Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 10:56 AM

...if she stt parites are going to put forward a woman the next time around, but let's say hypothetically that YOUR party is having a lady as a candidate... would you vote for her?

Feel free to comment after you have taken part in the poll.

[ 05-27-2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: cdhostage ]

neill anblome · May 27, 2002, 11:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
5{ood for what you believed in? I mean, it's not likely that ALL the relevant parites are going to put forward a woman the next time around, but let's say hypothetically that YOUR party is having a lady as a candidate... would you vote for her?

Feel free to comment after you have taken part in the poll.<hr /></blockquote>I would vote for Sarah Michelle Gellar no matter what party she ran for, if that meant we would get to see more of her fine ass. Muahahahahaha <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

MacGorilla · May 27, 2002, 11:11 AM

I would look at the lady candidate the same way I look at a male candidate: Where does she stand on issues important to me? Is she qualified? Gender/race are unimportant to me.

rjenkinson · May 27, 2002, 11:28 AM

<img src="http://www.fijivillage.com/elections2001/img/vote.gif" alt=" - " />

lady president? i vote against all unnecessary compounds words where a simple adjective like female will do. bah, humbug.

-r.

Matsu · May 27, 2002, 11:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by neill anblome:
I would vote for Sarah Michelle Gellar no matter what party she ran for, if that meant we would get to see more of her fine ass. Muahahahahaha <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Actually her ass is looking a little boney lately, like she's trying too hard.

neill anblome · May 27, 2002, 11:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Matsu:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by neill anblome:
I would vote for Sarah Michelle Gellar no matter what party she ran for, if that meant we would get to see more of her fine ass. Muahahahahaha <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Actually her ass is looking a little boney lately, like she's trying too hard.<hr /></blockquote>See, if she was president now, you would be thrown into jail for such a impertinent remark! How dare you insult the "royal rump"! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Joshua · May 27, 2002, 12:02 PM

If she's the right candidate, absolutely. I've said many times that I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in 2008 without hesitation.

Millennium · May 27, 2002, 12:16 PM

Loaded choices of answer. I'd have done them like this:

Absolutely yes; it's about time we had a woman president.</li>
Probably yes; there'd have to be some very impressive people running against her for me to not vote for her.</li>
Possibly yes; All else being equal, I'd vote for her.</li>
Maybe; is she the best candidate for the job?</li>
Possibly not: All else being equal, I'd vote against her.</li>
Probably not; she'd have to be really good compared to the others.</li>
Absolutely not; we don't need a woman president.
</li>

My answer on that, incidentally, would have been the middle choice, "Maybe".

TNproud2b · May 27, 2002, 12:20 PM

If a woman gets the Republican nomination for president, then I'd certainly vote for her.

OldManMac · May 27, 2002, 12:24 PM

If a woman gets the Democratic nomination for President, and she was qualified, I'd definitely vote for her.

nealconner · May 27, 2002, 12:27 PM

Yes, if she's a libertarian candidate. But any other party, then f*ck 'em. (figuratively)

TNproud2b · May 27, 2002, 12:28 PM

we may as well stay home, Karl

Timo · May 27, 2002, 12:29 PM

Whom do yo have in mind?

Millennium · May 27, 2002, 12:31 PM

If, from the platform she espoused, I believe she'd do a better job than any of the other candidates, I'd certainly do it.

But if she blindly holds the party line for any party, rather than thinking for herself and laying all the cards on the table, then she's automatically disqualified. So is any male candidate, for that matter. We vote for people, not parties, and the current party system only serves to relieve voters and candidates from the duties of thinking for themselves. It's why I think they shouldn't be considered actual political entities anymore. Certainly let them exist as associations (creedom of assembly and association and all that), but take anything to do with them out of the structures of government. Make every candidate bring his or her entire platform to the table, and make the voters actually think about these platforms, rather than just blindly voting one party or another as happens all too frequently nowadays.

cpt kangarooski · May 27, 2002, 12:32 PM

Well, I don't like any political party, or even the concept of political parties. So as with any candidate, she'd have to individually appear deserving of my vote based on various factors such as experience, character, platform, etc.

I could care less about gender, race, religion, etc. as long as the job is done well.

anarkisst · May 27, 2002, 02:08 PM

Yes. I would. Don't know who though. It would be a tough challenge for a woman to, even in these days.

I find it interesting how two women stood up to the male dominated corporations and government intitutions and revealed their insights of misdoing or misjudgement (Enron and the CIA/FBI revelations of late). Women have a great sense of insight and intuition.

