It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Condi stands up in hearing and lets a senator have it

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Do I need to remove that "Kill'em all let God sort them out" tattoo off my arm? Oh the pain of it all. I am so ashamed..............

We need very Hardliners now. Look what "diplomacy" got us in the last 40 years. Teddy R had the right idea. GW may be such a guy........Ms. Rice should carry a sidearm where ever she goes.





Doc you always are good for a chuckle remove the tatoo I like that, but seriously yes we need to be firm in this day and age to show our resolve to not be intimidated by mindless violence for political and further more we need to not use that as our policy , there are always going to be wars till God says enough but , genocide and murder and judgement are not policies I believe we have the right to execute as policy to deal with our enemies. Further more Condi and others at that level should not through flaw be the instigator of disrespect and rule of order, I that lady was negotiating with my and I was king of some middle east country and she didnt show the restraint to let me say my peace and then spoke to me in harsh tones not matter what reason she thought she was justified in, I would have rolled up the peace treaty coated it with vasaline and told her to stick it up her butt cause I would be insulted with the lack of respect and tact.




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Look the mere fact that she is a woman, the Islamo world will already hate her. She will need to be very strong and aggressive just to be heard. She has the intellect and how she handled "Box cutter" was a good example. This isn't a debate, it's survival of Christianity........

PS. so many libs take me too seriously when I rant.

"Truth does no equal HATE"



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
drbryankkruta - I was referring to university professors, not, university students.
Most university students leave university, whereas most professors live in an ivory tower and have no conception of the real world.
In reference to Dr Rice, at no point during the interview did she ever lost her cool, nor should we interpert her interacton with a hostile member of her own government to be in anyway indicative of how she would interact with the leader of a foreign government. As I said earlier she was merley using the opportunity given to her by a hostile interviewer to establish her postion as higher in the pecking order than senator Boxer.
edited for spelling because the vowels on my keyboard stick

[edit on 19-1-2005 by mwm1331]




although I dont totally agree with you on all this I do have to admit I cant say with impunity that she will fail in tact or respectful for rule of order during negotiations or even all herself to be lead into the loss of her tact and respect do to hostile statements or people , or attacks of characture, but I have a big concearn that she was lead down that path because she failed to show self control and lowered herself to boxer's level of petty uncontrolled performance of the simple task of question and answers like both of them have done.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Look the mere fact that she is a woman, the Islamo world will already hate her. She will need to be very strong and aggressive just to be heard. She has the intellect and how she handled "Box cutter" was a good example. This isn't a debate, it's survival of Christianity........

PS. so many libs take me too seriously when I rant.

"Truth does no equal HATE"





No strong and respectful and tactful that's what she needs to be to win out in those countries. They will respect a person woman or not if they are always treated with more respect than they dish out.

[edit on 19/1/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Although I don’t dislike Condi, she has an amazing background and is exceptionally intelligent, but is she really right for this job? She doesn’t seem to have a lot of tact. I see her as more of a behind the scenes person. Anybody else feel this way?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Bout time,
off topic remark comming
In reference to your new sig line -
While I have not heard of or verified the study mentioned one reason it may be seen as a vndicaton of the gop s that university professors are notorious for having great amounts of theoretical knowledge and less than a thimble full of practical knowledge. Think back to your college professors and ask yourself this.
How many of them have ever been anything more than professional students prior to becomming professors? How many have or could make it in the real world?

I appreciate your point - I was that guy who was always challenging their points from the front row, that you just wanted to shut the hell up!

Why I feel it makes sense is this: it's twofold - the Republicans spouting rugged individualism as the cornerstone of their success are the very same who define the cronyism asscention within the old boy network ( GW Bush being a stellar example ). Second, those professors ( I'm focused on Economics & Poli/Sci disciplines ) are masters of minutiae - they've studied every cycle, every contingency and have graphed it to the current context in order to postulate their opinions - and while politics rewards talking out ones azz, academia gleefully hoists perps on their own petards for it.
Kind of like when the kids on the board here made noise about me being "Leftist or Socialist" - huh!?! Seeing bad economic policy and pointing it out as very bad for the mid & long terms is not Socialist; it's intrinsically Capitalistic!!



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Although I don’t dislike Condi, she has an amazing background and is exceptionally intelligent, but is she really right for this job? She doesn’t seem to have a lot of tact. I see her as more of a behind the scenes person. Anybody else feel this way?






I just hope your right direct contact can be detramentle to the process , however I know some of her educational background and views and admire them so if she is allowed to do her job in the back ground that would be the most effective use of her talents but realistically that wont and cant happen in respect to a person in the position she is being given her position has and will continue to be an intrical part of any negotiations she cant hide or be hidden or her offices purpose has been compromised.
That is far worse in the long run,.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I wonder if Dr. Rice will stand up give the British Foreign Secretary a "quiet word", for want of a better term?

"The crucial thing is to develop a voting system and constitution that is inclusive of the minority.... They have to be brought in in any event," Mr Straw said.

The British Foreign Minister has also defended European negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, and dismissed reports that the United States is considering military action against the Islamic republic.

