Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2008, 08:41 PM
 
454 posts, read 500,420 times
Reputation: 52

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookiemeister View Post
6. Don't women understand that this is their big opportunity to move up a notch and maybe have the same opportunities that men have. Women seem to be their own worse enemy.
Why should it have anything to do with being a woman? I wouldn't vote for a candidate because she's a woman any more than I'd vote for one because they're black or a white male.

On the one hand, I love that we have two major candidates from groups whom, until recently, no one thought would ever be president. But apart from that, I actually don't see it as at all relevant when the person is in office. I expect them to represent all the people of the country, not just one group. We have two very strong candidates, stronger than ANY party has seen in many years, IMO.

What's odd is you make such a statement as above, but you repeat incessantly that her major qualifications are being the wife of Bill and that she has him at her side. That takes a lot away from her, she's much much more than that.

You show how little you think of women, if you think one should vote for her simply to advance the status of women.

And I couldn't care less about the sex scandals and don't believe all the rubbish brought up about their supposed 'body count.' I think very highly of Senator Clinton, or at least I did till I was bombarded with negative campaign ads at my door. I also think highly of Senator Obama. Both could be excellent presidents.

Last edited by Chakapu; 03-02-2008 at 09:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2008, 10:13 PM
 
1,425 posts, read 3,302,958 times
Reputation: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakapu View Post
Why should it have anything to do with being a woman? I wouldn't vote for a candidate because she's a woman any more than I'd vote for one because they're black or a white male.

On the one hand, I love that we have two major candidates from groups whom, until recently, no one thought would ever be president. But apart from that, I actually don't see it as at all relevant. We have two very strong candidates, stronger than ANY party has seen in many years, IMO.

What's odd is you make such a statement as above, but you've repeat incessantly that her major qualifications are being the wife of Bill and that she has him at her side. That takes a lot away from her, she's much much more than that.

You show how little you think of women (I don't know your gender), if you think one should vote for her simply to advance the status of women.

And I couldn't care less about the sex scandals and don't believe all the rubbish brought up about their supposed 'body count.' I think very highly of Senator Clinton, or at least I did till I was bombarded with negative campaign ads at my door.
I am voting for Hillary for one reason and one reason only. She is the best candidate for the job PERIOD... Bill or no Bill. Bill just happens to be her husband and that just happens to be an additional bonus point. Hillary is well equipped to carry on without him. The fact that she is a women is an obvious bonus for women because she will be more sensitive to women's issues. That is something every woman should be concerned about BUT if Hillary wasn't Hillary but another woman with less ability than the other candidates then I would not vote for her just because she was a woman. I would always vote for who I think would be the best candidate to serve American interest. There will probably never be another opportunity to select such a superior candidate (far superior than the other candidates IMO) and who just happens to be a woman... all I can see is positives. If she is elected and selects Obama for VP just more positives for America. Clearly Hillary has on her own merit the strenght, intelligence, knowledge and experience to be a great president without Bill and regardless of her gender. And I don't let negative campaign ads sway me either since I have the ability and good judgement to make up my own mind regardless of what the media or anybody else has to say. End of story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2008, 10:34 PM
 
Location: San Antonio North
4,147 posts, read 7,973,866 times
Reputation: 1010
Why all this bicker about women and race???

Irrelevant, here is how i see this election. (opinion of course but that all we have on a message board)

I most identify as a conservative. For any others out there i have have a choice of

a. A charismatic Obama who spews BS but it is oh so sweet to a lot of ears. (if and when the media starts to report on his short comings and dirt then this election will be fun.

Houston - News - Barack Obama and Me

b. An unlike-able Obama with a brand name. Same person IMO differs on healthcare and BARELY on the war.

c. McCain. Wow has the GOP went nuts. He IMO is the best choice for conservtives LEFT but we had better ones.

I do not believe in voting in the lesser of two evils. But like Paka said people are dying so we can vote. Im not going to stay at home. Who i vote for i have one more night to decide hmmm. or or
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2008, 06:29 AM
 
3,247 posts, read 9,016,134 times
Reputation: 1525
I am voting for Obama because he is the most qualified to lead us into the future. Hillary has so many enemies in DC you couldn't believe. So many Hispanic our voting for Hillary because of the race issue. Hillary is good but I would rather have another female candidate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2008, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Florida
99 posts, read 393,182 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaterry78259 View Post
I am voting for Obama because he is the most qualified to lead us into the future. Hillary has so many enemies in DC you couldn't believe. So many Hispanic our voting for Hillary because of the race issue. Hillary is good but I would rather have another female candidate
How is Obama the most qualified? He has had 2 years Senate experience and in those 2 years when it came time to vote on something, many times he stated, "present" rather than committing to a yeah or nay.

That's pretty shady if you ask me.

He is also on board with throwing money at many of the issues we have problems with like education instead of offering real solutions. Oh, but that's the solution the teacher's union wants and that's what Obama will give (and probably HIllary and McCain, too).

