<p>I hate to hijack the thread even further, but I have to respond to one thing that kyledavid said. "Hmm, so most governmental programs are failures, then? Such as Medicare, Social Security, educational spending, etc." The answer to that is essentially yes. The public school system is failing miserably, and Social Security is doing much worse, which is why people keep talking about reforming it. By the time my generation has reached old age, there will be no money left in SS for us, so how could you ever call that successful. I am a libertarian, so I believe that less government is better, so I would say that most governmental programs are failing. (I did not talk about Medicare because I don't know much about.)</p>
<p>^Perhaps in the US...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
He hardly lacks opinion; if anything, he's pretty strong on his opinions. He's resented the war since day one, and yet, who flipped their opinion on the war after they realized that it was unfavorable? Clinton. Look, quite honestly, we live at a time where many countries, especially Islamic, will look down on a nation that is led by a woman.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Obama states his opinions, but has no plans about them other than the general Democratic platform; the only possible exception to that is healthcare. By the way, the majority of Americans changed their opinion about the war at some point. Even though I was against the war from the beginning, I appreciate that she had the guts to change her opinions with the facts. And I find it strange, if Islamic countries would look down upon a female leader, that Benazir Bhutto was elected in Pakistan.</p>
<p>"Obama states his opinions, but has no plans about them other than the general Democratic platform;"</p>
<p>And Hillary does have plans?</p>
<p>Proletariat2, you've got to be kidding. Clinton did not have "the guts to change her opinions." She was just smart enough to read the polls correctly, realize the war had become unpopular and change her political position accordingly.</p>
<p>That is really what makes me so uneasy about her. Her positions are exactly moderate enough to get her elected. She's pro-immigration, but won't give illegals driver licenses. She's for mandated health care, but won't specify how she would mandate it. It doesn't really seem like she has opinions of her own at all!</p>
<p>So if to you, courage means going along with the majority to maintain political support, then sure, she's plenty courageous.</p>
<p>Wait wait wait wait... you guys DO realize that Hillary is not only ugly as sin, but also the creator of it (she's Satan). She's also an ignorant, manipulative, queen bit<h harpy FROM HELL!</p>
<p>WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR HER?!?! America is doomed if she becomes president. Which she WILL NOT, because no republican will vote for her, and most of Obama's supporters WILL NOT vote for her...</p>
<p>Obams WILL have many republicans voting for him, along with hillary's supporters. Don't be fooled!!! Vote for Obama: he's not a queen harpy bit<h from hell. =D</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I find it strange, if Islamic countries would look down upon a female leader, that Benazir Bhutto was elected in Pakistan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Last I looked, Bhutto was assassinated. </p>
<p>I'm talking about extremists out there who will punish women just for wearing a bright-colored scarf. When was the last time a country like Iran had a female leader? Iraq? Afghanistan? Russia?</p>
<p>Also, Obama won't suck up to those muslim leaders--what kind of argument is that? I don't even know what to say to that...</p>
<p>As for McCain, he is a much more militaristic version of Bush, and I honestly hope he doesn't win.</p>
<p>btw, i agree w/ altectech</p>
<p>
I was concerned about that too, so brought that up in my history class, and a lot of people said that most of those countries have female leaders. </p>
<p>I really don't think we are ready for a big change such as a female or african american president. I think that John Edwards was the best candidate.</p>
<p>This election is more about change than it is about politics or advancing our country. I really don't even want to have a part in voting.</p>
<p>Easton722,</p>
<p>Obama has already said he wants to "talk", you know appease our enemies. Obama will be batted around like a beach ball by our enemies.</p>
<p>McCain will be egged into another war. I don't want him any where near that "red button".</p>
<p>Hillary is a cunning, 2 faced female dog, and everything you say she is. Which is why, she is the only who can take on our enemies. She can smile while holding a dagger behind her back just our enemies are doing.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't like her, but I am voting for her!</p>
<p>^ We got your point the first time you made it, AMom2. I just really don't see why you think being two faced is a good quality to have in a president. It might work for a short period of time as far as international relations is concerned, but do you really want her doing those types of things at home? Do you want her smiling, telling us everything is going to be OK because she is going to do X when she really goes and does C? Plus, once the other countries we are dealing with realize we have a backstabbing president that has an odd likeness to Satan, they will distrust us and our relationship with them will break down completely. I really think you should take a long hard look at your logic...</p>
<p>And secondly... AMom2, why are you so concerned about international relations?</p>
