What do YOU think of Condoleezza Rice?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by italiansupernova, Feb 17, 2005.

Loading...
  1. italiansupernova

    italiansupernova New Member

    I'm curious to know what the rest of you think about Dr. Rice. All other things aside, here's my piece:

    She is our "National Security Advisor". The problem I have with that is the fact that she's never had any "security" experience. She was never in the military, she was never in law enforcement, or even a mall security guard. Obviously, the aforementioned are not prerequisites for her position, but I'd feel more comfortable if she'd had some real world experience. Granted, she has many people working under her, but nonetheless, I still don't feel AS comfortable as I wish I did.

    Inputs, shots, etc...
     
  2. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    According to Robert McNamara, he told JFK he wasn't qualified by background to be Defense Secretary and JFK replied that there is no OJT for President either.

    Not, mind you, that McNamara's tenure gives comfort.
     
  3. I think she is a typical careerist, unfeeling, professional woman who cares more about power and influence than she does about anything else, and that she would sell her very soul to the devil if that would get her another front-page cover on TIME or Newsweek.

    She's the type of "professional woman" who tries to be more "manly" than the men around her, who all women who work for her wind up hating, and many of the men besides.

    As for her skills as a National Security Advisor, I think when the chips are down she would bail out of her duty so fast it would make your head spin.

    This type exists in many powerful positions in academe - the man-hating uber-woman who tramples all in her path in her rise to power, who forgets what makes women so special (kindness, gentleness, sensuality), and who so quickly turn on their fellow professional women who are one or two notches below her in their own rise up the careerist ladder.

    In summary, NOT someone I would want to wake up next to in bed every morning..... and not for the obvious reasons, but because of the complete lack of humanity and soul that these sad types so often exhibit. Condi is the poster child for the powerful woman manager in a "man's world" run amok..... with a huge chip on her shoulder to boot.

    (By the way, and to give both sides their due, Hilary Clinton is also the same type of careerist woman, which goes a long way towards explaining why hubby Bill does the things he does to satisfy his natural needs for tender female companionship as opposed to what he gets from Hilary.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2005
  4. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Carl,

    Try substituting "black" for your female references and "white" for your male references and see how that reads.

    I'd rather rate her as an individual.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Secretary of State Rice is a brilliant woman who is being severely criticised by "benign racist" democrats.

    What's a "benign racist democrat"? A "benign racist democrat" is one who is not truly a racist in the normal sense, ala Wallace, Maddox, Fullbright, Russell, Duke, et.al.

    A "benign racist democrat" is one who is angry because a Republican is doing for the African-Americans what they have only played lip service to for many years. Consequently, they will vote against blacks Republicans put forth for confirmation.

    Condoleeza Rice is a "careerist" according to my friend, Carl. What's wrong with this? For decades the Democrats have proclaimed they were the champions of equal opportunity for minorities and wanted to help them succeed. Instead of succeeding they kept them enslaved in the welfare system. Now, we have an example of one minority person who has succeeded and she is condemned, by and large, by the party of equal opportunity.

    As Sinbad says, "Don't make no sense to me."

    Ms. Rice graduated from Denver University at age 19. She completed her Ph.D. in international relations and is an expert on the former Soviet Union. At age 36 Ms. Rice became the youngest provost of Standford University.

    She is resented because she seems to have adopted an individualist ethos, depending not on handouts but on drive and initiative. Her father, an ordained minister, told her to forgot color and cultivate her skills.

    Remember also that she grew up in the racist state of Alabama and had friends murdered at the hands of the KKK and their supporters. What a wonderful American success story!
     
  6. Craig Hargis

    Craig Hargis New Member

    Dr. Rice is, in my opinion, the most dangerous man in the world:D
     
  7. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    Personally I think Rice is on the same ethical level as Karl Rove (and pond scum). There are plenty of reasons for that opinion that have nothing to do with race or gender. But your specific argument against her sounds like pure chimpanzee chest-beating. Women in the workplace don't want to be thought of as primarily kind, gentle or sensual (SENSUAL??) Did we somehow timewarp back to some mythical view of the 50s where the ideal working woman is a sexy submissive secretary? As a woman and manager those 3 qualities are NOWHERE on my list. I sure as hell don't want to be kind and gentle to employees because I'm not their damn mother (or father). I want to be absolutely fair, honest and willing to work with them through any problems. I neither give nor expect special treatment. Why bother putting "man's world" in quotes when your whole post demands that women stay out of that world?
     
  8. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Democrats and Liberals can't stand Ms. Rice because she doesn't fit their mold for black women. They think that all black women are on welfare, have at least five children (all from different fathers), and cannot survive without the Dems handouts. To the liberal mind, a black woman rising to the top on her own is unthinkable. The truth is, they are racists at heart, as is becoming painfully obvious to all.

