That is a very good perspective and more points to ponder.
me thinks :tomato:

---

Is that sarcasm? The tomato is throwing me off.

All we hear is people bashing bush all the time, and really. We all know he sucks. So whats the big deal? Countries that get free money from us couldn't care less about who the president is, as long as they keep the money flowing. People who hate, well hate us regardless of who is leading.

Seriously look at your list. I think Iran is far more worried about us bombing them into the dust, than if the president is male or female. Heck they would probably support a female president if she didn't also threaten to wipe their country off the map.

We basicly control iraq and don't care about their opinion anyway, so no big loss there. Really we don't care about most countries opinion, we just do whatever we want anyway. We threaten them with our massive over blown military, not the leadership of our president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

All we hear is people bashing bush all the time, and really. We all know he sucks. So whats the big deal? Countries that get free money from us couldn't care less about who the president is, as long as they keep the money flowing. People who hate, well hate us regardless of who is leading.

Seriously look at your list. I think Iran is far more worried about us bombing them into the dust, than if the president is male or female. Heck they would probably support a female president if she didn't also threaten to wipe their country off the map.

We basicly control iraq and don't care about their opinion anyway, so no big loss there. Really we don't care about most countries opinion, we just do whatever we want anyway. We threaten them with our massive over blown military, not the leadership of our president.

---

Dude, I'm not going to turn this into another terrorist debate, but have you seen how those people treat women? Women in power goes against everything they have ever known. Fighting, and losing, a battle with a woman-led army is going to make them so much more fanatical.

Women are often beat to death under fanatical Islamic law for showing skin. They will probably beef up their hate and killing of Americans just for electing a woman. At least in my opinion.

I don't care. Maybe it will draw more terrorists out of the woodwork so we can kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Is that sarcasm? The tomato is throwing me off.

---

No sarcasm.
I was just pondering over the other ideas it brought to mind.

I wish the world was as black and white as Alric paints it. While he may be correct in the fact that what he says does go on, I am confident that
our foreign policies, national security and international affairs are much more complicated.

I - for one - think that a female President would be devastating for the US at the present time. Now, so I don't get reamed by the female members: I think a woman could do the job just fine. But this isn't about "doing the job". This is about how the world will view and relate to the US if a woman were to gain the title of President of the United States of America.

Firstly, and most importantly, the countries we are at greatest odds with (you know, the ones who want us dead) are of a culture that regards woman very lowly. They don't even allow their women to show their faces. They have a social system that encourages the oppression and degradation of women. They have a view that it's OK -advisable even - to beat your wife because you don't like the way she does things. To them, women are to be completely submissive and their opinions and feels are to be ignored and considered un-important. And that's only scratching the surface of the evils of Sharia law.

What we need now is some one who they will at least take seriously enough to give us a chance. Sure, a woman would be a big slap in their face but, that's not the way to go about it: not right here - not right now.

So, how can we ever hope to be taken seriously at all by our enemies when we are headed by some one they have so little respect for? We'd be the laughing stock of the world, and that's not something we need to be encouraging any more these days.

No offense intended to women but, I am seriously against a woman becoming US president for the first time in these days and times. And I damn sure don't want that cowardly, liberal Hillary Clinton. She's got the spine of a jellyfish and the resolve of France. She's bent on giving up and throwing in the towel. She believes that we can appease our enemies that want us dead by "leaving them alone". Sorry, Hilliary, we weren't "bothering them" when they started all this sh!t in the first place. So what makes you think that showing passive weakness is going to change that?

Nope, not good at all.

EDIT: Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CsLHxja43...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSGx2...elated&search=

What happens if she becomes president?

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and a politically correct fool. As a part of their political platform, they will avoid doing anything that offends anybody, except rich white people. This inhibits their ability to make tough decisions for fear of loosing support.

In my opinion, Hillary, or any other woman, won't be elected next. Americans just aren't ready.

I am from the Netherlands and I would love a female president for the USA, at least if she also has good qualities like honesty, being sincere, strong but open for dialogue and some wisdome to. Its the qualities that makes a good leader.

I dont think that a woman president would harm the Usa in relation to countries that are Islamic. If president bush would be a pink midget i would feel just the same about him! You judge someone on his/her actions and policy not if she is male or female. I think even Islamic countries would look more at the policy the Usa stands for then if the president would be a male or female. Does not India has a female president and that isnt a problem for islamic countries in the region as far as I know.