"You will always find somebody in Washington thinking about something. That's how things are there," he said.

Link



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
People get it, she will be appointed liar or not liar, poor public and international manners or not, she cares not, she has done well for the Bush Klan and she is for the pay off of the position.

She was appointed to her new position so she can do what the administration wants, and will not criticized like Mr. Power dared to do, and I do respect Mr. Power for that.

Miss Rice will be the "all" Mr. Bush may wish for.


I think you mean Colin Powell.....Power?
the one guy you say you respect and you did not even get his name right



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Heres the problem though bout,
They know the theory inside and out, they know every tiny detail of the theory and have, as you have said, graphed it out, they can even "prove" thier theory through application of theory in the mathematical sense. But how many of them could actually run a small business or franchise, much less a major corporation.
The problem I have with economists in general is that unlike the rest of the scientific community they tend to forget that thier theores are nothing more than approximations of the real world. Unlike say a theoretical physicist who wll readily admit that the model of the atom they use is no more than an image that helps them keep all the relationships clear in thier minds, economists will swear till ther dying breath that thier theory of economics is the real world.

As you may have noticed by now I have a very dim view of pure academics, probably because in my experience no economic model can or ever will be able to accurately describe real world economics except in the most basic sense. Furthermore the more you try to use a given economic theory to extrapolate details the farther from reality that theory gets.

In addition once you get away from course studies with practical applications and begin speaking with professors of liberal arts ie art, literature, philosophy etc. The less contact with or understanding of the real world these people have.

I mean lets face it there is no way in hell an art history, lterature, or philosophy professor is going to agree with republican ideas for the simple fact that thier entire area of study has no objective value.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Hey, "I love you man"......no longer works. Ms Rice should be rude and defiant.

As far as bout time's sig. Hey I teach, be afraid libs be very afraid.


Auto mechanics? Massage therapy? I can't fathom anything requiring above a 4th grade syllabus! Even the most ardent adult conservatives on this site don't come close to the phrasing and intepretations you proffer. Take a Zed or Seekerof class, K?

I'm breaking you huevos, BTW, before you ignite the lighter!



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
I mean lets face it there is no way in hell an art history, lterature, or philosophy professor is going to agree with republican ideas for the simple fact that thier entire area of study has no objective value.


I share your disdain for therorist; I confront them daily. Where it's adrift in our conversation is this: we're governed by investment data in portfolio management - this is the equivalent role academics play in policy. Meaning, the buy or sell decision rest with you or the president/executive staff, but they'll help in mapping possibilities.
The quote speaks to the context that ideology is the governing decision criteria, even in the face of historic data AND the facts on the ground ( i.e. tax cuts as a 'stimulus' initiative during a time of war & massive expenditures and massive deficit )



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Heres the problem though bout,
They know the theory inside and out, they know every tiny detail of the theory and have, as you have said, graphed it out, they can even "prove" thier theory through application of theory in the mathematical sense. But how many of them could actually run a small business or franchise, much less a major corporation.



I worked in a major business and our entire group from top to bottom was from academia, including yours truly. My bosses two levels up were PhDs in natural sciences and they were a couple of most capable individuals you are likely to meet in person in your lifetime.

Professors kick @ss.

Ignorami, shut up and listen. Especially when they talk about Iraq.
Check www.juancole.com.




The problem I have with economists in general is that unlike the rest of the scientific community they tend to forget that thier theores are nothing more than approximations of the real world.


And some of them are known to work exceedingly well in describing it.



Unlike say a theoretical physicist who wll readily admit that the model of the atom they use is no more than an image that helps them keep all the relationships clear in thier minds, economists will swear till ther dying breath that thier theory of economics is the real world.


I met a few economists and they are nothing like that.


[edit on 19-1-2005 by Aelita]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Just one example;

Rice said that "they" had no idea that hijacked airplanes would be used as terrorist attack weapons.

However, on 9/11, NORAD was holding drills to deal with just such a contingency. This does not mention the documented trail of how such an attack method was being considered for years.

Either she is a callous liar or incredibly stupid. Since she made her way to a position in the hierarchy without coming from a plutocratic family and without having some outstanding visible qualities or talents, we can safely assume that she is not incredibly stupid.
The answer is callous liar.

case closed

over and out...



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Hey, "I love you man"......no longer works. Ms Rice should be rude and defiant.

As far as bout time's sig. Hey I teach, be afraid libs be very afraid.


Auto mechanics? Massage therapy? I can't fathom anything requiring above a 4th grade syllabus! Even the most ardent adult conservatives on this site don't come close to the phrasing and intepretations you proffer. Take a Zed or Seekerof class, K?

I'm breaking you huevos, BTW, before you ignite the lighter!


I teach Psyc..............If I wrote here as I teach, no one could stay awake. But then neither do my students......


[edit on 19-1-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Heres the problem though bout,
They know the theory inside and out, they know every tiny detail of the theory and have, as you have said, graphed it out, they can even "prove" thier theory through application of theory in the mathematical sense. But how many of them could actually run a small business or franchise, much less a major corporation.
The problem I have with economists in general is that unlike the rest of the scientific community they tend to forget that thier theores are nothing more than approximations of the real world. Unlike say a theoretical physicist who wll readily admit that the model of the atom they use is no more than an image that helps them keep all the relationships clear in thier minds, economists will swear till ther dying breath that thier theory of economics is the real world.

