Oh, The Horror!!!

[j2k4]

Hillary Clinton, President of the United States.

Bill Clinton, Secretary General of the United Nations.

At the same time.



Discuss...

[ruthie]

First question...who is she running against?

[Rat Faced]

Im gonna have to leave this one to you lot...

Clinton is a liar and a conman... however he is also a Diplomat and Politician.

He's therefore as qualified as any other politician imho.. at least he makes you turn the other way while he gives you one up the ass... unlike some ;)

I cant really say i know anything about his Mrs though... :unsure:

[3RA1N1AC]

Mr Clinton was and is an International Statesman of some standing, much more so than your current incumbent (bit of a tautology there, sorry). I think he would carry a degree of gravitas to the post you suggest for him and it is probably one of your better ideas.

well... it's all subjective, what qualifies a person to be a statesman. perhaps the u.s. is not truly ready for a president with george w. bush's peculiar qualifications? traditionally, u.s. presidents have been lawyers, scholars, military careerists... or they've, in the case of a president such as reagan, served in hollywood's theater of war. i can't recall another u.s. president, off the top of my head, whose occupations prior to entering politics consisted primarily of being an unsuccessful businessman, a drunkard, and (although it's disputed) devoting his weekends to national guard duty. there may have been one before george w. bush, though.

thankfully, the prescribed qualifications for becoming president of the u.s. are a fairly low hurdle, and they don't discriminate against people's prior experience. the u.s. is not a cruel ayn rand-ian meritocracy, after all. if you're born into the right family, make connections to the right people and have a bit of blind luck, you can still race straight past the strongest, smartest & most talented people in the nation. :-P

[scroff]

well... it's all subjective, what qualifies a person to be a statesman. perhaps the u.s. is not truly ready for a president with george w. bush's peculiar qualifications? traditionally, u.s. presidents have been lawyers, scholars, military careerists... or they've, in the case of a president such as reagan, served in hollywood's theater of war. i can't recall another u.s. president, off the top of my head, whose occupations prior to entering politics consisted primarily of being an unsuccessful businessman, a drunkard, and (although it's disputed) devoting his weekends to national guard duty. there may have been one before george w. bush, though.

thankfully, the prescribed qualifications for becoming president of the u.s. are a fairly low hurdle, and they don't discriminate against people's prior experience. the u.s. is not a cruel ayn rand-ian meritocracy, after all. if you're born into the right family, make connections to the right people and have a bit of blind luck, you can still race straight past the strongest, smartest & most talented people in the nation. :-P
:cool: Very good. Geedub certainly does prove that any idiot can be president...

[manker]

:lol:

What a great post (3RA1N1AC). I enjoyed that.

[j2k4]

...the strongest, smartest & most talented people in the nation. :-P

Anybody in mind? :huh:

[vidcc]

Anybody in mind? :huh:

look to your fav. quote...... anyone but Bush :lol: :lol:

[Afronaut]

Arnold, he'll be back. Mark my words. (hehe)

But, for the Clintons to rule, I dont really know...
When it comes to politics, im walking on thin ice.

I dont follow that much, dont have TV or Radio atm.

[3RA1N1AC]

Anybody in mind? :huh:
oh, i could go on for hours about who's underrated and who's overrated, who oughta be paid more and who oughta be paid less. we all could do that, prolly.

my point was mostly to suggest that u.s. society, at least to some degree, imagines itself to be a merit-based system that rewards the best & brightest and extends a little charity to the dregs. and why? just 'cause we don't have feudal lords or royalty anymore? i mean, individual qualities do count for something and they can help you to get a higher place in the pecking order, but there's still no sweeter deal than inheritance and old-fashioned nepotism. if merit were the be-all & end-all, then anna nicole smith might occupy a slightly higher position than george w bush since at least she's got some infinitesimal bit of talent. while i joke about the current system, though, i imagine that one based purely on merit would be a cruel one that ends up simply rewarding & punishing people for the perceived quality of their DNA.

to sum up: we're not a meritocracy, but then i have doubts as to whether we should strive to be one anyway.

[Dr Wily]

Even though I like the idea of Bill Clinton as Secretary General (hey, he'd be a hell of a lot better than Kofi), a UN bylaw prevents a citizen of one of the permanent five security council countries from being Secretary General.

[j2k4]

Even though I like the idea of Bill Clinton as Secretary General (hey, he'd be a hell of a lot better than Kofi), a UN bylaw prevents a citizen of one of the permanent five security council countries from being Secretary General.

Perhaps MoveOn.org could be persuaded to lobby the U.N. on his behalf; it is Bill Clinton after all, and he, along with Hill, are the leading lights in this otherwise dark world...

As to his being better than Annan?

I believe you would see Arkansas writ large; Kofi'd come a cropper compared to Big Bill.

Feathers, anyone?