Well they were female prime-ministers in countries with a large Muslim population, ( Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, Israel ) and as far as I know they didn't have so much problems with the Muslims, and they were not figure-heads, but actual leaders.

So I think Muslim countries will not take a female US president very differently then they take a male one.

I think the American people will vote for anyone at this junkier in time. Even a pink midget LucidApple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidApple

If she also has good qualities like honesty, being sincere, strong but open for dialogue and some wisdome to. Its the qualities that makes a good leader

---

:makeitstop:
I am afraid this is not how are system works over here.
It certainly sounds good though.

I tend to agree with Onierenaught.
The countries that do have residing woman are not changing the face of the world so Islam extremist do not care so much. I also believe they are ,for the most part figure heads. I may be wrong.

The females perspective is just pouring in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidApple

...at least if she also has good qualities like honesty, being sincere, strong but open for dialogue and some wisdome to. Its the qualities that makes a good leader.

---

I have news for you, Hillary possesses none of those qualities.

Quote:

---

You judge someone on his/her actions and policy not if she is male or female.

---

Yes, I judge people on their actions and perhaps you do too. But we aren't talking about what makes sense to you and me.

Quote:

---

I think even Islamic countries would look more at the policy the Usa stands for then if the president would be a male or female.

---

\Right, in the land of bubble gum and cotton candy. But have you noticed that - in the real world - the Islamic countries want to kill us because of what we stand for. What we stand for is everything they despise: Freedom. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can tame a wild beast with good intentions; it doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

the Islamic countries want to kill us because of what we stand for.

---

Way to completely over generalize. Pakistan wants to kill you for what you stand for? There was me thinking the government was working cloesly with yours to weed out terrorists. When was the last time Indonesia said they wanted to kill you. Yes some Muslims are fanatical, but your just over generalizing comeptlely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Way to completely over generalize. Pakistan wants to kill you for what you stand for? There was me thinking the government was working cloesly with yours to weed out terrorists. When was the last time Indonesia said they wanted to kill you. Yes some Muslims are fanatical, but your just over generalizing comeptlely.

---

While he may be over generalizing, you know his point.
This is why it is so hard to discuss anything, all the formalities. Yes, many times it is pertinent to the discussion. Maybe you feel it is in this one.
Generally speaking ● Countries empowered byMuslim Islamic religions do not stand for what they call the West and it's ways.


How will this effect the presidency of the United states?

What Howie said. Obviously I'm referring to our enemies. You know, the one's I've been talking about since my first post in this thread. We are up against militant Islam. It is militant Islam that I speak of. I hope that's clear now. I know full well that most of the Muslim population is peaceful and not considered a threat to peace and freedom.

I don't want to keep inching this closer to yet another thread about terrorism but, it must be made clear that they are the single greatest, most important reason why we are not ready for a woman President. And if anyone thinks otherwise then they are probably kidding themselves.

In my personal opinion I think it is about time that we see an African American as the President of the United States. I for one think that the current candidate would do an outstanding job he has all the right stuff and a very good background to match. As for having Hillary Clinton as a President I don't about that not to say that a Lady could not do a outstanding job as a President I just don't think Hillary should be the first lady to do it.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a woman as a leader, and to say otherwise is to me, completely sexist.

The title of presidency goes to whoever is most deserving, and their physical body (for that is what it all boils down to) has absolutely no relevance.

The 'oh, but the world would be less intimidated' argument holds no water at all. The world has never been as shit scared of my country since Maggie Thatcher left.

Now, I'm not saying this is my personal view, but the evolutionary perspective must be examined (this is the part where women get offended)

Men have pretty much always been "in charge", from the household setting to power positions at the head of countries. In older days men were the ones who got education.

Could it be that after thousands and thousands of years, homo sapiens evolved to have men in power simply because they were better at the job? If you think about it, men are physically stronger and more emotionally detached, which is an advantage in stressful situations.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Now, I'm not saying this is my personal view, but the evolutionary perspective must be examined (this is the part where women get offended)

Men have pretty much always been "in charge", from the household setting to power positions at the head of countries. In older days men were the ones who got education.

