"joe, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind your opinion of female presidency (it is indeed an intriguing one, as it has caused such a stir). What female trait or quality is it that you feel would make, not Hillary, but _a_ woman inadequate for fulfilling the role of President? My response would be this: men have been having their crack at it for a few good years now, and it hasn't exactly turned out peaches, has it? "

I think this quote, taken directly from Joe's first post, answers your question:

"Its not that I think Hillary has bad views.  Its not that I dont think she'll be good for the economy, for universal health care, for foreign policy, or anything else.  But what happened to the traditional American housewife?  The Biblical morals are going down the drain for a secular view of "whats right.""
_______________________________________________________________

A big thankyou to Justas and Loz for paying attention during English lessons.

NOW you try being nice...

joe, you're not narrow-minded, you just lack sex...

ill pay for a webcam and stream ^^

> joe4444 wrote:

.My goal is not to hold women back in their advancement.  But at the same time, I love and respect the way that God designed the household.  I do not go so far as to say that women should not be in the workforce, but in terms of national leadership, I think that is just a wee bit too far.

Feminists today refuse to shave their legs, and get angry with men who hold the door open for them.  That is just sickening to me.  You can't even do something respectful without them trying to ruin every courtesy and tradition we have.  And I am not willing to sit over and tolerate that, regardless of the way anyone wants to act towards me for that.

It was pretty good after the Bill Clinton-era, too bad he evidently has horrible taste in women. 

But, as evidenced, it is a test of character to see who will make the effort to respectfully inquire further into the differing culture (as lolz did) and who will just blindly, and childishly, insult and attack someone for not agreeing with them.

In another thread:

> "The average atheist is just as intelligent as the average religious follower, and so equally capable of making their own judgment of how they wish to live their life."

True, from a secular perspective.  But they are not equally capable of making a judgment of how to live their lives that I respect.  Granted, I can't tell them what to do and I understand that.  I can cooperate with unbelievers on a social scale, but deep down inside I do not respect them in the least, and despise the way they live, even if I won't say it to their face. 

Joe, you are the true definition of a hypocrite.

"and what exactly is wrong with a female president?"

Just look at what happened to the UK with a female prime minister!!! We've made the mistake once... don't you go doing it!

[/sarcasm]

If you support stay-at-home housewife mums, then *do* vote for McCain. His wife even has recipes on his website.

http://www.johnmccain.com/About/Recipe1.htm#.cfm

Hehe. But anyways:

"My goal is not to hold women back in their advancement.  But at the same time, I love and respect the way that God designed the household.  He does not ordain women to be the leader unless the circumstance requires it for a necessary reason.  I do not go so far as to say that women should not be in the workforce, but in terms of national leadership, I think that is just a wee bit too far."

Let me explain why I feel that, as a Christian, male-female equality in all aspects of life, caring for children, bringing in an income etc., can be biblically justified.
Firstly, I have come to base my morals on purely the New Testament alone; that's the true word of God. Old Testament really was about rounding up the nasty tribal nutcases and bringing basic law and order about. And, I feel, the word of God, through Christ, in the New Testament does not justify putting women in a lowlier position. "There is neither...male nor female...for you are all one in Christ Jesus". We have passages saying that women should be silent in church, or submit to their husbands, but all of these were said by the Apostles, not Jesus, and many were said after Jesus' death.
And, if you wish to interpret the Bible as a historical document of non-fiction, then you must also take into account the historical context of it. Jesus was active in a heavily patriarchal society. Would he have had a hope of being taken seriously had he suggested women were of equal worth to society as men? Many of his teachings, such as the poor being closer to God than the rich, endangered him with the authorities. Suggesting gender equality would've been so way out there and crazy in those times, it wouldn't've won him any favours.
Jesus also respected women as much as he did men. When he was reborn, he appeared to women first. I see no reason why a nice guy like Jesus would want to deprive women of the opportunities men have; they have as much to offer the political world as men. The qualities of the two genders are different, but equal in abundance. There will always be natural restraints, e.g. the woman must take time out of her normal life to raise children, if she wants them. But, if a wife and husband love and respect each other equally and share responsibilities equally, if a woman wishes to run for president, how can this be considered to be betraying her position in the home? How can you justify this being immoral or evil?

"Feminists today refuse to shave their legs, and get angry with men who hold the door open for them.  That is just sickening to me.  You can't even do something respectful without them trying to ruin every courtesy and tradition we have.  If the Bible is not completely eliminated from any possible visibility, then they are angry.  After all, its just a "sexist", "elitest", "fascist",  whatever kind of book you want to call it, that people whine about to try to destroy everything it teaches.  And I am not willing to sit over and tolerate that, regardless of the way anyone wants to act towards me for that."

You have an interesting view of women and their behaviour. You seem to feel that women would fall into two catergories: there are those who will submit to their husbands and are good little mothers and housewives, and that those who do not want to submit in such a way are adamant, gritty feminists.
These really are the two extremes. The majority of women fall neatly between these social groups: most women want equally opportunities as their boyfriends or husbands and wish to pursue their dreams and careers, and many want to make their mark in the world. However, just because they don't feel they should trade their lives and liberty for the kitchen sink doesn't make them die-hard bra burners. I for one find modern 'feminists' rather annoying and feel the true message of feminism, back in its golden age with the Suffragettes etc., has become so twisted nowadays that it's lost all meaning.

Btw, why do you find women to refusing to shave their legs sickening? Surely an adamant Christian would argue girls should be grateful for what God's given them?

Unfortunately I have to agree that Obama needs to win, though not because of the thought of a woman president, but merely because he is the only viable candidate that can lead our nation.

Hilary simply doesn't do it for me.  Sure her views on medical benefits may be better than Obama's, but there is just something about her that makes me cringe.  It just seems like it hurts her to smile, and trust me, that's not something you want to see in a President.  I also hate how she keeps adding or dropping the Clinton part of her name just to have it when its good and not when times are bad.  Simply untrustworthy.

McCain is a Republican.  Simple as that.  I am strongly against the War in Iraq, and he would choose to keep our troops there for another 4 years.  Disgusting.

So that leaves Obama.  Several of his policies lack compared to Hillary's, but at least he seems eager to make a change.  I believe that he would listen to the people and not the white, upper class males that we call our "representatives" in Congress.

However, none of the candidates really standout to me.  All they do is argue at each other and name-call.  They all should get a spanking and start over.

But I guess what I wanna say is that it shouldn't matter who runs the country, there will always be people that are upset.  Just PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of Bush.

I'm hoping Clinton and Obama bloody themselves all the way to the convention.  Although very unlikely, I'm also hoping that the superdelegates become split and neither Clinton nor Obama can be declared the nominees.

And I'm apparently quote worth as seen on McLovin's signature.  Nice.  (Name's wrong though.  SupAll, one word )

he knowingly lied to get to sexually abuse little children as well. remember?

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Mark 10:13-14

jesus christ, the pedophile and con artist. in the end, it still turned out he wasn't that good of a con artist despite the church of child molesters and charletans he accidentally started; no good con artist gets crucified

Quiet foo! Don't you know that Joe firmly believes that Jesus hated gays, women, and anyone not christian? Joe says it's true because his primitive baptist preacher told him so and they worship the REAL gospel.

Try again. I dare you to find one passage in the New Testament where it says that women should play an inferior role. when most people quote the one verse that even deals with the topic they leave out the last part where paul says "What?" then proceeds to say the opposite.