NationStates Jolt Archive

A woman as President would seem pretty shocking in the United States, where the position is dominated by male WASPs. There are female presidents in other countries, however. Are we ready for a woman in the presidency?

A liberal and a neoconservative would tell you that it doesn't matter. A feminist would tell you that women would probably make better presidents. A reactionary Christian conservative or a paleoconservative would want to prevent women from ascending to the presidency at all costs. What do you think?

They should vote whoever would do a good job. If it's a woman, vote her; if it's a man vote him.

It doesn't matter what their sex as long as they would make a good president.

I would give a woman a couple extra points, but I wouldn't vote for a woman just because she's a woman.

Is the US ready for a black lesbian president? We have a solid candidate already. :p

A woman as President would seem pretty shocking in the United States, where the position is dominated by male WASPs. There are female presidents in other countries, however. Are we ready for a woman in the presidency?

A liberal and a neoconservative would tell you that it doesn't matter. A feminist would tell you that women would probably make better presidents. A reactionary Christian conservative or a paleoconservative would want to prevent women from ascending to the presidency at all costs. What do you think?

No, it would make us seem less intimidating :cool:

Is the US ready for a black lesbian president? We have a solid candidate already. :p

...Colin Powell?

Yes we should. The past 2 years have been wonderful for women in terms of leadership(Ms. Johnsen-Sirleaf in Liberia, Ms. Banachelet in Chile, a female president of Finland and a female PM of Jamaica... and I think there might be one more) and it's about time.

There is no reason women shouldn't share governing equally with men, just like there isn't a reason blacks shouldn't share governing with whites. It's time to give those facts more than lip-service.

Caveat - we shouldn't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that we should have a female president sooner or later.

I would never vote for someone based on gender alone, that's crazy. Although if there ever was a woman running for president that I thought was the least bit usefull, I might vote for her (same thing goes for a male running for office, if I ever find one the least bit usefull they would get my vote.)

...Colin Powell?
:p Very funny, no, the supertanker woman who believes the use of torture is a "difficult choice" democracies have to face.

As long as a Presidential candidate will do a good and honest job, it shouldn't matter what their gender, race, sexuality is. Just that they'll get the job done.

:p Very funny, no, the supertanker woman who believes the use of torture is a "difficult choice" democracies have to face.

Just because she has a tough mind, strong views and stands up for her beliefs doesn't mean she's a lesbian!

...you sexist.

:p

:p Very funny, no, the supertanker woman who believes the use of torture is a "difficult choice" democracies have to face.
Condi isn't a lesbian; she's having an affair with Pres Bush. ;)

This is a joke.

The US doesn't elect presidents.

I think that if all I had as choices were a man whose views were opposite of mine and a woman whose views were pretty consistent with mine, I would vote for the woman. However, the Bible warns us of the dangers of putting women in government positions: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. My people, those who lead you cause you to err,
and destroy the way of your paths" (Isa 3:12).

So if there was a man whose views weren't perfect but weren't bad, I would vote for him over a woman. Feminism is harmful to the family, and thus to the country.

Gender is of no concern to me when it comes to leadership. All that concerns me is competence.

Of course, in the case of President, that's asking for a lot. So I'll settle for good public relations skills. :p

Yes we should. The past 2 years have been wonderful for women in terms of leadership(Ms. Johnsen-Sirleaf in Liberia, Ms. Banachelet in Chile, a female president of Finland and a female PM of Jamaica.

Liberia, Chile, Finland, and Jamaica?

come back when women have power in a country that actually matters.

I would never vote for someone based on gender alone, that's crazy.

who do you know what you'd do? no american has ever had a choice?

Liberia, Chile, Finland, and Jamaica?

come back when women have power in a country that actually matters.

... pardon me? The significance of these women being elected in these countries doesn't rest upon their status as powerful countries.

Chile is a very socially conservative nation, yet they elected a woman, their first ever. Africa(yes, the entire continent) has never seen an elected female leader before Ms. Johnsen-Sirleaf. That makes these happenings quite significant.

And by what critereon do you define a nation that 'matters?' I'm sure the man-on-the-street in Santiago or Monrovia or Helsinki finds their nation an entity that matters.

Several other countries have- or have had- female leaders (Not just Presidents of course, also Chancellors and Prime Ministers), so why not?

