June 5, 200818 yr Tell me how she's more qualified than anyone else. That's not a sarcastic question. It's a true question for me. I'm not saying she isn't qualified, only that I don't see it. So, don't tell me you don't see how I can't see it. Tell me why I should see it.Read her biography yourself. If you are not convinced that her qualifications are far more impressive than Barack Obama's, then let's just disagree because nothing that I could add would change your mind. You do not have to agree with somebody politically to recognize and acknowledge their qualifications for a job.
June 5, 200818 yr Read her biography yourself. If you are not convinced that her qualifications are far more impressive than Barack Obama's, then let's just disagree because nothing that I could add would change your mind. You do not have to agree with somebody politically to recognize and acknowledge their qualifications for a job. I've read. I'm not trying to compare her to Obama. I'm asking you, who apparently is far more qualified to judge than I, to tell me why she is more qualified than any other candidate. So far, I have her biography, her list of degrees, and a few diversionary replies that try to change the question. Simple question really, but no one wants to answer the question at hand. They want to give me a list of degrees, which doesn't necessarily equate to political savvy or success as President. Or, tell me nothing, but try to bring Obama into the equation. If you can't answer the question, the I guess I'm not alone in wondering exactly what qualifies her to a greater degree than any other potential candidate.
June 5, 200818 yr I've read. I'm not trying to compare her to Obama. I'm asking you, who apparently is far more qualified to judge than I, to tell me why she is more qualified than any other candidate. With that sarcastic response, I think I will bow out of this discussion. I never said that Rice was more qualified than any other candidate. It is difficult enough to defend my own words, I am not going to defend a position that you assigned to me.
June 5, 200818 yr Why engage in another 4 years as the past 7.It's time for a change.As a Republican, I will be voting for Obama. It's about country and directions not party. As a Republican, which type of change do you like? Higher taxes? Keeping the net amount of American jobs low? Bigger government in general?
June 5, 200818 yr With that sarcastic response, I think I will bow out of this discussion. I never said that Rice was more qualified than any other candidate. It is difficult enough to defend my own words, I am not going to defend a position that you assigned to me. It's not meant as a sarcastic question. It's meant as an earnest question. You chide me for sarcasm, which is really funny, but I am serious in my question. The question is not just for you, it's for anyone. Yet, noone has presented anything in response other than what I mentioned previously. Or, again, the response has been an attempt at diversion. You mentioned in a previous post that she was qualified to be President. I'm merely asking what qualifies her more than other potential candidates. I don't know how that's sarcastic or in anyway an attempt to ask you to defend any position, other than the one you stated.
June 5, 200818 yr Simple question really, but no one wants to answer the question at hand. They want to give me a list of degrees, which doesn't necessarily equate to political savvy or success as President. Or, tell me nothing, but try to bring Obama into the equation.The list I gave included far more than just a bunch of degrees. I think it showed she has an amazingly full resume of qualifications that would each serve any president quite well. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other candidate -- man or woman -- with anywhere near her qualifications for that most important of jobs. Shoot, I'd have voted for her over GWB.
June 5, 200818 yr The list I gave included far more than just a bunch of degrees. I think it showed she has an amazingly full resume of qualifications that would each serve any president quite well. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other candidate -- man or woman -- with anywhere near her qualifications for that most important of jobs. Shoot, I'd have voted for her over GWB. No, it says she's well educated. Well-educated doesn't mean "leader of the free world". Some of the most well-educated people I know are people I wouldn't vote for in any circumstance....they simply don't have common sense. :lol: There are many "average" citizens who have a list of degrees as impressive. There have been great presidents with far less education.
June 5, 200818 yr No, it says she's well educated. Well-educated doesn't mean "leader of the free world". Some of the most well-educated people I know are people I wouldn't vote for in any circumstance....they simply don't have common sense. :lol: There are many "average" citizens who have a list of degrees as impressive. There have been great presidents with far less education. Most of the items on that list were not education related at all. The few education items are marked in blue below: She earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974 Earned her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975 Completed her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Has been awarded honorary doctorates from: Morehouse College in 1991 The University of Alabama in 1994 The University of Notre Dame in 1995 The National Defense University in 2002 The Mississippi College School of Law in 2003 The University of Louisville Michigan State University in 2004 and Boston College in 2006. She was a member of the boards of directors for: Chevron Corporation Charles Schwab The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The University of Notre Dame The International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. Her past board service has also encompassed such organizations as: Transamerica Corporation Hewlett Packard The Carnegie Corporation Carnegie Endowment for International Peace The Rand Corporation The National Council for Soviet and East European Studies The Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union) she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. While an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military. At Stanford, she was a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow of the Hoover Institution. Her books include: Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy. Stanford faculty memeber since 1981, and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching. In June 1999, she completed a 6-year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students. She became Secretary of State in January, 2005. Prior to this, she had been the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, since January 2001.
June 5, 200818 yr Author Disappointed to see yet another thread hijacked by Fred Phelps and followers. I may weigh in on abortion, but I'd rather it be in the appropriate thread.
June 5, 200818 yr Author Most of the items on that list were not education related at all. The few education items are marked in blue below: She earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974 Earned her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975 Completed her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Has been awarded honorary doctorates from: Morehouse College in 1991 The University of Alabama in 1994 The University of Notre Dame in 1995 The National Defense University in 2002 The Mississippi College School of Law in 2003 The University of Louisville Michigan State University in 2004 and Boston College in 2006. She was a member of the boards of directors for: Chevron Corporation Charles Schwab The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The University of Notre Dame The International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. Her past board service has also encompassed such organizations as: Transamerica Corporation Hewlett Packard The Carnegie Corporation Carnegie Endowment for International Peace The Rand Corporation The National Council for Soviet and East European Studies The Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union) she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. While an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military. At Stanford, she was a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow of the Hoover Institution. Her books include: Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy. Stanford faculty memeber since 1981, and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching. In June 1999, she completed a 6-year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students. She became Secretary of State in January, 2005. Prior to this, she had been the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, since January 2001. How could she have gone so terribly wrong?
