You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 12:25:15 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #125 on: January 28, 2007, 08:10:11 PM »
 Obama's main problem is his severe lack of experiance in national politics.

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #126 on: January 29, 2007, 03:48:31 AM »
Obama's main problem is his severe lack of experiance in national politics.

Hmmm I just have a question on that.  If experience is so important now.  He will have more of it on a national level then our current President who had not held a congressional or senate seat before becoming President.  For that matter he had been just a governor.   

But then your right, look what it got us with a serious lack of experience.  We sure don't want to make that mistake again.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #127 on: January 29, 2007, 08:34:09 AM »
 It's a lack of practical experiance. And ALL Senators have that. Govenors tend to make better Presidents because they have experiance in actually running something. Senators do not. Most of the Presidents of the US have been govenors first, rather than senators. Senators are used to trying to run everything themselves. Govenors have to delegate and have practical experiance.

 Obama just doesn't have a voting record at the national level for people to know him. People do know what to expect of Hillary, which is why she's going to be a very divisive candidate if she gets the nomination.  Bush has made mistakes, but he also have a lot of hard decisions handed to him too. 9-11 being the biggest. As President he has the requirement to act, to protect the country, which the Senate does not.  Given what the President has happened to him, no one will ever have the experiance required for the office.

 I am convinced that if Gore or Kerry had been elected (by fraud) then the country would be in a much worse off place.  Both are pacifists and quislings.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #128 on: January 29, 2007, 09:06:37 AM »
Hmmm I just have a question on that.  If experience is so important now.  He will have more of it on a national level then our current President who had not held a congressional or senate seat before becoming President.  For that matter he had been just a governor.   

But then your right, look what it got us with a serious lack of experience.  We sure don't want to make that mistake again.

We sure don't, and I agree. A potential president should have years of experience not only in politics, but in management and diplomacy. The Senate, being a body that is basically the epitome of Diplomacy and Compromise, is an excellent place to get this experience, but only after a full term or two. A governor is even better, as they manage every aspect of a state, which is in essence, a mini-nation. Regardless of charisma, charm, appeal and smarts, a candidate with no experience in this area will show their true colors once elected, as their inability to act will immediately be evident. It doesn't matter what Bush's credentials were, his experience was limited, and it doesn't matter what his hard decisions were, he hasn't consistently acted responsibly. No different than Carter, for instance.

I'm an independent, I look at the experience factor very closely, and whether or not I 'like' what a person says, if they don't have the experience or the voting record to judge, I won't vote for them.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #129 on: January 29, 2007, 03:46:13 PM »
That is not true Eisenhower and Grant were fine presidents and had NO political background other than the military. And both delegated authority to people that could do the best job regardless of political affiliation- generally.

And Obama can easily have people delegated to handle certain things like military leaders to handle military concerns and the like. Personally I think Perot would have been a GREAT president he was a businessman heaven forbid we have a pragmatic leader. One that might focus on getting things done by bringing together the finest people in their fields to do it. For me ones character and devotion to the PEOPLE of the country outweighs experience if they are willing to be pragmatic and listen to others with the right aptitudes for it.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #130 on: January 29, 2007, 03:47:53 PM »
I wonder if Perot was a case of media spin, because they sure made him out to be a crackpot!  By the end of it all there were some pretty crazy allegations.

Offline Lilian

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #131 on: January 29, 2007, 10:54:28 PM »
But you gotta know, Ross Perot TOTALLY hired that clown woman for sexual favors..

..and if our favorite dark skinned El Presidente gets in, you KNOW what we's gonna say in da hood.

"Wot wot?"

"Obama been leadin'!"

"Fo sho"

"YEEEAAAYAAAA"

XD
« Last Edit: January 29, 2007, 10:56:13 PM by Lilian »

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #132 on: January 30, 2007, 08:24:45 AM »
That is not true Eisenhower and Grant were fine presidents and had NO political background other than the military. And both delegated authority to people that could do the best job regardless of political affiliation- generally.

