president hillary clinton?

[jefhatfield]

a cnn/time poll put her at the top of the race for the dems at 30 percent...senators kerry and lieberman but got 13 percent each

could that be?

the next two years will be key for bush and people will be looking at the economy the most and ask the question, "are you better off in 2004 than you were in 2000?"

that will either save george w bush or doom him

if clinton does win the white house in 2004, it will be confusing for schoolkids memorizing the presients

president g "hw" bush...1988
president b. clinton...1992
president g "w" bush...2000
president h. clinton...2004

throw jeb bush in there for 2008 and then you have something akin to political incest going on there:p

[Mr. Anderson]

I don't think the US is ready for a woman president yet. I'm not saying that a woman president is a bad thing - I'm not sexist - being more of a realist here. In the position of power that the US holds or is trying to maintain, some other countries would try and take advantage of the situation.

And the thing with Bush will be if he can handle the Iraq issue - more so than the economy I think. I'm just hoping he isn't trying for a grand gesture for political reasons in dealing with Sadam.

D

[Geetar]

I wonder how people perceive Hilary's ability to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with the leaders of the main Islamic nations (Saudi, Egypt etc) and tell them to get their houses in order ? Could she do it...and would they listen if she did?

I have no clear answer for myself on this. What do you think?

[D0ct0rteeth]

The domocrats will not put Clinton up in 2004. 2008 probably.. but not 2004. Bush is going to run again and Hillary will want a head to head fight... not an incumbant to run against.

My bet is John Kerry from Mass will be the democratic nomination... they will sacrifice him in the name of being able to attack Bush' politics and will accept the rupublican victory in 2004 in order to let the economy get worse, get involved in more wars, sour the publics perception of republicans, and set the stage for Hillary in 2008.

Hillary will run in 2008 and like bush will bring in a lot of her husbands old team and run on the campaign of "My husband fixed the economy and i will too"

Ahh.. how scary... If only there was someone i would vote for with either party.

-Doc

[3777]

Just shows how completely out of touch those commies are:o


Do they really think that wench will ever win anywhere buy New York:D

[Rajj]

Why not????:confused: :confused: :confused:

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by xrhajj
Why not????:confused: :confused: :confused:
Well, I live in New York, no the city but upstate, and all I can say is that she has done nothing, I repeat nothing for us. I want to pull up her voting record and post again, but alas I am incredible lazy. Can someone else do it? I don't know if she voted for the tax reduction or not, if she didn't then she has not done a single thing that has benefitted us upstate. In fact, I don't even think she's done anything that hurt us upstate.

[Juventuz]

I'm going to have to agree with bobindashadows, I also live in upstate NY and can wholeheartedly say she's done nothing for NY. Especially upstate.

The only time Clinton has been here in Binghamton was for three fundraisers, well she was here for a "town meeting" at Binghamton University but she did go to a fundraiser after that as well.

Damn those downstaters for voting her in office. :)

[superkatalog]

i think it's kind of weird that the us have now the son of bush sen. as president. how many people live in the US? not enough to have a president from another family? have you no problem with that??

[idkew]

click this (http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kinho/youare.swf) to show your support for hillary.

[dreamlance]

Didn't Hillary already say she wasn't going to run in 2004? I don't think the US is ready for a woman president right now, not with things heating up with Iraq and other countries.

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I don't think the US is ready for a woman president yet. D

Actually, I think we are overdue for one. I'm rather tired of our policies being fueled by testosterone.

[MacRumorSkeptic]

It would be a sad day in U.S. history if hilary clinton won election as president. hilary is an absolute socialist and I think it would be the beggining of the end of our nation.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by superkatalog
i think it's kind of weird that the us have now the son of bush sen. as president. how many people live in the US? not enough to have a president from another family? have you no problem with that??

It took somebody from outside the country to put their finger on the real issue, and it isn't whether Hillary Clinton could win the White House or if she'd make a good president.

National politics in the US is becoming all about connections and entitlements. In 2000 the Republican National Committee anointed George W. Bush before the primaries even started because he was well-connected (the son of a president with lots of close big corporation buddies), and could be marketed effectively as a "moderate." Gore was anointed by the DNC because as an incumbent VP, the "rules" say was entitled to a shot at the top job. Both of these men are mediocre, at best.

Hillary Clinton was run for the senate in New York because, as the wife of a sitting president, she could be marketed by the party. If she ran for president, it would be for the same reason. Connections are the only qualification that really matter anymore.

American politics are turning into a private club, an oligarchy. Only the rich, powerful and well-connected are even allowed into the system, and only the most well-connected are allowed to occupy center stage.

National politics is now run entirely by a handful of people from both parties for their own benefit. How tragic for us.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Les Kern


Actually, I think we are overdue for one. I'm rather tired of our policies being fueled by testosterone.


Oh good so we will have our policies controlled by a woman. That's great what are we going to do at the irritable time of the month?

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by MacBandit



Oh good so we will have our policies controlled by a woman. That's great what are we going to do at the irritable time of the month?