Could it be that after thousands and thousands of years, homo sapiens evolved to have men in power simply because they were better at the job? If you think about it, men are physically stronger and more emotionally detached, which is an advantage in stressful situations.

Thoughts?

---

I was just about to say it is funny how everyone is covering their ass in regards to sexist.
I feel your evolutionary perspective is accurate. The same would apply to other minorities, such as African Americans.
When woman, black green or orange men are not educated for years, it will have to have an impact on the future.
I do not think that this would have any merit on this particular topic.
At this point in our evolution, there are many many woman and black leaders that are more than capable of holding any seat that a caucasian white male could.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

At this point in our evolution, there are many many woman and black leaders that are more than capable of holding any seat that a caucasian white male could.

---

Exactly. I think human intelligence far outweights physical strenghts and weaknesses of men or women. Again, the exsistence of successful female leaders proves that women are not incapable of leading a nation. Human intelligence is the greatest phenomena of any creature. We have superceded our pysical nature.

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but the emotional fragility of women is a factor. As I stated before, any woman who is ruthless enough to get that far in politics is probably emotionally detached. But, still. Women are more affected by emotions, and it has been proven that women tend to base decision making on how they "feel", rather than "common sense". This bring up a VERY important question.

With a nation like the United States, could a woman be better at decision making? Men are "rational" in the way that they base logic on strict evidence. Women tend to OBSESE about every little detail of a subject (you know what I'm talking about). I wonder if this could actually make a better president.

Oneironaught said:

\Right, in the land of bubble gum and cotton candy. But have you noticed that - in the real world - the Islamic countries want to kill us because of what we stand for. What we stand for is everything they despise: Freedom. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can tame a wild beast with good intentions; it doesn't work that way.

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. A male or female president would so little influence that hate, the main choices the Usa makes conerning world politics have a way stronger influence.
I would be more concerned if the Usa world politic comes from the democrats or from the republicans, that will prob matter a lot more.


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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Yes, that part I understood.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freefire

what happens when the brown paint drys and starts chiping?

---

Micheal Jackson :happyhappy:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

...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 ;)

Quote:

---

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

---

You're really going to go with that?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

We all know that the war in Iraq is most president at this time. In concerns to the presidency and the upcoming election let's see if we can tackle some other issues that this topic's situation can begin.
Not to say that the Iraq war will not ans is not one of the major issue I feel the other 473 topics regarding that issue can well be established there.

Don't you think? :blue:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Many many people do not see behing the color or the gender of an indivdual. Before modern times we could have presidents that may have been crippled or short. (please spare the Bush bashing)
Look at us now. The Media has made this a popularity contest, not one of merit.

Of course that is a reasonable request.
I'll start another thread once Univesal Mind sends his reply. I am actually quite interested to read his thoughts on this.

Also, why is there a push to discern the most appropriate presidential candidate based on superficial conditions such as male /female, and black/white? It is the content of the president or leader of a country that gives them nobility, not some pop-star type attraction based on outward appearances. Just because it would be progressive to have (what appears to be) a black man (kinda like Chappelles Tiger Woods in the Racial Draft..please substitute Obama for Tiger) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mFo7t3gQ4 (time: 1:31) or a woman as president does not mean that they should be the focus as the most advertised choices (as with this poll).
If there are many more issues then perhaps on the poll you should have put as an option
a: A woman president
b: An african-american president
C: A president who actually upholds the constitution of "we the people" and not the conglomerate states of corporate america (or his / her own interests)
d: Seeker for president
IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Also, why is there a push to discern the most appropriate presidential candidate based on superficial conditions such as male /female, and black/white? It is the content of the president or leader of a country that gives them nobility, not some pop-star type attraction based on outward appearances. Just because it would be progressive to have (what appears to be) a black man (kinda like Chappelles Tiger Woods in the Racial Draft..please substitute Obama for Tiger) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mFo7t3gQ4 (time: 1:31) or a woman as president does not mean that they should be the focus as the most advertised choices (as with this poll).
If there are many more issues then perhaps on the poll you should have put as an option
a: A woman president
b: An african-american president
C: A president who actually upholds the constitution of "we the people" and not the conglomerate states of corporate america (or his / her own interests)
d: Seeker for president
IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states.

