2008 is going to be exciting.

[Tweek]

because Dick Cheney isn't running so we have two open parties.


I'm crossing my fingers that Hilary Clinton or Condi Rice run.

I'm sorta disappointed Cheney isn't going to run, because I think he would be a competent president, even though he scares the hell out of me.

[jeo4]

I am pushing for Powell myself. It's a brand new race in four years.

[Tweek]

i'd be happy with powell as president.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Forget Powell, he's done with politics. He's expected to step down sometime soon.

And Condi also stands no chance, atleast I know if I was a republican, there would be much better candidates too support.

Hillary is realistic, but also very liberal...which is a kiss of death if you want to become president.

[AppleHuntr]

I don't know why so many people hate Hilary Clinton, I just don't undertsand where this reputation came from. Her husband was a terrific president (even the downside to his presidency, Monica, seems like it should of come out in her favor) and she seems to be doing an adequate job as senator. I'd happily vote for her. And having a woman president would kick ass, although sexism still seems to run deep in this country but I think by 2008 people will be ready for a change.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Very easy, she's big on socializing a lot of stuff.

That alone is enough for me to not want to vote for her.

[Criminal Rock]

Very easy, she's big on socializing a lot of stuff.

I agree, if she runs it'll be considered one of the biggest upsets in the history of the Democratic Party, because she will lose if she runs.

I think it’ll be one of the biggest upsets because she is so adored and worshiped (not literally) by so many democrats, liberal and conservative ones. And this year’s election for the democrats was just an ‘anyone besides bush’ type campaign… I think it would have been the same if Dean was the democratic nominee. Relatively.

[Criminal Rock]

And having a woman president would kick ass, although sexism still seems to run deep in this country but I think by 2008 people will be ready for a change.

How is sexism still a big problem? I always thought that a man and women have an equal chance of doing anything they want to. If anything women have more rights then men.

I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just curious.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I agree, if she runs it'll be considered one of the biggest upsets in the history of the Democratic Party, because she will lose if she runs.


I think at this point she would win. She's extrememly electable and would easily get most of the female and minority vote. There are so many people I've talked to that have told me they'd vote for her just because it's time America gets a nonwhite male leader. However, if I were the republicans I'd run Guiliani against her. That would be a hell of a battle.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
How is sexism still a big problem? I always thought that a man and women have an equal chance of doing anything they want to. If anything women have more rights then men.

I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just curious.


how exactly do women have more rights than men? women are still constantly harassed over abortion, and i have several friends who are making less money than their male co-workers for the exact same job.

i think those points alone proves women don't have equal chances of doing anything they want to, especially holding what is considered to be the most powerful position in the U.S.



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[Thrizzle]

Women get paid 75 cents to the dollar for the same job men do.

[AppleHuntr]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
How is sexism still a big problem? I always thought that a man and women have an equal chance of doing anything they want to. If anything women have more rights then men.

I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just curious.

Sexism is still most definitely a problem here in America. Yes, there are laws that aim to prevent discrimination against women, but are they being enforced to the fullest extent? hardly.

You want a blatant case of sexism? Take Martha Stewart. What did she do that was so much worse than the Enron guys for them to put that women in jail??? It still blows my mind that MARTHA STEWART is in prison, but many men are still threatened by powerful, successful women, especially ones who come off as professional and aggressive (business-wise) as Stewart. And what happened to the Enron men? Not much, and they REALLY fucked around with money and policies.

And Darchangel makes a good point, women do not make as much money as men are are not promoted as much as them either.

So I think the Republican campaign would go to town like we've never seen before if Hilary were to run, the question is how dirty would her campaign willing to get? Not sinking down to their level wouldn't be an option.

[jeo4]

Way to demonize an entire political party. :rolleyes:

It took literally several years to indict dozens of people at Enron, and their trials aren't even started yet. You want to see what happens to them in 2005? Stick around for the trial. It will make Martha's pissy little 5 month stay in a minimum security stint look like Romper Room.

Martha got caught breaking the law and lying about it. She ruined her own multi-billion dollar empire and she has nobody to blame but herself for wanting to save a few hundred thousand in trading. That was stupid. People lost jobs and money because she fucked up, so 5 months in a women's minimum security joint is nothing more than a slap on the wrist to me.

The one thing I will say is that I agree with what Darchangel said. Women don't get equal pay for equal work. And that really makes no sense at all.

[Tweek]

i think another reason hilary would have a chance to win is name recognition.

