PDA

View Full Version : Question



mrg666
10-06-2007, 07:56 AM
ok folks you may or may not know im in the uk , and i was wondering what the general consensus was regarding the usa electing a woman or a black president ?.
as you know we had our first womam pm (mrs thatcher ) who will be remembered for years to come over here ( good and bad reasons in my opinion mostly bad ) so come on please share your thoughts

Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 07:59 AM
ok folks you may or may not know im in the uk , and i was wondering what the general consensus was regarding the usa electing a woman or a black president ?.
as you know we had our first womam pm (mrs thatcher ) who will be remembered for years to come over here ( good and bad reasons in my opinion mostly bad ) so come on please share your thoughts

Morning Brit man! :D

I see nothing wrong with either but see a much better chance at the woman candidate as opposed to the black candidate at this time.

mrg666
10-06-2007, 08:01 AM
Morning Brit man! :D

I see nothing wrong with either but see a much better chance at the woman candidate as opposed to the black candidate at this time.

can you elaborate on why you think a black president as less chance is it down to racism you think ?

jimnyc
10-06-2007, 08:02 AM
I have no problem whatsover if a woman became president. Unfortunately, our only choice thus far is Hillary, and I'm not even sure she falls under the "woman" category.

My sentiment is the same for a black person. I would go with Colin Powell or Condi Rice in a heartbeat.

Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 08:10 AM
can you elaborate on why you think a black president as less chance is it down to racism you think ?

Well......because he's black! :laugh2:

Nah, I just think at this time his background does'nt project the experience of that his counterpart possesses is all.

mrg666
10-06-2007, 08:22 AM
we get tv snippets of whats going on whose campaigning
who is and isnt (gettin a bj ) but its difficult to percieve the general consensus so thanks for the replies

Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 08:23 AM
we get tv snippets of whats going on whose campaigning
who is and isnt (gettin a bj ) but its difficult to percieve the general consensus so thanks for the replies

Gotta love the American way of throwing out the dirty laundry, bet thats entertaining at times. :D

mrg666
10-06-2007, 08:26 AM
it's not much differant here you just have more politicians = more laundry :laugh2:

Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 08:29 AM
it's not much differant here you just have more politicians = more laundry :laugh2:

Keep an ear open as the laundry will be heavy duty with elections approaching. :D

mrg666
10-06-2007, 08:34 AM
they seem to ensure we get it cnn , sky news . bbc news etc and if it's good enough the tabloids fill a page or 2

Sir Evil
10-06-2007, 08:38 AM
they seem to ensure we get it cnn , sky news . bbc news etc and if it's good enough the tabloids fill a page or 2

Any early projections there yet on our candidates?

mrg666
10-06-2007, 08:47 AM
the vibes here are its an open field still , ive not seen any polls ill keep yall updated of our (medias) perspective

mrg666
10-06-2007, 11:19 AM
i guess no one else as an opinion on this then or is it a universal feeling ?

Hugh Lincoln
10-06-2007, 02:43 PM
Come to think of it, I'm not sure what qualified either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush as white men. One wanted to be black and the other one wants to be Jewish.

Abbey Marie
10-06-2007, 11:23 PM
i guess no one else as an opinion on this then or is it a universal feeling ?

IMO, race and gender take a big back seat to Dem vs. Repub as defining issues. But even open-minded people have been known to get all squirrely once they are in that voting booth.

5stringJeff
10-07-2007, 03:51 PM
ok folks you may or may not know im in the uk , and i was wondering what the general consensus was regarding the usa electing a woman or a black president ?.
as you know we had our first womam pm (mrs thatcher ) who will be remembered for years to come over here ( good and bad reasons in my opinion mostly bad ) so come on please share your thoughts

I think Americans will look at stances on issues before gender or skin color. I oppose both Hillary and Obama, but I'd be fine with either a woman or black President.

mrg666
10-07-2007, 04:11 PM
I think Americans will look at stances on issues before gender or skin color. I oppose both Hillary and Obama, but I'd be fine with either a woman or black President.




i get the vibes that hillary is unliked over there is that purely because of bill or is there more to it

this is what the british press (the bbc ) have to say about her all the candidates are there but im sticking with hillary

HILLARY CLINTON
Who is she? The first former First Lady to go on to hold elected office, she is now serving as senator for New York. Declared her intention to stand with a video saying "I'm in to win" on her website on 20 January 2007 - two years to the day before the next president is inaugurated.