---

I would like you to read up on how politics really do work and not how you or I wish them to. Then rethink your post.
BTW Funny UTube!

Quote:

---

C: A president who actually upholds the constitution of "we the people" and not the conglomerate states of corporate america (or his / her own interests)

---

I hope you are not serious.
Like we would not all vote for this, if you have brain

You seem ready to grace me with your intelligence from that condecending post so i'll let you field this one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

You seem ready to grace me with your intelligence from that condecending post so i'll let you field this one!

---

How much power do you feel a president, even in the unlikely hood that he or she does not have their own agenda, can get any legislation pasted through both the house and the senate, considering all the higher ups in both off those parties and THEIR agendas?
A politician at this level is by no doubts a remarkable person, charismatic, charming, and a lier.
Let us say we give them the benefit of the doubt. They are like you say, "IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states." How far will this figure head get.

What I am saying is, it looks great on paper.
I am sorry for coming across an condescending. I am more frustrated with the entire electoral and political process than any one member here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Armageddon_Heaven

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 hate to agree but, that's exactly correct. Whatever is shoved in people's faces is what becomes popular, good or bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

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)

---

The way Hussein ran his country is old news. Even Rosie O'Donnell doesn't dispute the fact that the Hussein regime was all about terrorism and genocide. Well, maybe she does, but that's about it. The Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that funded suicide bombings in Palestine, supported Hamas and Hezballah, and harbored members of Al Qaeda. The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks, but the 9/11 attacks inspired the Bush Doctrine, and the Hussein regime fell under it.

Read the first part of this...

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

And don't forget that we are in a transition phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

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.

---

How did that make the Hussein regime less of a threat? The topic was dealing with Iraq, not how evil early American settlers were. What is your goal in this conversation? We have liberated more people than any country in history and keep the world much of the world safe as we speak. (whatever this part of the conversation has to do with anything)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

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.

---

You should read Bin Laden's letter to the United States. Read the part about what they are calling us to do. It involves way more than leaving the Middle East. They demand that we live our lives the way they do.

http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/c...opsupport.html

The problem goes way beyond U.S. presence in the Middle East. Our way of life has a lot to do with their problem with us. They hate our music, movies, television shows, strip clubs, fornication, porn, drugs, and all other things non-Muslim. They also think they go straight to Heaven and screw virgins if they kill Americans. The problem is much deeper than you and Ron Paul make it out to be. It is you and Ron Paul who are on the surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

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.

---

The Bush Administration did not attack the Native Americans. Your use of that old ass example proves nothing. It is profoundly fallacious to assume that the motives would be exactly the same. You might as well be saying we are in Iraq to burn witches. The U.S. was founded by Europeans, so you might as well claim we are in Iraq to throw war prisoners at gladiators and lions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

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.

---

We are a democratic republic, we are the wealthiest nation in history, and democracy is not an imposition. Democracy is a right. Were we "imposing" democracy when we gave it back to Western Europe? Would we have been more humane if we had let the Nazis keep it? If I let you out of a cage, have I "imposed" freedom on you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

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 obsessed with political correctness, so I call blog sites what they are. If they are left wing, I call them that. You sound like you are prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against left wing blog sites. How closed-minded of you.

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...s/viewpost.gif You seem ready to grace me with your intelligence from that condecending post so i'll let you field this one!


I am ready and looking forward to a reply :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

How much power do you feel a president, even in the unlikely hood that he or she does not have their own agenda, can get any legislation pasted through both the house and the senate, considering all the higher ups in both off those parties and THEIR agendas?
A politician at this level is by no doubts a remarkable person, charismatic, charming, and a lier.
Let us say we give them the benefit of the doubt. They are like you say, "IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states." How far will this figure head get.

What I am saying is, it looks great on paper.
I am sorry for coming across an condescending. I am more frustrated with the entire electoral and political process than any one member here.

---

Alright, sorry also for the confusion if you did not mean to come off a certain way. You could say i'm an Idealist of sorts. The reson i was putting the "C" option forth is to demonstrate the huge gulf that has been created within the electoral system and the runnign of the country.
With such a difference between how a country was run and how it is now run , putting it down in words may get ppl to think about what the world should really be ready for, Idealist notions or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The way Hussein ran his country is old news. Even Rosie O'Donnell doesn't dispute the fact that the Hussein regime was all about terrorism and genocide. Well, maybe she does, but that's about it. The Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that funded suicide bombings in Palestine, supported Hamas and Hezballah, and harbored members of Al Qaeda. The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks, but the 9/11 attacks inspired the Bush Doctrine, and the Hussein regime fell under it.