[<3mekthx]

I think it's a safe bet that the ENRON'S of the world will get what's comming to them. We will all be surprised at how many charges those guys will get brought up against them. It takes an incredible ammount of time to build up a case(s) this big. You dont want the prosecution to go in there only half doing there homework, those high price lawyers will tear them apart. A bulltetproof prosecution is what they're going for. (IMHO)

That's what happens to greedy ass people (ENRON, Stewart, etc)

[Thrizzle]

2008 = JON STEWART FOR PRESIDENT.

The dems will lose anyway, why not take a chance.

[JCR]

It's worth noting that as being from the UK I would think a female leader is also unlikely. Except we had one for 11 years. And she is a major contender for strongest leader we ever had.

Edit: Hell, aside from churchill she was the strongest UK leader ever. She'd rip you're balls off as soon as look at you.

[<3mekthx]

Ashcroft / Limbaugh 2008!!!!!

[Criminal Rock]

Sorry for the late responses, I’ve been busy with school.

I think at this point she would win. She's extrememly electable and would easily get most of the female and minority vote. There are so many people I've talked to that have told me they'd vote for her just because it's time America gets a nonwhite male leader. However, if I were the republicans I'd run Guiliani against her. That would be a hell of a battle.

I’m saying she wont on the fact that bush won by about 3 million popular votes, and 27 electoral votes. It’ll probably be different next election year, but not by much. And I don’t think America wants a President that socializes everything.

how exactly do women have more rights than men? women are still constantly harassed over abortion, and i have several friends who are making less money than their male co-workers for the exact same job.

Both sexes have the same rights, but women have deference over men because America treats women differently then men. Ironically, most women’s rights activists push the agenda of equality while degrading how men look in the eyes of America, its called affirmative action. And the women your referring to probably don’t have the same credentials as the other men, whether its lack of experience or lack of school. There is a reason for it. And it’s not because “men look down on women,” using it in every situation is stupid, and I won’t believe it because of its stupidity and lack of reason.

Sexism is still most definitely a problem here in America. Yes, there are laws that aim to prevent discrimination against women, but are they being enforced to the fullest extent? hardly.

That’s strange… the last time I looked, the amount of working women doubled in the last twenty to thirty years. google it.

What discriminations against women can you cite that would guarantee the fact that a man got the job over a woman because she’s a woman, and not because the male had better schooling or experience? Remember, no conspiracies.

You want a blatant case of sexism? Take Martha Stewart. What did she do that was so much worse than the Enron guys for them to put that women in jail??? It still blows my mind that MARTHA STEWART is in prison, but many men are still threatened by powerful, successful women, especially ones who come off as professional and aggressive (business-wise) as Stewart. And what happened to the Enron men? Not much, and they REALLY fucked around with money and policies.

What joe said...

[AppleHuntr]

Originally posted by jeo4
Way to demonize an entire political party. :rolleyes:

It took literally several years to indict dozens of people at Enron, and their trials aren't even started yet. You want to see what happens to them in 2005? Stick around for the trial. It will make Martha's pissy little 5 month stay in a minimum security stint look like Romper Room.

Martha got caught breaking the law and lying about it. She ruined her own multi-billion dollar empire and she has nobody to blame but herself for wanting to save a few hundred thousand in trading. That was stupid. People lost jobs and money because she fucked up, so 5 months in a women's minimum security joint is nothing more than a slap on the wrist to me.

The one thing I will say is that I agree with what Darchangel said. Women don't get equal pay for equal work. And that really makes no sense at all.


What I was trying to say was to look at how much Martha was attacked for her crimes compared to how much the Enron men were for theirs, and who committed the worse crime? You didn't respond to the real fear some people have about powerful women like Stewart. Do you really think that the Enron men will face a fate so much worse than Martha's with all the strings theyll be able to pull? C'mon, their buddies with the damn president. I am not justifying what Martha did, yes it was dumb, but she was made to look like evil in human form while the Enron men got off relatively easy media-wise. Who knows what the outcomes of their trials will be, heres hoping that theyll be as bad as you predict.

I don't think I demonized an entire politcal party but I definitely think that if a women were to run the Republicans would give her a much harder time than the Democrats would because the Democratic party is more female based and statistically that's a fact. Just look at the results from Tuesday.

Tai Mai Jew,
I know more women are in the work place than ever before, I never said anything stating I thought otherwise, but they still do not receive equal treatment. How about you look at the lawsuits Wal Mart, one of the largest corporations in America, have been plagued with when men with less experience were promoted to higher positions with more pay over women who did have more experience and were more qualified. Why do you so quickly aim to justify the actions of the ones accused of sexism? Should we not take these claims seriously? Sometimes there are reasons that are more than "men look down on women" and sometimes there are not although it will never be that simple and we will never know because no one will admit "I didnt hire/promote that person because shes a women". It seems like you think sexism is a problem of the past, it is not. These womens rights groups around today don't march just for fun. This denial about sexism (among other social problems but thats for another post) is prevalent throughout the country, they seem to think that with all the laws in place that its an issue of yester-year and we can move on. People will find ways to get around those laws to suit their prejuidces. Sexism is no more an old issue than racism.

