Honda Motorcycles - FireBlades.org banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I would like to see Hillary Clinton, although not because of political leanings, a respect for history, or any agreement with established policies and principles as exhibited by her. It is only because she is the strongest woman candidate, with the most fund-raising potential, out there; and, we should have a woman prez soon. Then, an African American, then a Latino, and then an Asian. At least Hil is smart, and has already been privy to nat'l security issues as both a Senator and as a first lady. I understand how limited the Presidential power really is, and as our Legislature is a little more balanced than before with more moderates than ever from both parties, she should have an easier time than Bush will for the next 2 years. Plus, she has as much war-time experience as Bush had, read: none; so, she can hardly come in with bias (ala Mcain), or guilt (ala Kerry), or even ignorance (like Edwards and Obama).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I prefer the most qualified regardless of race or sex.
What does qualified mean? Smart? Successful? Rich? Pandering?

C'mon, Sheep...Provide a name and a reason.

I think it is time for a woman, and as the position is fairly impotent on its own, without the support of Congress, any single individual is hard pressed to either be really successful or screw things up too badly without Congressional help...Whether you think Bush has been great or crappy, the fact remains he could have done very little without congressional funding or if there had been overides of vetoes or no bills he liked at all...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
"with the most fund-raising potential"

She will raise those funds right out of our wallets will all of her left wing socialist big gov programs. She is trying to play the moderate now that elections are drawing closer. Just read some of her quotes sometime.
Although you are doing exactly what I didn't want, merely bashing my pick without arguing for your own, I respect the point. However, I must correct you, in that the campaign funds she raises will be private from donations by the rich and middle class, rather than embezzled funds from social programs...

And, at the moment, the dems are the ones looking to streamline gov't back down from the collossus built by the Bush admin...

And frankly, a liberal cannot be socialist...Socialism is the redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor following the violent overthrow of a capitalist government on the way to ultimately having NO government at all...It stands to reason, then, that an advocate for big government is the farthest thing from a socialist...Perhaps you meant SOCIALIZED programs, which essentially means programs having a pragmatic and utilitarian focus on doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, regardless of their position in social strata...Look to socialized medicine, welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc...All imperfect programs, to be sure, but originating with a desire to benefit the people as a whole, without the need for a violent revolution by the poor. Look also to Trade Unions (what could be both more socialized and more socialist!? See the scaled wages as redistribution and the constant threat of a strike as a looming violent revolution...), collective bargaining, etc...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
It is only because she is the strongest woman candidate, with the most fund-raising potential, out there; and, we should have a woman prez soon. Then, an African American, then a Latino, and then an Asian.
I'm sorry analog, you can't say something as retarded as that and expect us not to bash it. Atta way to put affirmative action into our government.

And as far as why or why not you gave the argument that you felt it was time for a woman president. Hmm... there ya go... liberals feeling and not thinking again...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I do feel that it is time to join the rest of the western world and shatter the glass ceiling of leadership. It is not mere affirmative action (the real retarded program, against which I have railed in the past...I ain't no liberal or dem), but a desire to have truly qualified persons serve in the office. I think the real retards are the idiots that think only rich white dudes are qualified...I propose a schedule to broaden the candidate base that the majority of Americans should not feel too threatened.

Oh, and affirmative action has been in our government, for good or ill, for a very long time.

You still choose to bash, rather than to pick your own. No original opinion of your own? Plus, I can bash hil all too easily myself...She is my very own carpetbagging Senator, after all, and I have heard all her typical bullshit...(All of which is fundamentally different than your Georgia senators' bs, and every other States' Senators' bs out there...) And she lives near, and has an office in, my very own town...I hear it a lot.

I just wanted some thinking:

Who do you like and why?

What makes someone "qualified" or suited?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,224 Posts
What does qualified mean? Smart? Successful? Rich? Pandering?

C'mon, Sheep...Provide a name and a reason.

I think it is time for a woman, and as the position is fairly impotent on its own, without the support of Congress, any single individual is hard pressed to either be really successful or screw things up too badly without Congressional help...Whether you think Bush has been great or crappy, the fact remains he could have done very little without congressional funding or if there had been overides of vetoes or no bills he liked at all...
I said nothing against Clinton's qualification. I merely pointed out that I would rather focus on their qualities than their sex, creed or race. You however are saying that it should go to a sequence of people based on sex then race. There is a LOT of fine candidates (some happen to be women, some happen to not be white).

My personal wish would be JC Watts of Oklahoma though I am almost positive he would not run (that shows sanity in itself) He is consistently conservative, was able to walk away from power (thus not power mad like some in DC). From a candidate standpoint he is also eloquent and photogenic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
My personal wish would be JC Watts of Oklahoma though I am almost positive he would not run (that shows sanity in itself) He is consistently conservative, was able to walk away from power (thus not power mad like some in DC). From a candidate standpoint he is also eloquent and photogenic.
Big ups on the sanity call!

Thanks too for actually suggesting someone...I must admit to ignorance with his specific perspectives, but will do some googleing...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
First Choice: Barack Obama.
Second Choice: Hill Clinton.

