January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman
In how many ways is this crap:
1. This is just like when liberals say conservatives can only talk about the war if they are serving in Iraq. Don't even think about saying many liberals don't do this.
2. So, super liberal feminist NOW thinks its noble and acceptable for a women to have children. I thought feminists wanted women to be exactly like men in every way. Being a stay at home mom was degrading.
3. What the hell does this have to do with Iraq again?
Saturday, January 13, 2007
BOXER'S LOW BLOW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Keep in mind, liberals don't believe in logic. That's all part of a logocentric phallocentric system of patriarchy to oppress women, I was told during my university education. Contradictions, contrashmichens, love unites all.
Professional women are good yesterday, bad today, and good tomorrow. Eastasia, eurasia, who cares who liberals are demonizing and why, YEEEARGH! Power to the working class! Down with the capitalist pigs!
Here’s another example you could make if we’re to start using Boxer’s convoluted logic.
You can’t decide to have an abortion unless you yourself have been aborted.
Damn, the possibilities are endless.
If Boxer had specifically pointed out that Rice was childless or somehow criticized her because she was childless or a "professional woman," that would have been worth all this lather you are working up. However, she did not.
Afterward Rice said, "It would never have occurred to me that that that was the subtext."
Boxer said, "I spoke the truth at the Committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation. My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this Administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq."
Boxer merely said that Rice, like Boxer herself, would bear no personal sacrifice. Only the wingnuts are trying to turn this into something it clearly is not.
To use your expression Jim, that's bullshit. Whether Boxer excludes herself or not is irrelevant. We all have a stake, and we all are at risk by allowing the enemy to prevail. The notion that we leave all decisions up to the soldiers or their families, or base decisions on how they are impacted, is plain stupid. This is just another example of another Democratic idiot who doesn't understand war, the stakes in this one, and the price of victory or defeat. And whether Condi picked up on it or not, or even if it was Boxer's intention, the subtext exists and Barbie needs to choose her words more carefully. Heaven knows, the left will dissect a Rep's words at the drop of a hat to find a way to use it against him.
The context and sub-context of Boxer's remarks is that Bush asks Americans to "sacrifice" and only soldiers and their immediate families sacrifice. Everyone else sacrifices by going shopping. There's no paying higher taxes to pay for the war, there's no rationing of anything to help pay for the war. Nobody is "sacrificing" except the soldiers and their families.
Neither Boxer nor Rice have immediate family members fighting in Iraq, so neither is sacrificing.
This has nothing to do with Rice being single. This has nothing to do whith Rice being a non-parent. This has nothing to do with Rice's ability to make policy. It only has to do with whether or not she is sacrificing.
That's IT. No matter how hard the wingnuts try to make it into something it IS NOT.
I see your point Jim, but I don't see the point in making the statement. So what if one has no kid serving or if one is not serving oneself? So what if one is not making that kind of sacrifice or even any sacrifice? What's the point and profit of such a remark? Do you believe that because of this no one else in the country has a stake in whether we win or lose or retreat like a Democrat? That perhaps Rice has no place continuing her role in the war? It's just another means of confounding and obstructing the work of the adults currently in charge by the children who greedily wish to be.
I think the point in making the statement is nothing more or less than this:
The President asks America to sacrifice for the war, but the only ones actually sacrificing are those in the military and their families. No increased taxes to pay for equipment, benefits, combat pay. American families are not being asked to ration anything. They're not being asked to reduce oil consumption.
Asking Americans to "sacrifice" and then telling them to go shop seems kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
"Asking Americans to "sacrifice" and then telling them to go shop seems kind of hypocritical, don't you think?"
Trade increases the economic pie. Nationalizing everything like Uncle Hugo is how the left thinks one creates wealth, though we've been down that road in history again and again and again. Maybe socialism will work the 101st time it is tried, liberals must think.
Get off your stupid socialism kick, Jason. This isn't about socialism. There is nothing about "Uncle Hugo" here. The left doesn't think that nationalism creates wealth. That's a false assertion.
America is spending a billion dollars every four days in Iraq. The deficit is about $250 billion a year and that doesn't include the war because they're accounting for it outside of the budget. The national debt is $8.3 trillion.
And you seem to think we are going to spend our way out of debt.
Jim,
I don't get the cry for sacrifice as you express it. In WWII, there was a need for such sacrifice by the populace in order to allow for the manufacture of weapons and equipment to fight the war. That need doesn't exist now. The spending that needs to stop or slow down is government spending. For the rest of us to "go shopping" simply keeps the economy moving, but the "mandate" to do so was after 9/11 and in the face of every rumor of additional attacks, that the public should not cower in the face of terrorism and thereby embolden the enemy who would react to such cowering as an indication of success. Thus, sacrifice for the sake of sacrificing? Please elaborate.
Then shouldn't he stop asking Americans to sacrifice?
Are you referring to the soldiers? The complaint is that he isn't asking the rest of us to sacrifice. I'm saying it's a stupid complaint.
No, the complaint is that he SAYS he is but he really isn't.
Marshall,
Don't you see that liberals like Jim are suffering greatly from this war. All that money isn't being spent by them on their petty boondoggles and graft. The Democrat "special interests" have been starved for 12 long years. They want the Treasury opened to them.
Post a Comment