[Criminal Rock]

I know more women are in the work place than ever before, I never said anything stating I thought otherwise, but they still do not receive equal treatment. How about you look at the lawsuits Wal Mart, one of the largest corporations in America, have been plagued with when men with less experience were promoted to higher positions with more pay over women who did have more experience and were more qualified. Why do you so quickly aim to justify the actions of the ones accused of sexism? Should we not take these claims seriously? Sometimes there are reasons that are more than "men look down on women" and sometimes there are not although it will never be that simple and we will never know because no one will admit "I didnt hire/promote that person because shes a women". It seems like you think sexism is a problem of the past, it is not. These womens rights groups around today don't march just for fun. This denial about sexism (among other social problems but thats for another post) is prevalent throughout the country, they seem to think that with all the laws in place that its an issue of yester-year and we can move on. People will find ways to get around those laws to suit their prejuidces. Sexism is no more an old issue than racism.

I don’t think sexism is only a problem of the past, I also don’t think racism is a problem of the past... I'm just saying it isn’t the biggest problem in the world, I think there are other problems that I would deal with accordingly. I would preferably focus on more important issues like rape, murder, and other deadly or harmful actions people like to commit rather then how much money a women makes, or how a woman did not get the promotion she could have got. I know its important still, just like in the 50’s and 60’s it was extremely important, and I do care a lot about the issue.

And about the Wal-Mart cases, Wal-Mart claims that the women NOT getting the job for the management positions aren’t hired because they don’t apply until after they hire someone, or they don’t apply period. It does seem ridiculous to even say that when talking about over 500 stores nation wide, nevertheless, Wal-Mart apparently has evidence to back it up. And the judges will not grant them a day in court because of the Unions’ lack of evidence. I’m almost positive that there were, at one point in time, discrimination against women at Wal-Mart that probably brought the fact to light with the rest of the world, however not every case of a woman not getting the job is discrimination. And that exactly what the Unions are trying to portray. And that’s what I have a problem with.

[free]

However, if I were the republicans I'd run Guiliani against her.

I think Gulliani as President would be terrible. Say what you want about Bush and 9/11, but 9/11 is the ONLY reason that he is remembered fondly. If I'm not mstaken, NY hated him, he was in some kind of legal trouble at the time, and he overspent the budget a few times as mayor.

And really, does the mayor's office qualify one to be the leader of a nation?

[AppleHuntr]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I don’t think sexism is only a problem of the past, I also don’t think racism is a problem of the past... I'm just saying it isn’t the biggest problem in the world, I think there are other problems that I would deal with accordingly. I would preferably focus on more important issues like rape, murder, and other deadly or harmful actions people like to commit rather then how much money a women makes, or how a woman did not get the promotion she could have got. I know its important still, just like in the 50’s and 60’s it was extremely important, and I do care a lot about the issue.

And about the Wal-Mart cases, Wal-Mart claims that the women NOT getting the job for the management positions aren’t hired because they don’t apply until after they hire someone, or they don’t apply period. It does seem ridiculous to even say that when talking about over 500 stores nation wide, nevertheless, Wal-Mart apparently has evidence to back it up. And the judges will not grant them a day in court because of the Unions’ lack of evidence. I’m almost positive that there were, at one point in time, discrimination against women at Wal-Mart that probably brought the fact to light with the rest of the world, however not every case of a woman not getting the job is discrimination. And that exactly what the Unions are trying to portray. And that’s what I have a problem with.

I don't think that any Union would make such a general, uninformed statement such as "Any women who was not hired/promoted is a victim of discrimination". But I think they do recognize what a problem it is and are trying to get the message out, which would be the part where we come in.

Sexism comes down to your civil liberties and I find it an extremely important issue. Rape and murder are huge problems, but the thing is everyone recognizes them as a problem, which is not the case with sexism. You dont have to fight rape and murder, everyones stance on that issue is pretty clear. I'm not trying to sound like some uber-feminist or anything I just feel that it is an issue that is not fairly recognized in our country and if it is allowed to go on like this it will never be "solved", which many people think it is today, because its not so noticable anymore they assume its solved. Its not just the Wal Mart cases but it is something that truly does run deep in this country. I know there are more urgent issues but I wouldnt necessarily say more important ones.