Read the first part of this...

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

And don't forget that we are in a transition phase.



How did that make the Hussein regime less of a threat? The topic was dealing with Iraq, not how evil early American settlers were. What is your goal in this conversation? We have liberated more people than any country in history and keep the world much of the world safe as we speak. (whatever this part of the conversation has to do with anything)



You should read Bin Laden's letter to the United States. Read the part about what they are calling us to do. It involves way more than leaving the Middle East. They demand that we live our lives the way they do.

http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/c...opsupport.html

The problem goes way beyond U.S. presence in the Middle East. Our way of life has a lot to do with their problem with us. They hate our music, movies, television shows, strip clubs, fornication, porn, drugs, and all other things non-Muslim. They also think they go straight to Heaven and screw virgins if they kill Americans. The problem is much deeper than you and Ron Paul make it out to be. It is you and Ron Paul who are on the surface.



The Bush Administration did not attack the Native Americans. Your use of that old ass example proves nothing. It is profoundly fallacious to assume that the motives would be exactly the same. You might as well be saying we are in Iraq to burn witches. The U.S. was founded by Europeans, so you might as well claim we are in Iraq to throw war prisoners at gladiators and lions.



We are a democratic republic, we are the wealthiest nation in history, and democracy is not an imposition. Democracy is a right. Were we "imposing" democracy when we gave it back to Western Europe? Would we have been more humane if we had let the Nazis keep it? If I let you out of a cage, have I "imposed" freedom on you?



I am not obsessed with political correctness, so I call blog sites what they are. If they are left wing, I call them that. You sound like you are prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against left wing blog sites. How closed-minded of you.

---

QUOTE
"The way Hussein ran his country is old news. Even Rosie O'Donnell doesn't dispute the fact that the Hussein regime was all about terrorism and genocide. Well, maybe she does, but that's about it. The Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that funded suicide bombings in Palestine, supported Hamas and Hezballah, and harbored members of Al Qaeda. The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks, but the 9/11 attacks inspired the Bush Doctrine, and the Hussein regime fell under it."

What does Rosie Odonnell have anything to do with proving or disproving anythign within this topic? I could care much more than less what Rosie or any other celebrity figure has to say about this topic when I am discussing it with you and others here.
I really do not see the point of this reference.
Unless you wished for me to jump on some sort of side-arguement about how i think "Ohhh Rosie is soo smart and well-informed and the things she has to say about 9/11 are sooo true and you should believe the things she has to say about the war on Iraq" and so and so forth...
You said it right.."The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks" but the attacks allowed this doctrine to pin-point and isolate those in the world that the US could not righteously go after before hand. What would the world response be if all of a sudden the US just walked into Iraq and said "we're just taking over" ? The world would see the attack clearly as an act of war on the part of the US. False intelligence, a stoked american population after a HUGE and drastic attack (not in a logical or reasoned state) and bingo! All is justified.
The US could have said it was Canada who was responsibile and if enough support said OK, well we would have a bush Doctrine aimed at terrorist Canadians. The point is : there was no link to the act of war that was initiated on the US , and Iraq beign responsibile for it. That is the witch hunt.

QUOTE
"How did that make the Hussein regime less of a threat? The topic was dealing with Iraq, not how evil early American settlers were. What is your goal in this conversation? We have liberated more people than any country in history and keep the world much of the world safe as we speak. (whatever this part of the conversation has to do with anything)"

You tried to make a shocking point and build your arguement up to justify why the US is attacking Iraq by pointing out the mass graves and atrocities that have occured under that Iraqi administration. By using this counter as a platform to justify being in Iraq may sway some weaker opinions but i am bringing to light that the US is also guilty of the same charges and all is well there isn't it? Under this reasoning, the US administration should be tried as war criminals as well, except they just know how to sway opinion in their direction a bit better. (you cannot deny the power and control that the domestic interests in the US have over print and televised media)"Do as I say and not as I do", THAT would be a good title for the Patriot Act or Bush Doctrine or whatever illogical and out- of- touch- with- reality Bill that this current administration wants to pass.
Again, to use that mass grave example as an arguement is hypocracy unless you fairly point it at the people who are bringing all this "freedom" as well.

QUOTE
"You should read Bin Laden's letter to the United States"

Heresay. You or I cannot guarantee that any letter penned by Bin Laden is authentic. In a time of war propaganda is best used against a countries own people for support. I won't even touch this one, especially when some videos of Osama have been proved to be doctored and edited, how am I to trust a letter supposidly written by Osama?

QUOTE
"The problem is much deeper than you and Ron Paul make it out to be. It is you and Ron Paul who are on the surface"

I did not say that I had all the answers. If i did, then I should be running for president, but here we are on Dreamviews having a discussion about these problems. Please show me how much deeper you can take me into these problems...I said that Ron Paul is the best candidate because of his knowledge of US foreign policy, the philosophical, economic, and social consequence of how this US ideology is progressing and how it is NOT WORKING. He puts the other candidates in pre-school in any debate and sees past the initial problems that the (lets admit it) less-than politically educated television subscribers are soaking in. Ie. terror cells, WMD's, possible new attacks, possible terrorist threat scales, fear, fear, fear!

QUOTE
"The Bush Administration did not attack the Native Americans. Your use of that old ass example proves nothing. It is profoundly fallacious to assume that the motives would be exactly the same. You might as well be saying we are in Iraq to burn witches. The U.S. was founded by Europeans, so you might as well claim we are in Iraq to throw war prisoners at gladiators and lions."

Perhaps you didn't clearly read my last point. I said in hindsight we can see how the progression of the US in the world is based on subdueing other nations to survive. THis "old ass point" of the US being founded on murder, coercian, and a skewed reasoning that to be free you first have to eliminate anyone who opposes how you think about your position in the world only proves all too well that history repeats itself. This is hundreds of years later and are you to tell me because the US grew out of all this misery that we now see in the world(oppression, genocide, submission) , that the US now wants to "correct", that somehow we should ignore the path it took to get to this point? Then just say the means justify the ends and we can agree on one thing.
Again, it is hypocritical to say "its okay when we do it!"

QUOTE
"We are a democratic republic, we are the wealthiest nation in history, and democracy is not an imposition. Democracy is a right. Were we "imposing" democracy when we gave it back to Western Europe? Would we have been more humane if we had let the Nazis keep it? If I let you out of a cage, have I "imposed" freedom on you? "

Again, did you miss something? The US is a Constitutional Republic. Everything that runs the country and made it what it is, and continues to allow it to be what it is, comes from that thing Americans call the constitution. Trying to skew it by saying that the country has been hijacked and is now a democratic republic is simply blasphemy.
When eurpoe was so graciously and single-handedly "given back" democracy by the US ( i seem to recall more than just the US fighting the world war) did you forget that they already had that system in place beforehand? Their countries ran a certain way before the war and continued to after the war. If all was fair, Iraq would not be having democracy imposed on it but would be allowed to choose how they would like THEIR country run. My previous point was that you cannot expect a country, newly introduced to this idea called democracy, to just be Free because they have it. During the assimilation of a country by a force which owns the means to grant something like democracy on another, it becomes dependant and an extension of the force which "gives" it to them. This is not freedom, it is an illusion.
If I tell you that you can run your country on your own but under my set conditions, are you Free?

QUOTE
"I am not obsessed with political correctness, so I call blog sites what they are. If they are left wing, I call them that. You sound like you are prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against left wing blog sites. How closed-minded of you."

Your point was not referring to left wing blog sites! It was referring to how you think Ron Paul should write for a left wing blog site. You are smearing
Ron Paul into a group that he does not belong in. What did you think? I was going to miss that and argue about blog sites?
You have polarized people into two extremes (right and left) and then placed Ron Paul and everything he believes in and his entire platform into a "unsavoury" group of people. (a poor attempt to sway opinion).
Next time it might be more fitting to say that Ron Paul should write for Al Jazeera, and anyone with an opinion other than the spoon fed take on the world today should write for what you call "left wing".Sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

What does Rosie Odonnell have anything to do with proving or disproving anythign within this topic? I could care much more than less what Rosie or any other celebrity figure has to say about this topic when I am discussing it with you and others here.
I really do not see the point of this reference.
Unless you wished for me to jump on some sort of side-arguement about how i think "Ohhh Rosie is soo smart and well-informed and the things she has to say about 9/11 are sooo true and you should believe the things she has to say about the war on Iraq" and so and so forth...