As you may have noticed by now I have a very dim view of pure academics, probably because in my experience no economic model can or ever will be able to accurately describe real world economics except in the most basic sense. Furthermore the more you try to use a given economic theory to extrapolate details the farther from reality that theory gets.

In addition once you get away from course studies with practical applications and begin speaking with professors of liberal arts ie art, literature, philosophy etc. The less contact with or understanding of the real world these people have.

I mean lets face it there is no way in hell an art history, lterature, or philosophy professor is going to agree with republican ideas for the simple fact that thier entire area of study has no objective value.




I myself am a student of philosophy and theology and while most of it is history or idealistic in nature I dont feel absent of world view I have hopes of teaching in a private school next year and I hope I dont live up to your estimation of scholars who teach and if I do you hit me on the head with a 2 by 4 board to remind me how real and painful the real world is okay.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by revengeogmakhno
Either she is a callous liar or incredibly stupid. Since she made her way to a position in the hierarchy without coming from a plutocratic family and without having some outstanding visible qualities or talents, we can safely assume that she is not incredibly stupid.
The answer is callous liar.


Nicely written.
From listeining to Dr. Rice, I come to mostly same conclusions. And where is the accountability? Huh?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by revengeogmakhno
Either she is a callous liar or incredibly stupid. Since she made her way to a position in the hierarchy without coming from a plutocratic family and without having some outstanding visible qualities or talents, we can safely assume that she is not incredibly stupid.
The answer is callous liar.


Nicely written.
From listeining to Dr. Rice, I come to mostly same conclusions. And where is the accountability? Huh?




I even hav to agree to this as well she has no acountability from what I saw 10 mins ago she is double talking and side steping her responsibility in the area as well.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
revengeogmakhno...
As to your callous liar bit and the example you gave....
Interesting that throughout history, such like examples can be given. Are Rommel, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Clinton, and a host of other world military and political figures "lying"?

How about virtually every senator in the Senate claiming and asserting that Saddam had WMD....are they "liars"?
How about Clinton and his goons amassing and documenting that Saddam had WMD...was he and they "lying"?
How about virtually all the world intelligence services (Germany, france, UK, Spain, etc) stating and asserting that Saddam had WMD....were they "liars and lying," as well?

Your selective example is enlightening and well spun. Simply put, it does not, in NO uncertain terms, convict Ms. Rice of being a "liar" or "lying".

Try a new one, k?
Cause till you and Kidfinger and some others produce, as factual fact, that Ms. Rice was "lying," you, as with those others, are the "Buffoon" Boxer's mouth-pieces, and as such, are your selves as incorrect as Senator Boxer was found to be!






seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time


I share your disdain for therorist; I confront them daily. Where it's adrift in our conversation is this: we're governed by investment data in portfolio management - this is the equivalent role academics play in policy. Meaning, the buy or sell decision rest with you or the president/executive staff, but they'll help in mapping possibilities.
The quote speaks to the context that ideology is the governing decision criteria, even in the face of historic data AND the facts on the ground ( i.e. tax cuts as a 'stimulus' initiative during a time of war & massive expenditures and massive deficit )


Thats one of the major reasons I work in VC. Unlike most portfolio managers, anaylysts etc. I get to work, for the most part, with concrete objective data. Ie actual revenue, profits etc. While I do have to do a fair bit of projection all of my projectons are based on my own practical experience. Also I tend to work from a different viewpoint than most. I guess you could call me a risk-centric analyst.
Allthough I started out working NYSE and NASDAQ issues I very quickly grew tired of the hugh gap between a companies percieved worth and actual worth. Anybody remember amazon at 300 pr/shr? Thats what I'm talking about.

My point is that with economic data and theory the same applies, its really more interpertaton than anything else.
For example bout you and I have disagreed many times on whether or not Bush's tax cuts have stimulated economic growth, and judging by your last satement I see we still do. The truth is because of the lag between policy and effect we probably won't know which of us is correct for a few more years if ever. The fact that the US economy is influenced by so many diverse and in many cases opposing and/or balancing factors clouds the issue even further.
Now from a simply anecdotal point of view I do believe his tax cuts are stimulating the economy for the simple reason that the level of investment in the start up companies I work with has increased substansially since the tax cuts went into effect (keep in mind than under US law all of my clients have to have a minimum income of 200k) Now 90% of this money has been funneled into the companies which we are working with, (the other 10% of course beng expenses and the not so small matter of my fees and salary) which has allowed them to hire better than 500 emplyoees in the last 6 months alone. However anecedotal evidence is no more an accurate indicator of reality than theory.

My point being the only thing in economics that IMHO you can reasonably forecast with any degree of certainty is that if your economy is in the expansion phase it will peak and then recede, and if your economy is in recession it will bottom out and then expand.



[edit on 19-1-2005 by mwm1331]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join