<p>Why is it that an election is centered around what we do OUTSIDE the country?!!?! We need to be investing our dollars into OURSELVES!!! We aren't that great of a country when it comes to quality (just look at the healthcare). We could be providing much more for the poor and reshaping the way our government works. Not to mention (if it even matters to you which it probably won't because you are incredibly ignorant) America was FOUNDED on the principles of... STAYING THE HELL OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS! We have, over the years, assumed the role of "World Police", a role that costs the US BILLIONS, and accomplishes LITTLE. While we spend barely 1% of the money on OURSELVES (healthcare, education, etc.) WHY?!?!!?</p>
<p>And then you have the IGNORANCE to say that you want a TWO-FACED politician running the presidency...? THAT'S ALL WE'VE HAD THE PAST 40 YEARS!!! How is that change??? Are you being sexist and saying that because she is a woman, it is now significant for her to be president because it is a CHANGE in gender?! Wow.</p>
<p>And a politician DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TWO-FACED WITH US TO BE TWO-FACED WITH THEM!!!</p>
<p>And to further elaborate on "them"... I think it is funny how you refer to "them" as our enemies!! Are you serious?!?!?! DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHO ARE ENEMIES ARE?! As far as I am concerned, we have ONE enemy... terrorists, and last time I checked, America DOES NOT negotiate with terrorists, well alone have any means of communicating with them. They have no leader, and if they did, we would not be able to speak with them. They are not a country, nor a power. They are just radicals.</p>
<p>We DO have threats, though. North Korea, Iran, and Russia are all valid threats. But they are not our "enemies" as you so refered to them as. We want to PRESERVE the peace, not assume war. And I do not think Obama is one to sell weapons to a group or country on the contract that they use them on another group or country that we dislike more, only to have that group or country use the weapons we sold them AGAINST US. (Clinton number one anybody? HELLO!?!)</p>
<p>Let me also bring up the whole "experience" argument. Having experience of doing a job POORLY does not make you a better candidate. </p>
<p>Which of these two options are better:</p>
<p>Candidate number 1: 78yrs old, 40yrs experience, brings no change, follows by the book, feels america is fine as it is, lies, manipulates, not very smart.</p>
<p>or </p>
<p>Candidate number 2: 35yrs old, 7yrs experience, wants change, has not had enough experience yet to be molded into a cruel monotonous rock that all politicians seem to be molded into, truthful, honest, overqualified, morale booster, bold, stern, peaceful yet not a pushover.</p>
<p>Experience is NOT everything. And TRUE experience means being a president already, so no candidate really has any "experience". Hillary has only been a governor... and a mediocre one at that... riding on the Clinton name (but God-forbid on Clinton himself =X) </p>
<p>Throw me what else you got "AMom2". Or any other of you harpy humpers.</p>
<p>^ well said</p>
<p>"And I find it strange, if Islamic countries would look down upon a female leader, that Benazir Bhutto was elected in Pakistan.</p>
<p>Last I looked, Bhutto was assassinated. "</p>
<p>She was not assassinated because she was a woman. I that were the real reason she would have been assassinated and done with a long time ago. What some of the Pakistani public felt was that she was too pro-US. Meaning, she would happily hand over the reigns of her country to the US. I am not saying anything negative about the US here, just that most people like to know their country is in good hands. Neither do I condone assassinating her ... obviously</p>
<p>It was not because she was a woman</p>
<p>First of all, most of what akahmed said was true. As an Indian-American, everything political that goes on in Pakistan is important to me. Her assassination is political. Think about Angela Merkel or Sonia Gandhi. Does anybody ignore them because they're women?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
She was just smart enough to read the polls correctly, realize the war had become unpopular and change her political position accordingly.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Let's not turn this into a "flip-flopping" war. Arguments like this explain how Bush got a second term. She changed her opinions with the facts.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
She's pro-immigration, but won't give illegals driver licenses. She's for mandated health care, but won't specify how she would mandate it.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<ol>
<li>Just because one is lax on immigration, it doesn't mean one has to automatically give illegal immigrants full rights. It could just mean she doesn't want to waste money building a pointless border fence.</li>
<li>Clinton has the best-developed plan for socialized medicine everproposed in the United States. Best is debatable, but best-developed is almost undebatable fact.</li>
</ol>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Wait wait wait wait... you guys DO realize that Hillary is not only ugly as sin, but also the creator of it (she's Satan). She's also an ignorant, manipulative, queen bit<h harpy FROM HELL!</p>
<p>WHY WOULD YOU VOTE FOR HER?!?! America is doomed if she becomes president. Which she WILL NOT, because no republican will vote for her, and most of Obama's supporters WILL NOT vote for her...
