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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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!"

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

LOL!!:laugh: :applause:

 

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.

 

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.

 

There are vicious ones one both sides. The left has no monopoly. Take, for example, the vitriol of Ann Coulter.

 

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.

 

No rationalization will change the truth. You nailed it right iff the bat.:thumbs: