Simple Woman for President Poll

The poll is too simple for me to vote. I am just not sure. See my comments on the superior complex woman for president thread.

Joseph Botwinick

 

As long as she knows her stuff, can handel the pressures and her reputation and her morals and beliefs are not as corrupt as the other running against her. That would be some big shoes to fill!

BTW,heres a scary thought for the men. What if we had 2 women running for president and leaving the United States was not an option...then what would you do? *grin*

 

I absolutely would, especially if Secretary of State Condolezza Rice runs for president in 2008.

 

Oh, so being (as she calls herself) "mildly pro-choice" isn't an issue with you then?

 

Abortion is one issue among many that I factor in when voting.

 

So if it gets down to between "mildly pro-choice" and "pro-choice," which will you vote for, the lesser of two evils?

Can't help but notice the title of this thread is called "Simple Woman for President Poll." Hope that's not a freudian slip, bluefalcon.

No really intelligent woman would ever run for President and hope to win anyway, because if she did win, whatever goes wrong will be blamed on her by men - a repeat scenario of the old Garden of Eden trick.

 

Can't say hypothetically as there are a multitude of factors that determine how I vote - some based on candidates' positions and some based on subjective analysis such as trust, intelligence, etc.

 

I am a man. That's a bunch of sexist baloney outside of the official leadership of the church.

 

As long as she's qualified....and not a Democrat.

 

Then I would encourage you to remain involved in the political process, Bluefalcon, and support the Constitution Party which is a nice place for disgruntled vey conservative voters to give their allegiance.

Personally, I no longer support any particular political party.

 

That verse deals not at all with the issue of a woman being a supervisor or a manager, etc., at work, or with a woman holding elected office, including president of the United States.

By the way, Condi Rice is single so she doesn't have a husband to be subject to. Therefore, she is certainly not violating that Scripture by being a leader in government.

 

And as a student of history I call your attention to the facts of all human past until less than 200 years ago that almost unequivocally support the innate domination in term of authority of the male over other males and females known as slavery.

Are you going to argue using your faulty logic that slavery is also God-given and is the way things should be because it has been that way through almost all of human history and still exists even today in the world?

 

So, are you for slavery based on your reliance on historical precedent or not, Bluefalcon. If you are going to use that to buttress your argument for male domination of females, then to be consistent you must be in favor of slavery as well.

Personally, I am opposed to slavery regardless of historical precedent just as I am opposed to male domination of females regardless of historical precedent.

Obviously, the official leadership of the church is to be male(although I think we all know who the unofficial leadership really is ) but I think to go beyond proper Biblical boundaries on this issue is flat out wrong.