    BLD
     
  9. BLD, your statements are simply NOT true. Also some of this is directed to qvatlanta.....

    What I disdain about Condi Rice, and other "professional women" of her ilk, is their OVER use of their power, positions, and abusive attitudes towards all others below them in the power chain. This is particularly true of powerful women managers who actually become the worst enemy of all other women below them in the food chain. Almost as if "I made it, and now NO ONE else in my gender gets a chance". It is sick, it is pervasive, and every single guy on this board has seen it time and time and time again. Admit it.

    It isn't racist, it isn't sexist, it is just plain true.

    On the other hand, I've worked for many managers, men and women, black, white, and otherwise, who I hold in the highest regard. Those who have not forgotten their basic humanity in their duties as a manager and leader. Those who do not have such a huge inferiority complex that they must make all others look stupid in order to prop up their own ego. Those who are confident in who they are, and with their gender, and realize that there is indeed a wonderful difference between being male and female - that doesn't mean one is better than the other, but it does mean that to ignore this reality is to miss a huge part of the joy of life.

    Qvatlanta writes that she doesn't want to be someone's "mother" (or father for that matter) at work. Yes, I've heard that one before too. The attitude of "I come here to work, not to make friends". Well, keep on marching down your path of making America a much less friendly, much less kind, much less gentler nation (to paraphrase the words of one of the better Bush family members), and continue to ignore your duties as a human being while managing your employees to death and outsourcing their sorry butts to India, Mexico, and any place else where you can reduce the value of the human being to a mere cipher on a ledger sheet.

    Good luck! And best wishes to those of you who just don't get it.....
     
  10. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Documentation of Condi Rice exhibiting this kind of behavior? Please?

    BLD
     
  11. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Why does Jimmy always say that if you are against a Republican leader who happens to be black (or Asian, or Hispanic) that they are a racist?

    Jimmy - let me guess - you grew up in an all white area. Perhaps your forefathers owned slaves and you feel guilty. I have found that people who label others at a whim are usually themselves racists.

    I am about 1/2 Hispanic, although I do not look it. I grew up an a predominately black neighborhood in Oakland and my ex wife is black and hispanic. I don't see Condi as black, or a woman. As Sec of State, you shouldn't look at her as anything but a person in the job. To do otherwise is racist/sexist in itself.

    Although I think it is admirable for the President to appoint minorities to key positions, to do so just because they are minorities is racist.

    With that said, my admiration for Condi has grown thin. She was an admirable person with a lot to offer any administration. Now she has proven to be merely the mouthpiece for an administration that spread lies and deceit and then clokes themselves in the Patriot Act (which is probably the worst piece of legislation that ever passed Congress).

    Bottom line: Scumbags see no color, they see no relgion. They are merely scumbags and cannot and will not be any different.

    Just my two.


    Love the comments about Karl Rove. I was hoping some smart reporter would prove that he leaked the name of the CIA to the press. When that happens, Karl will be bubba's friend in jail and the President will be named mud. (not that he already is pretty much a dirtbag)
     
  12. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    Your response is incredibly naive. You seem to believe that anyone who works for a private company is automatically a Republican and anti-labor rights. Let me try to phrase this in an academic setting then. If as a student you run into problems, what kind of teacher do you prefer? The one that looks at you sympathetically, agrees with everything you say, pats you on the shoulder and does absolutely nothing? Or the one that says, "look, you're screwed. But you've got a chance to fix this mess. Here's exactly what it is." I know which one I prefer. I assume you would like to be the big daddy to all your students/workers, which I regard as psychologically, culturally and politically just sick and wrong.

    First of all you demand that women be kind, gentle and sensual, and now you're backtracking and saying that they have to have "humanity", which appears to be defined by being sensual and maybe having breasts and ovaries (I guess women with mastectomies are out of luck). According to your position women are held to ridiculous standards that men are not -- I guess men have more license to be back-stabbing bastards.
     
  13. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    She's scary. She's also largely irrelevant. I doubt that she say "Good morning" without the President's prior approval.

    The thing that I really notice is that Dr. Rice, along with most high level Administration officials, is neither an historian nor a lawyer. I really think that this shows in the tendency to forget that words have meaning and statements have consequences.

    Witness the international gasp following the second inaugural speech...it really sounded to ME and apparently to a good many foreign governments that the President was considering another invasion or two.

    Dr. Rice is, I believe, a political scientist. Dr. Kissinger, another blood stained master of intrigue, also had a Ph.D. in that subject. Robert McNamara, a man whose very existence demonstrates the cosmic need for a hell, was an business and management expert.