They are both very smart, as some other candidates are, but they are also witty and have tons of common sense, which differentiates them from other candidates.
Anyone even close to being conservative is out of my list FTL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
First Choice: Barack Obama.
Second Choice: Hill Clinton.

They are both very smart, as some other candidates are, but they are also witty and have tons of common sense, which differentiates them from other candidates.
Anyone even close to being conservative is out of my list FTL.
Nice criteria and qualifications...Brains, common sense, and laughter.

I like Obama too...His book is interesting, and his ideas for a modern government are certainly forward-thinking. I fear that we, as a nation, are not ready for a liberal African American yet...Perhaps Powell could appease the Conservative WASPS?

What about the Obama for Prez with Hil for Vice? I hear that on the streets uptown as a ticket to be supported in minority neighborhoods...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
On the conservative side, I would love to see Rudy G., the former mayor of NYC...I am not a huge Pataki fan, though I suppose we could do worse...

I have a friend who always votes opposite of the strong party in the legislature...So, although he might be a self described conservative, out of conscience, he voted democrat for the federal legislature...So now he will most likely get to vote Republican...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
I do feel that it is time to join the rest of the western world and shatter the glass ceiling of leadership. It is not mere affirmative action (the real retarded program, against which I have railed in the past...I ain't no liberal or dem), but a desire to have truly qualified persons serve in the office. I think the real retards are the idiots that think only rich white dudes are qualified...I propose a schedule to broaden the candidate base that the majority of Americans should not feel too threatened.

Oh, and affirmative action has been in our government, for good or ill, for a very long time.

You still choose to bash, rather than to pick your own. No original opinion of your own? Plus, I can bash hil all too easily myself...She is my very own carpetbagging Senator, after all, and I have heard all her typical bullshit...(All of which is fundamentally different than your Georgia senators' bs, and every other States' Senators' bs out there...) And she lives near, and has an office in, my very own town...I hear it a lot.

I just wanted some thinking:

Who do you like and why?

What makes someone "qualified" or suited?
There's no glass ceiling. Stop riding a cotton rocket and realize that there just hasnt been any serious female or ethnic contenders for leadership who the parties thought was worthwhile campaigning with with a serious chance of winning. I mean these people dont just magically make it to the head of their respective party without the parties voting for a leader. So it's not that the population has kept blacks, hispanics, women, aliens, blue people or sheep out of office. Their own parties dont think that these people can run and stand a decent enough chance of winning to invest their time and money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
There's no glass ceiling. Stop riding a cotton rocket and realize that there just hasnt been any serious female or ethnic contenders for leadership who the parties thought was worthwhile campaigning with with a serious chance of winning. I mean these people dont just magically make it to the head of their respective party without the parties voting for a leader. So it's not that the population has kept blacks, hispanics, women, aliens, blue people or sheep out of office. Their own parties dont think that these people can run and stand a decent enough chance of winning to invest their time and money.
Right...and the movers and shakers in the parties who determine candidates are all poor minority women...Like recommends like. Thanks for not playing the game, and only bashing. You didn't share, or perhaps worse, do not have anything new to say...Oh, and the phrase glass ceiling is merely descriptive of the historical lack of female leadership in our gov't, not an explanation of why. That is way too large an issue for this forum.
Oh, and I never claimed the population kept-past tense-anyone out of anything...Plus, why should the focus be who could win vs. who is best? This is a bs position. Oh, and take off, you hoser...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Right...and the movers and shakers in the parties who determine candidates are all poor minority women...Like recommends like. Thanks for not playing the game, and only bashing. You didn't share, or perhaps worse, do not have anything new to say...Oh, and the phrase glass ceiling is merely descriptive of the historical lack of female leadership in our gov't, not an explanation of why. That is way too large an issue for this forum.
Oh, and I never claimed the population kept-past tense-anyone out of anything...Plus, why should the focus be who could win vs. who is best? This is a bs position. Oh, and take off, you hoser...
:clap: Kudos to you for making a Canadian reference from an 80's movie..much appreciated
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
None of the above. They cannot ride a motorcycle, nor can be expected to show any reasonable respect towards people who choose to ride. Our current crop of leaders have clearly demonstrated their complete ignorance of riding skills and safety knowledge.

Vote for me. If I'm elected President, there will be special licensing requirements for those who elect to drive four wheeled vehicles. Enough of the irresponsible behavior of our behemoth vehicle driving masses. Its time for a change.

Expect public tracks for education and skill improvement paid for with your valuable petrol tax revenues. Its the right thing to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
None of the above. They cannot ride a motorcycle, nor can be expected to show any reasonable respect towards people who choose to ride. Our current crop of leaders have clearly demonstrated their complete ignorance of riding skills and safety knowledge.

Vote for me. If I'm elected President, there will be special licensing requirements for those who elect to drive four wheeled vehicles. Enough of the irresponsible behavior of our behemoth vehicle driving masses. Its time for a change.

Expect public tracks for education and skill improvement paid for with your valuable petrol tax revenues. Its the right thing to do.
:thumb:
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top