Straw Poll

Hillary....bad choice for the Dems, too much baggage. Too easy of a target.
Obama....maybe. He's very green but on the other hand, I think it's been proven that you don't actually have to know what you're talking about in order to be elected president. He has the advantage of being of African descent rather than African-American descent, which for a lot of bigots makes a lot of difference.
Edwards....I may consider him. I did vote for him as VP last time, so....
Kerry....see Hillary. I voted for him before and I like him but way too easy of a target.

Needless to say I am not going to be voting for any Republicans of any kind. I'm a registered Independent, but all Republicans have been struck permanently off my list at this point.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the definition of "socialism" a system in which the government owns all means of production? I don't see any candidates, Democrat or otherwise that actually advocate that. You can be a liberal democrat without advocating that the government own all businesses as a collective. Hugo Chavez is a socialist. Hillary Clinton is not. She is liberal, yes, though not as liberal as some. Not as liberal as me, that's for darn sure. But she's not a socialist as the term is defined in the dictionary.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the definition of "socialism" a system in which the government owns all means of production?

 
That would be "Communism".
 
Hillary beats the socialism drum.

Political-economic doctrine that, unlike [linkhttp://www.answers.com/topic/capitalism]Capitalism[/link] which is based on competition, seeks a cooperative society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the government or collectively by the people.
 
In Germany for instance, only 1 phone company provides service: The Postal Service, any idea what the rates are?
No competition what so ever......
Taxes are sky high.......

Communism is a sytem in which all property, not just the means of production, is held communally (there is no private ownership of anything, not even your toothbrush). Socialism is a system in which all means of production are held collectively.

Neither term really applies to any Western nation today. Many do have a social-democratic government in which a few businesses that are seen as having special import to the welfare of the country are socialized (an airline, the postal service, an oil company), but having a few socialized industries does not equal socialism. If it did, the fact that our roads system is held and maintained collectively would make us socialist.

I've never heard Hillary Clinton advocating the government owning any businesses. A single-payer health plan is likewise not a socialist idea, as the government does not own the means of producing anything. It might be a liberal idea and you might not like it, but that doesn't mean it's socialist.

Talk to someone from the Socialist Workers Party or the International Workers of the World labor union and then get back to me about how socialist Hillary is.

I have always thought this country will elect a black president before they will elect a woman
 
I agree but for reasons that are likely to cause a big issue so I won't say em lol.
The first black president of the USA is really going to have an interesting time.
 
I don't think the black community would vote for that guy...because he's a Bryant Gumble,...there is a similar feeling about Condy Rice. I certainly don't like her...BUT I would have voted for her if she wanted to run the NFL....pity she didn't, she's a [color=#ff6600]Browns fan![/color]
 
The hispanic community wouldn't either...because there IS a divide there...so that leaves white america and the various minorities that make up less percentage than black/hispanic...and they'd just as soon have one of their own in office....and that's brutal honesty.
 
To the people who say they wouldn't vote for a liar....umm that made me laugh. They ALL lie...some are just better at it than others. Expecting honesty in a policitian is a bit much, I think.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles
 likely to cause a big issue so I won't say em lol.

 
Oh come on.  What fun is that?  []
 
How about if I start the inevitable tirade by saying I would vote for a black man centuries before I would vote for a white woman.
 
Yeah, that outta do it.  []
 

because he's a Bryant Gumble,...

 
Or a Clarence Thomas.
 
Why the font change here?  This is strange.
 
she's a Browns fan!
 
90% of Browns fans are gay.  The other 10% live in Ohio.  Or so I have heard.  []

 

How about if I start the inevitable tirade by saying I would vote for a black man centuries before I would vote for a white woman.

 
OK, soooo...... why?

How about Billy for president?
 
Like any politician, he can say things that may tick you off or make you laugh. We've already seen the pic where he can hold a baby without dropping him/her. And Billy's got short hair and that means everything.[]

Neither term really applies to any Western nation today. Many do have a social-democratic government in which a few businesses that are seen as having special import to the welfare of the country are socialized (an airline, the postal service, an oil company), but having a few socialized industries does not equal socialism.

 
My friends in Germany would call it exactly that, a socialistic government.
 
I don't want to argue about the healthcare issue, but do the research on countries like Germany, Great Britain, France.....and check on the tax burden of each WORKING citizen, the unemployment rate, and economic growth, oh, I am sorry there isn't a growth.

ORIGINAL: Scout in Canada
OK, soooo...... why?

 
Well, it was an apparently poor joke but, since I started it, I will play.  []
 
Women, with very few exceptions, don't have the stomach to send young men to war.  Margaret Thatcher, if she were American, might have been an exception to that rule, but she is so ugly I wouldn't vote for her either.

so is your idea of the ideal female candidate, beautiful with balls of steel? [sm=rotfl.gif]

i have seen a few "women" that may fit that bill. of course they have this unsightly adams apple. []

Hillary Clinton - I don't think she'd win, but I'd vote for her
Barak Obama - I'd vote for him
John Kerry - I think his popularity is so low that he won't make it.
Rudy Guiliani - Don't think so
Mitt Romney - No way!  He didn't do anything for MA and he seems really sleazy.  And that hair!
John Edwards - Possibly

Billy, I'm starting to think that maybe smart, independent, outspoken women - who don't take any crap from anybody - make you feel a little insecure.[] I think a woman would send the troops to war if we were actually attacked by the country we were going to war with. I don't think she would send troops to war for trivial reasons - like oil.
 
Joyce

so is your idea of the ideal female candidate, beautiful with balls of steel?

 
Sounds like Angelina Jolie!

ORIGINAL: fuzzy_dogs_mom

Billy, I'm starting to think that maybe smart, independent, outspoken women - who don't take any crap from anybody - make you feel a little insecure.[] 

 
If I ever actually meet such a woman, I will let you know what I think.  []
 

I think a woman would send the troops to war if we were actually attacked by the country we were going to war with. I don't think she would send troops to war for trivial reasons - like oil.

 

So, the only justifiable reason for going to war is if we are attacked first? 
 
Oil is trivial?  The US has no vital interest in oil?  No interests anyway, worth using military force to protect?