ForumGarden

In 2008 when the Presidential elections come around again, will it really be Rice v. Clinton??? This scares me. I would be EXTREMELY skeptical to have a woman in the most powerful position in the world.



Let the smacking begin! :yh_dance

I'm EXTREMELY skeptical that it is the most powerful position in the world :rolleyes:

Why should it always be a man anyway? We had a female prime minister for maybe a decade (I'm young, so sue me I can't remember how long it was), and no male prime minister has lasted as nearly as long since, not saying she was wonderful, but there has to be something in it.

BabyRider wrote: In 2008 when the Presidential elections come around again, will it really be Rice v. Clinton??? This scares me. I would be EXTREMELY skeptical to have a woman in the most powerful position in the world.



Let the smacking begin! :yh_dance
Well we had one running our country and she really buggered us up!! my comiserations if you are ever in that position it'd be like the devil & the deep blue sea. :-3

letha wrote: I'm EXTREMELY skeptical that it is the most powerful position in the world :rolleyes:



.
Out of curiosity...What DO you think is the most powerful position in the world?

I do not underestimate a females ability to lead a nation. Golda Meier--Israel, Helen Clark, New Zealand, but in the next election, I would like to see someone like Mc Cain run.

BabyRider wrote: Out of curiosity...What DO you think is the most powerful position in the world?
My point was it is only the most powerful position in YOUR country, not the world.

Power doesn't come from weapons and mass distruction.

Lon wrote: I do not underestimate a females ability to lead a nation. Golda Meier--Israel, Helen Clark, New Zealand, but in the next election, I would like to see someone like Mc Cain run.
Noticed you did'nt add the right honourable Mrs Thatcher in your list Lon. :rolleyes:

I say more power to them, may the best man er person, win:D

letha wrote: Power doesn't come from weapons and mass distruction.
Where did that come from?



I'll ask again, what do you perceive to be the most powerful position in the world? I am not trying to be pushy, I am truly curious who you think that is...

abbey wrote: Noticed you did'nt add the right honourable Mrs Thatcher in your list Lon. :rolleyes:
Whoops!!!! Sorry bout that. She is a great ole broad.

What about Dick Cheney, does the Vice president not normally get a shot at standing?

gmc wrote: What about Dick Cheney, does the Vice president not normally get a shot at standing?
Cheney has already opted out. His health (three prior heart attacks) precludes him running.

Lon wrote: Whoops!!!! Sorry bout that. She is a great ole broad.
Sarcasm does seem to get lost sometimes in posts.... :rolleyes:

I honestly don't think there is a single powerful position in the world, anyone who assumes they are "it" is fooling theirselves as there will always be someone who is that bit more so.

The most powerful position if I had to say there was one would be at that time when it actually comes to pushing the button, then it won't matter anyway as there will no longer be a world, when you consider how many other people will be doing the same. (For those who can't follow my thoughts, the button would be to commence a nuclear war).

So your version of the most powerful person in the world is the person with his or her finger on the button that is capable of destroying the world? And yet earlier you stated that "weapons and mass destruction do not mean power...."

BabyRider wrote: So your version of the most powerful person in the world is the person with his or her finger on the button that is capable of destroying the world? And yet earlier you stated that "weapons and mass destruction do not mean power...."I also said that he who thinks they are the most powerful is a fool.

Is pushing the button not the most foolish thing to do?

So the President is a fool? You're contradicting yourself here, and I'm just trying to get clarification.

BabyRider wrote: Where did that come from?



I'll ask again, what do you perceive to be the most powerful position in the world? I am not trying to be pushy, I am truly curious who you think that is...
The most powerful person in the world right now, is the person that is in a position to impact the whole world in a negative or positive way permanetely.

And we will probably have to wait and see how this part of history is written, to find out who that peson is.

To your first question there yes he is.

When I said if I had to say, you'll notice I also said there would be many more buttons pushed. So that alone says there is not one country who has more power through weapons than another (this is with the exception of the non-nuclear countries).

I really do not believe there is a singular most powerful position in the world, also true power does not come from threats or violence.

I would venture to say that the leader of the richest, most militarily powerful country on the planet has a pretty darn good lock on the title "Most powerful person in the world." I don't think this is a matter of opinion - this is a fact.