Given the average age of our presidents, the odds are that any woman that was elected would have already gone through menopause...

RL

[wdlove]

Hillary has a 50% chance in '08, she's running. She has a real tightrope to walk during '04 election, will have to show at least tacid support for the nominee. When she runs, her preference is for it to be an open seat. Her agenda will be socialist bigger government, higher taxes, and less freedom.

I think our 1st female president will be a Republican, party has alot of 1st's.
http://www.cfrw.org/messages/heather.php

[Macette]

Originally posted by MacBandit



Oh good so we will have our policies controlled by a woman. That's great what are we going to do at the irritable time of the month?

You people are a pack of pathetic, sexist geeks.

Middle-eastern Arab countries, even some of those with predominantly Muslim populations, are well ahead of America and most of the rest of us so-called 'civilised' and 'liberal' and 'progressive' western nations in terms of woman leaders. Think Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Burma, Bangladesh... Dukestreet, it's YOU who's not ready for a woman president. It's absolutely bloody irrelevant to the rest of the world whether it's a man or a woman exercising the kind of extreme, aggressive, imperialist power that you people carry on with. (I include myself in 'You People', since my Prime Minister, without my vote, throws his puny and insignificant small-minded racism behind you, and I'm not going to fall into the trap of thinking that all Americans share your views.. just enough of them to have elected the blood-thirsty George W).

If you want to discuss whether Hillary would make a good president, discuss it on the basis of her policies (and it doesn't count to say she's done 'nothing', because if you can't name any of the things she 'hasn't' done, or things that she has - then you're obviously not paying enough attention to pull your weight in this kind of debate.

I know I'm going to be flamed for this - Cleo, where are ya? I need a feminist ally here! - but sometimes these forums need a bit of a shake-up. Sheesh.

[D0ct0rteeth]

Originally posted by Macette
If you want to discuss whether Hillary would make a good president, discuss it on the basis of her policies (and it doesn't count to say she's done 'nothing', because if you can't name any of the things she 'hasn't' done, or things that she has - then you're obviously not paying enough attention to pull your weight in this kind of debate.

I know I'm going to be flamed for this - Cleo, where are ya? I need a feminist ally here!

I actually completely agree. (checking) yep. ***** is still there. :)

Actually C. Rice would probably be a decent VP in 2004 if Cheney would just die already. :)

-Doc

[Macette]

Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth


I actually completely agree. (checking) yep. ***** is still there. :)

Actually C. Rice would probably be a decent VP in 2004 if Cheney would just die already. :)

-Doc

Yep, she would better than Dick 'Dead Man Walking' Cheney. But Condoleeza, like Thatcher and Megawati and many of the world's other female leaders (past and present) is a rapid right-winger. It's weird - in Australia, the Federal Liberal party (who are not 'liberal' in any sense of the word) have a much better track record with promoting women to positions of relative power within the party that their so-called 'left-wing' counterparts.

[alex_ant]

I really couldn't have said it better than Macette.

If you don't like Hilary Clinton because of her politics, then that's fine and dandy - I can't say I'm very keen on her politics either. But if you're going to say you don't like her because she's a she, or "the nation might not be ready for her," or that she would do a relatively poor job because of her menstrual cycle, then you're honestly not worth the air you breathe, and I hope any significant female other you have breaks up with you after kicking you extremely forcefully in the genitals.

[hotFusion]

The only Democrat that has any chance of defeating Bush in 2004 was Gore. Without Gore, Bush has little to fear in 2004 (If he feared Gore either?)

[NatronB]

Originally posted by Macette


You people are a pack of pathetic, sexist geeks.



Christ, I'm glad somebody regulated here.

Everyone who cited 'monthly' issues knows extremely little about women or politics. Hillary Clinton is a very, very bright woman who has a very firm grasp on public policy. To say that she couldn't "stand up to Arab nations" is silliness.

While I would love to see Clinton in 2004, I don't believe it will happen. Hillary has said a number of times that she would not be running. Furthermore, I believe the first female president will be a conservative.

But you right-wing weenies bring up an interesting point. In these conservative times sexism and bigotry become commonplace (see Trent Lott) while words like 'liberal' and 'feminist' become blasphemy. Many of our idealogical and political allies practice socialism, take siestas, work a 35 hour week and enjoy universal health care. Now that's not the American way, but is it worth demonizing?!

-Nate

[wdlove]

Yes, I agree our 1st female president will be a Republican. The majority of voters are way to the right of Hillary, not ready for socialism! There is no doubt that a female can do the job, think Lady Thatcher. It would be good if Condaleeza Rice would be Sec. Of State 1st, provide more exposure.

[Macette]

Thank you NatronB and alex_ant. I was beginning to think my dream of a left-wing, mac-using nation was just that... a dream. but i remain hopeful.

[bousozoku]

Wasn't Shirley Chisolm a potential candidate back in the 1970s? To me, a black woman who understood the working class would be the best choice. Of course, Shirley is more than a little out of date but we could use a minority female in charge, for a big change.

