Political Crossfire Forums

[Graph]

After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

[Silkheat]

Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

Show me a good women candidate and I would vote for them. If you say Condi or Hillary I think your labotomy went well.

[Graph]

Silkheat wrote: Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

Show me a good women candidate and I would vote for them. If you say Condi or Hillary I think your labotomy went well.

To say either one of them would be totally predictable and boring. This was just a thought I had.

[Silkheat]

Graph wrote: Silkheat wrote: Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

Show me a good women candidate and I would vote for them. If you say Condi or Hillary I think your labotomy went well.

To say either one of them would be totally predictable and boring. This was just a thought I had.


It would be nice to see some change, but their really aren't any good women candidates right now.

[Graph]

Would you care to answer any of the other questions I asked in my opening?

[Silkheat]

Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

Great social reformer, perhaps a little on the radical feminist side. I think Operah could make a legitimate run at presidency. I think the issue would be to be anti-war as this country has gone through way to many.

[BassistVIV]

Silkheat wrote: Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

Show me a good women candidate and I would vote for them. If you say Condi or Hillary I think your labotomy went well.

I agree with Silkheat.

I won't vote for someone just because she's a woman. If a woman runs for president, and I happen to like her views more than the other candidates, then I'll vote for her. If I think that a male candidate would do a better job, I'll vote for him. This isn't a question about gender, it's a question of how good of a job they'll do of running the country.

[Graph]

But where are the women and why aren't they running for the office in the first place. I haven't seen one on a ballot.

[Silkheat]

Graph wrote: But where are the women and why aren't they running for the office in the first place. I haven't seen one on a ballot.

I don't know? Maybe it is because women haven't quite built that social circle yet, but it is coming?

[name]

There have already been women going for the presidency. I believe the first was in 1964. It's just that none of them have made it to the ballots yet. Eventually a strong female candidate with the right connections and charisma and other president-type stuff is bound to emerge. Whether or not she gets elected, it'll be good to see that women have broken into that level of politics. However, I would hope that no one would vote for or against her based solely on her gender.

[levin893]

I don't think America is ready for a female president. With abortion being a major issue, the public would question a female candidate regardless whether she's a Democrat or a Republican.

[David]

Silkheat wrote: Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

Show me a good women candidate and I would vote for them. If you say Condi or Hillary I think your labotomy went well.


:shock: Something we agree on.

[Aqualung]

Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?
Women aren't running. If women aren't running, women aren't going to win. The question, I suppose, is Why? I happen to think it's because women don't have the desire.

[Enoch]

While I may be outside the pail, and berated as providing a "predictable" response, I think Conaleeza Rice could make a legitamate run for the Oval Office. She is intelligent, and despite the current sentiments against the Bush administration, has shown herself to be a woman worthy of political respect. Now, Hillary Clinton on the other hand would likely only get the Democratic nod because she has the party in her back pocket.

But, as for what type of woman it would be to get the presidency, it would have to be a woman (just as a man) who understands the nature of politics, has strong views that she is not willing to back down on, and puts the good of the country ahead of political agenda. Sadly, this is where I feel that President Bush has gone awry.

[perdidochas]

Graph wrote: After over 200 and some years of preaching equality, why has America not yet had a woman president? Women's lib was almost a half century ago. Women have taken jobs thats are traditionally a man's job. They have taken an official office in every state. Yet when it gets to a national election women suddenly not around. Is this because of society not willing to accept a woman president or because women just don't have that kind of desire because of social conditioning? If we did have a woman president, what kind of woman would she have to be? Aggressive G.I. Jane kind of spirit, or great social reformer?

Women have only had the right to vote and run for political office in all states since 1920. When the right woman comes along we will have a woman president. There have been no serious, legitimate women presidential candidates that I know of. The closest to that was Geraldine Ferraro as democratic nominee for Vice president.