Erinna1112 wrote: I would venture to say that the leader of the richest, most militarily powerful country on the planet has a pretty darn good lock on the title "Most powerful person in the world." I don't think this is a matter of opinion - this is a fact.
C'mon girls, sheesh, y'all blew it, didja forget pillow talk, it's Laura.:-4

[Are these my only two choices?] Funny I've asked that question the last two elections

:wah:

Erinna1112 wrote: I would venture to say that the leader of the richest, most militarily powerful country on the planet has a pretty darn good lock on the title "Most powerful person in the world." I don't think this is a matter of opinion - this is a fact.
THIS is my point. It's not just opinion. The President is recognized as the most powerful man in the world, AROUND the world. Thanks Erinna, that's what I meant.

rachelg wrote: [Are these my only two choices?] Funny I've asked that question the last two elections

:wah:
Funny, I've voted in the last two Presidential elections (and several more before that) and I recall seeing more than two choices.

Erinna1112 wrote: Funny, I've voted in the last two Presidential elections (and several more before that) and I recall seeing more than two choices.
And you can vote for them if you want to throw your vote away

rachelg wrote: And you can vote for them if you want to throw your vote away
I would rather be the ONLY person voting for someone I believe in than to vote for the "lesser of two evils"...both of which, by definition, are evil. And I back up this statement with my vote. You think I threw it away...I think I made a statement. One voice may not have much volume in the grand scheme of things, but it takes one voice to begin the outcry.

People who vote for major party candidates just because anything else is "throwing the vote away" are perpetuating the problems that exist in Washington. The Republicrats are so powerful that the thinking is that you HAVE to vote for one of them...well, until that kind of illogical defeatist thinking is changed, then nothing in Washington will change.

Of course the third (and other) party candidates don't have a chance...nobody votes for them because they think they don't have a chance...DUH. When people start voting their conscience instead of expediency, things will change.

If you keep doing what you've been doing....you keep getting what you've been getting. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Yes Erinna, I agree, but I can't imagine that such a scenerio will ever occur. I am not about to vote for someone I don't support, but unfortunately, that means in the last several elections, I didn't vote. There may have been other candidates that I would have supported but their campaigns are not financed like the main party candidates and I rarely heard their names. Other than Perot, I've not seen one included in the debates. I had no perspective on their platform, and I don't think the majority of voters did either. I wouldn't care, to get back to the original post, if it was a man or woman though, if it was the right one. The strongest people in my life have been women (raised by my mother, two best supervisors and our current manager- all women) and I have no doubts about the leadership quality a woman can possess, I'm just not interested in supporting either of the aforementioned women.

I voted Libertarian. There are always more choices then most people wish to limit themselves.

"Even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" Rush don't recall off of which recording however.

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344

MagicZ4941

rachelg wrote: There may have been other candidates that I would have supported but their campaigns are not financed like the main party candidates and I rarely heard their names. Other than Perot, I've not seen one included in the debates. I had no perspective on their platform, and I don't think the majority of voters did either.
Just to play devil's advocate here, isn't it up to the individual to research the prospective candidates? I mean with a little effort, anyone should be able to find out just what each candidate stands for. Just because the campaigns of the 2 or 3 most prominent ones are crammed down our throats, dosen't mean we can't find out what the others are about.

BabyRider wrote: Just to play devil's advocate here, isn't it up to the individual to research the prospective candidates? I mean with a little effort, anyone should be able to find out just what each candidate stands for. Just because the campaigns of the 2 or 3 most prominent ones are crammed down our throats, dosen't mean we can't find out what the others are about.
Thank you Exactly correct. A voter just blindly checking boxes is the most dangerous one out there, IMNSHO. There are websites everywhere, and if you read enough of them, you get an idea of what reality is. It's very easy to check voting records and spending records. It's not hard to inform yourself, and if you rely on political advertising to do it, you're missing 99% of the information out there.

Ha! I voted for Ross Perot! Who says you have to be mainstream?

All I know is both parties gotta field a better candidate that this last election cycle.. and neither of these actually do much for me.. and not because theyare women... Condi doesn't have anywhere near the experience.. and the Power Monkey, though intellingent enuff doesn't have the moral qualifications.. she is slicker than her husband.. and that is pretty tuff to beat..