It's time the old farts stepped out of the way.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by bousozoku
Wasn't Shirley Chisolm a potential candidate back in the 1970s? To me, a black woman who understood the working class would be the best choice. Of course, Shirley is more than a little out of date but we could use a minority female in charge, for a big change.

It's time the old farts stepped out of the way.

i totally agree

even if i have to jump the political fence and vote for condi rice in the future

[Roger1]

If my options for voting in 2004 are another Clinton, or GHWB, I may not be voting. George is well, George, and Hillary strikes me as a greedy opportunist. Right now, on gut instinct, the only people in Washington that I think would do a good job as President, are Al Gore, or Colin Powell. Don't know why, just gut instinct.

Another good person for Prez would be Jesse Ventura. Ahhh, feather boas in the White House, Body Slams in the Senate :D

[hotFusion]

I must admit, if my choices were Kerri, Bush or Ventura, I would choose Ventura.

[Durandal7]

I don't see Hillary running in 2004. I do however believe that she will attempt to run in 2008.

[job]

I agree with Durandal.

I doubt she will go up against Bush in 2004. But in 2008, with a strong Republican candidate out of the way (with the exception of Colin Powell) she might actually stand a chance.

[Durandal7]

Also in a recent Tim Russert interview Hillary said that she won't run in 2004 but when asked about 2008 she said "I have no plans"

Take that as you will.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Macette


You people are a pack of pathetic, sexist geeks.
...

I'm looking at the thread, and i see one sexest guy, and one who said he thoght the us isn't ready.

where do you get off making all these generalizations? do you see it fair that i call you a theif because theives were exiled to australia at one point? i didn't think so.

for me, not wanting hillary has little to do with her lack of a y chromozone. her husband made the us look like idiots, and she sat right at his side while his wandering was exposed. she ran for senate in new york because that is the only place she could win- not bacuase she like the place and the people. and she has shown this as a few NY'ers have said, not to mention she is a democrat...

i don't worry about a woman not having "balls". i have seen my mom mad. she can scare many men.

and i don't want to hear about mr "war hungry bush". did you like it when those terrorists bombed an australian tourist night club?

i guess we should do nothing. just sit back and scold them verbally. let them build nukes. culture biological weapons. get rid of customs checks at boarders.

also- those "liberated" arab countries. humm... women are not alowed to show their body, nevermind their face in public. there is a penalty of death for having a baby out of wedlock, no trial, just death. real civilized, real progressive. when this country was founded women had more rights than they do in many arab countries. the us may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is a lot better for women than a lot of other countries.

i could go on, but i am veering too far off topic.

i guess australia does no wrong.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by RogueLdr


Given the average age of our presidents, the odds are that any woman that was elected would have already gone through menopause...

RL

Seriously... MacBandit's comment was stupid in more ways than one.

[MyLeftNut]

Um...excuse me... who are your enemies again? Dont snipe at my country when the only excuse you have (living in one of the most powerful and wealthy countries) for not creating real change in the world is because you wont get off your arses (yes its spelled right) and vote the idiots you call a government out.

where do you get off making all these generalizations? do you see it fair that i call you a theif because theives were exiled to australia at one point? i didn't think so.

Maybe Hillary might be the answer. We havent seen what she has to offer yet. Oh by the way....I just love people who counter to arguments by saying that people are making generalisations...BS..thats the easy way out. Come up with something more original..who are you make to make a subjective statement like that...its a free world isnt it...OH...I forgot...it is for Americans...damn I knew my parents were in the wrong place.

As for being a convict Im proud of that fact. We are all immigrants even you (unless your native American).

and i don't want to hear about mr "war hungry bush". did you like it when those terrorists bombed an australian tourist night club?

How dare you say that...at least in my country, retribution was last thing on our minds...most Australians want to heal the rifts that have been created, not blow women and children to pieces.

the us may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is a lot better for women than a lot of other countries.

Most people, including me would generally agree with that statement, but that doesnt give us the right to forcefully change the situation by killing other people for their beliefs. If they are to come to our way of thinking it will happen in time.

And of course Australia isnt perfect...the difference being that you guys in the US have the power to make a world of difference, we dont and yet time and time again you squander opportunities to create a great America that can lead by example and not dictate by force.

BTW just remember who your allies are, you might need us one day. :mad:

[scem0]

lets hope a blond bimbo never gets elected for her looks.......

BTW - I am not calling H. Clinton a blond bimbo...... ;)

[synergy]

Originally posted by Roger1
If my options for voting in 2004 are another Clinton, or GHWB, I may not be voting. George is well, George, and Hillary strikes me as a greedy opportunist. Right now, on gut instinct, the only people in Washington that I think would do a good job as President, are Al Gore, or Colin Powell. Don't know why, just gut instinct.

Another good person for Prez would be Jesse Ventura. Ahhh, feather boas in the White House, Body Slams in the Senate :D

If those are your choices you may not be voting?
That is very weak. That's what started this whole downfall towards having very limited choices. On most if not all Presidential elections there are more than 2 parties on the ballot. May I suggest you vote for one of the others?
If not to get them to win then at least to express your dis-satisfaction with the existing choices and to throw some recognition and federal election money to another party.