Just imagine a world with Chancellor Merkel (Obviously that is not difficult to do), Prime Minister Stronach, and President (H.) Clinton at the healms of the world...

Seriously, though, of all the many qualifications to be President, I think gender rates very low on the list. If the next Prez is a femme, fine, so long as that person is suitable for the job. Electing (Or not electing) someone just because she is a female would be ridiculous.

P.S.: I did not vote in the poll, seeing as I could not vote for either male or female President, not being a U.S.A. citizen and all.

They should vote whoever would do a good job. If it's a woman, vote her; if it's a man vote him.
My position exactly.

Jessica Simpson for President? Hmmm. It would be an upgrade, at least in terms of foreign policy.

I'd vote for a woman if I felt she was the best choice for the position. That basically rules Clinton out. Same for Rice, only at least she's honest about being a far righty.

Does it really matter if our president has a penis or a clitoris?

Condi isn't a lesbian; she's having an affair with Pres Bush. ;)

This is a joke.

Eww, I just got a mental image of two wrinkly people going at it, and it isn't pretty.....

My opinion has already been stated, that whoever is better will be elected. The thing I wonder about is if a woman runs for president and loses, what will people say? That they are sexist, or will they agree that people just voted the other way because she wasn't the best candidate.

My guess is that mud will fly after.

I think that if all I had as choices were a man whose views were opposite of mine and a woman whose views were pretty consistent with mine, I would vote for the woman. However, the Bible warns us of the dangers of putting women in government positions: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. My people, those who lead you cause you to err,
and destroy the way of your paths" (Isa 3:12).

So if there was a man whose views weren't perfect but weren't bad, I would vote for him over a woman. Feminism is harmful to the family, and thus to the country.

I agree. If the two candidates agreed on every controversial topic, had the same abilities, and were in every other way equal, I would have to vote for the man.

But as that is unlikely, there is a chance I would vote for a woman. Condi, maybe.

I don't even care if a president is democrat or republic, so I certainly don't care if we have a guy or a girl president. All I care about is that we get a competent president, which lord knows we'll need next time around xp

Should the US elect a woman for President?

Yes, Barbara Boxer.

Condi isn't a lesbian; she's having an affair with Pres Bush. ;)

This is a joke.
I thought I was the only person who picked up on that. ;)

Also a joke, but not for quite the same reason.

I think that if all I had as choices were a man whose views were opposite of mine and a woman whose views were pretty consistent with mine, I would vote for the woman. However, the Bible warns us of the dangers of putting women in government positions: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. My people, those who lead you cause you to err,
and destroy the way of your paths" (Isa 3:12).

So if there was a man whose views weren't perfect but weren't bad, I would vote for him over a woman. Feminism is harmful to the family, and thus to the country.
It took you all the way to the bottom of the first page to show your hand. Why so coy, when we all knew you were holding that hand anyway?

No. A woman's place is barefoot in the kitchen, birthing babies and cooking stew. If a woman were president, she could get the nation drawn into a pointless war over a grudge she has against another world leader.

Liberia, Chile, Finland, and Jamaica?

come back when women have power in a country that actually matters.

The United Kingdom had Thatcher. Surely the UK matters, no?

The United Kingdom had Thatcher. Surely the UK matters, no?
Or Angela Merkel in Germany. Amazing how so oblivious some are of this.

The United Kingdom had Thatcher. Surely the UK matters, no?
Don't forget Germany.

Now we just have to elect Hillary Clinton and get the Japanese to accept an empress and we'll be all set to replay WW2, girrrrrl-style!

Or Angela Merkel in Germany. Amazing how so oblivious some are of this.
You beat me to it. :)

Don't forget Germany.

Now we just have to elect Hillary Clinton and get the Japanese to accept an empress and we'll be all set to replay WW2, girrrrrl-style!
Just better make sure that all the blood doesn't mess up their perfect foundations and skilfully applied lipstick. :eek:

If she's the best, why not?

Just better make sure that all the blood doesn't mess up their perfect foundations and skilfully applied lipstick. :eek:
We have tampons for that.

Oh -- were you talking about something else? ;)

I think that if all I had as choices were a man whose views were opposite of mine and a woman whose views were pretty consistent with mine, I would vote for the woman. However, the Bible warns us of the dangers of putting women in government positions: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. My people, those who lead you cause you to err,
and destroy the way of your paths" (Isa 3:12).