---

You really don't understand? I was just using an extreme example. I was saying that Hussein's holocaust is about as disputed as Hitler's holocaust. The holocaust is over. That is part of the reason the violence in Iraq has gone down since Hussein was in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
You said it right.."The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks" but the attacks allowed this doctrine to pin-point and isolate those in the world that the US could not righteously go after before hand. What would the world response be if all of a sudden the US just walked into Iraq and said "we're just taking over" ? The world would see the attack clearly as an act of war on the part of the US. False intelligence, a stoked american population after a HUGE and drastic attack (not in a logical or reasoned state) and bingo! All is justified.
The US could have said it was Canada who was responsibile and if enough support said OK, well we would have a bush Doctrine aimed at terrorist Canadians. The point is : there was no link to the act of war that was initiated on the US , and Iraq beign responsibile for it. That is the witch hunt.

---

Canada is not run by an international terrorist government that supported suicide bombings and terrorist organizations, used WMD's in a terrorist attack, was reported by many important bodies to currently have stockpiles of WMD's, and violated a ceasefire with us for 12 years on several terrorism grounds, etc. Canada would not fall under the Bush Doctrine, which was influenced by 9/11. The Hussein regime very much did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
You tried to make a shocking point and build your arguement up to justify why the US is attacking Iraq by pointing out the mass graves and atrocities that have occured under that Iraqi administration. By using this counter as a platform to justify being in Iraq may sway some weaker opinions but i am bringing to light that the US is also guilty of the same charges and all is well there isn't it? Under this reasoning, the US administration should be tried as war criminals as well, except they just know how to sway opinion in their direction a bit better. (you cannot deny the power and control that the domestic interests in the US have over print and televised media)"Do as I say and not as I do", THAT would be a good title for the Patriot Act or Bush Doctrine or whatever illogical and out- of- touch- with- reality Bill that this current administration wants to pass.
Again, to use that mass grave example as an arguement is hypocracy unless you fairly point it at the people who are bringing all this "freedom" as well.

---

You said the violence has not gone down. The mass graves were part of my explanation for how it has, even though we are still in the transition period. How does land take over in the days long before the industrial revolution mean the current administration is responsible for anything like what happened then? Our media, except for NPR and PBS, which are both adamantly against the war and Bush, is very capitalistic. The executives would be pissing fire very publicly if the government tried to control them. What are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Heresay. You or I cannot guarantee that any letter penned by Bin Laden is authentic. In a time of war propaganda is best used against a countries own people for support. I won't even touch this one, especially when some videos of Osama have been proved to be doctored and edited, how am I to trust a letter supposidly written by Osama?

---

That's a very convenient point. Well then read all about the goals of Al Qaeda and their philosophy. If you are going to conveniently call bullshit on every video and declaration of Al Qaeda, then you yourself can't claim to know what their goal is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
I did not say that I had all the answers. If i did, then I should be running for president, but here we are on Dreamviews having a discussion about these problems. Please show me how much deeper you can take me into these problems...I said that Ron Paul is the best candidate because of his knowledge of US foreign policy, the philosophical, economic, and social consequence of how this US ideology is progressing and how it is NOT WORKING. He puts the other candidates in pre-school in any debate and sees past the initial problems that the (lets admit it) less-than politically educated television subscribers are soaking in. Ie. terror cells, WMD's, possible new attacks, possible terrorist threat scales, fear, fear, fear!