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Very convincing argument you have there, Mr. Limbaugh.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I'm talking about extremists out there who will punish women just for wearing a bright-colored scarf.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>In Saudi Arabia, young women walk the streets without the hijab, and now it's gotten to the point that virtually everyone who wears it likes to wear it. And in Turkey, the hijab is virtually banned in public (the wife of Abdullah Gul was criticized heavily by the Turkish media for wearing one).</p>
<p>I would like to add to the above post</p>
<p>Media has painted this whole female oppression issue to degrees which are not wholly true for all of the middle east, or even a nation within the area.</p>
<p>Like one scholar once said about media and the muslims, the media picks out the black sheep in the herd and shows them as the exemplary part of the whole herd. Never are the white sheep herd about (unless you go past FOX, CNN, and actually question what you are so easily told)</p>
<p>Many many women in Saudi Arabia enjoy wearing the hijab because they feel it protects their honor and makes them less vulnerable. You never hear about them. However, if a woman dislikes the rules and makes a public outcry of it, the camera zooms in on her, and so easily, the Muslim Community is labeled as woman oppressors. </p>
<p>Whether you agree or not, the best point to take out of this is to question what you are told. For information is a very powerful thing, and can be used to make people believe whoever owns it, believe as they desire.</p>
<p>"In Saudi Arabia, young women walk the streets without the hijab, and now it's gotten to the point that virtually everyone who wears it likes to wear it. And in Turkey, the hijab is virtually banned in public (the wife of Abdullah Gul was criticized heavily by the Turkish media for wearing one).",</p>
<p>Indeed, the hijab was actually created to protect women from the eyes of other men in order to preserve their honor. This garment has been singled out as a sign as the oppression of women only because it seems so unfamiliar to Americans and it is easily identifiable. </p>
<p>However, just because the hijab might not be a sign of the oppression of women, such oppression does exist. Saudi Arabia still does not allow women to vote. The US has allowed women to vote for nearly 100 years, and yet Saudi Arabia still does not value the opinion of women. If that isn't oppression, then I don't know what is. In addition to the suffrage issue, the marriage and divorce laws are quite demeaning to women as well.</p>
<p>Thanks for bringing that up</p>
<p>But I assure you if Saudi Arabia was 100% Islamic, meaning it did not misinterpret or magnify religious conduct to exponential measure you would have a different opinion.</p>
<p>As a Muslim, I must say, Indonesia is the closest to that type of society</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
However, just because the hijab might not be a sign of the oppression of women, such oppression does exist. Saudi Arabia still does not allow women to vote.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I realize that such oppression does exist. I was directing this more specifcally to a previous poster who brought this up. Islamic countries will have to take a female President seriously; they got kind of screwed when they originally didn't take Indira Gandhi seriously.</p>
<p>Islamic countries don't have to do anything. I cannot predict if they will reject Hillary if she were to become president, but it certainly is a possibility.</p>