Sen. Boxer :nonono: :nonono: :nonono:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers\_low\_blow\_editorials\_.htm

I'm wondering if there was the slightest rumble at NOW or Emily's List after Sen. Boxer went phsycho on SecState Rice?

What a sad day. Is this what we'll come to expect from democrat leadeship: discounting one's perspective based on the fact that you may be unmarried or childless?

I'm wondering how big and how long lasting the firestorm would be if it were a Republican (or *GASP*, a Republican male) who had berated a democrat, black female SecState in such a way. The cries for resignation would be deafening......

Beckham has even got his mush on the front cover I see.New York Post.The Marketing machine is in motion.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

yeah that's a horrible characterless jab? Or a statement of fact? She didn't say "as a childless money grabbing feminist lesbian shrew... you'll have no price to pay"

which is what some on the right (not elected officials necessarily tho some of the more whacked out ones might) would say when talking to a childfree democratic woman.

This is a big stupid nothing

Chrissy says, 'RELAX'! wrote: This is a big stupid nothing

It's what the right is built on.

Surely Tex is in no position to damn anyone, given his ass-licking of Bush and Co. Sorry, but you're already let the cat out of the bag. Nice job dodging the issue, though. Perhaps you'd like to send all of your immediate family (as Bush and Cheney should) to serve valiantly in our bullshit blood-for-oil wars?

I have to agree with Tex that Sen. Boxer's statement was appallingly tasteless. I will share you guys with an anecdote. During last year's election campaign, a Republican candidate in another NC district bashed the Democratic incumbent that the latter and his wife are childless, and therefore go against family values. The Rep said the same thing over and over again in a televised debate, according to news reports.

The incumbent still won.

But to the point: Sen. Boxer, you are now in my list of people which the world can live without.

I don't care what affiliation a politician is in, I only care if you have character and do your job! And that goes for anybody, mind you.

Are you nuts? It wasn't so much a dig at Rice for being childless as it was a comment that people like Rice, Bush, and the other administration flunkies don't give a flying fuck about the human toll in Iraq because they don't have any close familial investment in it.

I know, but the comment is still wrong. And actually, Bush and Cheney have familial investments, but they work in a different way if you think about it.

Familial(puftas word) investment? 21 thousand more young men being sent there soon is'nt there? Crazy.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I know, but the comment is still wrong. And actually, Bush and Cheney have familial investments, but they work in a different way if you think about it.

Bush trying to kill Saddam over his daddy's unfinished business isn't what I'd call familial investment. Get those Bush daughters in flak jackets and send them to the front lines. Then we'll see how long the war lasts.

It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Shut the door luv.. ther'es a draft.

Have had a personal distaste for Boxer for quite awhile. Could do without her waaayy before this comment.

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Wow, you sound just like a Republican. Oh well, so much for reason.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Wow, you sound just like a Republican. Oh well, so much for reason.

Actually popey, I would say she called it as it was.....

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Wow, you sound just like a Republican. Oh well, so much for reason.

Actually popey, I would say she called it as it was.....

I wouldn't.

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Wow, you sound just like a Republican. Oh well, so much for reason.

Actually popey, I would say she called it as it was.....

You would say that.

But I'm of the opinion that any large-scale war, especially one in which the U.S. is the aggressor, should require that the President and his administration send their children to fight in it. Otherwise, how will we ever know if it is a war worth fighting?

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Wow, you sound just like a Republican. Oh well, so much for reason.

Actually popey, I would say she called it as it was.....

You would say that.

But I'm of the opinion that any large-scale war, especially one in which the U.S. is the aggressor, should require that the President and his administration send their children to fight in it. Otherwise, how will we ever know if it is a war worth fighting?

I understand your thoughts and agree. Just pointing out that with things as theyare, Cozzie is right though.

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Wow, you sound just like a Republican. Oh well, so much for reason.

Actually popey, I would say she called it as it was.....

You would say that.

But I'm of the opinion that any large-scale war, especially one in which the U.S. is the aggressor, should require that the President and his administration send their children to fight in it. Otherwise, how will we ever know if it is a war worth fighting?

I understand your thoughts and agree. Just pointing out that with things as theyare, Cozzie is right though.

Right about what?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

[magenta]cozmonite61[/magenta] wrote: It's not required for Bush to send his daughters of to war, you know. We don't have a universal draft or a normal draft yet, so...

Wow, you sound just like a Republican. Oh well, so much for reason.

Actually popey, I would say she called it as it was.....

You would say that.

But I'm of the opinion that any large-scale war, especially one in which the U.S. is the aggressor, should require that the President and his administration send their children to fight in it. Otherwise, how will we ever know if it is a war worth fighting?

I understand your thoughts and agree. Just pointing out that with things as theyare, Cozzie is right though.

Right about what?

She'd love to ask how old you are but can't count that high

Anyway....

Yes, it's true that we don't have a draft-- for that matter, women aren't sent into combat-- so yes, she's right, it's not required for Bush to send his daughters into combat.

On the other hand, Boxer is commenting that the architects of war in Iraq aren't losing family members in that war, and that is an accurate statement. Whether they're required to send family members isn't relevant to the point that the war's cheerleaders aren't losing family members.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Anyway....

Yes, it's true that we don't have a draft-- for that matter, women aren't sent into combat-- so yes, she's right, it's not required for Bush to send his daughters into combat.

On the other hand, Boxer is commenting that the architects of war in Iraq aren't losing family members in that war, and that is an accurate statement. Whether they're required to send family members isn't relevant to the point that the war's cheerleaders aren't losing family members.

ummmmm......I already said that I agree with the thought that the "architects of war in Iraq" (or any war for that matter) should be willing to send their own children........so what are we in disagreement over now?

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Anyway....

Yes, it's true that we don't have a draft-- for that matter, women aren't sent into combat-- so yes, she's right, it's not required for Bush to send his daughters into combat.

On the other hand, Boxer is commenting that the architects of war in Iraq aren't losing family members in that war, and that is an accurate statement. Whether they're required to send family members isn't relevant to the point that the war's cheerleaders aren't losing family members.

ummmmm......I already said that I agree with the thought that the "architects of war in Iraq" (or any war for that matter) should be willing to send their own children........so what are we in disagreement over now?

I wasn't sure what you meant by "Cozzie is right...", apart from the obvious fact that we don't have a draft...

Well, that and that BB is a jack-cunt.

Nothing, really...

Draft The Bush Twins!!

what's the matter a bunch of conservative types can't hack it cause they were wrong on Iraq and there is no easy way out of that mess? "I told you so" is very damn hollow right now.

"Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice, who is unmarried and doesn't have children. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

That is the direct quote and a warning to all the politicians like herself.

Peoples' lives are at stake, not some political agenda

Does Bush understand that? I doubt it.

This is big nothing- nice diversion

now the arrest of Iranian nationals by American forces is a much larger concern. Hey W, I think you want to go after Iran.

NIIIIICCCCCEEEEEEEE

Quite an unoriginal attack she made on Connie Rice. Very similar to the Respect Life crowd asking Boxer if she thought about the pain a fetus feels when it is aborted or if Terri S was asked if she wanted to be unplugged.