I'm tired of politicians who spend my money on solutions they know won't make a d*** bit of difference!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2008, 09:58 AM
 
454 posts, read 500,420 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookiemeister View Post
And I don't let negative campaign ads sway me either since I have the ability and good judgement to make up my own mind regardless of what the media or anybody else has to say. End of story.

The negative campaign ads me were flyers I received in the mail from her campaign. They had nothing to do with the media or 'outsiders', they are entirely from her campaign - i.e. her. She is fully responsible for what her campaign sends out in her name.

I had already voted before receiving them in the mail so they were irrelevant in my decision, they just made me disappointed that she has resorted to such tactics. I expected better of her. I don't watch TV much so don't see a lot of the typical campaign ads, what I know of both of them is from reading their own statements rather than media interpretation of their statements. I think negative campaign ads hurt first the one issuing them, and second the party itself. She should be focusing in uniting the party at this point, not trying to further divide it.

As for being a woman, I think it's a fallacy to expect that because a person is of any persuasion, they are more inclined to support their own. Quite often the opposite is true - not necessarily the case with her, just stating that because she's a woman it does not automatically equate to her doing more for women. However, for me that's irrelevant. I won't choose a leader because they will do something for ME. I choose a leader because they share my philosophies and because I think they will represent the country well and do something for the country as a whole. It's not all about ME.

I would be very happy with her as president. I would also be very happy with Obama as president. I would have been very happy with Gore as president 8 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2008, 02:07 PM
 
Location: San Antonio North
4,147 posts, read 7,973,866 times
Reputation: 1010
^^^
Did it say anywhere on there she approves this message. Im not saying you wrong but i received two flyers and before i threw them away i noticed it said on the bottom paid for some website.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2008, 02:33 PM
 
454 posts, read 500,420 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone View Post
^^^
Did it say anywhere on there she approves this message. Im not saying you wrong but i received two flyers and before i threw them away i noticed it said on the bottom paid for some website.

Can't remember the exact words of the payment, but I did see it and it was clear it came from her campaign.

I'd be thrilled to know she wasn't going negative, but in the last week or so things she has said herself seem to be much more negative than initially. Moot point, since I voted before receiving them and her campaign's negativity had no effect on my decision.

btw - the rally Friday was quite interesting. I didn't end up seeing her, but it was fascinating to people watch - a very interesting mix of people were present.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2008, 03:36 PM
 
Location: San Antonio North
4,147 posts, read 7,973,866 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakapu View Post
Can't remember the exact words of the payment, but I did see it and it was clear it came from her campaign.

I'd be thrilled to know she wasn't going negative, but in the last week or so things she has said herself seem to be much more negative than initially. Moot point, since I voted before receiving them and her campaign's negativity had no effect on my decision.

btw - the rally Friday was quite interesting. I didn't end up seeing her, but it was fascinating to people watch - a very interesting mix of people were present.
I wanted to go to see her and Obama in person though i made my feelings on each apparent. But i like to people watch and that would have been fun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2008, 05:26 PM
 
1,425 posts, read 3,302,958 times
Reputation: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakapu View Post
The negative campaign ads me were flyers I received in the mail from her campaign. They had nothing to do with the media or 'outsiders', they are entirely from her campaign - i.e. her. She is fully responsible for what her campaign sends out in her name.

I had already voted before receiving them in the mail so they were irrelevant in my decision, they just made me disappointed that she has resorted to such tactics. I expected better of her. I don't watch TV much so don't see a lot of the typical campaign ads, what I know of both of them is from reading their own statements rather than media interpretation of their statements. I think negative campaign ads hurt first the one issuing them, and second the party itself. She should be focusing in uniting the party at this point, not trying to further divide it.

As for being a woman, I think it's a fallacy to expect that because a person is of any persuasion, they are more inclined to support their own. Quite often the opposite is true - not necessarily the case with her, just stating that because she's a woman it does not automatically equate to her doing more for women. However, for me that's irrelevant. I won't choose a leader because they will do something for ME. I choose a leader because they share my philosophies and because I think they will represent the country well and do something for the country as a whole. It's not all about ME.

I would be very happy with her as president. I would also be very happy with Obama as president. I would have been very happy with Gore as president 8 years ago.

Seems to me that you are putting a bit of a spin on the things I have been saying or your just not paying attention. I repeat... I AM VOTING ON WHO I PERCEIVE TO BE THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES... IT IS ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA AND FOR ALL AMERICANS. What part of that don't you understand? As far as neg campaign tactics... I do believe that Obama has thrown a few punches of his own. The stakes are high so a little unfriendly competition goes with the territory. Did you say that you wouldn't support a women because you are a woman? How do you like someone distorting your words? I have to give you credit though for your "right thinking" in regards to the nonsense about the Clinton's "scandalous behavior" and "murderous conspiracy". Another poster put it this way... "Take your diabolical nonsense and stuff it". I think we can both agree on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top