I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Apr 15th, 2007 02:48 PM

kahljorn

it is racist, actually, but also quite stupid.

Apr 15th, 2007 02:13 AM

Sethomas

Carol Mosley-Braun!

Apr 15th, 2007 01:35 AM

Ant10708

Voting for a black guy BECAUSE he is black is racist.

Is it? It just sounds stupid not racist.

Apr 13th, 2007 09:30 PM

Courage the Cowardly Dog

I'd vote for a woman President any day.

I just don't want THAT woman who has the horrible record on personal freedoms and morality BOTH that's all.

Give me a better woman candidate and she has my vote. I wouldn't mind a vote for Condi. She's about the only one in the Bush Whitehouse I like.

PS: Voting for a black guy BECAUSE he is black is racist. Vote for the best candidate.

Apr 7th, 2007 11:32 PM

kahljorn

so what did you guys think of that newspaper article? it actually surprised me.

I think i get what she's saying though. It reflects on our society change stuff or something.

Apr 7th, 2007 09:34 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenor

Again, I will note this is not meant to be a 'GIRL POWER' thread.

By A New Era, I was associating it with over a century's worth of History in the USA; Someone else besides A White Male being favored as the President. If that is not a huge difference than what is?

Yes, you are absolutely correct about people voting for someone, JUST BECAUSE.

Now, while it is true that females have and still do rule over other countries; Usually they are appointed into leadership by what family they were born into. Maria Antoinette was Queen of France and married when she was only 14, and shortly after was executed for treason. I'd say we might just be evolving.

What about Margaret Thatcher, or Merkel in Germany? It's not like this is a new thing for the West, just in America, really.

Don't you think we owe the blacks a president? Shit, we owe them at least a VP, no?

Would you feel the same way if Condi Rice were running? She kills two birds with one stone!

Apr 7th, 2007 06:31 PM

Lenor

Please stay with the discussion, go find somewhere else to 'mock' me.

Apr 7th, 2007 06:25 PM

Sethomas

You couldn't think of a better example of a modern female head of state than Louis XVI's dunce of a trophy bride?

Apr 7th, 2007 06:05 PM

Lenor

Apr 7th, 2007 05:55 PM

kahljorn

oops..

Apr 7th, 2007 05:43 PM

kahljorn

that reminds me: after that I started thinking the best voting process would be done like an online quiz where it asks how people stand on various political issues and how importantly they rate their answer. Then people couldn't vote for the wrong person like idiots, according to their political ideology, and maybe it would also alleviate the problems with democracy. Also, third parties would have a bigger chance of winning.
ONLINE QUIZ.
100% voting accuracy

Apr 7th, 2007 05:34 PM

kahljorn

Quote:

Divide seen in voter knowledge

By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | October 22, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Supporters of President Bush are less knowledgeable about the president's foreign policy positions and are more likely to be mistaken about factual issues in world affairs than voters who back John F. Kerry, a survey released yesterday indicated.
A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence of substantial Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, and international public opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to Bush's reelection.
In contrast, among Kerry supporters polled only 26 percent think Iraq had such weapons, 30 percent say Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda, and 1 percent said foreign public opinion favors Bush.
The polls results, said Steven Kull, the head of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey, showed that Americans are so polarized two weeks before the election that many lack even a common understanding of the facts.
"It is rather unique the extent to which we have different perceptions of reality," Kull said.
On other international issues, the survey found that around 70 percent of Bush supporters responding believe that the president supports participation in the land mine treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and a narrower majority believes he supports the International Criminal Court and Kyoto Accords. In fact, Bush opposes all four treaties.
Kerry supporters correctly identified their candidate's position on every foreign policy issue in the survey except defense spending. Only 43 percent of the Democrat's supporters know he wants to keep the Pentagon budget at the same level rather than cut or expand it.
The survey was conducted in three waves, Sept. 3-7, Sept. 8-12, and Oct. 12-18, by the polling firm Knowledge Networks. The poll's margin of error is between 3.2 and 4 percent.
Kull said it is common for voters to tailor their views on particular issues to those of the candidate they favor overall, but the extent to which Bush supporters are filtering out news from Iraq that might reflect poorly on the president is unprecedented.
According to the survey, the difference doesn't reflect lack of access to information about Iraq.
The poll found that perceptions did not vary significantly by level of education among those who plan to vote for Bush.
And many of the Bush voters surveyed knew that the Duelfer report said Hussein had no WMDs, but continue to believe that he did regardless.
Kull suggested the dissonance among Bush voters reflects the country's difficulty coming to grips with the discrediting of the rationale for the Iraq war.
"This period will really stand out as when the US went to war on assumptions that turned out to be incorrect," he said. "The body politic is still struggling to come to terms with that."