So if there was a man whose views weren't perfect but weren't bad, I would vote for him over a woman. Feminism is harmful to the family, and thus to the country.

The Bible is filled with so much bullshit regarding politics.

Like how apparently, anyone with power was put in power by God.

What a joke.

We have tampons for that.

Oh -- were you talking about something else? ;)
I had not really thought of it that way :p Although yes, what is a good war without a fair amount of bloodshed? It's a tradition.

We need a black guy first, we got to vote before them, so we get dibs on presidency. :P

Meh, same as most though, most competent one.

We need a black guy first, we got to vote before them, so we get dibs on presidency. :P

Meh, same as most though, most competent one.
Condie is two-in-one :p

YOUR POLL STINKS!!!! I would elect a GOOD president. Females GENERALLY do not make good presidents. I might vote for a female IF she was very intelligent, and would make a good president. I would under NO circumestances vote for her simply because she was a woman. Anyone who did would be a moron in MY opinion. I repeat your poll STINKS! You need to totally reconstruct the darn thing. Therfore it is obvious I did not vote.

Several other countries have- or have had- female leaders (Not just Presidents of course, also Chancellors and Prime Ministers), so why not?

Just imagine a world with Chancellor Merkel (Obviously that is not difficult to do), Prime Minister Stronach, and President (H.) Clinton at the healms of the world...

Seriously, though, of all the many qualifications to be President, I think gender rates very low on the list. If the next Prez is a femme, fine, so long as that person is suitable for the job. Electing (Or not electing) someone just because she is a female would be ridiculous.

P.S.: I did not vote in the poll, seeing as I could not vote for either male or female President, not being a U.S.A. citizen and all.

Oh God, Belinda Stronach is a dumbass. If she became PM, that would be the official sign of Canada's incoming destruction... or the Apocalypse.

"Should we go to war? Hmm... I'll go ask daddy! He would know!"

We need a black guy first, we got to vote before them, so we get dibs on presidency. :P

Meh, same as most though, most competent one.

How about we start by electing a white, affluent, dynastic Jew instead of the usual white, affluent, dynastic Christian? Baby steps, people, baby steps. A lot of people were afraid enough about JFK because he was Catholic; I don't think this same country is ready for a black lesbian president.

I had not really thought of it that way :p Although yes, what is a good war without a fair amount of bloodshed? It's a tradition.
Well, then our course is plain. All national leaders must be women because women are perfectly equipped to provide the traditional bloodshed -- and they won't even have to shoot anyone.* And if there are enough women attending enough summit meetings, soon all the wars will break out at the same time, which will be much more convenient for everyone, don't you think?


* Though they probably will want to shoot people anyway, under the circumstances.

Condie is two-in-one :p

Uh-uh, women didn't start votin' til 1920, but black guys could do it since 1870. They gotta wait fifty years after the black prez.

Well, then our course is plain. All national leaders must be women because women are perfectly equipped to provide the traditional bloodshed -- and they won't even have to shoot anyone.* And if there are enough women attending enough summit meetings, soon all the wars will break out at the same time, which will be much more convenient for everyone, don't you think?


* Though they probably will want to shoot people anyway, under the circumstances.
And so we give way to the feminazi-dominated World War 3. :) A lovely way to begin the 3rd Millenium.

Uh-uh, women didn't start votin' til 1920, but black guys could do it since 1870. They gotta wait fifty years after the black prez.
Can't flaw that logic, now can you? :rolleyes: :p

How about we start by electing a white, affluent, dynastic Jew instead of the usual white, affluent, dynastic Christian? Baby steps, people, baby steps. A lot of people were afraid enough about JFK because he was Catholic; I don't think this same country is ready for a black lesbian president.

And look what happened to JFK... Not to mention there hasnt been another catholic president since then.

How about we start by electing a white, affluent, dynastic Jew instead of the usual white, affluent, dynastic Christian? Baby steps, people, baby steps. A lot of people were afraid enough about JFK because he was Catholic; I don't think this same country is ready for a black lesbian president.

The jews already control everything....Maybe a white, affluent, pirate?

Of course not. I'd vote for a black guy if he was a good candidate, but not a woman.

