| Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Next president: Black or Woman; It's true... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:47 pm (608 Views) | |
| Tonic | Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:20 am Post #41 |
|
The Mambo King
|
Ah. My mistake. And yes, that mindset is most definately going to come into play in some of the more close minded states. It's a pity, considering that Obama has the right idea. Still, I can't help but like John Edwards. He said he's going to end poverty! |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:28 am Post #42 |
|
Level 39
|
I'm a bit more concerned with not ending the human species entirely before we worry about poverty, but that's definitely a worthy goal for the near future. Bush took a giant step in the wrong direction in both regards. |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:05 am Post #43 |
|
Level 23
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,5367488.story OK so that one sais 28%... I heard 48%.... I'll do more research tomorrow, too late. But, California is a democratic state if I'm not mistaken. But considering the current front runners.... I honestly have no idea how anything is gona turn out. |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:04 pm Post #44 |
|
Level 23
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859784/posts There is a recent list of disapproval ratings.... what is most interesting is that 52% of people polled said they wouldn't vote for Clinton under any circumstances.... |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:18 pm Post #45 |
|
Level 39
|
Um... did you miss the part where he said credible source? An online conservative blog has high numbers for Hilary Clinton's diasapproval rating? Incredible. And they even link to an expired Yahoo site! |
![]() |
|
| DeMaGoG | Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:32 pm Post #46 |
|
Level 23
|
Nah, I just googled it :-p. Its hard to find stuff on her approval rating. But no I didn't read the whole thing. But if you say its not credible then ok. |
![]() |
|
| eFecT | Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:30 pm Post #47 |
|
Unregistered
|
When Bill Clinton was president, there were boosts in alot of the aspects of the country. Gas was cheap, no wars (on our side), Medicare was thriving. |
|
|
| TeaLaGe | Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:36 pm Post #48 |
|
Level 50
|
whoever wins.. we lose |
![]() |
|
| noob | Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:17 pm Post #49 |
|
Level 21
|
The fact is the president has a lot less control voer the economy than he (or god forbid she) would like you to think. And just because medicare was doing fine then doesnt mean if Bill was leading 8 years later itd be in any better shape.. much like social security was fine for a lnog time but its now obvious that system is broken too. Yoo often presidents are deemed "good" or "bad" by solely by the times they served and not the ability. For instance, the clinton administration was riddle with scandals, and i dont jsut mean monica lewensky or any of the other whores he got busy with, he was also accused to misusing campaign funs, and letteing people stay in the lincoln bedroom in exchange for campaign contributions, and alot more (but i cant think of them off the top of my head) And also: the no wars thing, technically thats true but the clinton administration bombed irag as many as 6 times during those 8 years including one 70 some odd cruisemissile strike to eliminate WMD's. As for the election, anyone but hillary. Personally i am against trhe majority of her platform. Whether its the war policy, her health care aims, and a few other policies that will steeping america's decent into flat out socialism. And regardless of how american society is when it comes to women and equality and what not, the fact is how many other major countries have a woman president/prime minister/dictator? If you want to be taken seriously on the world stage a woman leader is not the way to go. Look @ the philipines, they have a woman leader, and i no longer have any respect for them. |
![]() |
|
| Sifl | Sat Sep 1, 2007 12:15 am Post #50 |
|
Level 18
|
Hillary is too girly and too hated to win, and Obama is too black (at this point in time). One of them is probably going to run, and it will be a major milestone for both of their groups (women and blacks), but neither will win. The most Hillary will acheive is possibly going down as the first woman to run for president. Obama could actually get the presidency, but it most certainly will not be this election. Like FaZ- said, some people will not vote for Obama simply because he's black. It works that way with Hillary, as well. They both have far too much going against them for such an important election, and the presidency will basically be handed to the Republican party if either run. |
![]() |
|
| TeaLaGe | Sat Sep 1, 2007 2:33 am Post #51 |
|
Level 50
|
With womens as president, you would have less wars and more peace, but unless some other foreign country decides to attack, you would be in a pretty bad shape, not that womens arent good at wars and stuff like that, it's that others nations will feel that your country is weak because you have a woman as a president... Good points: 1. Good olde peace for a while 2. Medicare/Social cares 3. New schools, education systems 4. New Developments into technology, sciences etcs... Bad points: 1. Country may feel unsecured because of a "woman" running a country 2. May not be able to hold the country together.. 3. Can lead to collapse, "one side vs the other".... 4. Lead to internal problems, within government with terrorist attempting to assassinate or taking the nation apart.. 5. Lead to problem such as "Haha your president is a girl, ez owned rape gg" whatever, lol.. |
![]() |
|
| Bravo | Sat Sep 1, 2007 3:04 pm Post #52 |
|
Helping Women Everywhere Recover From Boring Boyfriends
|
A woman is capable of doing anything a man can do, excpet maybe strength wise. However it depends on the kind of woman you are talking about. If your talking about Hillary then she will be to concentrated on saving the starving africans or kitties instead of protecing her own country. If you are talking about women such as Thatcher was in Britain than thats a different story as she was by some called the only man in her office.. Woman that don't have much emotion and that don't lead based on emotion can be great leaders and this has proven to be the case in countries like India and Israel. |
![]() |
|
| noob | Tue Sep 4, 2007 1:28 am Post #53 |
|
Level 21
|
I disagree with social programs in general and entirely disaggree with her universal health care plan she attempted to ram through the senate ahwile back. And in current times ahving a gun-shy leader could potentially hinder the country in that a fast repsonse will likely be needed 2 maybe 3 or even 5-6 years down the line when it comes to keeping iran, north korea, etc in line, however the current policy isnt exactly working perfectly but that doesnt mean going to the opposite extreme wont be completely disastrous either. Also, what if menopause really starts takin its toll? i mean c'mon guys shes a woman for christ sakes ;P |
![]() |
|
| Sifl | Fri Sep 7, 2007 2:55 pm Post #54 |
|
Level 18
|
Sigh @ this. Chauvinistic dumbasses. Look at the person, not their sex. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic » |







3:10 PM Jul 11