Is it time for a woman President?

[Freewill]

Time, indeed.

Moochelle will oppose Hillary.

And even those who are saddened by the results their Black Messiah produced will go for her because she's black and she's a woman so they're neither sexist NOR racist - hence exempt from any critical analysis.

I'd love to see Condi Rice vs michelle obama

Michelle has no interest.

However, I would be happy to vote for Condi. Have you seen the buzz touting her for NFL Commissioner?

I have and it is her dream job.

She would be perfect for the NFL. No experience in football and no experience in business certainly means she is qualified. But I am at the point that I could care less. The NFL has to have the worse officiating of all the sports and it doesn't get better. At some point I am thinking the incompetence is explained only by point shaving. All it takes is one or two lousy calls to effect the outcome. Besides why would we watch millionaires muggers run up and down the field? I am thinking of restricting my watching to college if at all.

 

[Freewill]

Time, indeed.

Moochelle will oppose Hillary.

And even those who are saddened by the results their Black Messiah produced will go for her because she's black and she's a woman so they're neither sexist NOR racist - hence exempt from any critical analysis.

I'd love to see Condi Rice vs michelle obama

Really? You love losing? I see neither one as a viable candidate and they would only bring pain to America.

 

[Iceweasel]

If someone like Margaret Thatcher comes along I'm all in.

 

[Redfish]

Time, indeed.

Moochelle will oppose Hillary.

And even those who are saddened by the results their Black Messiah produced will go for her because she's black and she's a woman so they're neither sexist NOR racist - hence exempt from any critical analysis.

I'd love to see Condi Rice vs michelle obama

Michelle has no interest.

However, I would be happy to vote for Condi. Have you seen the buzz touting her for NFL Commissioner?

I have and it is her dream job.

She would be perfect for the NFL. No experience in football and no experience in business certainly means she is qualified. But I am at the point that I could care less. The NFL has to have the worse officiating of all the sports and it doesn't get better. At some point I am thinking the incompetence is explained only by point shaving. All it takes is one or two lousy calls to effect the outcome. Besides why would we watch millionaires muggers run up and down the field? I am thinking of restricting my watching to college if at all.

you are correct. Goodell and the PC police are determined to destroy the NFL. PInk for the entire month of October????????????? WTF ??

 

[JoeB131]

What do you think about Condoleezza Rice?

Not much and not often.

 

[JoeB131]

What if we were to ask....Is it time for a Republican President?

And voted accordingly

After the current fiasco? If people were honest to themselves, we would have a slaughter akin to Nixon/McGovern.

If people voted their own interests, you'd have the 20% who own 87% of the wealth voting Republican, and the 80% who fight over the remaining 13% off the wealth voting Democratic.

Thankfully for the GOP, they're able to distract stupid people by talking about guns, abortions, gays and oh, yeah, "Freedom".

You're dismissed.

Duly noted you don't have a counter argument. YOu just sit there with your gun and your bible, and don't even realize what a tool you are.

 

[RKMBrown]

What if we were to ask....Is it time for a Republican President?

And voted accordingly

After the current fiasco? If people were honest to themselves, we would have a slaughter akin to Nixon/McGovern.

If people voted their own interests, you'd have the 20% who own 87% of the wealth voting Republican, and the 80% who fight over the remaining 13% off the wealth voting Democratic.

Thankfully for the GOP, they're able to distract stupid people by talking about guns, abortions, gays and oh, yeah, "Freedom".

You're dismissed.

Duly noted you don't have a counter argument. YOu just sit there with your gun and your bible, and don't even realize what a tool you are.

No... you're retarded. You think liberty is only for the rich. You're a POS.

 

[longknife]

There are many women, in and out of politics who, IMHO, would make excellent presidents. They have managerial experience and several have served as state governors - which, to me, should be a primary consideration when selecting a president.

I can think of several current governors who could do the job well.

But, as Sowell says, we've got to stop the stupidity of selecting officials for their race or creed or background. It must be on beliefs, skills, and experience.

 

[Ernie S.]

What if we were to ask....Is it time for a Republican President?

And voted accordingly

After the current fiasco? If people were honest to themselves, we would have a slaughter akin to Nixon/McGovern.