It doenst matter if their is a boy-or girl. As long if they protect the U.S and lead it really doesnt matter,
Vote For Hillary in 08

And look what happened to JFK... Not to mention there hasnt been another catholic president since then.

I think we're all aware that his head actually exploded out of the sheer amazent of seeing Chuck Norris block all three bullets with his beard.

P.S. sides, maybe we could try it again, get a good prez and make president even more dangerous than it is now....which is like, proportionally, the most dangerous job we've got...

Vote For Hillary in 08

HELL NO!

Of course not. I'd vote for a black guy if he was a good candidate, but not a woman.
Seriously?

If I agreed more with her than with the other candidate, then yeah, of course I'd vote for her.

It doenst matter if their is a boy-or girl. As long if they protect the U.S and lead it really doesnt matter,
Vote For Hillary in 08
Hillary is EVIL!!! I dont trust her further than I can through my house. She came to the city I live in(second or third largest in NY state, I cant remember cause were always shrinking) and promised a bunch of crap and never followed through on any of it.

Yes, Barbara Boxer.

That's just as bad as hilarity, er, Hillary.

Hillary is EVIL!!! I dont trust her further than I can through my house. She came to the city I live in(second or third largest in NY state, I cant remember cause were always shrinking) and promised a bunch of crap and never followed through on any of it.

Geez, how do you even know how far trust goes? How much do you trust your family? As far as you can throw a fist-sized rock? A frisbee?

Seriously?

No. I just wouldn't vote for a feminist/soccer mom/security mom/bitch. If she was a libertarian, or a moderate liberal (economically, not socially) then of course I would but I will still hold my sexist views publicly, k?

No. I just wouldn't vote for a feminist/soccer mom/security mom/bitch. If she was a libertarian, or a moderate liberal (economically, not socially) then of course I would but I will still hold my sexist views publicly, k?
Fine by me. A libertarian candidate of either gender would be awesome. The vast majority of male presidential candidates both bores and irritates me, both in the US and in Europe.

As for your sexist views, yes you could hold them publicly, but equally then one could hold racist views, sexist views (against men) and the like. It wouldn't get you very far.

honestly i belive that it is stupid that there has not been a female president, females are half the population,:rolleyes: after all so half of the presidents should be female...stupid guys thinking u should control everything...

honestly i belive that it is stupid that there has not been a female president, females are half the population,:rolleyes: after all so half of the presidents should be female...stupid guys thinking u should control everything...

Eh, we still have to open the door for you peoples, sides black people were slaves to more than a hot stove, we got dibs. :P

I'm not against a female president (although I'm not American so it's not really any of my business) but I don't trust the voters or the president to do things correctly because it's a female president. I wouldn't be surprised even if a rubbish woman ran for President *coughHillaryClintoncough* she'd get passed on the fact she's a woman alone. Gender doesn't interest me, only how well they do their job. I'm suspicious of the ability female president to do the job properly, simply because they're the first.

Eh, we still have to open the door for you peoples, sides black people were slaves to more than a hot stove, we got dibs. :P
So females who were used as sex slaves had it easy, eh? Or ones subjugated by abusive husbands and the like?

I'm not against a female president (although I'm not American so it's not really any of my business) but I don't trust the voters or the president to do things correctly because it's a female president. I wouldn't be surprised even if a rubbish woman ran for President *coughHillaryClintoncough* she'd get passed on the fact she's a woman alone. Gender doesn't interest me, only how well they do their job. I'm suspicious of the ability female president to do the job properly, simply because they're the first.

People love joke canidates *coughtheTerminatorcough*

So females who were used as sex slaves had it easy, eh? Or ones subjugated by abusive husbands and the like?

Well, you never know, some of those first ones might have enjoyed it. ;) (Not really. *shrug* I assume it was less in number than slaves, but I don't exactly have statistics on these things)
For the second? Eh, least they get like, names and stuff.

Well, you never know, some of those first ones might have enjoyed it. ;) (Not really. *shrug* I assume it was less in number than slaves, but I don't exactly have statistics on these things)
For the second? Eh, least they get like, names and stuff.
Considering that women moved from the UK and other nations to the US, where their status as second citizens went on, it could net to thousands of years of abuse.

You got names too ;)

honestly i belive that it is stupid that there has not been a female president, females are half the population,:rolleyes: after all so half of the presidents should be female...stupid guys thinking u should control everything...