[NatronB]

Originally posted by idkew
her husband made the us look like idiots,

by getting a hummer in the Oval Office? How could eight years of record economic growth and relative peace and prosperity make you all pissy?

Let's get one thing straight: Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund drug kingpins fighting an illegal war in Central America.

Every European I have ever talked to has had a generally favorable opinion of Clinton while fearing Bush's penchant for unilateralism.

And don't get me started on the deficit.

-Nate

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by NatronB
by getting a hummer in the Oval Office? How could eight years of record economic growth and relative peace and prosperity make you all pissy?

Clinton had nothing to do with the growth and propserity of the economy. It was starting to climb when Bush the first left office and Clinton just rode its coat tails.

It's a little something called an economic cycle, we'll experience economic growth again and everyone will be happy for a while. It's just how it goes, presidents take too much credit when it happens under their watch.

As for peace, yes we had great peace. The first bombing of the twin towers, the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa. Clinton did a bang us job catching everyone.:rolleyes:

Let's get one thing straight: Reagan sold[B] weapons to Iran to fund drug kingpins fighting an illegal war in Central America.

What does this have to do about anything?? Clinton sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign fund money.

Every European I have ever talked to has had a generally favorable opinion of Clinton while fearing Bush's penchant for unilateralism.

Who cares about what the Europeans think about our Presidents, it's our opinions that should matter the most. Clinton didn't do much on he international stage. People liked the fact that the US was taking a back seat, they're uncomfortable when we start taking the lead.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by hotFusion
The only Democrat that has any chance of defeating Bush in 2004 was Gore. Without Gore, Bush has little to fear in 2004 (If he feared Gore either?)

They said similar things when the front runners for the democrat party chose not to run against George Sr. in 92. Clinton came out of nowhere, and he was a viable candidate.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Juventuz
Clinton had nothing to do with the growth and propserity of the economy. It was starting to climb when Bush the first left office and Clinton just rode its coat tails.

It's a little something called an economic cycle, we'll experience economic growth again and everyone will be happy for a while. It's just how it goes, presidents take too much credit when it happens under their watch.

As for peace, yes we had great peace. The first bombing of the twin towers, the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa. Clinton did a bang us job catching everyone.:rolleyes:

What does this have to do about anything?? Clinton sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign fund money.

Who cares about what the Europeans think about our Presidents, it's our opinions that should matter the most. Clinton didn't do much on he international stage. People liked the fact that the US was taking a back seat, they're uncomfortable when we start taking the lead.

You're not very well versed on your history are you? The Republican's claim that Reagan was one of the best presidents of all time because of the "economic prosperity" we had as well as the fall of the Soviet Union. If the president can't take credit for the effects of fiscal policy that is implemented under him/her, who can?

Basically, when the good effects happen under your guy, you take credit, but when they occur under the other party's guy, you say that you can't take credit. That makes no sense. No sense at all.

Clinton, by the way, pushed through several major trade and peace agreements. He wasn't strictly a domestic president. As for "catching" Osama, you seem to think that the same public sentiment to "get him" that exists today, existed back then? After the first WTC bombing, the cole, the embassies, people here just really didn't give a damn, and would have freaked out if Clinton would have committed our armies to the job of catching him. They also would have objected to a retaliation beyond what he did (attempted to get him with cruise missles and intelligence gathering).

Who cares what the Europeans think of us? Before WWI, the US took an isolationist stand. Same thing before WWII. In both cases, we didn't care about the rest of the world, and look what happened.

Now, you support a president who is pushing the idea of going to war and you also say who cares what the rest of the world thinks? No, that's wrong. If we have grounds to go after Iraq, it should be done in a way that doesn't scare the rest of the world into thinking we're the second coming of the Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. If we are in the right, we should act like we are in the right. Otherwise, we're acting like bullies.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by mcrain
You're not very well versed on your history are you? The Republican's claim that Reagan was one of the best presidents of all time because of the "economic prosperity" we had as well as the fall of the Soviet Union. If the president can't take credit for the effects of fiscal policy that is implemented under him/her, who can?

I am very well versed in history thank you, and secondly I NEVER claimed that Reagan was one of the best presidents of all time because of the "economic prosperity".

As I've stated before, presidents and that includes ALL presidents, take too much credit for a booming economy. The general public are too stupid to realize that there's an economic cycle. They'll believe a president when he says "I made the economy strong" because they don't know any better. Kind of sad really.

Basically, when the good effects happen under your guy, you take credit, but when they occur under the other party's guy, you say that you can't take credit.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I really appreciate it. I have yet to say that the Republicans are better then the Democrats, it would be interesting for me to say it since I don't consider myself a Republican or Democrat.

That makes no sense. No sense at all.

It doesn't make sense because I didn't say it.


Clinton, by the way, pushed through several major trade and peace agreements.

All of which have had lasting positive results, especially in Israel and Palestine.

