Does the prospect of a woman in the White House also frighten you?

Question

First, Democrats are a bunch of poor, Middle Class surrender monkeys. Even men Democrats are easy to make fun of. Also, In a man-dominated world, a woman Democrat President is very frightening. Women tend to be more delicate, more sensitive, and more weak than men. Men tend to be physically stronger, more hardened and emotionless, and more intimidating than women. Also, terrorists hate women and they would not be afraid of Hillarious Clinton. They are more afraid of Bush than they would ever be of Hillary. Fred Thompson is a guy who could kick the crap out of terrroists and scare the hell out of them.

If it was a conservative woman who was as tough as Margaret Thatcher, I could really care less, but most women are delicate liberals who support a woman's right to kill her baby.

Answer 1

You personify everything repugnant about being male!!

It's really only 3 inches isn't it?!

Poor boy!

EDIT: Only insecure men are afraid of strong-willed women!

Answer 2

Your argument is filled with hasty generalizations and accusations that seem to be very sexist. Next time you post a question trying to be reassured that your opinion is right, why not get your facts straight.

What does physical strength have to do with holding office? Does Hillary have enough muscle to lift her pen and sign a bill? I believe she has proved that in the senate. She is a commanding power in the Senate, so where do you get off calling her "delicate and weak"?

Terrorists hate women? I think you are just asking for it. Terrorists hate America, and aside that, have never given any implication that they hate the female race. And what does the terrorists fear of our President have to do with the election? Nine eleven was six year ago. we are in IRAQ. The terrorists were from Saudi Arabia! So why should the disregarded opinion of said "terrorists" be a factor in our election.

No, I am not afraid of a woman in office. In fact, in order to be in that position, I think Hillary would be a great candidate. You can't be some kind of obsequious peon and expect to change history. You need to go out there and make a statement for what you believe in. The only fear regarding her in office would be that then you have First Man Bill (A Male???(gasp!)) quite literally screwing Congress.

Answer 3

No, it doesn't frighten me at all. You have unbelievable faith in stereotypes don't you? If you think Sen. Clinton is some wilting female too emotional to deal with hard issues and war then you really haven't been paying attention at all. Terrorists aren't afraid of anyone Einstein. Their numbers have only grown since Bush invaded Iraq. They don't walk around saying "Oh I'm afraid of George Bush, I don't think I'll become a terrorist."

Fred Thompson? First he has to stop being a coward about facing the vetting process and stop being lazy about taking place in the election process. He couldn't meet this own predictions of how many contributions he would take in for his exploratory committee, he got about half of what he was expecting. What's up with that? And first he was going to declare right after July 4th, now it's September. Yawn.

Grow up about women dude. They have more strength, resolve and bravery than you can possibly imagine. But I suspect you're going to find that out whether you want to or not.

Madame President. Get used to it.

Answer 4

No. A woman in the White House does not frighten me.

You are absolutely wrong about Democrats. Liberals, on the other hand...you might have some points, but the name-calling is beyond childish and does nothing for your cause...assuming you have one.

After that little rant, I get the impression either you arent American and would repeat what you've heard in other discussions about the political parties, or you're so ignorant of how you are coming across you feel you are making sense when you actually sound quite maniacal.

If Fred Thompson is who you represent, do him a favor- shut up. You're scaring away all the voters.

Answer 5

Because, suddenly Rush has apparently found the wisdom of Michael Savage. The administration knows that the HARD TRUTH has consistently come from Savage; that's why there is a far larger campaign to dismiss him as a ranting lunatic, oh and England recently placed him on a terrorist watch list & still denies him entry to that country. How convenient...the administration can't shut him up using the FTC because of Article I...but they turn the other way when our "ally" falsely rebukes him as a terrorist...do you all get it? Hopefully this thing between the White House & Rush is not just a designed distraction to keep concerned Americans' eyes & ears away from the TRUTH, but I'm sure it is, one way or the other. The HARD TRUTH: BHO is loyal ONLY to a foreign interest - the international banking cartel, who is orchestrating the assimilation of the world into the NWO form of government (thinly disguised oligarchic socialism/Fascism/communism/capitalism). The USA is & has always been the cartel's last big hurdle. BHO (and it might have been McCain, but too many factors were working against that happening aka ACORN) is the cartel's complicit POTUS to fool enough of the masses to believe that his hideous legislative proposals & passed legislation is "for the protection & betterment of the PEOPLE" and many of them have bought it hook, line & sinker. This HARD TRUTH is about to be recognized by the rest of the world; Rush is finally "getting it"...maybe...there's still a part of me that believes he may be part of the intentionally scripted deception of bellowing at the evil liberals (yes, I know, most of them are, but it was still used as a ruse) used as a distraction to keep everyone from realizing what is really happening to their Constitution & their Nation. It's heartbreaking & ugly...and I'm mad as hell. That's all folks.....

Answer 6

You are living in the dark ages. Maybe you should move to the Middle East where you can really brow beat women.
It seems to me that people like you want Stepford Wives. You must be very insecure. Women are alot tougher than men in many ways. If you expect them to be physically stronger that is probably not going to happen. But why does the president have to be physically capable of winning a fist fight. I don't see our brilliant Georgie physically taking on anyone.
Just so you know, I will not be voting for Hillary, but not because she is a woman. You need to grow up.

Answer 7

Well, you're the first neocon I've ever heard refer to Hillary as "delicate", lol...most of Hillary's bashers call her a "man", or a "lesbian".
Your question is so full of erroneous statements that I hardly know where to begin; "terrorists hate women"? Really...more than they hate Bush? And if Fred Thompson were elected (fat chance) what's he gonna do? Go whip these terrorists himself, with one hand tied behind his back? The world ain't a Steven Seagal movie, Pal.
That "man-dominated world" you speak of is a figment of your imagination. Pakistan and India have had female prime ministers, for god's sake. The only correct statement in your question is that women are, perhaps, more senstive than men...therefore, they might think twice about sending someone's son or daughter off to fight a useless and illegal war.
I'm no Hillary fan, btw.

Answer 8

Not all women think it's OK to kill babies. But no, a woman in the White House is not frightening to me. On the other hand, Hillary in the White House is.

Answer 9

Are you afraid to have a woman in your bedroom? How about the kitchen? Working as your boss? Selling you a new car?

I notice that you edited your question by saying "IF" she was........ The fact is you think that women can't perform as well as a man. Typical Repugnantan thinking.....

Answer 10

No - the thought of Hillary in the White House frightens me.

Answer 11

The prospect of a WOMAN does not frighten me, but the prospect of HILLARY does. I believe that the right woman can be president, but Hillary is NOT IT. I would vote for Condi Rice.