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote: While I may be outside the pail, and berated as providing a "predictable" response, I think Conaleeza Rice could make a legitamate run for the Oval Office. She is intelligent, and despite the current sentiments against the Bush administration, has shown herself to be a woman worthy of political respect. Now, Hillary Clinton on the other hand would likely only get the Democratic nod because she has the party in her back pocket.

What makes you think she is intellegent? She can't speak russian, only has published one book that was berated by peers, and truely is nothing more than a BLACK WOMEN POLITCAL OBJECT.

Quote:
But, as for what type of woman it would be to get the presidency, it would have to be a woman (just as a man) who understands the nature of politics, has strong views that she is not willing to back down on, and puts the good of the country ahead of political agenda. Sadly, this is where I feel that President Bush has gone awry.

I would prefer a real candidate that would run for the right reasons. Unfortunately we will probably see an opportunist women, much like Bush.

[Enoch]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: While I may be outside the pail, and berated as providing a "predictable" response, I think Conaleeza Rice could make a legitamate run for the Oval Office. She is intelligent, and despite the current sentiments against the Bush administration, has shown herself to be a woman worthy of political respect. Now, Hillary Clinton on the other hand would likely only get the Democratic nod because she has the party in her back pocket.

What makes you think she is intellegent? She can't speak russian, only has published one book that was berated by peers, and truely is nothing more than a BLACK WOMEN POLITCAL OBJECT.

Education:
BA - University of Denver, 1974
MA - University of Notre Dame, 1975
PhD - University of Denver, 1981
Honorary PhD - Moorehouse College, 1991
Honorary PhD - University of Alabama, 1994
Honorary PhD - University of Notre Dame, 1995
Honorary PhD - National Defense University, 2002
Honorary PhD - Mississippi College School of Law, 2003
Honorary PhD - University of Louisville, 2004
Honorary PhD - Michigan State, 2004

Publications:
Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995)
The Gorbachev Era (1986)
The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984)
Plus numerous academic articles on Eastern European and Soviet political affairs

Career:
Stanford University Assistant Professor in Political Science (1981–1987)
Associate Professor (1987-1993)
Provost (1993-200) {Taking the school from a $20 million deficit to a $14.5 million surplus in 2 years.}
Full Professor (1993 - Present)
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University
Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies
Fellow (by courtesy) at the Hoover Institution


Yea....she is a just a "black woman political object." :roll:

Apparently her earned BA, MA, and PhD (not too mention her 7 honorary doctorates), and her long running academic career haven't shown that she is an intelligent woman in your book. So, what would?

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote:
Education:
BA - University of Denver, 1974
MA - University of Notre Dame, 1975
PhD - University of Denver, 1981
Honorary PhD - Moorehouse College, 1991
Honorary PhD - University of Alabama, 1994
Honorary PhD - University of Notre Dame, 1995
Honorary PhD - National Defense University, 2002
Honorary PhD - Mississippi College School of Law, 2003
Honorary PhD - University of Louisville, 2004
Honorary PhD - Michigan State, 2004

Honorary PHD's mean absolutely nothing. Furthermore her PHD is in Political science. WTF how easy is that? Very easy. Why not take underwater basket weaving?

Quote:
Publications:
Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995)
The Gorbachev Era (1986)
The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984)
Plus numerous academic articles on Eastern European and Soviet political affairs

This is where the politics start coming in.

Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) was written by Philip Zelikow.

The Gorbachev Era was written by by Alexander Dallin .

