Boxer to Rice - beyond the pale....for mean

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, Jan 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I personally don't care for Condi Rice, but this is beyond the pale - can we imagine if a Republican or a Conservative would have stooped to this level of mean what would be all over the press and every single talk show and how bigoted we would be accused of being? Yet, this seems to have escaped the attention of most of the press.....

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0

    How cruel.

    PS, this thread is not about the Bush plan, but about Boxer's comments.
     
    #1 LadyEagle, Jan 12, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2007
  2. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The comment was certainly below the belt and offensive, but as I said in the politics forum, I believe she was attacking the war in Iraq more than she was attacking a woman's choice to have children.
     
  3. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    See, this is the problem I have with feminists like Barbara Boxer:

    So in effect, she's calling Condi Rice a dried-up old maid, therefore she has no perspective on the war. Only women that have borne a child are qualified to have an opinion, since they haven't "paid a price". Not even an abortion or two under Condi's belt, hmmmm.

    Personal attack. Offensive. Illogical. Barbara Boxer.
     
  4. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    It's not that she, (Condi), cannot have an opinion on the war, just that she can more easily support the war because she will not possiby lose a child. IMO, that is what Boxer was saying. FTR, I think it was a stupid and offensive comment, but I don't think she meant childless women cannot have an opinion on the war.
     
  5. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    She was implying that a woman that had had a child had a more valuable opinion on the war.....more to lose.

    She should apologize to all ASAP, her remarks to the Secretary of Defense could have not have been more offensive and anti-feminist.
     
  6. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,836
    Likes Received:
    115
    Well, speaking as someone in Ms. Rice's age category and also being a woman who has a thriving career and professional reputation, but no husband nor children, I thought the remark was stupid, critical, and without merit.

    But I do not believe that Boxer intended to be stupid and critical.

    She was just stating that she and Ms. Rice weren't going to have a child lost in the war.

    I thought that the author of the article was a little over-the-top as far as being too dramatic about the statement.

    The author said that Boxer claimed that "Rice wasn't good enough to serve her country because she was childless." I don't think that was the intent of the statement at all.

    And believe you me, that's not the first time someone with children has opened their mouth and inserted their foot in front of a childless woman.

    It has happened to me more times than you know. Some people don't mean anything by it and some do. And I'll guarantee you that Ms. Rice has been criticized for being childless both privately and publically.

    This wasn't her first time to hear smart remarks about her having no children. And it won't be the last.

    I'm sure that Ms. Rice moved on.....and so should we.
     
  7. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    :thumbsup: Excellent post and great advice. I am certainly not going to lose sleep over a politician's stupid remarks.
     
  8. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    "I'm sure that Ms. Rice moved on.....and so should we."

    Well, Ms. Rice had more to say to Fox News Channel about the incident.

    At any rate, I know I won't lose sleep over it, but it does go to show how vicious the left is and if anyone thinks some of these remarks aren't thought out or even rehearsed ahead of time in order to be mean, then they are naive.
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbara Boxer is a loudmouth in the U.S. Senate and doesn't have a good command of the facts.

    I watched part of a hearing on gasoline prices last year when she pulled the same stunt of going personal after a witness. Even after the hearing had ended she kept yakking and the chairman finally had to gavel her down. After which he said, "Sheesh!"
     
  10. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Of course they were. I just don't think she meant that women w/out a child should not have an opinion, nor was she attacking a women's choice whether to have children or not.
     
  11. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    61
    No, Boxer should apologize first before Condi Rice needs to "move on". I'm sure them libralls wouldn't be so dismissive if the situtation were reversed.

    She should clarify then apologize for the remarks and try to learn to think before she speaks. Tact really is hard to learn, but war and children are touchy subjects.
     
  12. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Scarlet, but Boxer did exactly what she wanted to do. She's done it before, attacking right to life folks, and anyone else that disagrees with her. She is a nasty, mean woman, that hates all men.
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Many Democrats in Congress seem to be unable to contain themselves in their childish, immature glee at being let loose in the nursery.

    Both sides of the aisle are capable of stupid, insensitive, foolish, and childish remarks. This is just evidence that the "compassionate liberals" are no better.
     
  14. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    She would fare very well in some third world congresses and senates where they throw food at each other, punch, kick, scratch, and pull hair in front of national and international television. They probably wouldn't even notice she's American.:smilewinkgrin:
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    LOL!!:laugh: :applause:
     
  16. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    She didn't say that in effect or out right - you did.

    The attack was yours. Boxer was correct in stating that Rice will not lose a child, having none to lose.

    Man, the right-wing has got to be really hard up to make this trivial point their attack of the day.

    Rice does not have a child or a grandchild - neither do I. Pointing that fact out - without 777's insulting, misogynist embellishments - is simply stating a fact. Now if it were know that Rice had desparately wanted a child and had had a series of miscarriages and stillbirths, then what Boxer pointed out would have been indelicate, but as far as I know, this is not the case. So, big deal.
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did anyone notice that Boxer also stated that she herself was unlikely to lose an immediate family member because of their ages? She put herself in the same category of not being in the position of being in danger of losing a child or grandchild.

    The writer of the post article was totally over the top with his insults and attacks on Boxer.
     
  18. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are vicious ones one both sides. The left has no monopoly. Take, for example, the vitriol of Ann Coulter.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daisy, this latest personal comment by Boxer may not have been all that bad but, unfortunately, she has had a bad habit of making debates personal. It's one thing to do so on the Baptist Board, another to do so in the U.S. Senate.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    296
    No rationalization will change the truth. You nailed it right iff the bat.:thumbs:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...