Well, the presidency is a full time job and if a chick is a president, who's going to make her husband his steak dinner?:(

Well, the presidency is a full time job and if a chick is a president, who's going to make her husband his steak dinner?:(
The hired help from Mexico?

If I felt she were qualified, I would vote for her. I would not vote for a candidate simply for being a woman.

Considering that women moved from the UK and other nations to the US, where their status as second citizens went on, it could net to thousands of years of abuse.

You got names too ;)

...well....>_> we were whipped! (well, those sex slaves could of too, but still...) Sides, didn't get last names....and....um...We had to slave outside...in the south! Do you know how hot it gets down there? For cotton! At least they could like...umm...do something useful for themselves....And being hunted down with dogs and stuff! If a white woman accused a black man of...well, not just rape, anything really, the black guy loses. Clearly black was behind femininity.

Why not? Look what the men have done. Some good, but a majority appears to be shoddy work. If there's a woman out there who can make her case for the presidency well, then I'd have no problem voting for her. Let's see how deeply rooted the corruption and corporate marionette control goes. Likely we'd see more of the same, only with an even more intense media microscope, seeing as how she'd be representing all women...somehow.

...well....>_> we were whipped! (well, those sex slaves could of too, but still...) Sides, didn't get last names....and....um...We had to slave outside...in the south! Do you know how hot it gets down there? For cotton! At least they could like...umm...do something useful for themselves....And being hunted down with dogs and stuff! If a white woman accused a black man of...well, not just rape, anything really, the black guy loses. Clearly black was behind femininity.
And a black woman even more so behind.

Either way, I don't think there should first be a black or female president, or whatever. Whichever comes first. So all the better if the next president is in fact a black woman, who deserves presidency of course :p

Why not? Look what the men have done. Some good, but a majority appears to be shoddy work. If there's a woman out there who can make her case for the presidency well, then I'd have no problem voting for her. Let's see how deeply rooted the corruption and corporate marionette control goes. Likely we'd see more of the same, only with an even more intense media microscope, seeing as how she'd be representing all women...somehow.

Well, duh. Of course men have done everything, there's been nothing but men, how would women have caused anything without being prez to cause it?

And a black woman even more so behind.

Either way, I don't think there should first be a black or female president, or whatever. Whichever comes first. So all the better if the next president is in fact a black woman, who deserves presidency of course :p

Well.....they didn't work in fields as much....and sometime got to work in the mansions.

Eh, if it's a black woman, she'd better be from up north...Don't wanna run afoul of the ones from down south, trust me.

As long as they're white, male, rich, ivy league educated, corrupt I really don't mind. They've been doing a good enough job so far...*picks up a history book and gasps* *votes for the first black female available*

Well.....they didn't work in fields as much....and sometime got to work in the mansions.
And if Master said come and please me, I doubt they could say no and not get punished.

Eh, if it's a black woman, she'd better be from up north...Don't wanna run afoul of the ones from down south, trust me.
Well if a Northern candidate is more viable, then sure :p

In reality, voters shouldn't be able to look at the candidates. They should just be candidate "A" and "B". Their race, religion, sex, don't matter and shouldn't even be mentioned during an election. However, people tend to vote for who they like better, not necessarily on certain issues but how they look or what they prefer on matters like religion. So certaintly, it is time for America to wake up and realize the true issues. Will this happen? Of course not, unless both candidates are women, it's gonna be a while. Hey, FDR got elected with polio because he hid it so well, does that mean women need a sex change to become the president? :eek:

I would not under any circumstances vote for a woman. Men are intended to be leaders, and it is the way it should be. It was what was intended in the constitution.

I have nothing against women, I just think it is unethical to have a woman in that position.

I would not under any circumstances vote for a woman. Men are intended to be leaders, and it is the way it should be. It was what was intended in the constitution.

I have nothing against women, I just think it is unethical to have a woman in that position.
How pathetic. So did the Constitution advocate black men being presidents? If not, then I think it is no Constitution worth adhering to. Ethics are beyond law. Don't try and defend your position behind some blank document.

Oh, and on born leaders look at Elisabeth I, Catherine the Great, Queen Mary of the Scots, Thatcher and so on and so on.

And if Master said come and please me, I doubt they could say no and not get punished.