And Obama can easily have people delegated to handle certain things like military leaders to handle military concerns and the like. Personally I think Perot would have been a GREAT president he was a businessman heaven forbid we have a pragmatic leader. One that might focus on getting things done by bringing together the finest people in their fields to do it. For me ones character and devotion to the PEOPLE of the country outweighs experience if they are willing to be pragmatic and listen to others with the right aptitudes for it.

Grant is one of the most corrupt presidents to have ever served in the Oval Office. It is well known that he looked the other way during the Whiskey Ring and Sanborn Incidents, and that he encouraged fraud among his cronies.

As for leadership, Eisenhower and Grant led the US Army, which is a highly political position, which requires much manuevering and maniupulation of subordinates, policy and materials. It is no different than running a state. In fact, Eisenhower's Army Command had a population higher than several U.S. states at the time. Sure he delegated authority, but that taught him how to manage effectively, hence giving him the leadership skills needed.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #133 on: January 30, 2007, 08:31:42 AM »
I wonder if Perot was a case of media spin, because they sure made him out to be a crackpot!  By the end of it all there were some pretty crazy allegations.

I wouldn't be surprised. Our political climate currently ensures that the two major parties do all they can to discredit any serious third party challenger. Perot would have run the country like a business, much like Warner ran Virginia during his four years in office.

Offline Sakujo

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #134 on: January 07, 2008, 02:37:40 PM »
Looking at the recent events, I certainly hope that Hillary doesn't have a shot to win, and it fortunately seems that more people are agreeing with me. I was worried when the media and Republicans focused so much on her, but now it seems like she may have just been a convenient punching bag at the time.

Also fortunately, Obama and Huckabee, the only two guys I really cared about, won their respective victories.

While I agree that Obama is inexperienced and full of rhetoric, I'd gladly take him over Hillary or Edwards. In fact, the only other democrat I'd probably vote for is Kuncinich, because he seems like a good guy who honestly speaks his mind, and I think that Congress might keep him in check.

Obama probably won't get much done and will rely on advisers, which might not be a bad thing if he doesn't go with a crackpot team. His main role will probably be playing the "unifier" role he's stood upon, perhaps trying to make a good impression on everyone to keep himself & the dems in power.


Huckabee I have liked since I first started watching the video responses he's posted on the internet. He has openly said he has respect for atheists and will defend their right to freedom from religion, he seems to have a mild approach to nearly everything, and sounds like an honest person. He's also very personal when he speaks.

Again, as with the dems, I'd only vote for one other republican, and that'd be Paul, again because I like some of what he says and think Congress would keep him under lock and key, so to speak.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #135 on: January 07, 2008, 05:27:59 PM »
Friend, you might wish to take a look into Huckabees views on abortion, homosexuality and matters of sex in general. As far as I know, he's very conservative about all of those.
I also heard there was a scandal about him pardoning a convicted rapist, but I'm not up to date on this.
I'm not making any judgements, but I'd advise you to make sure what you're doing before casting a vote. I've heard about Huckabee being not exactly like you describe when it comes to his voting record and beliefs.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #136 on: January 07, 2008, 06:37:37 PM »
Funny I watched the recent debates and Ron Paul looked wonderful and very practical in his views unfortunately he has little chance of winning. My vote is not for sale but is going to the person that EARNED my vote with them showing me they will be the best president and fits my values and except for Ron Paul there are no major party members running I actually think has the right platform. So I will likely choose whicheve Libertarian candidate gets recognized in Florida and if there is more than one the one I think will do the best job. Its better than voting for some of the candidates I see save Ron Paul and as I learn more of him ,maybe, Obama.

Offline Sakujo

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #137 on: January 07, 2008, 10:41:05 PM »
Huckabee is against what was listed, but hasn't voiced an agenda to ban civil unions, abortion, or general sexual practices. He's been very strong on the idea of states' rights, which is better than having the feds take over everything and screwing it up.