I'm all for it. If the candidate is right.

Tigerabbit · May 27, 2002, 02:09 PM

No 'lady' would be cut out for the job.

A woman would need to be twice as aggresive, ambitious, and charasmatic as a man just to compensate for the idiots who won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman. By most people's definition, any woman who can do this is no lady, but a roaring thunder-bitch.

Sharon Osbourne for President. <img src="http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/forums/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif" alt=" - " />

WildZero · May 27, 2002, 02:17 PM

Not unless she was sterile. Sorry, maybe it's a shortcoming on my part, but the idea of a pregnant president creeps me out.

Unless she was really hot...

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 02:22 PM

Hmm. Thus far two people have voted no. Except for the "maybe" vote before (you're probably right, Millenium - I should've thought it out better), they're the people I most want to comment.

I've heard some pro-male speakers talk of undeniable biological differences that would keep a woman from being a good politician. I personally think that this is absurd; my grandmother was mayor-equivalent (Town Manager, I think the title is) in my town for many years.

It seems that most people respondin thus far think that a lady with good qualifications and actual thought on the topics at hand could handle the job just fine. I agree in principle - although really my thoughts are thus:
The job of President of the USA is far too large for one person. There are too many topics which require mastery of different fields in order to truly understand the problems at hand : environmentalism, nuclear topics, tax laws, foreign policiy, terrorist policy, control of the media, all sorts of things.
I'd be content if a President had a degree in law and a significant grounding in ethics. Of course it's better if he/she is knowledgable in something else, but which to choose?
The President needs to surround him/herself with smart people of similar thoughts and allegiances. Together they control the way the Free World progresses.

This is sort of the way it goes right now : the person with the best prepared speeches is the one who wins.

<edit> Oh good. WildZero posted before I finsihed writing this. Hmm... I do believe that First Children have been concieved while a President has been in office. I can't give examples, that would require the WORK of actually going and looking. But it's reasonable - eevery single President has been married.

[ 05-27-2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: cdhostage ]

pathogen · May 27, 2002, 02:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
This is sort of the way it goes right now : the person with the best prepared speeches is the one who wins.<hr /></blockquote>I think its the person who best survives the smear campaigns. And as for thunder-bitches instead of ladies, well, Hillary is definitly up for the task of president by that standard. I'd vote for Hillary. Hell, apparently you only need about 46 million out of 200 million voters for you to be president... She's definitly got a shot.

[ 05-27-2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: pathogen ]

WildZero · May 27, 2002, 02:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
<edit> Oh good. WildZero posted before I finsihed writing this. Hmm... I do believe that First Children have been concieved while a President has been in office. I can't give examples, that would require the WORK of actually going and looking. But it's reasonable - eevery single President has been married.<hr /></blockquote>Sure, I have no problem with a female president who's a mother already, conception just means f**king, and I've no problem with that either.

It's just the idea of a president undergoing pregnancy and all that goes with it that bothers me. Nursing, Swollen Feet, Mood Swings and Post Partum depression seem like a bad things.

Duinno, maybe it's just a sexist attitude on my part. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 02:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
<edit> Oh good. WildZero posted before I finsihed writing this. Hmm... I do believe that First Children have been concieved while a President has been in office. I can't give examples, that would require the WORK of actually going and looking. But it's reasonable - eevery single President has been married.<hr /></blockquote>Sure, I have no problem with a female president who's a mother already, conception just means f**king, and I've no problem with that either.

It's just the idea of a president undergoing pregnancy and all that goes with it that bothers me. Nursing, Swollen Feet, Mood Swings and Post Partum depression seem like a bad things.

Duinno, maybe it's just a sexist attitude on my part. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>I think I see what you mean. Even diehard feminists must agree that the emotional swings (and therefore swings in mental ability and political ability) are severe at the end of a pregnancy. I have no comment on the ability of a menstruating women to lead - some ladies become downright violent once a month, others don't seem much different from any week to the next.
OK, granted - pregnancy could muck up things.
Perhaps sometime soon one of two techs will come - stasis, which could allow a fetus to be removed without killing it. Or exowombs - i.e., a true test-tube baby, one born from a womb of plastic instead of flesh.

Hmm. An abortion could be politically problematic for a President. Anybody know if a First Lady or a First Intern

ever needed an abortion?

Montanan · May 27, 2002, 03:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
But it's reasonable - every single President has been married.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, the US has had one bachelor President -- James Buchanan, who was in office right before the Civil War (1857-61). And not only was he a bachelor, but he had a 20-year domestic relationship with another man! (Buchanan's partner was a guy named William Rufus King, who served as Vice President under Franklin Pierce.)

It would be one thing for Americans to elect a female President, but are we enlightened enough today to elect someone with a same-sex domestic partner? Not a chance ...

[ 05-27-2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Montanan ]

SimeyTheLimey · May 27, 2002, 03:12 PM

A woman president wold be fine by me.

Then again, remember who was in charge of the country I was living in during my politically formative years.

<img src="http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/leaders/images/profilepix/thatcher.jpg" alt=" - " />

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 04:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Montanan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
But it's reasonable - every single President has been married.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, the US has had one bachelor President -- James Buchanan, who was in office right before the Civil War (1857-61). And not only was he a bachelor, but he had a 20-year domestic relationship with another man! (Buchanan's partner was a guy named William Rufus King, who served as Vice President under Franklin Pierce.)

It would be one thing for Americans to elect a female President, but are we enlightened enough today to elect someone with a same-sex domestic partner? Not a chance ...<hr /></blockquote>Truly? I wonder if the people who voted knew at the time... also i wonder if they would throw him out if he proved to be an effective Prez...
Ya see, I jus did a report on domestic partnerships. In 28 states, sodomy is a felony. Consent does not matter. In 47 states there are no provisions for gay marriages.

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 04:17 PM

Five people have said no, and only two have explained their views!

Montanan · May 27, 2002, 04:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Montanan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
But it's reasonable - every single President has been married.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, the US has had one bachelor President -- James Buchanan, who was in office right before the Civil War (1857-61). And not only was he a bachelor, but he had a 20-year domestic relationship with another man! (Buchanan's partner was a guy named William Rufus King, who served as Vice President under Franklin Pierce.)

It would be one thing for Americans to elect a female President, but are we enlightened enough today to elect someone with a same-sex domestic partner? Not a chance ...<hr /></blockquote>Truly? I wonder if the people who voted knew at the time... also i wonder if they would throw him out if he proved to be an effective Prez...
Ya see, I jus did a report on domestic partnerships. In 28 states, sodomy is a felony. Consent does not matter. In 47 states there are no provisions for gay marriages.<hr /></blockquote>Yep, it's definitely true. As for the question of how many people knew ... well, it was apparently pretty common knowledge in D.C. social circles at the time, but I doubt that too many "average" voters were aware of the details of Buchanan's personal life. (Or of the personal lives of other politicians, for that matter, since it was in the good old days before sleazy tabloid talk shows!) I'd have to look it up, but I think King had already died by the time Buchanan was elected President, though.

Actually, from the history I've read Buchanan was reportedly a pretty crappy President, but of course a person's political and sexual lives are (or at least should be) completely different issues. (And as far as non-traditional sex lives go, if you start digging too deeply into the private lives of our heterosexual presidents -- both the great and not-so-great ones -- you'll of course find an amazing number of adulterers!)

TomHMeredith · May 27, 2002, 05:35 PM

I actually heard somewhere the other day that they reckon America won't have a female president before 2012. Can't remember where I heard this, can find out where it comes from if anyone is that bothered.

Personally, i'd vote for a woman.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom

SimeyTheLimey · May 27, 2002, 05:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Montanan:
 [QUOTE]Originally posted by cdhostage:
[qb]But it's reasonable - every single President has been married.<hr /></blockquote>Ya see, I jus did a report on domestic partnerships. In 28 states, sodomy is a felony. Consent does not matter. In 47 states there are no provisions for gay marriages.<hr /></blockquote>Well, I hope you didn't write that 3 states have gay marriage. The correct figure is that 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and every U.S. territory denies us the right to get married.

You may have meant domestic partnerships, but it ain't the same thing.

Captain Obvious · May 27, 2002, 06:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
Not unless she was sterile. Sorry, maybe it's a shortcoming on my part, but the idea of a pregnant president creeps me out.

Unless she was really hot...

<hr /></blockquote>Good point, I would vote for a woman for president if she was qualified and represented the views I agreed with. BUT if she pulled a Jane Swift, I'd say she should be inpeached or resign. I have no problems with her bring president so long as she agreed that her job came before being a working mom.

Beyond Redemption · May 27, 2002, 06:03 PM

Not if she can take a leave of absence if she gets pregnant.

rambo47 · May 27, 2002, 06:29 PM

No way! A girl in the White House!!?! She'll get her cooties everywhere!

Silky Voice of The Gorn · May 27, 2002, 06:54 PM

I'd vote for a *woman* president, yes.

jholmes · May 27, 2002, 06:58 PM

I'd have to think that there are certain times of the month when terrorists would really watch their step.

