Hillary Rodham Clinton is choice of Democrats...

[Guest Gamengiri2002]

Ok, ok, ok... we've established that you have no interest in saving face by elaborating on your initial idea.

 

However, several counterpoints have been brought up in the face of your "opinion" and you have all but receded from directly acknowledging ANY of them. So, since you have such a fire in your belly against women holding the presidency, I wonder if you would rebut everyone's arguments.

 

And don't worry, considering no one on earth agrees with you, I'm prepared to allot you eight to twelve weeks to counter each of them one by one.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Ok, ok, ok... we've established that you have no interest in saving face by elaborating on your initial idea.

 

However, several counterpoints have been brought up in the face of your "opinion" and you have all but receded from directly acknowledging ANY of them. So, since you have such a fire in your belly against women holding the presidency, I wonder if you would rebut everyone's arguments.

 

And don't worry, considering no one on earth agrees with you, I'm prepared to allot you eight to twelve weeks to counter each of them one by one.

Give me a counter point? Which I have not seen, Just maybe I consider giving my opinion on it. WHY???, is not a counter point either.

[Guest EricMM]

Well if it's just your opinion, and you have no facts to back it up, then that's one thing. You should present it as such, and be done with this.

[Guest Gamengiri2002]

Ok, ok, ok... we've established that you have no interest in saving face by elaborating on your initial idea.

 

However, several counterpoints have been brought up in the face of your "opinion" and you have all but receded from directly acknowledging ANY of them. So, since you have such a fire in your belly against women holding the presidency, I wonder if you would rebut everyone's arguments.

 

And don't worry, considering no one on earth agrees with you, I'm prepared to allot you eight to twelve weeks to counter each of them one by one.

Give me a counter point? Which I have not seen, Just maybe I consider giving my opinion on it. WHY???, is not a counter point either.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the fact that various religious sects and denominations allow females to hold prominent, even leading, positions in the church and the decidedly well documented idea that religion follows politics in various areas of societal progression and reform a form of rebuttal to your opinion. Did I fall asleep somewhere along this journey or what?

 

And if you chose not to hear both of these ideas earlier, hear them now and tell me what you think about it.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

"Give me a counter point? Which I have not seen, Just maybe I consider giving my opinion on it. WHY???, is not a counter point either."

 

Now, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on the "There hasn't been a counterpoint" clause of you not defending your case. Here's a mini list of how this argument went, with anything you, bubbles, have said being surrounded by these smileys: . Any replies to what you have said will be unadorned.

 

Woman president in the United States, Not while I'm alive, if woman aren't suppose to be the head of the church (house), how is a woman going to be ahead of our nation. Well know were in the dumps when that happens.

 

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.

 

I'm going to jump on the Bubble Boy crucifixion express on this one. For one, as HecateRose pointed out oh so succinctly, there are already many prominent church positions held by women. For another it is entirely possible that a woman may be best suited for the job at this juncture in our nation's history.

 

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 should 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

 

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.

 

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.

 

(Insert here Jingus’s Entire Dec. 24th post, as that would take up a whole lot of space. Just read it over, it’s the post that dissects your argument piece by piece.)

 

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.

 

O.K., there's your counter-point. Discuss.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

And yes, I know I missed some things, but if you want a comprehensive list, you do it.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

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.

 

O.K., there's your counter-point. Discuss.

The only counter point that I have not discussed was on this quote. No, our founding fathers didn't say that. It's not even in the Constitution. That is a Joke. I must be lost, because the last thing I knew was that you don't need to have FACTS to have opinions. Why, should I waste my time discussing a topic that means nothing anyways. She isn't going to win nor run anyways. Again, I BELIEVE that a woman president isn't right for this country. You mock me for what I say, but I could just Imagine what other countries would say if we were headed by a woman. P.S. On the FACTS and OPINIONS deal, Do you need to see Jesus to believe in him?

[Guest Dangerous A]

Actually Bubble Boy, the Founding Fathers did call for a separation of church and state. Just wanted to state that fact.

 

And yes you are entitled to your opinions. We now know you don't think a woman president would be good. Fine. Cool. Nuff said.

 

DA says that he doesn't give a fuck who his president is, as long as they do their best and serve the people. Serve the people right, and I could care less what your sex, religion, race, or species is.

[Guest Gamengiri2002]

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.

 

O.K., there's your counter-point. Discuss.

The only counter point that I have not discussed was on this quote. No, our founding fathers didn't say that. It's not even in the Constitution. That is a Joke. I must be lost, because the last thing I knew was that you don't need to have FACTS to have opinions. Why, should I waste my time discussing a topic that means nothing anyways. She isn't going to win nor run anyways. Again, I BELIEVE that a woman president isn't right for this country. You mock me for what I say, but I could just Imagine what other countries would say if we were headed by a woman. P.S. On the FACTS and OPINIONS deal, Do you need to see Jesus to believe in him?

"The only counter point that I have not discussed was on this quote. No, our founding fathers didn't say that. It's not even in the Constitution. That is a Joke."

 

Seperation of Church and State is well documented in the annals of capitol hill and the supreme court. It's a sensitive issue because of the diversity of the American public. No one religion can be aqcuainted with the nation as a whole because it would offend too many people with dissenting beliefs or opinions. As such, the religious affiliation of an elected official (especially the president) is seldom discussed or focused upon. If religion were of top priority in the decision to elect a president, then I would venture a guess in saying that JFK would have never held the office. Seperation of church and state is not a joke, it's a topic that has sparked over a hundred different state and federal court hearings and is currently the most debated issue when it pertains to educational disputes and policies. I fail to see the joke or even the provincial humor in that.

 

"I must be lost, because the last thing I knew was that you don't need to have FACTS to have opinions. Why, should I waste my time discussing a topic that means nothin

g anyways."

 

THIS is a joke. Opinions, good opinion as it were, informed opinions are based on facts. You can't expect to say something like: "I believe we should castrate all guys named Carl and that would greatly decrease the amount of venereal disease that is of current running rampant in our society." without someone calling your data into question. What is it you have been taught that would initiate such an opinion? What did you learn as a child that deviated you to the point where you would honestly believe that this idea made any sense at all? These are all contributors to your opinion, whether you acknowledge them or not. Also, if the topic means nothing,... stay with me where as this is where it gets confusing... if the topic means nothing then WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU SAY ANYTHING IN THE FIRST PLACE!?! Are you with me still? Good. This obviously means something to you as you have posted as much in this thread as anyone. If this truly does mean nothing to you, then you are sad and pathetic and need to find a hobby worth spending your time on that won't make you seem like a jackass.

 

"She isn't going to win nor run anyways."

 

Geez, if I'd have known you had her on a two-radio as we spoke I would have never disagreed with you in the first place. Just how exactly are you sure of any of this.

 

"Again, I BELIEVE that a woman president isn't right for this country."

 

Why?

 

"You mock me for what I say,"

 

I'd also mock you for how you look and the way you relate to women. Your point?

 

"but I could just Imagine what other countries would say if we were headed by a woman."

 

Who? Pakistan? They can say what they want. But when it comes down to it, there's a reason many americans settle down every night to a warm, savory meal while people over there are currently living off of Algae and Horse feed.

 

"P.S. On the FACTS and OPINIONS deal, Do you need to see Jesus to believe in him? "

 

No. I don't have to see a female president to believe it's possible either. I base that assumption on what I have been taught and the ways in which I process that information. You didn't come into this world believing in Jesus, your environment and the people that surround you aroused that belief in you. Those are the facts my friend.

 

Now take a break and come on back.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Man, having Hillary as president would just be weird. Politically speaking it'd be fine, but what's Bill going to be doing? Is he going to be expected to perform all the traditional "duties" of a first lady? Christ, Saturday Night Live will be able to run for the next 15 years with this kind of material.

[Guest J*ingus]

Bubble Boy, let me break it down very simply:

 

1. Why do you believe that a women should not be head of "the church"?

 

2. For that matter, what denomination do you practice, anyway?

 

3. Why do you believe that a female president would be a negative change for our country?

 

4. And yes, I would need to see Jesus to believe in him.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

All kinds of nations have had female leaders.

 

Catherine the Great, Hey, how about anyone who's ever hailed a queen?

[Guest Ram]

I can't believe anybody would argue with somebody who liked Bubble Boy.

 

It's like ramming your head into a wall.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Hey, but if you ram into a wall with enough padding, it's good times, Ram.

[Guest EricMM]

Hey, that's true. Lots of European nations, both Catholic and Protestant had Queens at some point as the ruler. Was that unacceptable too?

 

The thing is bubble boy, this isn't entirely an opinions folder. One would at least hope that what we discuss is like facts, or true. So like, it's good to have proof. When I'm all "Gloom and doom~!" I should have some semblance of an argument. Not just "Well it's just my opinion, you can't tell me what to think! WWJD!!!"

 

Again, the bible, faith, and beliefs are not proof of anything nor a decent argument for anything.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

The thing is bubble boy, this isn't entirely an opinions folder. One would at least hope that what we discuss is like facts, or true. So like, it's good to have proof. When I'm all "Gloom and doom~!" I should have some semblance of an argument. Not just "Well it's just my opinion, you can't tell me what to think! WWJD!!!"

 

Again, the bible, faith, and beliefs are not proof of anything nor a decent argument for anything.

So this isn't an opinion folder, hmm, ok. What do you call this? Buy the way your last statement really does slap you in the face.

[Guest Dopey]

I do not believe she would win if she ran. First there would be too much baggage, and secondly we are still not ready for a woman pres.. Sorry, but most men are afraid that the whole PMS thing would be a problem. Also most of the men I've spoken with on the subject, deep down, away from all the hype and when we're not around the women folk, have stated clearly that they would prefer a man in the office.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

The reason religion doesn't work well in here is simply: not everyone follows the same religion. What may be easily taken for granted (Like, say, Jesus being the son of God) may not be accepted by others (Tell that to some Hindu guy. Or a follower of Wicca. Or a Muslim. Or a [fill in religion here])

[Guest DrTom]

So this isn't an opinion folder, hmm, ok. What do you call this?

It's a folder for opinions you can support with credible sources. And to a lot of people here, spewing screed inspired by a religious text many posters here don't believe in or give a damn about is not presenting a reasoned opinion. It's blindly spewing ill-supported venom and nothing more.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I voted for Nader/LaDuke and didn't have ANY reservations simply based on LaDuke being a female, but since she only would have been Vice President, it may a bit different.

[Guest EricMM]

Seriously bubble, how are you going to convince an athiest or even an agnostic w/ religious arguments?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It's not possible. We're far too pig-headed and evil. Sorry. Try offering us drugs.

[Guest DrTom]

It's not possible. We're far too pig-headed and evil. Sorry. Try offering us drugs.

Meh. I'm not into drugs, either. Perhaps sexual favors from a harem of busty brunettes could be substituted. It seems to me that nailing a stripper > hitting the bong.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

It's not possible. We're far too pig-headed and evil. Sorry. Try offering us drugs.

Meh. I'm not into drugs, either. Perhaps sexual favors from a harem of busty brunettes could be substituted. It seems to me that nailing a stripper > hitting the bong.

This is how, use your words against you. Do you think this is how they speak in heaven. Is there GOOD and BAD, yes. So if you think that speaking like this makes you GOOD then that is your opinion. My opinion is that your speaking BAD.

[Guest DrTom]

Do you think this is how they speak in heaven.

Considering that I don't believe in God, Satan, Heaven, or Hell, that's an irrelevant question.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Do you think this is how they speak in heaven.

Considering that I don't believe in God, Satan, Heaven, or Hell, that's an irrelevant question.

Sorry, didn't know we were on your terms

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

It's not possible. We're far too pig-headed and evil. Sorry. Try offering us drugs.

Meh. I'm not into drugs, either. Perhaps sexual favors from a harem of busty brunettes could be substituted. It seems to me that nailing a stripper > hitting the bong.

This is how, use your words against you. Do you think this is how they speak in heaven. Is there GOOD and BAD, yes. So if you think that speaking like this makes you GOOD then that is your opinion. My opinion is that your speaking BAD.

OK, that's it. If anyone can't see that AoO and Tom's posts were (at least partially) in jest, than that person does not have the mental capacity to understand what goes on in the CE boards. Jeez, Bubbles, can't you do something else, like say AD&D is Satanic or something? Maybe spend a bit more time trying to ban Alladin? Try and blame videogames for...everything? Just get away from here.

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

OK, that's it. If anyone can't see that AoO and Tom's posts were (at least partially) in jest, than that person does not have the mental capacity to understand what goes on in the CE boards. Jeez, Bubbles, can't you do something else, like say AD&D is Satanic or something? Maybe spend a bit more time trying to ban Alladin? Try and blame videogames for...everything? Just get away from here.

Ok, my opinion is that you are speaking bad

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Actually Bubble Boy, the Founding Fathers did call for a separation of church and state. Just wanted to state that fact.

DA, your wrong.

[Guest EricMM]

Sorry, didn't know we were on your terms

 

Arguments must be argued through some sort of Empirical (provable) logic. There has to be some testable basis for arguments.

 

The bible is not empirical proof. Faith is not empirical proof.

 

You want to prove that there's something wrong with women leaders, provide some sort of proof that women are somehow less mentally capable then men.