Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember vaguely seeing a picture of Hillary Clinton on the cover of some magazine with heading "Why big business love Hillary Clinton" or something similar. Did you know she was a successful commodity trader in 1978? I didn't either until I read the book Devil Take The Hindmost by Edward Chancellor. Clinton's success was spectacular. Chancellor wrote about Hillary Clinton's brief career as a trader:
That's pretty impressive. I can only name less than a dozen male traders who achieve this kind of financial success. I still won't vote for her though. I can't support her stance on immigration. Her unfair attack on the republican party (catering to popular sentiment) at the democrat debate did not resonate with me. It's the Bush administration that screws up, not the entire republican party. She and her democrat colleagues are responsible for the mess this country is in too.
It's not very impressive when you look into it. She invested $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days, she had a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out, she earns almost $100,000 on her investments.
Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were 1 in 250 million!
Some of our presidents never SAW a milli-second of combat duty, yet they were commanders in chief. Your argument is feeble.
Here are some examples of female leadership:
Catherine the Great of Russia
Elizabeth I of England
Indira Ghandi
Golda Meir
Margaret Thatcher
If our current "leadership" had one-tenth of the critical thinking skills of any of the aforementioned women, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in Iraq.
I would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she doesn't appear to want to get out of Iraq. Her gender is irrelevant.
My argument is feeble? Pick up a rucksack which weighs 120 lbs full of equipment, grab an M16 and then go jump out of an airplane into combat. Can't do it can you? My feeling is if you aren't a man, and cannot go into combat in the armed services, then you have no business leading our country. I don't think any of those women you mention ever saw a Millisecond of combat either for that matter. The difference is, that men CAN go into combat.
I don't feel we should be in Iraq anymore either, nor Afghanistan, and yet we are there. There is no reason to have our troops abroad. Hussein is dead, and Bin Laden is more than likely dead as well. Our focus should be on infiltrating terror cells within our own borders and stop messing around abroad.
My argument is feeble? Pick up a rucksack which weighs 120 lbs full of equipment, grab an M16 and then go jump out of an airplane into combat. Can't do it can you? My feeling is if you aren't a man, and cannot go into combat in the armed services, then you have no business leading our country. I don't think any of those women you mention ever saw a Millisecond of combat either for that matter. The difference is, that men CAN go into combat.
I don't feel we should be in Iraq anymore either, nor Afghanistan, and yet we are there. There is no reason to have our troops abroad. Hussein is dead, and Bin Laden is more than likely dead as well. Our focus should be on infiltrating terror cells within our own borders and stop messing around abroad.
OK, I think I understand what you are saying. People who were not soldiers can not be Presidents. Is it just women only because I think we have had Presidents who were not soldiers? I agree that the commander-in-chief has to be able carry 120 lbs full of equipments and guns and fight in battles. But you know what's weird though? I have never seen any President carry 120 lbs full of equipments and guns and fight in battles in WWII, Viet Nam, Korea, Panama, Granada, etc., etc., etc. Something ain't right. Presidents ought to fight side by side with the soldiers.
Hmm...a Hillary Clinton thread. *Pokes head inside looking around cautiously*
Well, it's not the fact that Clinton is a woman that makes me not want to vote for her, but that she's a Democrat, and her policies would destroy this country. It's hard to make a comparison with someone like Margaret Thatcher, simply because she was the Prime Minister of the UK, which is the comparable position to the President, but still not the President of the greatest nation on Earth.
I'll vote John McCain in 08. He'll continue the good work around the world, keep the Republican sense of mind I like so much, and stay the course in the war. Oh, and to satisfy EDnurse, he was in the military! Yaaayy! Yeah, I'll vote McCain.
I really just want to know how everyone feels about this--it's strictly for argument's sake. Would a woman make a good president?
With what I've experienced in my life - I've seen some women show more intelligence, strength, courage than most men. The sexes appear thus to be equal, so I cannot think of a reason against having a female leader.
There are in fact countries which already have with success. If you look critically at human recorded history, there have already been female: leaders of families, leaders of neighborhood HOA's (for argument's sake just a modern equivalent of villages), leaders of towns, leaders of cities, leaders of states, leaders of countries, and female leaders of national and international private and public companies. It is truly backwards thinking and ignorant to assert that ones testicles or ovaries have anything to do with leadership ability or another quality which the president of the US ought to have.
If indeed this is still a question in people's minds despite all the evidence that it shouldn't be - then the human race is doomed.
Last edited by belovenow; 07-29-2007 at 04:37 AM..
OK, I think I understand what you are saying. People who were not soldiers can not be Presidents. Is it just women only because I think we have had Presidents who were not soldiers? I agree that the commander-in-chief has to be able carry 120 lbs full of equipments and guns and fight in battles. But you know what's weird though? I have never seen any President carry 120 lbs full of equipments and guns and fight in battles in WWII, Viet Nam, Korea, Panama, Granada, etc., etc., etc. Something ain't right. Presidents ought to fight side by side with the soldiers.