Hillary Clinton: Leader of the pack
Why take her seriously? Unbeatable name recognition and serious fundraising ability make Hillary - no surname necessary - a clear front-runner for the Democrats. She has tried to stake out a position as a centrist in her six years in the Senate. She reported $26m in fundraising from the first quarter of 2007, plus $10m from her 2006 Senate campaign fund, and netted a further $27m in the second quarter. She continues to dominate national and most state polls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5006788.stm#clinton

truthmatters
10-07-2007, 04:19 PM
i get the vibes that hillary is unliked over there is that purely because of bill or is there more to it

this is what the british press (the bbc ) have to say about her all the candidates are there but im sticking with hillary

HILLARY CLINTON
Who is she? The first former First Lady to go on to hold elected office, she is now serving as senator for New York. Declared her intention to stand with a video saying "I'm in to win" on her website on 20 January 2007 - two years to the day before the next president is inaugurated.



Hillary Clinton: Leader of the pack
Why take her seriously? Unbeatable name recognition and serious fundraising ability make Hillary - no surname necessary - a clear front-runner for the Democrats. She has tried to stake out a position as a centrist in her six years in the Senate. She reported $26m in fundraising from the first quarter of 2007, plus $10m from her 2006 Senate campaign fund, and netted a further $27m in the second quarter. She continues to dominate national and most state polls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5006788.stm#clinton


Hillary is actually well liked and so is Bill. Its just seems like more dislike them than really do because our media is corporate owned and they help the people who help their corporations. This means they give favor to anything Republican and then the republicans convience their followers that the media is has a liberal bias. This is just to keep the Republican bias from being slapped out of the media with legislation against consolidation.

REDWHITEBLUE2
10-07-2007, 04:25 PM
The real problem is Hillarybilly is a socialist and Obama is A Muslim Loving PIG but if CONDI RICE was to run you would probably see the first black and female President :dance:

stephanie
10-07-2007, 04:32 PM
Hillary Clinton is NOT so well liked as some would want you to believe..

Heck, even over at Du underground, that site for Democrats only, can't stand her...In fact a lot of liberal sites I browse, can't stand Hillary...

As to voting for a women or a black person...
I look at their positions, how close they are to my own thinking on things, how strong a person sticks to their convictions, not so much gender or race..

Dilloduck
10-07-2007, 04:39 PM
Hillary is actually well liked and so is Bill. Its just seems like more dislike them than really do because our media is corporate owned and they help the people who help their corporations. This means they give favor to anything Republican and then the republicans convience their followers that the media is has a liberal bias. This is just to keep the Republican bias from being slapped out of the media with legislation against consolidation.

You keep saying this. Are you telling us the Hillary has no influence when it comes to media ?

truthmatters
10-07-2007, 04:56 PM
the ones who own the house ar the ones who decide what color it get painted. Hil dont own the house my friend. The corporations own the house. the corprations give vastly more money to Rs. Why would they paint their house to please the Dems when it is the Rs who do their bidding?

manu1959
10-07-2007, 05:02 PM
hillary is a socialist.....

obama....is not inspirational as an american leader.....

i would not want either of them as my boss....

i want someone i can trust....to lead this american corporation to success....take care of and protect its employees and set a course for profitability.....

truthmatters
10-07-2007, 05:16 PM
No Hil is a moderate Dem not a socialist.

Obama may not inspire you but he does inspire many Americans.

We are not a corporation we are a democracy.

I too would love someone I trusted to be president. I would be glad for a govenrment which can spend only as much as needed to keep us able to defend ourselves when needed and allows us to have a decent level of mutual prosperity, health and as much freedom as possible. We have been heading in the opposite direction of these aims for years now.

Yurt
10-07-2007, 07:15 PM
ok folks you may or may not know im in the uk , and i was wondering what the general consensus was regarding the usa electing a woman or a black president ?.
as you know we had our first womam pm (mrs thatcher ) who will be remembered for years to come over here ( good and bad reasons in my opinion mostly bad ) so come on please share your thoughts

A prime minister is not a president.

Yurt
10-07-2007, 07:16 PM
No Hil is a moderate Dem not a socialist.

Obama may not inspire you but he does inspire many Americans.

We are not a corporation we are a democracy.

I too would love someone I trusted to be president. I would be glad for a govenrment which can spend only as much as needed to keep us able to defend ourselves when needed and allows us to have a decent level of mutual prosperity, health and as much freedom as possible. We have been heading in the opposite direction of these aims for years now.