I can't see any Republican being better than Huckabee, and I say that of Paul, as well, because Paul doesn't seem to have any plan, just generalized ideas. He also seems to be a market anarchist and pure capitalist, and that's scary.

Still, I'd pick Huckabee over Obama because Obama has never had anything to say that really interested me, besides his response to one of my e-mails about using organic materials to clean up after Katrina and his idea of driving a "World War Two style production force for new energy".

Obama just doesn't seem to have a steady, level position on anything, which appeals to me in comparison with Edwards and Hillary, and gives me some hope abotu him picking a good team, but it's also a concern.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #138 on: January 08, 2008, 09:39:13 AM »
Huckabee is against what was listed, but hasn't voiced an agenda to ban civil unions, abortion, or general sexual practices. He's been very strong on the idea of states' rights, which is better than having the feds take over everything and screwing it up.

Depends on what state you live and how much money you've got to travel, then.

Remember the guy in Florida who gone to jail for consentual oral sex with his wife?
I can't see the feds being able to screw up more than that...

Offline ZK

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #139 on: January 08, 2008, 09:46:51 AM »
Not to stray off topic, but how the -hell- did they know about him having consentual oral sex with his wife? I mean what, ah, they must have been video-taping it or something, because quite frankly... could you imagine the look on the fed's faces when they did the sting opperation for that asignment?

Back onto topic. I honestly don't like any of the choices for President. If it wasn't for my grandfather's stuborness to stay in the country he nearly gave his life to get in, we'd all be back in Japan... not like it's any better shape... but at least my little brother would be getting a better education.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #140 on: January 08, 2008, 09:55:28 AM »
He publically admitted it, wishing to show how absurd laws are in Florida. You know, 'blue laws' that exist from old times and concern things like tethering horses, Indian tribes or whistling Dixie...

But the state chose to uphold the law and put the guy in prison. He's probably a sex-offender for life as well.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #141 on: January 08, 2008, 11:45:43 PM »
Depends on what state you live and how much money you've got to travel, then.

Remember the guy in Florida who gone to jail for consentual oral sex with his wife?
I can't see the feds being able to screw up more than that...

Is there a link to this story? Sodomy laws were rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas verdict rendered June 26th, 2003.

The only states I'm aware of that were trying to keep their laws active were Virginia, Oklahoma, and I think, North Carolina, but i'm not sure on that last one.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #142 on: January 09, 2008, 08:53:46 AM »
 Sodomy is not oral, which is what he was nailed with. Old laws from a more 'pure' (read repressive) time. Of course such things where done but kept hushed and in the closet. Stupid laws.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #143 on: January 09, 2008, 09:29:09 AM »
Is there a link to this story? Sodomy laws were rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas verdict rendered June 26th, 2003.

I'm looking for it now. But it was 90's, I think.

edit: Okay, I finally found it. It's actually 1989. Though it bares clarifying the case was more complicated than just the man admitting to oral sex.
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html
He was first accused of rape, then proven that it was not rape but consentual oral sex, for which he was sentenced to prison.
(I'd be interested if someone knows more about the rape accusations, by the way. Everyone knows how hard it is to prove rape in courts, after all)
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 10:11:16 AM by Celestial Goblin »

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #144 on: January 09, 2008, 11:46:33 AM »
Ah, well if it was pre-03 then yeah, the court hadn't overturned the sodomy laws yet.

Offline Humble Scribe

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #145 on: January 10, 2008, 11:40:01 AM »
Given your stance on religion in the Christianity threadsplit, I find it baffling that you can like Huckabee, Sakujo. He is a fan of Creationism, he believes homosexuality is a sin and all practitioners are damned, and he most certainly does oppose abortion and civil unions.

Offline Sakujo

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #146 on: January 10, 2008, 04:03:44 PM »
Given your stance on religion in the Christianity threadsplit, I find it baffling that you can like Huckabee, Sakujo. He is a fan of Creationism, he believes homosexuality is a sin and all practitioners are damned, and he most certainly does oppose abortion and civil unions.