If people voted their own interests, you'd have the 20% who own 87% of the wealth voting Republican, and the 80% who fight over the remaining 13% off the wealth voting Democratic.

Thankfully for the GOP, they're able to distract stupid people by talking about guns, abortions, gays and oh, yeah, "Freedom".

You're dismissed.

Duly noted you don't have a counter argument. YOu just sit there with your gun and your bible, and don't even realize what a tool you are.

Please reread the thread title and perhaps the linked article, if you can, You missed the point. (Or perhaps you did get the point and have no counter argument)

I can only spend my time on people worth my effort. You're not.
You just sit there with your copies of The Communist Manifesto and Kellerman's 1986 study and don't even realize what a fool you are.

 

[deltex1]

What's the difference between a dickless man and post menopausal hag?

 

[Ernie S.]

What's the difference between a dickless man and post menopausal hag?

Joe.

 

[EconChick]

"With many people now acting as if it is time for "a woman" to become president,"

Again, who are these many people? They don't exist, correct? His rant is just one big strawman.

Yeah, he's a genius alright. If you're a con and easily led.

It's pretty clear that a woman could not screw up any worse than her opposite sex predacessors in some cases.

Voting for a person because of their gender or their race or voting against someone because of gender or race is silly. Glad I didn't waste my time reading the Orwell piece.

Vote for who shares your values because fiscally, neither side is engaged enough to do what is necessary or politically powerful enough to make it happen regardless of their best intentions.

Wow. A well thought out post well put.
What have you done Candy?

I agree, it was a good post.

Same thing I've been saying all along:

Both parties are out to lunch fiscally and Presidents can only do so much about that in either direction.

What a President can directly effect is the make-up of federal courts. Center-left jurists are best in my view.

Disagree. The right president can provide leadership. Educate the public, mobilize, persuade, give a shit....things like that. No different from dealing with ISIS.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You gotta love Thomas Sowell. I agree 100%

A Democrat voting in a townhall with a Show of Hands. That's just the way Democrats roll.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Okay. You win. Marxism is a bad idea.

How about we just go back to what we had in the 1950's, where you had a strong, unionized middle class bringing home good wages and strong protections for our markets?

Most of what you desire resulted from a.) a racially unified culture where assimilation was heavily enforced and b.) a period which was 30 years into an immigration moratorium.

Cultural unity coupled with labor shortages will do wonders for building up community cohesion and in lowering income inequality.

I'm game, let's go back to the dynamics of that era. So tell me, how are you going to unscramble the egg, how are you going to ethnically cleanse the US to return the demographics back to what they were in the 1950s?

The problem is we implemented liberal policies, which amounted to us jumping off the edge of a cliff on the basis of liberal promises that we wouldn't plummet into the canyon and those liberal policies all turned out to be lies and now you don't like the world that liberal policies have created.

Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think." . . .

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)
​

Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a sponsor of the bill, told his colleagues:

"With the end of discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts in countries other than those of northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and Africa will have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and qualitatively, which, itself will hold the numbers down. There will not be, comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering this country. .. .Since the people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could immigrate from those countries because they have no family ties in the U.S." (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21812.)​

Another rosy prediction from a supporter of the bill, Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI):

"Contrary to the opinions of some of the misinformed, this legislation does not open the floodgates." (Congressional Record, Sept. 20, 1965, p. 24480.)​

Attorney General Robert Kennedy told House immigration subcommittee members,

"I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle it [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there would be any great influx after that." (U.S. Congress, House, 1964 hearings, p. 418.)​

So how did those predictions work out? The New York Times reports:

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of legal black African immigrants in the United States about doubled, to around one million. During that single decade, according to the most reliable estimates, more black Africans arrived in this country on their own than were imported directly to North America during the more than three centuries of the slave trade.
​

So who cautioned against this liberal pollyannaism? These were people trying to protect a way of life that you want to go back to but the lies of liberals carried the day.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Rep. William Miller of New York wrote:

"We estimate that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more ... shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world's?" (The New York Times, Sept. 8, 1964, p. 14.)​

Among those who more accurately foresaw the future effects of the change in immigration law was a certain Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, who testified at a Senate immigration subcommittee hearing:

"In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world's unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome ... for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands."

"We should remember that people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian welfare handouts ... lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural patterns ..."

"Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 681-687.)​

​

 

[JoeB131]

Duly noted you don't have a counter argument. YOu just sit there with your gun and your bible, and don't even realize what a tool you are.

No... you're retarded. You think liberty is only for the rich. You're a POS.

No, I usually find when some wingnut whines about "liberty", it's usually them whining about how the mean old government is making them play fair with others.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Please reread the thread title and perhaps the linked article, if you can, You missed the point. (Or perhaps you did get the point and have no counter argument)

I can only spend my time on people worth my effort. You're not.
You just sit there with your copies of The Communist Manifesto and Kellerman's 1986 study and don't even realize what a fool you are.

So you don't have a counter argument.

You sit there and take it up the ass from the wealthy and then say, "Yup, I'm no Communist!!! I gots my gun and my bible!"

I'd happily trade in the guns and bibles for a vibrant middle class like we had when I was growing up.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay. You win. Marxism is a bad idea.

How about we just go back to what we had in the 1950's, where you had a strong, unionized middle class bringing home good wages and strong protections for our markets?

Most of what you desire resulted from a.) a racially unified culture where assimilation was heavily enforced and b.) a period which was 30 years into an immigration moratorium.

Cultural unity coupled with labor shortages will do wonders for building up community cohesion and in lowering income inequality.

I'm game, let's go back to the dynamics of that era. So tell me, how are you going to unscramble the egg, how are you going to ethnically cleanse the US to return the demographics back to what they were in the 1950s?

​

I'm not going to plow through your racist horseshit. Immigration is not the problem. The fact that the wealthy are hoarding all the wealth is.

We had a pretty good time in the 1950's and 1960's because-

1) The work force was unionized and brought home good wages.
2) We had tariffs in place that kept foreign manufacturers from undermining our industry.
3) The wealthy paid their fair share in taxes. The top rate was 93% for milionaires.
4) The government spent plenty on infrastructure.

 

[RKMBrown]

Duly noted you don't have a counter argument. YOu just sit there with your gun and your bible, and don't even realize what a tool you are.

No... you're retarded. You think liberty is only for the rich. You're a POS.

No, I usually find when some wingnut whines about "liberty", it's usually them whining about how the mean old government is making them play fair with others.

Who told you life was supposed to be fair?

 

[JoeB131]

Duly noted you don't have a counter argument. YOu just sit there with your gun and your bible, and don't even realize what a tool you are.

No... you're retarded. You think liberty is only for the rich. You're a POS.

No, I usually find when some wingnut whines about "liberty", it's usually them whining about how the mean old government is making them play fair with others.

Who told you life was supposed to be fair?

Who told you it shouldn't be? Most human interactions are predicated on fairness. Society couldn't exist without it.

That's how when I go to buy lunch today, I won't get a meal filled with salmonela, and the store won't get counterfeit bills from me. Because, Gosh Darn, most normal people actually do have a sense of fair play.

 

[RKMBrown]

Duly noted you don't have a counter argument. YOu just sit there with your gun and your bible, and don't even realize what a tool you are.

No... you're retarded. You think liberty is only for the rich. You're a POS.

No, I usually find when some wingnut whines about "liberty", it's usually them whining about how the mean old government is making them play fair with others.

Who told you life was supposed to be fair?

Who told you it shouldn't be? Most human interactions are predicated on fairness. Society couldn't exist without it.

That's how when I go to buy lunch today, I won't get a meal filled with salmonela, and the store won't get counterfeit bills from me. Because, Gosh Darn, most normal people actually do have a sense of fair play.

Who told me that? My parents, and other mentors.

You're confused. Some human interactions may be predicated on previously agreed upon principles of fairness. For example, when playing a game of monopoly everyone is required to play within the rules. However, not everyone playing the game of monopoly has the same set of skills to make choices, allies, and trades. Still further not everyone playing the game puts forth the same amount of effort to make allies and trades. Further, there is a certain amount of chance involved in the game of monopoly, this based on the roll of the dice. In this fashion many aspects of life are just like the game of monopoly, in so far as while we all have to play by the same set of rules, the end result is subject to skill, effort, where we started in assets and allies, and chance. Thus no matter how much you may desire it to be so, the game of life is not based on fairness at all. What did you think the game ends in a tie?