I think what I'm saying will become more clear if Hilary does try to run for president.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by free
I think Gulliani as President would be terrible. Say what you want about Bush and 9/11, but 9/11 is the ONLY reason that he is remembered fondly. If I'm not mstaken, NY hated him, he was in some kind of legal trouble at the time, and he overspent the budget a few times as mayor.

And really, does the mayor's office qualify one to be the leader of a nation?

Also, Giuliani is considerably more liberal, socially, then his possible predecessor. He is Pro-choice and I believe liberal on some gay issues. These are not hallmarks of the Republican party. I find it very hard to see the Republican Party going full force with him, especially since they're riding high on the wave of conservative trust these days. Are they planning on it fading out in 4 years?

If Hillary is gonna run, its gonna be tough. There is always a double standard with women doing the same things that men do. Hillary is a tough broad, she was not the typical First Lady which was the main reason she was so vilified during her husband's administration. She took a more proactive role in the government because she wasn't some girl who went to college and studied French literature and married a well to do man, she went to school to learn and use her education to actually have a career and she didn't let it go to waste. Republicans are gonna get her in the South stating how she took advantage of an opportunity for power and abandoned her homestate. She needs to seriously reconnect with the folks back in Arkansas and not come off as being too "New York"..... That's a TALL ORDER.

The Democrats need to, and I'm paraphrasing Bill Maher here, grow a pair of balls. This a new age in America where people have seen an aggressive attack on its own shores for the first time in 50 years. Bush has the accessories of a so-called "tough guy": He's gotta a ranch, he lives in Texas, he drives a truck, he wears leather jackets and dresses up in military uniforms he has no business really being in, and people buy it, they think he's a tough guy: " He's bombed shit, he's gotta be tough." And the Democrats gotta get with this. So many times I was watching these guys doing this whole "We'll do the opposite of what the Republicans are doing. We'll be bigger then them."...... Sorry, sometimes the world is like highschool, ya gotta get mean to make it. And if they're not willing to then we need a new party that will, and 2008 would be a good time for one to show up.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by free
I think Gulliani as President would be terrible. Say what you want about Bush and 9/11, but 9/11 is the ONLY reason that he is remembered fondly. If I'm not mstaken, NY hated him, he was in some kind of legal trouble at the time, and he overspent the budget a few times as mayor.

And really, does the mayor's office qualify one to be the leader of a nation?

Why not?

He was born in America and he's over thirty-five, so he qualifies to be
leader of a nation. And New York City is probably the hardest place to be mayor of, you know that.

To my knowledge, the only people who hated him were the typical bombthrowers.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew



Both sexes have the same rights, but women have deference over men because America treats women differently then men. Ironically, most women’s rights activists push the agenda of equality while degrading how men look in the eyes of America, its called affirmative action. And the women your referring to probably don’t have the same credentials as the other men, whether its lack of experience or lack of school. There is a reason for it. And it’s not because “men look down on women,” using it in every situation is stupid, and I won’t believe it because of its stupidity and lack of reason.




actually, the specific instance i used for my reasoning on women get paid less is that my best friend and her boyfriend both starting working at the same place. she has had MORE experience in that particular field of work than he has and his STARTING WAGES were 6.75/hr. whereas her salary AFTER A RAISE was 6.50/hr. let me also mention here that they worked the exact same position.

when he got a raise, his salary went to 7.25/hr.


so no, i don't believe that there's still not discrimination and that women have equal rights...we obviously don't, or my friend would have been getting paid more than her penis-endowed counterpart.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[pig farmer]

John McCain.

This year's election was a joke. I am Republican, but I hate Bush. I was ready to vote him out, but the Asses (check logo) had to put in the biggest Ass of them all, Kerry.

2008 will be interesting, and I'd like to see Hillary vs. McCain.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by free
I think Gulliani as President would be terrible. Say what you want about Bush and 9/11, but 9/11 is the ONLY reason that he is remembered fondly. If I'm not mstaken, NY hated him, he was in some kind of legal trouble at the time, and he overspent the budget a few times as mayor.

And really, does the mayor's office qualify one to be the leader of a nation?

More importantly, he got rid of the hookers in Times Square and started to enfore a Victorian age law about strip clubs, forcing most of them out of business (eventually).



To you, Gulliani!



http://surreally.net/fullbleed/exliontamer/images/middle-finger.gif

[Tweek]

John McCain.

YAY!
I would love to see McCain vs. Clinton.

He claims he won't run again though. grrr.