Firstly, what I've written in spoken of thread isn't there to show that I hate religion, it's to show that I Very Much So Hate the particular Christian system in question.

Though your mistake is correct, in a way: I do think that all religion should be abolished. I don't really have much of an issue with deists or "spiritualists".

As for Huckabee, yes, he believes some stupid shit, but he also has more or less said that he won't stick his nose into it, and I'd rather have someone with general sense (even if it's suspended when it comes to his religious beliefs) than someone without it who is an atheist.

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #147 on: January 10, 2008, 04:15:30 PM »
Sajuko, I'm sorry, but how on earth can someone who hopes to be President 'not stick his nose into it'.
Whats he going to do, just sit in his big chair in the Whitehouse and repeat 'No comment' and 'it's none of my business'?

Offline Sakujo

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #148 on: January 10, 2008, 04:30:22 PM »
The man has said that he puts civil liberties and equal respect for persons at the forefront, and even if that means he goes with civil unions over "marriage", he seems intent on sticking to that. He's a good guy, all around, it seems, and I'm willing to place my bet on that over someone like Hillary (Who seems outright insane, and I think is likely to get us into more trouble worldwide) or Obama (who doesn't seem to really have any strong plans).

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #149 on: January 10, 2008, 04:43:17 PM »
Just a quick look online and these apparently are represenative of huckabees positions on certain civil rights areas. I think Sak, you're way off base.

Lesbian and Gay Rights - Supports Federal Marriage Amendment: Huckabee is one of the worst candidates on lesbian and gay rights issues. He supports a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage, opposes civil unions, supports "don't ask, don't tell," and opposes both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate crime laws. About the kindest thing that can be said about Huckabee on this issue is that his rhetoric tends to be less hateful than most who share his perspective.

Abortion and Reproductive Rights - Supports Federal Ban: Huckabee not only supports overturning Roe v. Wade, but also supports a federal abortion ban.

The First Amendment - Position Not Entirely Clear: Despite his history as a Southern Baptist minister and former president of the Arkansas Baptist Conference, Huckabee's history on church-state issues has not been particularly distressing. His record on other First Amendment issues tends to be something of a mystery, though he has repeatedly expressed concern that some federal campaign finance reform proposals would violate the First Amendment.

My Take: Mike Huckabee confuses me. I would never vote for him, but he is the only candidate I've seen consistently support the positions of mainstream evangelical conservatism as I know it--combining socially conservative positions on abortion and gay rights with strikingly progressive positions on immigrants' rights and the criminal justice system. In my profile of Mitt Romney, I wrote that "there are candidates less libertarian than Mitt Romney, but none more cynical." There is no cynicism and very little flip-flopping to be found with Mike Huckabee; his positions sound less like the pandering of a demagogue than the beliefs we would expect a sincere Southern Baptist leader to have. This doesn't mean that he should be President of the United States--if he gets the nomination, a Democratic endorsement will be a no-brainer--but there is something appealing about the fact that he's a Religious Right candidate who actually belongs to the Religious Right, and not a hatemongering demagogue selling us the usual political snake oil. Huckabee is mainstream politics' best advocate for social conservatism since Ronald Reagan. His opponents, in both parties, underestimate him at their own risk.



Now that's all from About.com and I don't feel like looking up more stuff right now to confirm it all since I'm heading out to happy hour, however I would like to say that I think your calling Hillary 'insane' is laughable. She's basically a centrist candidate more liberal on most positions than most republican candidates, especially when it comes to Foreign Policy. I think you're more likely to get into trouble with any of the more hardline war-on-terror candidates.

And no, I'm not necessarily a Hillary supporter.

Oh and I'll take the author of the above article as an authority on Huckabee, as he seems to have as many credentials to make that claim as you did to claim expertise in your religious thread.

Have a great night ;-)