    Well, if I were a Senator, I would have voted to confirm Dr. Rice; the President is entitled to the Cabinet he feels he needs, but I really find it hard to trust a word she says.

    President Truman had a solid background in law, though he never finished law school, and made a lifetime study of history. He understood very well that Presidential words matter. He was also, I think, probably the best President of the twentieth century.
     
  14. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Sorry. I implied that Dr. Rice is a bloodstained master of intrigue. I had intended to compare Dr. Kissinger with Mr. McNamara.

    Dr. Rice isn't a master of anything, bloodstained or otherwise.
     
  15. BinkWile

    BinkWile New Member

    Jimmy? Accusing those with opposing viewpoints of Republicans racist? Say it isn't so!

    I have to weigh in here and agree that it is impossible to debate Jimmy without him always resorting to the race card. I wish he'd lay off using labels.
     
  16. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    He was primarily, like Woodrow Dixiecrat Wilson, an academic. He is the very picture of a Wilsonian-New Deal Democrat.

    Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the CIA, the Korean War. What was that about a "blood stained master of intrigue?"
     
  17. You are misinterpreting everything I am saying, and believe it or not I agree with your outlook on the workplace and making people take responsibility for the messes they create.

    What I AM saying is that Condi Rice is the epitome of the heartless, unfeeling, professional woman who walks over the bodies of men and women alike in her ruthless rise to power, who has no time for a relationship, who has no apparent need for one, and who looks down her nose at all those below her.

    Whether someone has ovaries or breasts or a horned beak has little or no relevance to my analysis. And, yes, many people I work with who come from corporate backgrounds to higher education do indeed have an anti-labor attitude, and are more than happy to suggest outsourcing whole portions of the public trust, caring as much for their long-term employees as I do for a speck of dirt in my path that I casually kick aside so as not to sully my finely polished shoes....
     
  18. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Believe me, I also am not happy with the creation of the CIA. Remember, though, that the CIA replaced the OSS. Truman's act was more one of reorganization than anything else.

    Korea was a response to a genuine act of communist aggression. Truman need not apologize for that. He had not just U.N. backing, but extensive U.N. involvement.

    As for using the atomic bombs...well, how DO you judge that act? Truman essentially had a choice between ending the war (which started with an unprovoked attack, remember) by using these horrible weapons or commencing an invasion of the Home Islands with an anticipated loss of millions of American (and Japanese) soldiers aand civilians.

    No one has ever been faced with this decision before or since.

    I think that he realized that he could not place American troops in so deadly a position if it could be avoided. There is an old adage, "Make the enemy bear the cost of the war."

    That's exactly what he did. I think he was right. It's unquestionably what I would have done.

    I agree with the Woodrow Wilson comparason. Wilson got us involved in a war that was absolutely NONE of our business. He was a racist as well as being a bloodless academic.

    I don't know if McNamara was a racist. No reason to think so.
     
  19. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    The OSS was operational and the CIA was supposed to centralize intelligence gathering to give direction to the Executive.

    True, but blood is blood.

    BTW - Just saw an interesting Korean DVD on the Korean War - Tae Guk GI which apparently means something like Brotherhood of War which is apparently a controversial title in Korea. Whatever that means, the story is a bit schmaltzy but the fight scenes are terrific.

    I wish the genie hadn't popped the cork on that bottle but pictures of Tokyo should affirm that we'd have done the same with firebombing and no less kindly. If they'd have fought to the last man then we'd have killed the last man and that's just how it was.

    McNamara didn't duck what he's done in Fog of War but he didn't start WWII or Vietnam. He served FDR, Truman, JFK and Johnson. Kissinger likewise served Nixon. The real responsibility for the blood belongs with the Presidents.
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    You couldn't be more wrong! I grew up in New Orleans and Mississippi, both with populations of at least 50% black. When I was in the first and second grades I lived on Bayou Road between two black familes!

    When I was in the sixth grade I lived on Kerlerec St, an integrated neighborhood and my best friend was Gilbert, a black!

    When I was in jr. high at Charles J. Colton integration came. I was called "nigger lover"and punched on numberous ocassions for supporting integration!

    I grew up in the racisit South and I can spot a racist a mile away. I know all the code words and phrases and trust me, many Democrats who oppose Rice are racists!

    First of all, I don't know whether or not my ancestors owned slaves. Even if they did, why should I feel guilty? I am not responsbile for what anyone does in my family, past or present, except for me! Second, I doubt they did due to the attitudes about race that I grew up with from all living relatives on my father's side! We were racial moderates in a racist conservative South and always supported and voted for the moderates in elections.

    Second of all, there is no sociological evidence supporting your statement "...people who label others at a whim are usually themselves racists."
     

Share This Page