Hillary Rodham Clinton is choice of Democrats...

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

So what? I liked Bubble Boy, that is one of the worst arguements I have ever heard.  Considering there are plenty of religions that allow women to have significant positions within their "churches."  Besides, it is highly possible that there is a woman who could do the job well.  I do believe it will take some time before that happens, but I believe it would be a sign of progress versus a sign that we're are "in the dumps," considering that it would show that our nation has become more accepting of change, and the possibility that a woman could lead the country as well if not better than a man.  I believe diverse points of view could be very beneficial to our nation.   In my opinion, the arguement that since women don't have leadership positions in all religions that a woman could not be a good president is just abysmal and close-minded to say the least.

Thanks for your comment. What is one of the first things the president of the united states do after winning the election? Go to church with his cabinet. A great leader has great authority. What did bush do when 9-11 happened? He asked America for our prayers for our fellow Americans. Your right, womem do have "Significant positions". Are they the head of the church though? America is only getting worse as it is. Change in America now days isn't for the better, its for the worse. Again, if a woman shouldn't head a church, then I believe a woman shouldn't head America. I'm not sola, Remember God is the one to give authority. Me being "closed minded is one thing" but me believing something is another.

[Guest DrTom]

Coming from a man who believed he invented the Internet, I'm sure that Gore probably said that to come across as an intelligent, omnipotent man.

To continue being fair, Gore doesn't really believe that and never made the claim. It's fun to mock him for it, but it's not really accurate. Also, I have no doubts how Gore would have handled the September 11th attacks: I don't like the man or his politics, but the last thing he is is a ninny. Clinton is another matter entirely.

[Guest Gamengiri2002]

i really dislike the religion ideal backing this. I think it is fairly well documented that the church, most any church, proves the caboose in any sort of major reform. We have to kick religious leaders in the nutsack to support anything radical or even remotely liberal. Religion, for the most part, will trail behind when politics moves ahead, such seems to be the theological cycle.

[Guest HecateRose]

SW?ILBB, just to let you know, I do believe in something myself, but me believing in higher powers does not mean jack about whether or not a woman would be a good president. Many people would agree that some churches have some very archaic points of view, one of which is that women should not be in leadership positions. The fact that the president goes to church with his cabinet doesn't mean anything either. Anyone can go to church, your comment there does not have any relavance to this conversation that I can see. Churches do exist where women are considered leaders, but obviously you are limiting what you consider a church, and not taking in the fact that there are religious organizations that embrace women as leaders.

[Guest J*ingus]

Thanks for your comment. What is one of the first things the president of the united states do after winning the election? Go to church with his cabinet.

Earth to SWILBB: the President usually doesn't even have his cabinet fully picked out right after he's elected.

 

A great leader has great authority.  What did bush do when 9-11 happened?  He asked America for our prayers for our fellow Americans.  

 

Because he's Christian. You got a point here?

 

Your right, womem do have "Significant positions".  Are they the head of the church thought?  

 

Define "the church", please. If you're Catholic or Southern Baptist (the latter seems rather likely), then yeah, women aren't the head of your church. But like Hecate said (and ain't THAT an ironic name for this discussion), there are plenty of women in high offices of various religions around the world.

 

America is only getting worse as it is.  Change in America now days isn't for the better, its for the worse.  Again, if a woman shouldn't head a church, then I believe a woman should head America.  

 

Stop right there.

 

Do you have any reason at all to make this claim? Do you have any actual proof or logical argument as to why a woman would not make a good president? And do NOT just throw out some Biblical quote or another vague reference to "the church", I want some real answers here.

 

I'm not sola, Remember God is the one to give authority.  

 

I disagree with you on both statements, but anyway.

 

Me being "closed minded is one thing" but me believing something is another.

 

Categorically stating that 51% of the country's population is born unfit to be President because they don't have a cock is pretty close-minded.

 

 

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Categorically stating that 51% of the country's population is born unfit to be President because they don't have a cock is pretty close-minded.

Dude, with a name like yours and a comment like that. I'm speechless. Be happy.

[Guest Ram]

Where's Marney when you need her?

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Yea, I've been thinking that too, Ram. But, last time I checked, she was on a honeymoon with her wife. But, hey, not that it matters. Bubbles has yet to answer to a single thing that Jingus said, and if my memory serves me, Jingus does real well in situations like these. So there's nothing to worry about. Unless Bubbles starts answering Jingus instead of commenting on his forum name.

[Guest J*ingus]

Waiting for an actual rebuttal instead of a "clever" avoidance of the questions...

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ok a few points here:

 

First off, I hate having to bring up Bill Clinton (EVER) but for ANYONE to say he didn't do a single good thing while in office, should NEVER get to speak on political subjects EVER.

 

Secondly, as far as a women as president. It will happen one day, and I am sure for the first female president EVERYTHING done wrong will be blamed on her being a woman, which will set the date back even further for a second woman president. The head of the "church" should have NOTHING to do with the head of our country. Didn't our founding fathers say we should have seperation of church and state? Yes the lines have been blurred a lot over the history of our country as to what the exactly means, however, to say a woman should never be president merely because she can't head a Baptist Church is LUDICROUS.

 

Third, I would never vote for Hillary, just for the fact the she brings way too much baggage to the table, and with Hillary in the office it just means Bill Clinton will the focus of ALL ATTENTION again, and we don't need that.

 

Fourth, I am no Gore fan, but the fact is, he SERVED in a war, he wasn't put on a Texas National Guard sissy term for like Bush that would have NEVER been sent over to war, also Gore's military budget was bigger than Bush's. Ok that is about all I am ever going to defend Gore, cause frankly I am no fan of his either.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Again people I'm only one American in this country and It's funny how my grandma and people her age as women say the same thing as I did. Yes you kids are young and have you own opinions as I do, but that doesn't mean that my opinion on "women presidents" is Ludicrous. "What, am I in a room with a bunch of liberals?"

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Huh? What does thinking that a woman could make a good president have to do with being liberal? Not all conservatives are sexist and close-minded like you are...

 

Anyway, make a point. Defend your position. You're starting to sound like RobJohnstone. You didn't even try to give a reason for why a woman is unfit to be the President, aside from the religious nonsense you brought in earlier.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

aside from the religious nonsense you brought in earlier.

Bingo, statement noted

[Guest KoR Fungus]

So, the only reason why a woman shouldn't be President is because a woman isn't the head of some denominations of Christianity? Wow, strong argument. :\

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

So, the only reason why a woman shouldn't be President is because a woman isn't the head of some denominations of Christianity? Wow, strong argument. :\

Everything that you respond with is negative. By the way, who said anything about christianity anyways? Me knowing you assume is not going to help my discussion. What is that you say? "Argument":\??????

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

"What is one of the first things the president of the united states do after winning the election? Go to church with his cabinet. A great leader has great authority. What did bush do when 9-11 happened? He asked America for our prayers for our fellow Americans. Your right, womem do have "Significant positions". Are they the head of the church thought? America is only getting worse as it is. Change in America now days isn't for the better, its for the worse. Again, if a woman shouldn't head a church, then I believe a woman should head America. I'm not sola, Remember God is the one to give authority."

Ok, I'm going to risk sounding a little silly, but that DOES sound a bit like you brought in religion with a heavy emphasis on Christianity. And, uh, of course his stuff against you is going to be negative. He disagrees with you. Last time I checked, you don't throw in positive "Hey, you're right!" statements in an arguement. And considering you have not backed up...well...anything, I don't think you should be saying anything about his responses.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Goat bub, I'm sorry, but you didn't have to write all of that, Quote works just fine By the way, if you read, carefully, you will see I have answered everyones questions. Also, if you read what I said about GOD your not having option to be saved or anything

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

"Also, if you read what I said about GOD your not having option to be saved or anything "

 

...What? I'm sorry; I have no idea what in the world this means. Could you elaborate, or perhaps restate it?

[Guest J*ingus]

We. Want. You. To. Explain. WHY. You. Think. Women. Shouldn't. Be. Allowed. To. Run. For. President.

 

And. Religious. Arguments. Don't. Count. As. An. Explanation.

 

 

Got all that?

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

We.  Want.  You.  To.  Explain.  WHY.  You.  Think.  Women.  Shouldn't.  Be.  Allowed.  To.  Run.  For.  President.  

 

And.  Religious.  Arguments.  Don't.  Count.  As.  An.  Explanation.  

 

 

Got all that?

Yes I do "Got all that", I also see have you have terrible grammer, anyhow, you don't tell me "What counts or not". Dude, Get a clue!!