---

Less that politically educated television subscribers? That's a pretty big generalization, wouldn't you say? What makes you assume that doctors, lawyers, executives, professors, teachers, public officials, etc. don't watch the news? Ron Paul gets slammed when I see him debate. I told you about his one dimensional view on terrorism. He is showing up for fights with one arm by being like that. Saying "fear, fear" does not take away the fact that those threats are real. You already said why you think the terrorist threats exist, therefore you said the terrorist threats exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
Perhaps you didn't clearly read my last point. I said in hindsight we can see how the progression of the US in the world is based on subdueing other nations to survive. THis "old ass point" of the US being founded on murder, coercian, and a skewed reasoning that to be free you first have to eliminate anyone who opposes how you think about your position in the world only proves all too well that history repeats itself. This is hundreds of years later and are you to tell me because the US grew out of all this misery that we now see in the world(oppression, genocide, submission) , that the US now wants to "correct", that somehow we should ignore the path it took to get to this point? Then just say the means justify the ends and we can agree on one thing.
Again, it is hypocritical to say "its okay when we do it!"

---

We don't do that. We have liberated more people than any other country in history, and we have given more in foreign aid than any other country in history. Talking about what early Americans did before electricity doesn't change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
QUOTE
Again, did you miss something? The US is a Constitutional Republic. Everything that runs the country and made it what it is, and continues to allow it to be what it is, comes from that thing Americans call the constitution. Trying to skew it by saying that the country has been hijacked and is now a democratic republic is simply blasphemy.
When eurpoe was so graciously and single-handedly "given back" democracy by the US ( i seem to recall more than just the US fighting the world war) did you forget that they already had that system in place beforehand? Their countries ran a certain way before the war and continued to after the war. If all was fair, Iraq would not be having democracy imposed on it but would be allowed to choose how they would like THEIR country run. My previous point was that you cannot expect a country, newly introduced to this idea called democracy, to just be Free because they have it. During the assimilation of a country by a force which owns the means to grant something like democracy on another, it becomes dependant and an extension of the force which "gives" it to them. This is not freedom, it is an illusion.
If I tell you that you can run your country on your own but under my set conditions, are you Free?

---

We are a democratic constitutional republic, and the Constitution is subject to Amendment. That is what we have given Iraq. What I boldfaced in your quote is what we have given them. They did not have that under the Hussein regime. What form of government do you suggest would have given them the right you say they should have been given? How should they have gotten it? The Hussein regime would have never allowed it. We gave freedom back to Western Europe by taking away Hitler's control over it. We did have help, mainly from the British, who are helping us now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
Your point was not referring to left wing blog sites! It was referring to how you think Ron Paul should write for a left wing blog site. You are smearing
Ron Paul into a group that he does not belong in. What did you think? I was going to miss that and argue about blog sites?
You have polarized people into two extremes (right and left) and then placed Ron Paul and everything he believes in and his entire platform into a "unsavoury" group of people. (a poor attempt to sway opinion).
Next time it might be more fitting to say that Ron Paul should write for Al Jazeera, and anyone with an opinion other than the spoon fed take on the world today should write for what you call "left wing".Sad.

---

Ron Paul could write about American foreign policy on left wing blog sites. Those sites are left wing, and Ron Paul could write his foreign policy views on them without changing his views. That is a fact. The left and the right do exist, and your whining is not going to influence me to pretend that they don't.

I was watchin Frisky Dingo the other day, I think that is what it is called...Anyway, The white Skull guy was running for president and they brought in a black guy, who they wanted to run with him as vice president...to add votes to his black percentage of votes...anyway funniest damn thing ever was when he (skull guy) said...

"Uh, I don't know if america is ready for a black vice president, I mean, you would literally be a heartbeat away from being the president, and i've got to be honest, that scares the hell out of a lot of people."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

I was watchin Frisky Dingo the other day, I think that is what it is called...Anyway, The white Skull guy was running for president and they brought in a black guy, who they wanted to run with him as vice president...to add votes to his black percentage of votes...anyway funniest damn thing ever was when he (skull guy) said...

"Uh, I don't know if america is ready for a black vice president, I mean, you would literally be a heartbeat away from being the president, and i've got to be honest, that scares the hell out of a lot of people."

---

See though, IMO that would be an issue.
Regardless of the person's ability to carry out the role of the president if it is a woman or a minority, how much pressure will be put on him or her to *represent*?

Typical politics:

"Some one" rigged the polls. Seeker for President has 8131 votes ?!?!

(...and only 35 people have voted)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Typical politics:

"Some one" rigged the polls. Seeker for President has 8131 votes ?!?!

(...and only 35 people have voted)

---

What do ya want? I'm from Ohio. :bump: