Is America ready for a minority president? Options

[MiSSxMELON]

The 2008 election marks a milestone in history - minorities are running for presidency. There's the woman - Hillary Clinton, and the African-American - Barack Obama. We have never had a woman or a minority in office. Is America ready for it? Or should things stay the way they have been? Some argue that if a woman is president, then other countries - specifically those that look down on women - will lose respect for America. Others argue that it's about time for some major changes; we need reform!

What do you think?

[Kontroll]

No they aren't ready. THe south is gonna try and receed again. HAHA. No, seriously. If you look at England, one of their best rulers was Queen Elizabeth or Victoria...I don't know, I'm not that smart. But it was a woman none the less. But, I'm not in favour for having a liberal in office. No offense, but it's just my stand point. Do you really think the war is going to be over by the time Bush leaves? I don't. And if we have a leader who is opposed to war, they might evacuate our troops immediately. That's not gonna be good for Iraq. THat's how Vietnam and North Korea are now communist.

Secondly, about war. Most liberals and democrats are opposed to violence. Violence is the only solution here to end the war. We can't negotiate peacefully cause we are fighting terrorists. They hate Americans and anyone who isn't Muslim. They aren't going to stop if we ask them. The only way to do it is to pound there asses into submission.

So, I don't think it's a good time for Democrats and Liberals to come into office. I could be wrong. Most of you probably disagree with me. WHatever, that's how you see it.

[flaymzofice]

No they aren't ready. THe south is gonna try and receed again. HAHA. No, seriously. If you look at England, one of their best rulers was Queen Elizabeth or Victoria...I don't know, I'm not that smart. But it was a woman none the less.

It's important to note the difference between England then versus Britain now, as well as versus the US, since the political systems in operation depending on the period of comparison are vastly different. The fact that Queen Victoria ruled in a much more constitutional form of monarchy, and that the US is in fact a representative democracy aside, don't forget the historical context. You can't really base existing political climate on the history of a completely different set of political contexts.

Secondly, about war. Most liberals and democrats are opposed to violence. Violence is the only solution here to end the war. We can't negotiate peacefully cause we are fighting terrorists. They hate Americans and anyone who isn't Muslim. They aren't going to stop if we ask them. The only way to do it is to pound there asses into submission.

'fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity'
- the crude language aside, this is basically what you're saying. Violence as a means to resolution of conflict, even if successful, is oppression and what is the fundamental justification for this? What right does anyone have to march in and force submission through military means? - rhetorical question. More pressingly, how stable can a 'democracy' borne of violence/oppression really be?

Neither of these arguments address the debate in question though I just wanted to point these aspects out as they were raised.

[Kontroll]

It's important to note the difference between England then versus Britain now, as well as versus the US, since the political systems in operation depending on the period of comparison are vastly different. The fact that Queen Victoria ruled in a much more constitutional form of monarchy, and that the US is in fact a representative democracy aside, don't forget the historical context. You can't really base existing political climate on the history of a completely different set of political contexts.
'fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity'
- the crude language aside, this is basically what you're saying. Violence as a means to resolution of conflict, even if successful, is oppression and what is the fundamental justification for this? What right does anyone have to march in and force submission through military means? - rhetorical question. More pressingly, how stable can a 'democracy' borne of violence/oppression really be?

Neither of these arguments address the debate in question though I just wanted to point these aspects out as they were raised.

Actually we're a republic. Listen to the pledge again, buddy. Also, I think you failed to note my point about fighting for peace. When you're against an enemy that isn't willing to negotiate peacefully, are you then just going to turn the other cheek? Seriously. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to war against them. There's no way around it. They are ready to nuke Israel, but we'll just talk to them. I'm sure it will work.