:laugh2:

Here is a kit kat bar.....

mrg666
10-07-2007, 07:20 PM
i suppose it is but our government is run by ministers and the prime minister is the top honcho , numero uno , instead of senators we have mp's ( members of parliament ) its been that way many many years but the shit thats happening in europe at the moment without a referendum could change all that .
oh they would still be there but as to what power the office gave them is to be disputed

Kathianne
10-07-2007, 07:26 PM
i suppose it is but our government is run by ministers and the prime minister is the top honcho , numero uno , instead of senators we have mp's ( members of parliament ) its been that way many many years but the shit thats happening in europe at the moment without a referendum could change all that .
oh they would still be there but as to what power the office gave them is to be disputed

What is the thinking in UK about EU Constitution, ah not called that anymore? Seems now France, Belgium, and UK don't wish to give the people a say?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2546

mrg666
10-07-2007, 07:39 PM
What is the thinking in UK about EU Constitution, ah not called that anymore? Seems now France, Belgium, and UK don't wish to give the people a say?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2546

the majority are pushing for a referendum on the whole thing, as more and more things are coming to light the publics response to it all is no no no
certain pressure groups are trying to get the government to do this including the tabloid press of wich im not a fan of but it as its uses in situations like this it enables the moron factor to get involved in an area they wouldnt normaly be concerned about :laugh2:

Kathianne
10-07-2007, 07:49 PM
the majority are pushing for a referendum on the whole thing, as more and more things are coming to light the publics response to it all is no no no
certain pressure groups are trying to get the government to do this including the tabloid press of wich im not a fan of but it as its uses in situations like this it enables the moron factor to get involved in an area they wouldnt normaly be concerned about :laugh2:

I often stand in awe of European politics. Seems like the governments take turns in having too much or too little control. Then I remember what England did with her colonies, which makes me wonder when they'll learn, in either direction?

mrg666
10-07-2007, 07:56 PM
I often stand in awe of European politics. Seems like the governments take turns in having too much or too little control. Then I remember what England did with her colonies, which makes me wonder when they'll learn, in either direction?

can you elaborate on the colonies ?

Kathianne
10-07-2007, 08:05 PM
can you elaborate on the colonies ?

First from 1600's to middle 1700's they failed to enforce their laws. They wanted I believe, the colonies to feel they were 'English' in all ways. Problem was, the colonists were already more 'free' than most English, the most free up to that point in time, in Europe. After the French and Indian War, (colonies moniker), the King decided something had to be done. Too late, benign neglect made ruling the colonies quite impossible. They would have to be subjugated or free. The war decided that.

mrg666
10-07-2007, 08:12 PM
in those years and beyond they raped and pillaged the lands though and as you say the people at home were no better treated if not worse treated ,
it is a belief of mine that the class thing still exsists in this country the common folk do have more say but they are certainly looked down on and i think if it were possible the kids would be back up the chimneys just to satisfy there idea of class divide , so its a good job those people (because of birth right ) no longer run the country dishing out all manner of punishment for the most riddiculous of crimes

mrg666
10-07-2007, 08:35 PM
as opposed to all the other colonies australia and america can still boast british roots going back to the begining i suppose south africa can say the same i mean as far back as the pioneers when the land was soley occupied by the american indian

Kathianne
10-07-2007, 09:17 PM
in those years and beyond they raped and pillaged the lands though and as you say the people at home were no better treated if not worse treated ,
it is a belief of mine that the class thing still exsists in this country the common folk do have more say but they are certainly looked down on and i think if it were possible the kids would be back up the chimneys just to satisfy there idea of class divide , so its a good job those people (because of birth right ) no longer run the country dishing out all manner of punishment for the most riddiculous of crimes

I can't speak for the Australians, but the British 'colonies' were not all that big on raping and pillaging the land. True, they weren't Natives, but other than enclosures, for the most part they worked the land. Things like strip mining, were way in the future.

mrg666
10-07-2007, 09:31 PM
diamonds , gold etc went to make the already extremely rich aristocrasy even richer . and although slavery was never big over here a lot of people got very rich shipping slaves over to the us .
the point is that the monarchy and the aristocrats were the only benefactors in any colony the average man may have found himself killed in the taking or keeping of these lands you dont have to strip mine to rape it just enslave the population and get them digging


I can't speak for the Australians, but the British 'colonies' were not all that big on raping and pillaging the land. True, they weren't Natives, but other than enclosures, for the most part they worked the land. Things like strip mining, were way in the future.

australia was a british colony
from 1770

Kathianne
10-07-2007, 09:59 PM
diamonds , gold etc went to make the already extremely rich aristocrasy even richer . and although slavery was never big over here a lot of people got very rich shipping slaves over to the us .
the point is that the monarchy and the aristocrats were the only benefactors in any colony the average man may have found himself killed in the taking or keeping of these lands you dont have to strip mine to rape it just enslave the population and get them digging



australia was a british colohttp://www.southerninstitute.info/holocaust_education/holocaust_survivor_testimony.htmlny
from 1770

I was addressing the American colonies, diamonds and gold were not where it was at, thanks to Captain Smith.

mrg666
10-07-2007, 11:21 PM
ah yes the Pocahontas thing

there as been a movie recently colin farell played John Smith
it wasn't as pretty as the disney adaptation

PostmodernProphet
10-08-2007, 06:28 AM
I would have had no problem voting for Margaret Thatcher and I would vote for a conservative black......