As for "catching" Osama, you seem to think that the same public sentiment to "get him" that exists today, existed back then? After the first WTC bombing, the cole, the embassies, people here just really didn't give a damn, and would have freaked out if Clinton would have committed our armies to the job of catching him. They also would have objected to a retaliation beyond what he did (attempted to get him with cruise missles and intelligence gathering).

[QUOTE][B]Who cares what the Europeans think of us? Before WWI, the US took an isolationist stand. Same thing before WWII. In both cases, we didn't care about the rest of the world, and look what happened.

Thanks for taking what I said out of context. In laymans terms I should have said, who cares if Europeans like our Presidents or not. I don't like many of theirs, but you don't hear my whining about it the way they do.

Now, you support a president who is pushing the idea of going to war and you also say who cares what the rest of the world thinks? No, that's wrong.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Please tell me where I said this??

FWIW, I'm against going to war against Iraq at the moment. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that he is going to harm us. I feel we should be focusing on wiping out bin Laden and his losers.

[IJ Reilly]

All these untutored references to Hillary Clinton's alleged "socialism" has me thinking most of the posters on this board are too young to remember Richard Nixon. In his day, Nixon was regarded as a rib-rock, credentialed conservative. Today, he'd be unwelcome in Republican party -- he'd be too far left, and right-wingers would be jostling for an opportunity to appear on Fox to call him a "socialist."

Just goes to show how far right the Republican party has moved over the last 30 years -- they've abandoned "liberalism" in every meaning of the word. It also goes to show that the Trent Lott affair was no aberration. This is where the Republican party lives nowadays.

[agreenster]

I hate politics.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Juventuz




There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Please tell me where I said this??



LOL

do you have any beliefs?

maybe YOU need to get a HUMMER:p :p :p

[Roger1]

If those are your choices you may not be voting?
That is very weak. That's what started this whole downfall towards having very limited choices. On most if not all Presidential elections there are more than 2 parties on the ballot. May I suggest you vote for one of the others?

True. I should have thought my comment through a little better before typing. As for voting for one of the others, I usually vote Libertarian, except the last election, I voted green. Unfortunately, the reps for these parties don't have a chance for becoming president.

That's why we need Jesse. He has experience, exposure, and can probably do the job as well as anybody.

[idkew]

Originally posted by MyLeftNut
Um...excuse me... who are your enemies again? Dont snipe at my country when the only excuse you have (living in one of the most powerful and wealthy countries) for not creating real change in the world is because you wont get off your arses (yes its spelled right) and vote the idiots you call a government out.

so you are saying that the us has every right to do whatever it wants in the word theatre? interesting. why do americans need to do anyting in the world anyway? i don't see you guys doing anything, even any proportionate amount of good. so, shut up. and, are you a us citizen? no? then i don't want to hear about who you think should be in our government.

Originally posted by MyLeftNut


Maybe Hillary might be the answer. We havent seen what she has to offer yet. Oh by the way....I just love people who counter to arguments by saying that people are making generalisations...BS..thats the easy way out. Come up with something more original..who are you make to make a subjective statement like that...its a free world isnt it...OH...I forgot...it is for Americans...damn I knew my parents were in the wrong place.


alright you lousy criminal. humm i guess you for got about the formation of the free world... do you recall history class? the us not only had a large part in the victory over fascism and genocide in WWII, but it also was the major contributor in the victory over (non-free) communism. i think that gives us just a bit of say when it comes to world politics.


Originally posted by MyLeftNut

As for being a convict Im proud of that fact. We are all immigrants even you (unless your native American).



I am glad you are proud of coming from the bottom of the british genetic pool.

Originally posted by MyLeftNut

How dare you say that...at least in my country, retribution was last thing on our minds...most Australians want to heal the rifts that have been created, not blow women and children to pieces.



Like i said before, lets just let these terrorists off with a verbal scolding. THAT will stop them. they'll stop trying to aquire WMD, they'll stop their fervent hate of anyone not like themselves. they'll embrace women's rights... sure, this seems to be what you believe.

Originally posted by MyLeftNut

Most people, including me would generally agree with that statement, but that doesnt give us the right to forcefully change the situation by killing other people for their beliefs. If they are to come to our way of thinking it will happen in time.


you're right. we send troops to any country and randomly pick out women and children, children whom are still suckling are our preference. then we slowly tourture them to death. lastly, we blow their dead bodies up to piss off the men of the family.

or maybe we use $200,000+ each smart bombs which help to minimalise civilian casualities.

and i guess it is'nt wrong to think that flying planes full of innocnet people and tons of fuel into 100+ story buildings is and ok belief. it is an ok belief that strapping c-4 to your chest and blowing up a bus of commuters is glorifing.

it is even better than the state the supports these suicidal maniacs' family after their explosion. great beliefs there. lets support them.

Originally posted by MyLeftNut


And of course Australia isnt perfect...the difference being that you guys in the US have the power to make a world of difference, we dont and yet time and time again you squander opportunities to create a great America that can lead by example and not dictate by force.