And they get cushy rewards for it if they comply too! Win-win! (b^_^)b


Well if a Northern candidate is more viable, then sure :p

Aye aye!

I would not under any circumstances vote for a woman. Men are intended to be leaders, and it is the way it should be. It was what was intended in the constitution.

I have nothing against women, I just think it is unethical to have a woman in that position.

lol it was nice knowing you.

*readies for the barbeque*

How pathetic. So did the Constitution advocate black men being presidents? If not, then I think it is no Constitution worth adhering to. Ethics are beyond law. Don't try and defend your position behind some blank document.

Oh, and on born leaders look at Elisabeth I, Catherine the Great, Queen Mary of the Scots, Thatcher and so on and so on.

I didn't say women who have been leaders were bad at it, I just say that the Bible warns against it, and I go by the bible, and the bible is a book of my ethics.

One other thing: Here in the US our votes mean nothing. Its just an indicator of popularity. Its all up to the Electoral College anyway. :rolleyes:

I didn't say women who have been leaders were bad at it, I just say that the Bible warns against it, and I go by the bible, and the bible is a book of my ethics.
So where does Jesus say that women are dangerous leaders? No one but Jesus. I am not interested in Paul or Peter's views. Just Jesus's.

One other thing: Here in the US our votes mean nothing. Its just an indicator of popularity. Its all up to the Electoral College anyway. :rolleyes:
I am aware of this.

As long as it's not Hilary Clinton or Condaliza Rice

So where does Jesus say that women are dangerous leaders? No one but Jesus. I am not interested in Paul or Peter's views. Just Jesus's.


I am aware of this.


I am not concerned about who wrote a certain part of the bible. The bible is THE book to go by, and I will go by it. And I am SURE that it warns against Woman leaders.

The Bible as a whole is the Word of God, so The word is the word. You can't seperate what parts you believe in.

I am not concerned about who wrote a certain part of the bible. The bible is THE book to go by, and I will go by it. And I am SURE that it warns against Woman leaders.
He does not as far as I am aware. He actually advocates tolerance and respect towards all men and women. I only concern myself with Jesus as far as Christianity goes. All else is redundant.

The Bible as a whole is the Word of God, so The word is the word. You can't seperate what parts you believe in.
The New Testament largely supersedes the Old Testament. Jesus is central to Christianity. All else is of much less importance. Much of the Old (and New) Testament were interpreted by man in order to come to the results he wished and act as a social policy tool. So forgive me for not taking the entire Bible at face value.

I am not concerned about who wrote a certain part of the bible. The bible is THE book to go by, and I will go by it. And I am SURE that it warns against Woman leaders.

The Bible as a whole is the Word of God, so The word is the word. You can't seperate what parts you believe in.

The bible was written by man who loosely interperate the will of god and fit in their own agenda will doing so. Not to mention it was written quite some time ago, things change man.

I am not concerned about who wrote a certain part of the bible. The bible is THE book to go by, and I will go by it. And I am SURE that it warns against Woman leaders.

The Bible as a whole is the Word of God, so The word is the word. You can't seperate what parts you believe in.

This is exactly why I'm not religious.

The bible also says how great slavery is and how stubborn children should be stoned to death.

I am done with this conversation. I do not tolerate insulting my Religion, Beliefs, and Views on other things. The Bible Says that Women leaders can be dangerous. I go by the Bible and avoid danger. So I won't support a Female Canidate.

Thank you

I am done with this conversation. I do not tolerate insulting my Religion, Beliefs, and Views on other things. The Bible Says that Women leaders can be dangerous. I go by the Bible and avoid danger. So I won't support a Female Canidate.

Case Closed, do not expect me to post more on this thread, thank you.

Fuck you and your bible.
Fuck it all.

I am done with this conversation. I do not tolerate insulting my Religion, Beliefs, and Views on other things.

So why don't you go burn down an embassey if you're so outraged?

I am done with this conversation. I do not tolerate insulting my Religion, Beliefs, and Views on other things. The Bible Says that Women leaders can be dangerous. I go by the Bible and avoid danger. So I won't support a Female Canidate.

Case Closed, do not expect me to post more on this thread, thank you.

You go by the bible, I'll go by Horton Hears a Who. At least I actually know who wrote it.

I am done with this conversation. I do not tolerate insulting my Religion, Beliefs, and Views on other things. The Bible Says that Women leaders can be dangerous. I go by the Bible and avoid danger. So I won't support a Female Canidate.