How can you decide upfront that you couldn't have a female President? That's stupid. And the pregancy thing is a nonstarter - FDR was in a wheelchair for crying out loud. If it's physically impossible for you to walk around the White House and you can still be one of the greatest leaders inhistory then I'd bet that having a Secret Service nanny to help raise the kiddoes would be a piece of cake.

What I don't see is a viable candidate in the works. Hillary is to devisive, Dole has no experience, Whitman seems a wimp and Reno would get clobbered.

Other contenders? Those are just off the top of my head.

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 07:00 PM

I apologize Simey.

Only one state in the Union allows anyone's name to be put in the "groom" or "bride" slot on the marriage liscence: Hawaii. It was voted to make gay marriages illegal in 1998, then that was repealed in 1999. As it stands, you can put whoever's name you want in either slot.
It will either be changed to a "domestic partner" situation, which, as you've pointed out, is far inferior to an actual legal marriage, or it will be changed so that only a man can be groom and only a woman bride.

Washington D.C. offers the same local benefits for domestic partnerships as normal marriages. I dunno what that means - perhaps you have hospital rights and inheiritance rights. The IRS will still only accept you as two single people.

I dunno about Puerto Rico or any other US-"owned" spot.

Vermont and Connecticut allow domestic partnerships. These offer lesser legal benefits than an actual marriage.

<a href="http://www.gay-civil-unions.com/" target="_blank">http://www.gay-civil-unions.com/</a>

Beyond Redemption · May 27, 2002, 07:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jholmes:
I'd have to think that there are certain times of the month when terrorists would really watch their step.

How can you decide upfront that you couldn't have a female President? That's stupid. And the pregancy thing is a nonstarter - FDR was in a wheelchair for crying out loud. If it's physically impossible for you to walk around the White House and you can still be one of the greatest leaders inhistory then I'd bet that having a Secret Service nanny to help raise the kiddoes would be a piece of cake.

What I don't see is a viable candidate in the works. Hillary is to devisive, Dole has no experience, Whitman seems a wimp and Reno would get clobbered.

Other contenders? Those are just off the top of my head.<hr /></blockquote>The ability to walk around has nothing to do with the issue of pregnancy. If you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I was talking about taking a leave of absence (which many women in high places--CEOs, et cetera--indeed take).

[ 05-27-2002, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Beyond Redemption ]

SimeyTheLimey · May 27, 2002, 07:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
Washington D.C. offers the same local benefits for domestic partnerships as normal marriages. I dunno what that means - perhaps you have hospital rights and inheiritance rights. The IRS will still only accept you as two single people.

[/URL]<hr /></blockquote>Basically if I were to work for the District Government my partner could use my health insurance benefits. It's really not much of a victory.

Most of the package of benefits that straights get automatically can be recreated with a little lawyering. It's being relegated to second class status that burns me up.

shanraghan · May 27, 2002, 07:30 PM

Fortunately I don't think we'd ever have to worry about a pregnant president. The Constitution sets minimum ages for different offices, and I believe for the office of President it's forty-five, meaning that any female president would most likely already have children and no desire to have any more. Furthermore, any woman who was serious enough about her job would probably try to avoid such things during her term: it would be just as difficult for her as for the rest of the country to bear/take care of young children during office. Not only that, but having a pregnant woman in office probably wouldn't have the greatest effect on domestic and foregin relations (if the president is a figurehead as well as an officer... what to do with a pregnant nation?), a shrewd candidate would probably avoid such a thing during office.

BRussell · May 27, 2002, 07:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
every single President has been married.<hr /></blockquote>This statement shorted out my prefrontal cortex for a few moments.

Beyond Redemption · May 27, 2002, 07:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by shanraghan:
Fortunately I don't think we'd ever have to worry about a pregnant president. The Constitution sets minimum ages for different offices, and I believe for the office of President it's forty-five, meaning that any female president would most likely already have children and no desire to have any more. Furthermore, any woman who was serious enough about her job would probably try to avoid such things during her term: it would be just as difficult for her as for the rest of the country to bear/take care of young children during office. Not only that, but having a pregnant woman in office probably wouldn't have the greatest effect on domestic and foregin relations (if the president is a figurehead as well as an officer... what to do with a pregnant nation?), a shrewd candidate would probably avoid such a thing during office.<hr /></blockquote>Umm, 45...no. Wrong. 35 years. As far as avoiding such things...again, I say bull****. Promiment CEOs who were "serious" about their jobs have become pregnant and taken leaves of absence so that they could care for their child. Get the facts straight before you post more idiotic ramblings.

