Lets look at one womans agenda if put in power :
Health care - cut the number of doctors (called "cost centers") by one quarter in order to cut demand by limiting supply.
cut costs by cutting the number of specialists in half
$5,000 for refusing to join the government-mandated health plan.
* $5,000 for failing to pay premiums on time.
* 15 years to doctors who received "anything of value" in exchange for helping patients short-circuit the bureaucracy.
* $10,000 a day for faulty physician paperwork.
* $50,000 for unauthorized patient treatment.
* $100,000 a day for drug companies that messed up federal filings.
When a woman complained that she didn't want to get shoved into a plan not of her choosing, the first lady lectured, "It's time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals."
When told the plan could bankrupt small businesses, Mrs. Clinton sighed, "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America."
Parents choice of educating their children - she argued, because some parents are stupid parents who would make the wrong choice.
Free Market and taxes -"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
If Hillary is any indication of how a woman in power thinks,No thanks...
2007-02-01 05:09:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by bereal1 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
The war on terror is a misnomer and if you are as smart as you belief you are you would no that this war has the same effect as the war on poverty or drug abuse and illegal use .
Logic which women are short on would leave the world in complete chaos .
I am not saying that women are not logical but their emotions tend to over ride there other senses .
Bush reacted to a single situation and how he made the leap to Iraq from 9-11 escapes me and his war on terror which has no conclusion .
Anyone who feels safe now because of the war on terror is in for a very big surprise when we are attacked again . This time will be much worse then the last attack by comparison and is unavoidable as long as we are not negotiating with the people who have and are now planning another attack .
What would it take short of our death to prevent terror attacks here in the United States . If it means we sever financial and military ties with Israel and let them stand on there own then so be it . They are free to negotiate the best deal for themselves . It is not our problem if others can not get along . We see only the Israeli side of the story and never what the Arabs have gone through . With our one sided support it is not to hard to see that we too are victims of terror attacks .
The world needs men at the helm with women ready to assist in steering the ship . If you have ever tried to pull in a sail or hold a steady course in a 25 knot wind you will know that you can not handle the task .
Thats why in world cup sailing there are no competitive women crews competing .
What makes you think you can negotiate in a mans world .
You could always drop to your knees and bargain from that position and may for a time be pleased with the results as most men are pigs and will perform some tasks and bend to some issues with your use of that tactic .
2007-02-01 05:18:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by -----JAFO---- 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
With a much lower amount of testosterone, there would surely be less wars. It's not in the nature of a woman to be as competitive as a man (in general). I doubt that women would have attacked the WTC for the simple reason that they would have thought of the families they'd be hurting.
2007-02-01 04:52:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Thegustaffa 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think that a world run by women, as a woman, would be a huge mistake! HUGE! No where in the Bible does it say that God wants women to put men in their place! This world is crazy and looking everywhere except the Bible for an answer to our problems. Its like when we buy a DVD player and we get the full set of instructions, but we choose not to read them. We get the DVD player working to a limited capability by trial and error. We can have the DVD player for a number of years without knowing its true capability. The bible is a set of instructions that most wont read. They would rather go through life by trial and error.
Look at the mess we are in!
2007-02-01 05:05:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Snowflake 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
NO
They would clearly start more wars than men.
Look at the teaching of the Bible women have deceived the First man Adam, The strongest man Samson, The most loved of God David, And the Wisest man Solomon.
Women have an observable level of protectionism which frequently when tested turns to hostile reactions.
Go big Red Go
2007-02-01 05:00:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think we are just as intelligent, qualified and able to be great leaders like men, but I also think we have a tendency to be a little more emotional and moody than men. I am not sure if that would cause more conflicts or decrease them. Have you read "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus by John Gray? It's a great book about gender communication differences (if you haven't read it already).
2007-02-01 05:16:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jenny A_331 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not all women are non-violent.
Queen Elizabeth
Indira Gandhi
Susan Smith
Ma Barker
Aileen Wuornos
Bonnie Parker
Helen of Troy
2007-02-01 06:50:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Darth Vader 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
According to the Biblical Absolute Truth(tm) - Women are property, so how could they run a country, much less vote, or think for themselves?
All that rubbish aside, yes women leaders would get us in less wars. Anybody who thinks this is a bad idea simply because of gender is nuts.
2007-02-01 04:54:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Good question, but I don't know the answer anymore since my own perspective of war changed after 9/11. Think of the radical Islamic women. What would they do if they were making the decisions? I'll be interested to see what others think, but just off the top of my head, it seems to me we could be in as much danger from women.
2007-02-01 04:59:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by JudiBug 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
If said woman president has the heart of God, love, freedom, and country as she needs to protect America from harm, and injustice, we would have been in the same wars we were, except we would have won Vietnam, and Somalia, since Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bill Clinton lacked those values.
2007-02-01 04:54:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by xenypoo 7
·
1⤊
1⤋