BTW just remember who your allies are, you might need us one day. :mad:

you are trying to excuse your lack of power? why? is it because of your relative smallness? i seem to remember japan being quite a world power only 50 years ago.

there is no reason your country can't step up and do something good for the world. why don't you vote someone into office who will start to feed the world, pay for medicine for those countries who can't, protect the people from tyranny.

after all, you seem to have forgotten, the US does that every day. i bought with my hard earned cash food for some somalian, along with some medicine for him today. where do your taxes go?

you're right - we may need to use your soil as an air base someday.

[agreenster]

Please remember that opinions expressed on this forum do not necessarily represent the opinions of the whole of the United States.

Thank God.

I am proud of my country (US) for being a giving nation, both in money for the needy, and support for the oppressed. However, it certainly seems that of late we are nothin but war-mongers.

But, we are afraid. We've been attacked once, and we just dont want it to happen again. So, W is waging a war against the most prominent (?) of our enemies, and everyone else who threatens our security.

Are we right? Probably not. But ethics always go out the window when fear is involved.

So to those who have never lost a loved-one in a terrorist or wartime attack, please be a little understanding of our situation, and our not-so-popular politics. I pray that you nor you family ever have to endure the hardships of any terrorized nation.

[NatronB]

Originally posted by idkew

and i guess it is'nt wrong to think that flying planes full of innocnet people and tons of fuel into 100+ story buildings is and ok belief. it is an ok belief that strapping c-4 to your chest and blowing up a bus of commuters is glorifing.



I don't think anyone is saying this.

As this thread gets further off topic, let's reaffirm a few things:

1) We Americans love our Aussie brothers and sisters and vice versa. :)

2) No other country aside from the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom and human rights in the world. I'm proud to say this but also must check it with:

3) With great power comes great responsibility, and:

4) We've done so with our own best interests in mind, often.

The problem is that when the sole superpower uses a vastly superior military to unilaterally dictate foreign policy, it scares our buddies. Our land has never been occupied, in many cases theirs has been.

So play nice, boys and girls. And let's remember, we're all friends.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


LOL

do you have any beliefs?

maybe YOU need to get a HUMMER:p :p :p

I do have beliefs, I just don't think people should pull crap out of thin air and then proclaim that they're my beliefs.

My beliefs are simple, socially I'm fairly liberal, economically I'm pretty conservative.

As for the hummer, got one... thanks for the recommendation :p

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Juventuz


I do have beliefs, I just don't think people should pull crap out of thin air and then proclaim that they're my beliefs.

My beliefs are simple, socially I'm fairly liberal, economically I'm pretty conservative.

As for the hummer, got one... thanks for the recommendation :p

don't rub it in:p

[OutThere]

Originally posted by bousozoku

It's time the old farts stepped out of the way.

I completely agree, this country needs a change in our tactics, it would be a breath of fresh air.

[wdlove]

What current direction do you disagree with? We need the older generation as mentors, they still have alot to offer!

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by NatronB


...
Let's get one thing straight: Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund drug kingpins fighting an illegal war in Central America.

...

-Nate

Well, you know, Vice President Bush actually made that deal happen. The Bushes are really good at making deals, you know. It's quite impressive that we have a criminal leading the nation and the state of Floriduh at the same time.

They have such a legacy...it's no wonder Jeb
s daughter Noelle is a drug abuser. :D

[MyLeftNut]

In reply to Idkew:

so you are saying that the us has every right to do whatever it wants in the word theatre? interesting. why do americans need to do anyting in the world anyway? i don't see you guys doing anything, even any proportionate amount of good. so, shut up. and, are you a us citizen? no? then i don't want to hear about who you think should be in our government.

I never said the US has carte blanche to do what it likes. It must consider all options before using force. Any country that claims to be leader should, I think, be mindful of of its impact on others.

So...our UN efforts in Timor, assistance in Afghanistan with our SAS (which have been honoured recently by your military), continued help in the Persian gulf etc, etc dont count? Considering how limited our military and resources are I think we have done pretty well, not to mention the Canadians, Germans etc...or have you forgotten about them too.

And no Im not a US citizen (thank God) and I say that with the utmost respect because as an outsider I can bring a different point of view to the table. Once again, its a free world isnt it? Or only for Americans? Of course I can comment on your government..what a stupid thing to say! Idkew...Im happy for you to comment about Australia...

the us not only had a large part in the victory over fascism and genocide in WWII, but it also was the major contributor in the victory over (non-free) communism. i think that gives us just a bit of say when it comes to world politics.

Apart from the fact that WWII has nothing to do with the current situation, I never said the US doesnt have a say in world politics. Dont put words in my mouth.

Like i said before, lets just let these terrorists off with a verbal scolding. THAT will stop them. they'll stop trying to aquire WMD, they'll stop their fervent hate of anyone not like themselves. they'll embrace women's rights... sure, this seems to be what you believe.

So tell me again. How does imposing sanctions and bombing people stop them from hating us? Most of the regimes we hate were propped up by the CIA at one time or another. I dont have all the answers. No one does but I think we could be a little more creative.

and i guess it is'nt wrong to think that flying planes full of innocnet people and tons of fuel into 100+ story buildings is and ok belief. it is an ok belief that strapping c-4 to your chest and blowing up a bus of commuters is glorifing.

