2008 USA presidential elections - Page 3

January 22, 2008, 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Young Knives

i was being sarcastic, he would constantly be on great presidential speeches, i only want him to be president so he can be a source of amusement.

Wow, I really hope you don't vote.

Quote:

not so, he is duplicitious, he says the right things to the right people, and look at the way he turned 9/11 into a good thing for him, makes him resourceful.

Yeah, so resourceful that his abilities while in office and especially during 9/11 have been called into question. Those who are actually informed understand that many lives could have been saved during 9/11 had he not been such a terrible mayor. He also claimed that the air near ground zero was safe when it wasn't. That led to a lot of health problems for New Yorkers. He's also been implicated in a few shady financial dealings.

Quote:

its not sexist, i didnt imply that women think differently nor that women equate to yes people.
what i meant was that she might chose women over men even if the men were better, although im not saying that they are, im saying it could happen, nothing sexist about that, it would be equivalent to me saying that huckabee would chose religious fundamentalists over non religious fundamentalists because huckabee is a religious fundamentalists

Um, yes...that is sexist. You don't choose to be a woman. You DO choose your religion. Religion/religious morals has an impact on someone's politics. Being a woman is simply a biological state of being. It has little or no influence on someone's politics. That you equate gender to religious views is absurd. Hillary, being a rational person, would select her candidates based on their abilities, not their gender or race. That's like saying Obama would choose an all black cabinet.

January 22, 2008, 7:43 AM

Unfairly discriminatory against one sex in favour of the other; in particular, treating women less favourably than men
thats the definition of sexism.
what i said was a legimate statement, perhaps not likely, but by no means sexist.

but back on topic,
the preliminaries seem a bit of a waste of time, i will elaborate on that further later

January 24, 2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Young Knives

Unfairly discriminatory against one sex in favour of the other; in particular, treating women less favourably than men
thats the definition of sexism.
what i said was a legimate statement, perhaps not likely, but by no means sexist.

but back on topic,
the preliminaries seem a bit of a waste of time, i will elaborate on that further later

Although this thread really isn't a debate about what constitutes sexism, I'd just like to say that I feel as though your comment was quite sexist. It effectively implies that because, and only because, Hillary is a woman, she will feel compelled to employ people based on gender instead of qualifications. Sexism is defined as, "Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender." Your attitude certainly promotes the idea that a woman is less acceptable as president because she would choose a cabinet of the same gender. Thus, sexism.

How is the primary a waste of time? It chooses the two people who will run for the presidency. One of the two will, obviously, become president. It's an extremely important process.

January 24, 2008, 12:50 AM

I'm a little scared about hillary running 4 president now. i just heard today about what she did when bill waz in office, coming up with some healthcare plan so everybody would have health care or something like that. its a good idea, but then she proposed that the gov tells the people whether they can b a doctor, lawyer, ect. if theres too many in one area, they can so nope u cant b one, whether its something uve been wrking 4 ur whole life or not. thats an example of the gov trying to take away our freedom and if thats what hillarys for, then im even less enthusiastic about her then before.

January 24, 2008, 1:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightningstorm13

I'm a little scared about hillary running 4 president now. i just heard today about what she did when bill waz in office, coming up with some healthcare plan so everybody would have health care or something like that. its a good idea, but then she proposed that the gov tells the people whether they can b a doctor, lawyer, ect. if theres too many in one area, they can so nope u cant b one, whether its something uve been wrking 4 ur whole life or not. thats an example of the gov trying to take away our freedom and if thats what hillarys for, then im even less enthusiastic about her then before.

Out of curiosity, where did you hear this? I've never heard of this before. That doesn't sound like a very realistic/reliable/accurate source. While I don't really agree with the idea universal healthcare, I think she's right that healthcare needs some form of socialization.

January 24, 2008, 2:59 AM

i heard it from my sociology teacher today. he always gives us little updates about whats going on in the news. ill look 4 a more reliable source tho b/c i no that doesnt count 4 much

January 24, 2008, 3:18 AM

well im sorry if you found it sexist.
im not sure waste of time was exactly what i meant, but il explain.
obvisiously as you say one of the the two people chosen will become president.

but its appears to be counter productive, mitt romney accuses ohn McCain of being a collabarator with the VC, which he is obvisiously not as the VC tortured him.
this in party bickering, the same goes with the democrats, is not really helping their party in the long run.
if McCain was to become the republican candidate, then the rumours of collaboration would just give the democrats something else to attack him with,
and it just makes Romney look cowardly for saying something so bad

January 24, 2008, 8:09 AM

I am opposed to Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, not because she is a female, but because she is an intrusive politician. She wants a nanny government. She wants to restrict or regulate video games, which is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If she becomes President, she may take away our freedom for the love of the children. It is not recommended for gamers to vote for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

January 24, 2008, 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedius Zanarukando

I am opposed to Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, not because she is a female, but because she is an intrusive politician. She wants a nanny government. She wants to restrict or regulate video games, which is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If she becomes President, she may take away our freedom for the love of the children. It is not recommended for gamers to vote for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

Do you realize they have better things to do then do banned video games? First off, they're not going to. Second off, that is just something they're saying to get votes. EVERY politician says "We're going to regulate video games!" it's so they grab votes from soccer moms.

Worrying about Video games is on their bottom priority list by the way. They have worst issues to deal with now such as the economy and health care. Hell, with the country the way it is they're not going to touch the Video game subject at all. The most they can do is make the warnings stricter and control the violence. If you think the US is strict on video games think again. Germany is very tough when it comes to violent video games. They're much stricter on video games.

I will be voting for Hilary by the way. She feeling very strongly on what she wants to do for the future of America.

I saw the South Carolina debate in class yesterday. Haha, my god, Obama can't even defend himself! I much rather vote Edwards over Obama at this point.