June 5, 200818 yr It's not meant as a sarcastic question. It's meant as an earnest question. You chide me for sarcasm, which is really funny, but I am serious in my question. The question is not just for you, it's for anyone. Yet, noone has presented anything in response other than what I mentioned previously. Or, again, the response has been an attempt at diversion. You mentioned in a previous post that she was qualified to be President. I'm merely asking what qualifies her more than other potential candidates. I don't know how that's sarcastic or in anyway an attempt to ask you to defend any position, other than the one you stated. I never said that Dr. Rice is more qualified than any other potential candidate. In response to a direct question, I presented a bipartisan list of candidates who I believe are more qualified by experience than Barack Obama. In another post, I stated that Dr. Rice is much better qualified than Sen. Obama to be president, and I stand by that position. I also said that although I would vote for either Colin Powell or Condi Rice, it would depend on who else ran for the Republican nomination. At no time did I claim that Condi Rice is the most qualified person in the USA to be president. In terms of experience, John McCain ranks very high, but he is far from my first choice as president. Qualifications are important but nobody should base their decision solely on qualifications. I did not intend to enter into a long, drawn out debate on Condi Rice by responding to a simple question. If you want to start a new thread about who is the best qualified person in the country to be president, then I may discuss the question further. Frankly, it is not all that important to me. Obama's inexperience is important to me and more relevant to this thread.
June 5, 200818 yr While I don't care for any of the candidates, I do recognize nWo's excitement as geniune and understandable. While not an Obama fan (to say the least), the fact that one of our 2 major parties has nominated an African American candidate speaks volumes as to how far we have come in the past 40+ years. We are far from over the mountain, but we can at least see the peak and that is an enormous achievement. There is no way I can truly feel the joy that nWo feels, but do feel a sense of pride that we have at least moved forward enough to see this monumental achievement in our society. However, on the other side, I am a conservative, but don't see a candidate who truly speaks to me and that I believe in right now. Unless something drastic changes, I will be voting for McCain. However, it is simply because I believe he has more experience than Obama and actually has concrete ideas on what we need to do, especially on our foreign policies. I believe that McCain has the experience and a better understanding of what we are facing and not just some ideals that could bankrupt our nation. I remember hearing Nancy P standing up and telling us that with the democrats in control of congress, we would see gas prices stop going up and that they had solutions. Two years later, I am seeing gas prices at an all time high, I am seeing bills introduced to tax power companies into raising rates (which will be at least 50%-60% higher in the next 5 years), refusing to allow new more efficient coal fired plants to be built, but instead mandating taxes on the current less efficient ones, and our economy in a downturned state. Democrats blame Bush, Republicans blame congress, but really, ... they are both to blame. Democrats for refusing to really investigate and understand the options and Bush for not forcing the issues that need to be forced. I am disgusted by our politicians, and don't relish voting for any of them right now. However, I have seen the impact that Pelosi and her buddies have had on our country, and that scares me into voting for at least someone who has proven that he can work with both sides of the aisle and maybe, ... just maybe, ... get something positive done in Washington for a change. I really hate that I am voting for maybe instead of what I believe is a sure fire bet, but that, IMHO, is what we are left with.
June 5, 200818 yr Its great to be impressionable young sheep who fall for a candidate who is a master speaker but has 0 leadership experience................... Obama is for - Raising taxes Eroding your 2A rights For socialist health care. He is just like all Liberals, who are not TRUE democrats. Obama thinks he knows - How to spend your money better than you How to make your health decisions better than you How to make terrorist not terrorist This country will be worse, way more vulnerable, and maybe taken to a point of no return if Obama is elected...............and those who vote for him deserve everything that happens.
June 5, 200818 yr While I don't care for any of the candidates, I do recognize nWo's excitement as geniune and understandable. While not an Obama fan (to say the least), the fact that one of our 2 major parties has nominated an African American candidate speaks volumes as to how far we have come in the past 40+ years. We are far from over the mountain, but we can at least see the peak and that is an enormous achievement. There is no way I can truly feel the joy that nWo feels, but do feel a sense of pride that we have at least moved forward enough to see this monumental achievement in our society. However, on the other side, I am a conservative, but don't see a candidate who truly speaks to me and that I believe in right now. Unless something drastic changes, I will be voting for McCain. However, it is simply because I believe he has more experience than Obama and actually has concrete ideas on what we need to do, especially on our foreign policies. I believe that McCain has the experience and a better understanding of what we are facing and not just some ideals that could bankrupt our nation. I remember hearing Nancy P standing up and telling us that with the democrats in control of congress, we would see gas prices stop going up and that they had solutions. Two years later, I am seeing gas prices at an all time high, I am seeing bills introduced to tax power companies into raising rates (which will be at least 50%-60% higher in the next 5 years), refusing to allow new more efficient coal fired plants to be built, but instead mandating taxes on the current less efficient ones, and our economy in a downturned state. Democrats blame Bush, Republicans blame congress, but really, ... they are both to blame. Democrats for refusing to really investigate and understand the options and Bush for not forcing the issues that need to be forced. I am disgusted by our politicians, and don't relish voting for any of them right now. However, I have seen the impact that Pelosi and her buddies have had on our country, and that scares me into voting for at least someone who has proven that he can work with both sides of the aisle and maybe, ... just maybe, ... get something positive done in Washington for a change. I really hate that I am voting for maybe instead of what I believe is a sure fire bet, but that, IMHO, is what we are left with. Excellent post, MT....good to have you back! :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.