heres the article since i thought it was interesting ;o

Apr 7th, 2007 05:23 PM

kahljorn

Kevin was saying that, just because she's a woman and "Different" than all of the other preidents we've had in a relatively meaningless way, doesn't mean she will make a good president. Being a woman doesn't necessitate being a good president or anything good or interesting happening. The same applies to men.

There has been, and still are, female leaders of other countries so I don't really see it as a big deal. Women are just people like everyone else ;/

Personally, if the entire matter of Hilary Clinton becoming president is, "Oh man it's a woman how cool that's different than we are used to lets vote for her," i really hope she doesn't get into office because that's basically a sensational non-rational reason to vote for someone to become the leader of the country.
It's like how people voted for Bush because of his "Morality."

I found an interesting article while i was researching for a paper that said over 40%, it might have been 60%, of the people who voted for president bush didn't even know what he stood for on various political topics. DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!!!!!!

Also I find the entire concept of this thread, unless it's supposed to be uh satirical or something, to be ridiculous. A new era, because of a female president? Usually I associate eras with more meaningful differences ;/

Apr 7th, 2007 04:14 PM

Lenor

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

you are a good enough reason, in my opinion, to never let women leave the house, much less become president.

This has NOTHING to do about this thread, we are not establishing why I should or should not ever become president.

Please, can you just leave derogatory comments about ME, out of it for once?

Apr 7th, 2007 04:05 PM

ItalianStereotype

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenor

What exactly is your opinion of a 'Good President'? Are you implementing Hillary Clinton not to be of par?

you are a good enough reason, in my opinion, to never let women leave the house, much less become president.

Apr 7th, 2007 03:31 PM

Lenor

What exactly is your opinion of a 'Good President'? Are you implementing Hillary Clinton not to be of par?

Apr 7th, 2007 03:12 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

I'd rather worry about electing a good president now, rather than the opportunities for the ones to come.

Apr 7th, 2007 03:02 PM

Lenor

I see your point and whether or not your being sarcastic, this was never about minorities or religion.

My point here is that with such a change as having a female president, it could open up opportunities for those never once thought to have such a chance.

Apr 7th, 2007 03:00 PM

Grislygus

Hilary is the political equivalent of the hagfish, but not in the obvious sense.

Apr 7th, 2007 02:49 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

What about a black man? A Mormom? A Latino?

Apr 7th, 2007 02:07 PM

Lenor

I have high-hopes to see such a monumental historic event. A female in government was once considered unimaginable; let alone, to become president.

The US is in rough shape right now, maybe this could be the 'needle in the haystack'.

Apr 7th, 2007 01:29 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

So are you on the clock right now, or is this just a labor of love for you???

'08

Apr 7th, 2007 12:39 PM

Lenor

Could A New Era be in Store for 08'?

Would YOU take a chance for there to be a Female President? We might just see a first in history to ever happen, with NY's Senator Hillary Clinton.

New York State Senator and Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has a wealth of support pouring in.
According to the first quarter fundraising records that were released on Sunday, Senator Clinton has raised $26 million to this point.
In comparison, that total nearly matches the combined amount each democratic hopeful had collected four years ago.
Clinton is leading the pack of her competitors, including North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who has $14 million
On the Republican side, conservative candidate Mitt Romney is winning the fund raising battle, despite him trailing in the polls. He reported $23 million in funds.
Other candidates are expected to release their figures throughout the week.

On a Side-note:
After gaining monetary support in the form of campaign funds, Senator Hillary Clinton is now receiving support in the form of endorsement from a neighboring state's governor.
New Jersey governor Jon Corzine publicly endorsed Clinton during one of her campaign stops on Monday.
It was her first campaign stop in the Garden State, which is already a democratic-leaning state.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off