Considering that the legal age of presidency is well beyond physical prime - I don't think this is a great idea. Lowering the age & health requirements for presidency seems a negative notion as well if you want someone in authority that has wisdom that years of life can convey.
While previous military experience and in particular actual participation in warfare can provide a unique perspective on life, I question that a president without it is lacking. As long as they have demonstrative/proven intelligence, wisdom, critical thinking and leadership ability under pressure, and morals & ethical values, I feel like someone is a good candidate.
well because some people believe that women have a high emotional level and it could effect them in the work place. Others believe that they're not aggressive enough. They can be too sensitive when it comes to certain situations.
I personally believe that a woman can do pretty much anything a man can do, but I like to see what others like to say.
Interesting that people believe this. Hasn't everyone heard that men put out more hormones on a daily basis than a woman does during her entire cycle?
OK, I think I understand what you are saying. People who were not soldiers can not be Presidents. Is it just women only because I think we have had Presidents who were not soldiers? I agree that the commander-in-chief has to be able carry 120 lbs full of equipments and guns and fight in battles. But you know what's weird though? I have never seen any President carry 120 lbs full of equipments and guns and fight in battles in WWII, Viet Nam, Korea, Panama, Granada, etc., etc., etc. Something ain't right. Presidents ought to fight side by side with the soldiers.
Obviously you do NOT understand what I said. Maybe you should go read it again.
To qualify to go into combat, you must be a MAN. To qualify for the President's chair, you must be ABLE to go into combat (no, that does not mean you have been in combat). That means you have to be a man.
Women cannot do a mans job in the combat arena. Sorry, that's just how it is.
My argument is feeble? Pick up a rucksack which weighs 120 lbs full of equipment, grab an M16 and then go jump out of an airplane into combat. Can't do it can you? My feeling is if you aren't a man, and cannot go into combat in the armed services, then you have no business leading our country. I don't think any of those women you mention ever saw a Millisecond of combat either for that matter. The difference is, that men CAN go into combat.
I don't feel we should be in Iraq anymore either, nor Afghanistan, and yet we are there. There is no reason to have our troops abroad. Hussein is dead, and Bin Laden is more than likely dead as well. Our focus should be on infiltrating terror cells within our own borders and stop messing around abroad.
During my years on active duty, my AFSC (known as MOS in the army) was a non-combat job. Yet, I had to qualify with the M-16 every two years, and later on with a sidearm (9mm) as well. While stationed in Korea, tensions between the north and the US increased. My base commander thought he didn't have enough bodies to protect the base so he ordered all sgts. and below to undergo training to defend the base, women included. So every month during my tour, I had to carry that dufflebag on my back, plus night vision goggles, radio, chem gear, kevlar helmet, flak vest, ammo and an
M-16. We then had to walk to our DFP (defensive fighting position) and remain in that hole for a week. Slept on rocky soil with no heat during the Korean winter. Now, as a nurse, I have pulled out (by myself) quite a few unresponsive patients out of cars and put them on stretchers or wheel chairs. You'd be surprised what you can do with proper body mechanics and a little bit of adrenaline. Like the majority of Air Force personnel, I don't see the point of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane. So I guess you got me on that one. My father killed a few Chinese during the Korean War, but he never jumped out of an airplane.
I did not sign up for any of that, but I did it anyway. I never left my post, I never lost my composure, and I did what was asked of me. At that place in time, would I have been capable of or willing to kill somebody? You better believe I would have. On paper, there are no women in combat. That is "the law". In reality, quite a few have had to face it. About a month ago, I read an article about an Army nurse being killed during an attack in Iraq.
I suppose I could try to carry a 120 lbs sack (some of the patients I lift weigh more than that), handle an M-16 (another 7 1/2 lbs?) and jump out of an airplane. Maybe if I were 20 years younger and had the proper training, I might be able to swing it. But to me that wouldn't prove anything. Now, if you can undergo the equivalent of 21 hours of labor pains without pain meds, then I would say you have extraordinary endurance...for a man. See how absurd it is?
None of the above qualifies me or any man to be president.
I have pictures of my cousin, the paratrooper, jumping out of an airplane. Would I follow his lead in any endeavor? Not in a million years. The boy has no sense. His sister, a civilian, made about half a million dollars trading online for a few years. (That's her "hobby"). Would I follow her lead? In a heart beat. She has brains and guile. She's well balanced, self-confident, and astute.
Google "women in combat". You'll be surprised.
The point I'm trying to make is that you don't need physical prowess, or the "potential" to train for combat to be a president or lead. FDR led this nation during WWII in a wheelchair. A good president needs to be intelligent, savvy, astute, and smart enough to outfox Sun Tzu.
You missed my whole point. Even if we disagree, I am proud of you for your service to OUR country. Having been a member of the Marine Corps, I can appreciate that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