Case Closed, do not expect me to post more on this thread, thank you.
Such an attitude will get you nowhere. Furthermore, you are fundamentally flawed even in your beliefs. Good night.

Fuck you and your bible.
Fuck it all.


So Why don't you go burn down an embassy if you're so outraged?


Good job guys, you just earned yourselves Troll Reports. :)

Good job guys, you just earned yourselves Troll Reports. :)

*shrugs*

Just want you to realize what happens when you blindly follow an archaic book, but whatever. Troll me up. :)

Good job guys, you just earned yourselves Troll Reports. :)
Glad to be of service to ye. I assumed that since you were leaving, you know... you would leave.

I don't mean to take such a reactionary standpoint, especially since I view myself as a moderate.

But, every now and then, you know... oops :eek:

Oh, one is enough, even if you don't get a punishment.

Even though it did feel good to press the little exclamation button...

This is getting off-topic

Good job guys, you just earned yourselves Troll Reports. :)

Ignoring, of course, any all reasonable statments.

Oh, one is enough, even if you don't get a punishment.

Even though it did feel good to press the little exclamation button...

This is getting off-topic

I thought you said you were leaving about three posts ago?

Anyway I see no reason as to why a woman cannot lead, they have done it before and they are doing it now in other countries quite fine.

Oh, one is enough, even if you don't get a punishment.

Even though it did feel good to press the little exclamation button...

This is getting off-topic

No, not really. This is as much on topic as any of your comments on the bible were.

See, by the bible being brought into this, it fully brings the relevance of these comments into the thread.




I fully believe that people should be decent to eachother. If you would fight for your religion, die for it, then I don't support it; it defeats the point.


*I also see the bible as rediculously awkward; if I should follow what a book says religiously, live by it, make my world revolve around it, I'd rather choose "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," than the actual bible. But hey, since I chose that, it would be the bible, at least my bible. Therefore, anything I want can be "The Bible," at least to me, if I personally view it as such.

Just so long as it is not Hillary, bride of Lucifer.

Condi Rules

Hil-la-ry; Hil-la-ry; Hil-la-ry! :D

Oh great, this thread is attracting all the religious nuts, the anti-religioun a-holes, the sexists and the feminazis. Wonderful.

If women can be priests, ministers, or other religious figures, I can see no reason why a woman cannot be president. And anyways, women have always been deligated the task of raising children. That should of given them enough experiance to deal with the biggest babies of them all, politicians.

That should of given them enough experiance to deal with the biggest babies of them all, politicians.
How true :D

I would love to see a woman as president. Just not Hilary, please God, not Hilary.

Haven't read the thread, but not Hilary or Condi. I've voted for women in the primary. There have been several over the years that would have outshined the men that were elected. Can't see one on the horizon I'd vote for right now. maybe there's a Governor out there I don't know about.

I would love to see a woman as president. Just not Hilary, please God, not Hilary.
This Hilary creature is a woman? :eek:

dammit make the poll question the same as the thread title

we shouldn't elect someone based on gender.

This Hilary creature is a woman? :eek:

At last report, that was the claim.

Would I vote for a female presidential candidate?

It depends on what her platform is. If I agree with her more than I agree with the other candidate then I will vote for her. She will not receive any special consideration because she is a woman, either in a positive or negative fashion.

Is Hillary still married to Willy Long-Stockings? If so, why??

[W]omen have always been deligated the task of raising children. That should of given them enough experiance to deal with the biggest babies of them all, politicians.
Actually, I think this is quite a logical argument, even though I'm big on Biblical gov't and everything. The American Republic is so desparate that perhaps the God-given duty of women to raise children ordains a woman as president of Candyland (AKA The Federal Government).

Yes, Barbara Boxer.

Barbara Boxer no way,
Hillary Rodham Clinton no way.

Give me Condi Rice ok,
Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina ok.

Anyone else but Boxer and Hillary I will consider.

Yes we should. The past 2 years have been wonderful for women in terms of leadership(Ms. Johnsen-Sirleaf in Liberia, Ms. Banachelet in Chile, a female president of Finland and a female PM of Jamaica... and I think there might be one more) and it's about time.

There is a female chancellor in Germany.

I would as long as that woman was not Hillary Clintion.