counterfeitfake Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 What does it mean to be "ready" for something but to have not done it yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 it is a valid topic but come on...adam corolla? i presented another alternative for you, if you insist upon focusing on the gender/race issue. the topic doesn't have to be black or female. why not hispanic or asian? it will undoubtedly be a national topic of discussion as the election nears but i hope that as voters we will rise above using that as our criteria. Relax Minx….I just found it entertaining to listen to. I also thought is would be good for a spray like conversation on CC.com. Considering how many smart climbers post here. You’re right….it should never be about gender or race…..in a perfect would. But there is a lot of backwards redneck mother f…..ers out there who WILL make an issue out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Hillary seems too much a megalomaniac for me. Sure, anyone who wants that job has to have a pretty fair share of raw ambition, but there's something about her that puts me off. I'm left with the impression that winning matters a lot more to her than ideas do, I wonder if she is hesitant to push ideas first as a result of the brutalizing fallout she got from pushing her health care reform idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 What does it mean to be "ready" for something but to have not done it yet? How can someone be "ready" for something that they have already done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 ready for what? will it be different to have a black and/or woman president? are blacks and women different than whites and males? if they aren't differen't - why do we celebrate diversity? if they are differen't - why do we want everything equal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Hillary seems too much a megalomaniac for me. Sure, anyone who wants that job has to have a pretty fair share of raw ambition, but there's something about her that puts me off. I'm left with the impression that winning matters a lot more to her than ideas do, I wonder if she is hesitant to push ideas first as a result of the brutalizing fallout she got from pushing her health care reform idea? Nah. She failed last time because she tried to do an end run around Congress by creating a huge proposal without consulting them very much. She's smarter than that, now. I think she's seen as equivocating because of her various stances on Iraq. It's a bit of a political hot potato for anyone, though, so you can't really blame her for delicately trying to navigate it. As for megalomania, I haven't heard a single pundit or inside source describe her as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 if they aren't differen't - why do we celebrate diversity? if they are differen't - why do we want everything equal? Wow...how thought provoking!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 What does it mean to be "ready" for something but to have not done it yet? How can someone be "ready" for something that they have already done? Okay, what does "ready" mean? Can you do something without being "ready"? If we're ready to elect a woman (or an african-american, or a hispanic, or cross-dresser, or whatever other classification of person we have never elected before), will we just do it? Or is it more compicated than that? Ready vs not-ready is probably too much of a simplification to mean very much. The only real way you could argue we're not ready is to have a woman who is clearly the most qualified candidate toss her hat in the ring and then lose. I doubt anyone will be able to agree that this is the case. Likewise, I think the only proof that we were ready to do something is that we did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 And by saying that we haven't evolved to the point where we would elect a woman leader, one is stating that the US is lagging behind India, England, Phillipines, Ireland, Pakistan, Norway, Canada, Nicaragua, New Zealand, France, Switzerland, Turkey, Iceland, Bermuda, Finland, Liberia, Peru, etc etc etc. Can you really be serious to think that we are so backwards? I refuse to believe this assertion. We refuse to accept the metric system. That ought to tell you something right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 i think that is what they were asking: "will we do it" so, it turns into another speculation thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 And by saying that we haven't evolved to the point where we would elect a woman leader, one is stating that the US is lagging behind India, England, Phillipines, Ireland, Pakistan, Norway, Canada, Nicaragua, New Zealand, France, Switzerland, Turkey, Iceland, Bermuda, Finland, Liberia, Peru, etc etc etc. Can you really be serious to think that we are so backwards? I refuse to believe this assertion. We refuse to accept the metric system. That ought to tell you something right there. That is true.....we also refuse to flat out impeach bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 As for megalomania, I haven't heard a single pundit or inside source describe her as such. Right, then you heard it here first! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtn_mouse Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I just had a taco time super soft fish taco burrito with sour cream, guacamole, cilantro, beans, lettuce, cheese, and finished it off with a Extra Large Big Juan coke. Ummm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 I just had a taco time super soft fish taco burrito with sour cream, guacamole, cilantro, beans, lettuce, cheese, and finished it off with a Extra Large Big Juan coke. Ummm. You think Hillary would choose Taco Time or Taco Bell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I think she's seen as equivocating because of her various stances on Iraq. It's a bit of a political hot potato for anyone, though, so you can't really blame her for delicately trying to navigate it. Yes, you can! This is the thing the Republicans have had on the Democrats. When people spoke of support for Bush, this was was what they cited. He held his views with conviction. He was a "strong leader". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 And by saying that we haven't evolved to the point where we would elect a woman leader, one is stating that the US is lagging behind India, England, Phillipines, Ireland, Pakistan, Norway, Canada, Nicaragua, New Zealand, France, Switzerland, Turkey, Iceland, Bermuda, Finland, Liberia, Peru, etc etc etc. Can you really be serious to think that we are so backwards? I refuse to believe this assertion. In case anyone skimmed that list too quickly: even Pakistan has had a woman lead their nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 That is true.....we also refuse to flat out impeach bush. Impeach Bush = President Cheney! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 That is true.....we also refuse to flat out impeach bush. Impeach Bush = President Cheney! Oh yeah....I forgot. Is there a way to impeach them both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 right.... and finally get a good honest politician in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 You mean, President Pelosi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 good honest politician It can happen!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 someone will think they are dishonest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 someone will think they are dishonest Too late!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 How about a Canadian? Vote for Dru! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Yah, but, den weed have dat darn cronyism, eh? Like, mebbee, Mike Meyers Sec. of Defense, yah, shoewer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.