The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army was the only book written by Condeleeza and it received scathing reviews from her peers as a book that was written by someone that truly only understood propaganda. Here is a quote on the book

Quote: Joseph Kalvoda of American Historical Review had the following to say about her dissertation which happens to be the original copy of this book:
"Rice's selection of sources raises questions, since she frequently does not sift facts from propaganda and valid information from disinformation or misinformation. She passes judgments and expresses opinions without adequate knowledge of facts. It does not add to [her] credibility when she uses a source written by Josef Hodic; Rice fails to notice that this "former military scientist" (p. 99) was a communist agent who returned to Czechoslovakia several years ago.
....Rice's generalizations reflect his lack of knowledge about history and the nationality problem in Czechoslovakia. For example....Rice's discussion of the "Czechoslovak Legion" that was "born during the chaotic period preceding the fall of the Russian empire" (pp. 44-46) is ridiculous. (It was "born" on September 28, 1914.) She is clearly ignorant of the history of the military unit as well as of the geography of the area on which it fought. "
Further one should note that her predictions for the future of the USSR turned out to be quite wrong. And that was her area of specialization. Additionally one should recall her comments on Iran-Taliban links to grasp her true understanding of International Politics.

What she has as an advantage is that she is a black women with some intellegence; that is what has propelled her. PC is great isn't it?


Quote: Plus numerous academic articles on Eastern European and Soviet political affairs

Really? Show me some? I have seen articles from professors saying they have never seen her articles, so let us see if you can display some. Surely if she is so academic you can produce a long list.....

Quote:

Career:
Stanford University Assistant Professor in Political Science (1981–1987)
Associate Professor (1987-1993)
Provost (1993-200) {Taking the school from a $20 million deficit to a $14.5 million surplus in 2 years.}
Full Professor (1993 - Present)
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University
Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies
Fellow (by courtesy) at the Hoover Institution


Yea....she is a just a "black woman political object." :roll:

Apparently her earned BA, MA, and PhD (not too mention her 7 honorary doctorates), and her long running academic career haven't shown that she is an intelligent woman in your book. So, what would?

The only thing I will credit her for is the reversal of debt to black. However, I would need to read into the situation to make sure it is her. Furthermore, as you can see a lot of the hype surrounding her is misinformation and politics. She is nothing more than a glorified "Black Women".


Last but not least is the HUGE integrity problem as she is a member of the Bush administration. It just doesn't get more corrupt than that. She is a liar, and riding a wave of politcal PC.

[Enoch]

Silkheat wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
Education:
BA - University of Denver, 1974
MA - University of Notre Dame, 1975
PhD - University of Denver, 1981
Honorary PhD - Moorehouse College, 1991
Honorary PhD - University of Alabama, 1994
Honorary PhD - University of Notre Dame, 1995
Honorary PhD - National Defense University, 2002
Honorary PhD - Mississippi College School of Law, 2003
Honorary PhD - University of Louisville, 2004
Honorary PhD - Michigan State, 2004

Honorary PHD's mean absolutely nothing. Furthermore her PHD is in Political science. WTF how easy is that? Very easy. Why not take underwater basket weaving?
Really, and your PhD would be in what field? Have you ever done graduate study, let alone doctoral work? If not, then what is your basis for making a claim as to how "easy" a PhD in Political Science would be?


Whether or not you like Dr. Rice or not, you have to be an intelligent person to complete a doctoral program, be a full professor at a major university like Stanford, be promoted to University Provost, and have a $34.5 million dollar turn around in budget in two years.

[Silkheat]

UrielsFyre wrote:
Really, and your PhD would be in what field? Have you ever done graduate study, let alone doctoral work? If not, then what is your basis for making a claim as to how "easy" a PhD in Political Science would be?


Whether or not you like Dr. Rice or not, you have to be an intelligent person to complete a doctoral program, be a full professor at a major university like Stanford, be promoted to University Provost, and have a $34.5 million dollar turn around in budget in two years.

Masters in Finance....... I do consider many programs easy, as certainly you wouldn't compare engineering to education now would you?

I will never to PHD work as a PHD is overkill in the real world. PHD is for teaching, nothing more. I do respect the work it takes to get a PHD, but only in hard fields. Political Science is a joke.

The turn around in the budget is the only thing that her name is attached to that I credit her for. I would be interested to know if it was for her abilities, or more than likely she was given good help.