[Guest bob_barron]

Instead of being cute either admit you have no argument and move on or please tell us why you don't think a women should run for president

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

As for the whole "what counts or not" thing, Jingus is trying to do you a favor. Now, I'm not saying I've been on the boards since the BEGINNING OF TIME ITSELF (unless that's what the 20th of August was), but from what I've seen, most people who base arguments solely on the Bible either are just plain seen as ignorant, or they try to lead an argument with the Bible, and make some mistake or use some part of the bible with a strong contradiction from yet another part of the bible, everyone jumps on the contradiction like no tomorrow, and you're seen as an idiot for all eternity. I'm not saying anything like "Christians are idiots." But I am saying that if that's all you got, people will think that you are an idiot.

 

As for that grammar crack, if it was aimed at Jingus, I'm pretty sure it was intentional, used in such a mannar as to simulate a person slowly and deliberatly pronouncing each and every word so as to not confound or confuse someone. And also, considering my last post, and quite a few of your posts, you shouldn't be jumping on anyone's grammar. And I was serious, I don't know what in the world that ("Also, if you read what I said about GOD your not having option to be saved or anything") meant. There, my ramblings are done.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The last thing this should turn into is a liberal/conservative argument because the republicans would just as well support Elizabeth Dole as a candidate as the Democrats would support Hillary....

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Also, if you read what I said about GOD your not having option to be saved or anything

Alright, *seems as the crowd is a little slow*, this means that I'm not preaching on you or anything, Also you guys keep saying "responed to Jingus". Again, (listen carefully), this is Jingus' opinion, I gave you mine, ENOUGH SAID.

[Guest HecateRose]

First off this "crowd" is not a little slow, that sentence was a grammatical nightmare, wrought with confusion and lack of forethought.

Second, a board works on a "point-counter point" system. You have to be able to back up your opinions with facts if you wish to gain the respect of the other members on this board. You have yet to respond with anything but blind "conviction." You have not proven that you have given any significant amount of thought into your "opinion" at all. You are just reciting the idealogy of an archaic establishment.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Of course, you don't always have to end your sentences with a smiley . If you think about it, there are other ways to get a point across. In fact, after a while, it gets annoying! So, bubbles , I'll let you ponder that , silly mooncalf.

[Guest Gamengiri2002]

Also, if you read what I said about GOD your not having option to be saved or anything

Alright, *seems as the crowd is a little slow*, this means that I'm not preaching on you or anything, Also you guys keep saying "responed to Jingus". Again, (listen carefully), this is Jingus' opinion, I gave you mine, ENOUGH SAID.

Yeah...

 

No seriously, perhaps we are a little slow. According to Orwellian fable, the next progression of man is really just the containment and discouragement of individuality. Perhaps the next evolutionary step is to concede to White, Protestant, Macho traditions without asking why.

 

Also the institutions of newspeak and doublethink have no room for such trivial matters as grammatical correctness and punctuation.

 

Perhaps we really are lagging behind on the long hard road to a meaningless existence.

 

That being said

 

SWILBB, with your uninformed, conservative idealism and your ability to forgo a need to understand why things in our world work the way they do, you are truly a leader of men.

 

I'd shake your hand but that probably violates some militant totalitarianistic code of conduct.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

First off this "crowd" is not a little slow, that sentence was a grammatical nightmare, wrought with confusion and lack of forethought.

Second, a board works on a "point-counter point" system. You have to be able to back up your opinions with facts if you wish to gain the respect of the other members on this board. You have yet to respond with anything but blind "conviction." You have not proven that you have given any significant amount of thought into your "opinion" at all. You are just reciting the idealogy of an archaic establishment.

Good defense, for someone who had nothing to do with this topic or anything, Goat bub, can't we settle this with a pint . This crowd is not only slow, but very slow. My last 4 to 5 posts where trying to shut people up, did it work? You tell me, no wait!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shut up. (You ask yourselves "Why am I slow?") ponder this, there was no counter point.

[Guest EricMM]

Bubble boy, my church would not say that there is anything wrong with a woman being president. I believe in my church, and I believe that it adheres to Jesus' message very well. Your church is wrong, your view of the bible is apparently wrong, and if you think that God cares whether or not a woman is in charge of anything you are flawed in your thinking.

 

Get a clue. You have no logical point. You have only trash between your ears, if this is really how you think.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

You seriously need to learn what it means to have a discussion. When you present a point, you are expected to be able to back it up logically when asked to do so. The only way to have an intelligent discussion in here is if people give opinions and back them up, which allows a back and forth dialogue to take place. If everyone just went around giving opinions and then telling everyone to "Shut up." when asked for justification, this place would become an intellectual wasteland very quickly.