For Gods sake...please show me where I said that?

Your not asking the right questions....what drove them into that belief in the first place? They certainly didnt sit down one Sunday afternoon and just think to themselves..'hey, Im bored. Lets go bomb something. I know, what about the WTC!' Think...what has been done to them that they felt compelled to do something to us? Once we can establish that then maybe we could find an answer for everybody...not just specialised interests.

there is no reason your country can't step up and do something good for the world. why don't you vote someone into office who will start to feed the world, pay for medicine for those countries who can't, protect the people from tyranny.

Um..we do. Just not capable of the same capacity as you guys are...in saying that...countries like us work with others to help you do that job...see most of Europe, Canada, England etc.

you're right - we may need to use your soil as an air base someday.

You already do. Im talking about the time when all hell breaks loose cos someone got too trigger happy...we will be there by your side (right or wrong) when that day comes.

Thank you natronB and agreenster...I agree with you. We are all afraid we just need to keep a cool head...

Idkew...I have no animosity toward you. I just dont agree with your point of view (dont you love democracy)...

Cheers

[idkew]

Originally posted by MyLeftNut
In reply to Idkew:



I never said the US has carte blanche to do what it likes...

... Idkew...I have no animosity toward you. I just dont agree with your point of view (dont you love democracy)...

Cheers

i also have no animosity to you. i often, quite often play the role of the devil's advocate. i find it fun. i would say tha i believe in about 75-90% of what i say on these boards. i enjoy arguing. that is the best part of democracy.

i was actually supposed to be in australia this past three months studying, but i would not have been able to graduate on time, and i don't have another few $10,000 bills sitting around.

....

but the one thing i do hate, is that everyone in the world seems to be focusing on all the mistakes and negative things about the us. they seem to forget the billions we GIVE in humanitarian aid.

while most people think we are running around afganistan raping and murdering everyone, we are actually feeding and medication the poor unfortunate souls stuck in a religios system that prevents advancement, prosperity and democracy.

i know this is WAY off topic, but it all boils down to one four letter (ok, 8) word: religion.

those giahad (spelling?) fighers hate us because we have "loose morals". we let our women do what they want. we don't spend 4 hours a day praying... they think it is blasphamy. thier "religios book" says they should kills any infadels.

they want to live in a world of 200 years ago when there was no international trade, no international politics (relatively). no internet, satalites, tv or other technology. this is no longer possible. when i can fly across the entire atlantic in about the time it takes me to drive to chicago, there is no such thing as succeeding from the world anymore.

the thing is, what they seem not to see, is that there are thousands of practicing muslims in the us and abroad who get along just fine in a capatalist society. i have gone to school with women who choose to hide their faces. we don't want to hurt them. we let them do what they want. they might get a few stares, but that is it.

these fanatics have taken it to a new level out of desparation of losing the way they live. unfortunately, this is inevetible. the world changes. we advance. they can't handle it, and the only way they see they can stop it is by striking terror into the hears of the "aggressors". well, they have found (or will hopefully, someday) it is not going to work. the world WILL advance. you can not stop it.

war is not the answer. the "war monger" bush is showing that he sees that. he has not given the order to invade iraq even though the un's agreement with them has been breached. we are trying to do this with as little bloodshed as possible. when force is necessary, we use smart weapons and speacialized forces instead of carpet bombing and entire occupying armys. as hard as this is for people to see, we are trying to prevent, not to instigate war.

what do you expect a soverign nation to do when someone kills 3000+ of its citizens and causes billions of dollars of damages out of spite for out way of living?


sorry for this long ass responce, but my fingers kept typing.

[Macette]

Originally posted by idkew


I'm looking at the thread, and i see one sexest guy, and one who said he thoght the us isn't ready.

....

and i don't want to hear about mr "war hungry bush". did you like it when those terrorists bombed an australian tourist night club?

also- those "liberated" arab countries. humm... women are not alowed to show their body, nevermind their face in public. there is a penalty of death for having a baby out of wedlock, no trial, just death. real civilized, real progressive. when this country was founded women had more rights than they do in many arab countries. the us may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is a lot better for women than a lot of other countries.

i guess australia does no wrong.

ahem. when i mentioned that you were all a 'pack of sexist geeks', i was referring not only to that one ultimately absurb comment about Hillary's menstrual cycle, but also to:

DukeStreet, who made the implicitly sexist comment, despite denying that he's sexist) that "some other countries would try to take advantage of the situation" [of a woman being in power]. (BTW, that's why I made those comments about the relatively forward-thinking nature of some of those countries in electing female leaders - not that those countries are, as you seemed to think I was saying, 'progressive' and 'civilised.' )

But comprehension is obviously not your strong suit, because you didn't pick up the overtly sexist nature of 3777's remark "Do they really think that wench will win anywhere but New York?" or D0ct0rteeth's comment that Hillary would run on the platform of "My husband fixed the economy" or MacRumorSkeptic who thinks that "Hillary is an absolute socialist" (is that because she's a woman with relative power? Because if it's not, you're expecting me to believe that somebody who has SUPPORTED THE WAR AGAINST TARE (is that what it is? TARE?) IN THE SENATE IS A SOCIALIST. I don't think so.

