1. Hillary: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), First Lady, senator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Early_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#College
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Law_school
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#United_States_Senator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#First_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Second_term
2. Barack: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), state legislator, senator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Senate_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#109th_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#110th_Congress
3. Condoleeza: B.A., M.S., Ph.D., Stanford Professor, National Security Administration head, Secretary of State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Early_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Discrimination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Early_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#High_school_and_university_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Academic_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Provost_promotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Balancing_school_budgethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Special_interest_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Private_sector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Early_political_career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#National_Security_Advisor_.282001.E2.80.932005.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Secretary_of_State_.282005.E2.80.93present.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Major_initiatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Regional_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Gaza_withdrawal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Border_Crossings_Deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Egypt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Equatorial_Guinea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Kenya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Pakistan
Originally posted by zeeblebotNow why does my gut tell me that some people here won't be impressed .... I think she is a pretty impressive person and accomplished more in her lifetime than 99.5% of the people in the world today.
1. Hillary: B.A., J.D. (lawyer degree), First Lady, senator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Early_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#College
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Law_school
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#United_States_Senator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#First_te ...[text shortened]... pedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleeza_Rice#Pakistan
I don't know if she has the ambition for elected political office though and because I respect her, I don't think I'd want to see her go through the 'crap' the MSM and others would put her through. Whoever wins the Presidency would be wise to keep her around though, I think she'd be a terrific choice to represent te US at the UN
Originally posted by SMSBear716Whether or not the GOP and/or McCain chooses Condaleeza Rice as a VP candidate is something I can be genuinely non-partisan about. I really do not care and I have no ideological axe to grind in this matter. My question is an honest one: is it your partisanship (about which you are clearly proud and frequently eloquent) that makes you assert that she would make a good person for the job? Do you believe that she helped to guide U.S. foreign policy successfully as National Security Adviser? Do you think she held her own in the Washington D.C. infighting with Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld? Do you think she has been a successful Secretary Of State? If you do, you do. That's fine. But is it a cool calculated analysis or are you just inclined to root for her because she's on your side?
Now why does my gut tell me that some people here won't be impressed .... I think she is a pretty impressive person and accomplished more in her lifetime than 99.5% of the people in the world today.
I don't know if she has the ambition for elected political office though and because I respect her, I don't think I'd want to see her go through the 'crap ...[text shortened]... o keep her around though, I think she'd be a terrific choice to represent te US at the UN
Originally posted by FMFI'll go with option A.. a cool calculated analysis of her record
Whether or not the GOP and/or McCain chooses Condaleeza Rice as a VP candidate is something I can be genuinely non-partisan about. I really do not care and I have no ideological axe to grind in this matter. My question is an honest one: is it your partisanship (about which you are clearly proud and frequently eloquent) that makes you assert that she would make a ...[text shortened]... cool calculated analysis or are you just inclined to root for her because she's on your side?
That she pisses you off so bad is gravy ..as it were. Anybody who pisses off an America hater such as yourself, is alright in my book.
Glad to see your back... was worried the one of those earthquakes near Indonesia got you. Well, last time I remember you stated that you were a expatriated European hiding out there
Originally posted by SMSBear716It's a shame you feel the need to be such a twit about it. I actually think this is an interesting topic, worthy of intelligent discussion. She does not piss me off at all. I have found her to be an interesting political figure and one who - I think - has been rather trodden on by the rough and tumble of U.S. politics. Me having this opinion seems to make you think I am an America hater. This is very boring of you. And your fake-friendly words at the end of your post amount to nothing more than unwelcome two-faced drivel.
That she pisses you off so bad is gravy ..as it were. Anybody who pisses off an America hater such as yourself, is alright in my book.
Originally posted by FMFSMS avoids intelligent discussion at all costs. Once more than a superficial Limbaugh/Hannity bash is expected, he quickly retreats behind belligerent rhetoric.
It's a shame you feel the need to be such a twit about it. I actually think this is an interesting topic, worthy of intelligent discussion. She does not piss me off at all. I have found her to be an interesting political figure and one who - I think - has been rather trodden on by the rough and tumble of U.S. politics. Me having this opinion seems to make you th ...[text shortened]... -friendly words at the end of your post amount to nothing more than unwelcome two-faced drivel.
He's chosen his team, and he'll shout their praises no matter the score.
in Condi's own words:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
"Now, six years ago, al-Qaida was planning to attack the Twin Towers. It wasn't a very nice world. And I think that if you think about six years ago, al-Qaida was preparing to attack the Twin Towers, Pakistan was allied with the Taliban, Afghanistan was the base from which al-Qaida was going to operate; the Israelis and the Palestinians had given up on a chance for -- or let me put it, the Palestinians had walked away from a chance for a Palestinian state, launched the second intifada, elected Ariel Sharon who basically said there would never be a Palestinian state and there will be a greater Israel; the North Korean were cheating on a deal that they had just signed; China and others were indifferent to that because it was a U.S.-North Korea bilateral deal; Iran was cheating on the IAEA out of sight. I could go on and on and on. That was the world in 2000 and 2001. And there is no doubt that by confronting -- oh, by the way, and Saddam Hussein was shooting at our pilots regularly in the no-fly zone and making a mockery of the Oil-for-Peace -- Oil-for-Food program and corruption was running rampant in that program. So, a worse world? I think so.
Interview With the Associated Press Editorial Board, June 8, 2007
"
Originally posted by telerionAd hominem attacks show the weakness of your position.
SMS avoids intelligent discussion at all costs. Once more than a superficial Limbaugh/Hannity bash is expected, he quickly retreats behind belligerent rhetoric.
He's chosen his team, and he'll shout their praises no matter the score.
Originally posted by BogleThe things you say in your posts invariably show the weakness of your position, Bogle.
Ad hominem attacks show the weakness of your position.
Telerion made an American cultural reference which you may not have picked up on: he cited "Limbaugh/Hannity". This served to put SMSBear176's rather vacuous response to my post in context. It was therefore pertinent and contributed to the discussion. Which is more than can be said for your ad hominem attack on Telerion.
Originally posted by FMFZING!😵
The things you say in your posts invariably show the weakness of your position, Bogle.
Telerion made an American cultural reference which you may not have picked up on: he cited "Limbaugh/Hannity". This served to put SMSBear176's rather vacuous response to my post in context. It was therefore pertinent and contributed to the discussion. Which is more than can be said for your ad hominem attack on Telerion.
Originally posted by FMFIf I were to call you 'fez-man' that would of course be an argumentum ad hominem, albeit a pretty fair one, but I refrain from doing so.
The things you say in your posts invariably show the weakness of your position, Bogle.
Telerion made an American cultural reference which you may not have picked up on: he cited "Limbaugh/Hannity". This served to put SMSBear176's rather vacuous response to my post in context. It was therefore pertinent and contributed to the discussion. Which is more than can be said for your ad hominem attack on Telerion.