TNproud2b · May 27, 2002, 08:46 PM

Those CEOs might have been prominent, but as a shareholder I wouldn't have been thrilled to watch the CEO on a 'leave of absence'.

Beyond Redemption · May 27, 2002, 08:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
Those CEOs might have been prominent, but as a shareholder I wouldn't have been thrilled to watch the CEO on a 'leave of absence'.<hr /></blockquote>Damn straight. As long as the notion that women can have it both ways is socially accepted, I would not want a woman as president. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a feminist. I believe in true equality. But that doesn't mean just equal rights--that means equal responsibility. Get back to me when women are forced to register for selected services.

Millennium · May 27, 2002, 08:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
Those CEOs might have been prominent, but as a shareholder I wouldn't have been thrilled to watch the CEO on a 'leave of absence'.<hr /></blockquote>Damn straight. As long as the notion that women can have it both ways is socially accepted, I would not want a woman as president. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a feminist. I believe in true equality. But that doesn't mean just equal rights--that means equal responsibility. Get back to me when women are forced to register for selected services.<hr /></blockquote>There's already a provision of sorts for things like this in the Constitution. Not specifically concerning pregnancy, but probably adequate. If the President becomes temporarily unable to exercise her duties to the fullest, she may appoint the Vice President as Acting President until the condition is remedied. I'm not certain this has ever had to be done (certainly not for pregnancy, but perhaps for other things), but the provision is there should it be needed.

Beyond Redemption · May 27, 2002, 10:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
Those CEOs might have been prominent, but as a shareholder I wouldn't have been thrilled to watch the CEO on a 'leave of absence'.<hr /></blockquote>Damn straight. As long as the notion that women can have it both ways is socially accepted, I would not want a woman as president. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a feminist. I believe in true equality. But that doesn't mean just equal rights--that means equal responsibility. Get back to me when women are forced to register for selected services.<hr /></blockquote>There's already a provision of sorts for things like this in the Constitution. Not specifically concerning pregnancy, but probably adequate. If the President becomes temporarily unable to exercise her duties to the fullest, she may appoint the Vice President as Acting President until the condition is remedied. I'm not certain this has ever had to be done (certainly not for pregnancy, but perhaps for other things), but the provision is there should it be needed.<hr /></blockquote>There was controversy over whether reagan used it after being shot. I have a feeling that the conditions it mentions weren't intended to be caused by a conscious choice (pregnancy). Anyway, we aren't talking about her leaving during the pregnancy. It's the time off that they take for six months after they have the kid that is the issue.

BRussell · May 27, 2002, 11:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
It's the time off that they take for six months after they have the kid that is the issue.<hr /></blockquote>Would you be just as opposed to a first lady having a child when there's a male president?

BTW, George Bush supposedly goes to bed at 9:30 and takes a nap every afternoon. Breastfeeding doesn't take as much time as our current president sleeps.

Beyond Redemption · May 27, 2002, 11:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
It's the time off that they take for six months after they have the kid that is the issue.<hr /></blockquote>Would you be just as opposed to a first lady having a child when there's a male president?

BTW, George Bush supposedly goes to bed at 9:30 and takes a nap every afternoon. Breastfeeding doesn't take as much time as our current president sleeps.<hr /></blockquote>The first lady isn't an elected official. If the president wants to take a leave of absence to be with the child, I'd be just as appalled.

As far as the breastfeeding bit, I know that you are not naive enough to think that that is all there is to being a mother.

mindwaves · May 28, 2002, 12:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by shanraghan:
 The Constitution sets minimum ages for different offices, and I believe for the office of President it's forty-five, meaning that any female president would most likely already have children and no desire to have any more. <hr /></blockquote>It is 35 and why not? I would.

I Have Questions · May 28, 2002, 12:47 AM

Some people have no brain. It's just that simple.

Langdon · May 28, 2002, 12:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
[QUOTE]
BTW, George Bush supposedly goes to bed at 9:30 and takes a nap every afternoon. Breastfeeding doesn't take as much time as our current president sleeps.<hr /></blockquote>Except that he supposedly wakes up at 5 AM. What is your point?

Tigerabbit · May 28, 2002, 06:21 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cdhostage:
�The IRS will still only accept you as two single people�<hr /></blockquote>By doing that, my wife and I pay less in taxes than if we were a m/f married couple and both working. Most Americans don't realize that there is a penalty for being a working couple.