And as for that crap about liking it when the terrorists bombed the Sari Club, well, you're an idiot if you think that. As my compatriot MyLeftNut pointed out, Australians chose to mourn the dead, rather than turn to revenge to soothe our wounds. An eye for an eye? That is so, like, Old Testament of you. (Along with sexism.)

Anyway, I won't go on... my email tells me that you've just made another post in the time that I've been writing this one, and I can't wait to read it.

Oh, but finally: Australia CAN do wrong. Which is why I wrote THIS in my original post:

"(I include myself in 'You People', since my Prime Minister, without my vote, throws his puny and insignificant small-minded racism behind you, and I'm not going to fall into the trap of thinking that all Americans share your views.. just enough of them to have elected the blood-thirsty George W)."

[idkew]

Originally posted by Macette
3777's remark "Do they really think that wench will win anywhere but New York?"


you are WAY too sensitive. i don't see how that is sexist. if he were to put in bastard the sentence would mean the exact same thing - he believes the subject is not going to win anywhere but NY. that has nothing to do with sex. it just makes more sense to call hillary a wench instead of basterd, pig...

Originally posted by Macette
MacRumorSkeptic who thinks that "Hillary is an absolute socialist" (is that because she's a woman with relative power? Because if it's not, you're expecting me to believe that somebody who has SUPPORTED THE WAR AGAINST TARE (is that what it is? TARE?) IN THE SENATE IS A SOCIALIST. I don't think so.

you are quite the amusing one. YOU are the one assuming that women with power must be socialists. that quoted comment is about as unisex as it gets. if you would replace hilary with clinton - you would NEVER know if he meant bill or hilary.

Originally posted by Macette

And as for that crap about liking it when the terrorists bombed the Sari Club, well, you're an idiot if you think that. As my compatriot MyLeftNut pointed out, Australians chose to mourn the dead, rather than turn to revenge to soothe our wounds. An eye for an eye? That is so, like, Old Testament of you. (Along with sexism.)

refer to my previos posts about the consequences of inaction in the face of aggression.

Originally posted by Macette

Anyway, I won't go on... my email tells me that you've just made another post in the time that I've been writing this one, and I can't wait to read it.


glad to hear you want to read it. just makes this arguing that much more fun for me.

while i'm at it- i'll throw this one out into the fray- could be a good discussion topic.

Should women really have equal rights with men? After all, at 18 I signed my life away in the event of a widespeard war. Women do not do this. They don't fight for it. So, should they be put on the same level as a citizne who signed up to pay the ultimate price for his country?

Fell free to jump on in... like i said, i like this.

(i think i am getting notorious for hijacking. maybe i should stop...)

[wdlove]

Its good for women to have experience in the military. Thank you for your service. I am for a draft and think that women should be included. Service to your country is part of citizenship.

[MyLeftNut]

Hi there Idkew:

but the one thing i do hate, is that everyone in the world seems to be focusing on all the mistakes and negative things about the us. they seem to forget the billions we GIVE in humanitarian aid.

Your missing the point mate, as you have mentioned none of us are perfect. Many countries give humanitarian aid. The problem is not the US specifically, but the systems of government and business we have in place in the west that take overt advantage of less developed countries thereby placing them in the situation to need humanitarian aid. I think that is what the old guard in Iran, Iraq etc fear.

I agree with you that the world is changing and they need to deal with it like it or not, but let them deal with it and we can just continue on...we dont need them, (except their oil...) which is why we should be off fossil fuels and heading for the stars already. Given time, the youth of their countries will see what we have to offer and like Russia will change for the better. Its just a slow painful process.

I also agree Religion blows. Cant dispute that.

what do you expect a soverign nation to do when someone kills 3000+ of its citizens and causes billions of dollars of damages out of spite for out way of living?

Like I said before, just because you dont know you're hurting someone doesnt mean you're not hurting someone. Maybe we do need to adjust the way we think a bit. I think, if that is what the terrorists wanted, then they have achieved their goal. Dont forget alot of those 3000+ killed were from other countries including OZ. We all had to make massive adjustments to the shock of it all.

Some big changes are needed in societies everywhere and discussion like this can only further that cause. Thank you Idkew.

Im not getting into the discussion on women in the military...you crossed the line there buddy...the chicks will be onto you in a second hehe...

PS You should come to OZ sometime. I would love to see the US one day.

[Durandal7]

These Battle of the Sexes threads are always good for a laugh. Especially when someone gets oversensitive and takes every comment to be some broad insult to their respective sex.

Carry on :p

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by wdlove
What current direction do you disagree with? We need the older generation as mentors, they still have alot to offer!

cool avatar:D

[wdlove]

Thank you Jeff, the credit goes to edvniow. Very creative!