The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Barbara Boxer - not her finest moment

chance1

JUB 10k Club
Banned
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Posts
21,346
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
NYC
Somehow, in the midst of debating about Iraq, Ms. Boxer felt that the fact that Ms. Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State, had no children - somehow disqualifies her from making and understanding decisions on Iraq.

"Who pays the price?" Boxer insisted. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family"

Huh?

This is the best Ms. Boxer has to offer. An attack on a woman who has no children? Somehow that is relevant?

Call Ms. Boxer bitter and misguided.

Not one of Senator Boxer's finer moments. Not one of the Democrats finest moments
 
Like everyone else in this country, inc all the cable news networks (foxnews) got the whole story to suit their own point of view.
What She said was it did now have a direct impact on Condolessa, or herself. the only one's making a sacrifice were the men and women enlisted and there families, and the 3000 plus US that We know of who gave their life for this nonsense.
Nothing to do with her having no children!
While I'm here I wonder why the Bush family have'nt signed up to go, not just the daughters but Jeb's kids etc
 
You forgot to add :

"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.". . .


I don't see any incongruity.:confused:
 
The real issue here isn't the fact that Boxer didn't respect the Secretary of State. And yes, just about all news sources picked up on it not just Fox.

The real issue was that her argument is hollow. Boxer was trying to make a point that if you don't have flesh in the battle, you can't make decisions about it. Our leaders(elected, appointed, military, etc) know and feel the heavy weight of their decisions without having to have their own family members involved. To think otherwise is foolish.

Don't think for a moment that any U.S.President has enjoyed having to send troops into battle.
 
i disagree RR

i thought her point is that only the people who have lost and may lose family truly grasp how much there is to lose. as she has no family there as acnowleged in her statements, yet is trying to affect a change, it would seem your analysis of her position is wrong.

if honoring the men and women of the service is dishonoring the Sec of State then she needs to be dishonored

her point is far from hollow

it reverberates with a great many americans right now
 
Don't think for a moment that any U.S.President has enjoyed having to send troops into battle.

I think a certain president gets a kick out of being a "war time president," yes.
 
I think a certain president gets a kick out of being a "war time president," yes.

that is dfinitely one of the creepier aspects of Dubya

ps... been praying for your son (*8*)
 
To answer the Senators question, we all pay the price. We all paid a price on 9-11. We'll all pay a price when it happens again. The object of the war on terror is to ensure that we don't pay that price again.
 
You forgot to add :

"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.". . .

I don't see any incongruity.:confused:

incongruity is not the issue

the idea of "who pays the price" as if having no kids means you can't "feel it/understand it", etc.

is absurb

it's so off the mark

only leaders with kids can understand? make decisions? do they have to be kids of military entrance age?

Absurd

It's scary that Ms. Boxer is one of 100 Senators
 
It is the same as VP Cheney using the f bomb. Bipartisan will never happen and these kind of personal attacks will grow as 2008 draws near.
 
To answer the Senators question, we all pay the price. We all paid a price on 9-11. We'll all pay a price when it happens again. The object of the war on terror is to ensure that we don't pay that price again.
And what about the price tag for invading Iraq, a country not even connected to 9-11? Five hundred billion dollars and lots more to come could have purchased an awful lot of security at home that we haven't addressed. Not to mention the future costs to adequately care for the tens of thousands of physically and psychologically maimed veterans. In the meantime, the taliban is resurging in Afghansitan and we still haven't caught the planner of 9-11, Osama Bin Laden. :mad:
 
To answer the Senators question, we all pay the price. We all paid a price on 9-11. We'll all pay a price when it happens again. The object of the war on terror is to ensure that we don't pay that price again.

**deleted by SteveNavy2003**
 
You forgot to add :

"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.". . .


I don't see any incongruity.:confused:
Again, the Right lies.
 
incongruity is not the issue


yes it is

**deleted by SteveNavy2003**

posting on a message baord means so little - putting yourself in a postion to show with your life that your words have meaning and integrity, that would say so much
 
Boxer was trying to make a point that if you don't have flesh in the battle, you can't make decisions about it.
That's not what she said.

You're making that up.

There's no reason to believe she didn't mean exactly what she said.

Don't think for a moment that any U.S.President has enjoyed having to send troops into battle.
That's not true about Bush and that's only one of the disturbing elements of his characater.

Later, just seconds before he went on TV to tell the world war had started, he vigorously pumped his fist and declared: "I feel good." The extraordinary gesture was in stark contrast to the furrowed brow and look of concern he adopted for the subsequent broadcast. ...

The president, clutching a copy of his speech, uttered the words to an aide standing outside the Oval Office 60 seconds before he was due on air. TV pictures were already showing flashes of explosions in the Baghdad dawn.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12761184&method=full&siteid=50143
 
incongruity is not the issue

the idea of "who pays the price" as if having no kids means you can't "feel it/understand it", etc.

is absurb
That is not what she said. She did not say Condi "can't feel it/understand it," she said she's not paying a personal price. And that's the truth. It's also the truth for George Bush and his family. There are several members of the Bush family of an appropriate age to join the military and not one of them has done so -- much less gone to Iraq.
 
To answer the Senators question, we all pay the price. We all paid a price on 9-11. We'll all pay a price when it happens again.
That's exactly right, except that the price we pay is not equal.

Cindy Sheehan lost a son in Iraq. George Bush has not lost any of his children in the war he started. The personal price they pay is very different.

The women who lost a husband, the men who lost a wife (or boyfriend), the children who lost a parent in the 9/11 attacks paid a personal price that those who didn't lose a loved one that day haven't paid.

That doesn't make any of them more capable of making the "right" decision about anything, but it does provide a viewpoint that's different from those who don't pay a personal price like that. And that's not inappropriate to note.

Frankly, Rice's speech before the Senate was very disturbing and I applaud Senator Boxer for calling her on it.

The object of the war on terror is to ensure that we don't pay that price again.
The "war on terror" is just another propaganda slogan made up by Bush & Co to win elections and push through their war agenda. The truth is Bush & Co have been as incompetent at addressing the real threat of terrorism as they were at addressing Hurricane Katrina. They're bullies who are incompetent, nothing more.

Terrorism has been part of the world since the beginning of human civilization. It's part of the dynamic of how the haves versus have-nots sometimes plays out. Terrorism did not begin on 9/11 or with al Qaeda. It began when people who feel they have nothing to lose were pushed too far with feeling ripped off, banded together and attacked. Hundreds and hundreds of years before any of us was born. It's a human response, not a cultural response.

Bush & Co, and Republicans, don't own "the war on terror" -- it's something we always have and always will have to deal with. And in fact Bush & Co, and the BushRepublican controlled Congress, have been stunningly inadequate to the challenge. "Bush-league," during this era, has taken on deeper meaning.
 
Obviously, this discussion isn't going to change anyone's minds. My point has been and is that you can make leadership decisions and yes feel the weight and pain of your decisions without having your own "flesh" involved. None of these decisions are easy and yes everyone has paid a "price" in some form or another.

To grandstand on national TV to say otherwise is not really furthering solutions.
 
i dont think she was grandstanding

she was representing her constituency and most of america

70 percent of america disaproves of this war escalation

she is just doing her job
 
i just have to say publicly that i disagree with your edits there steve

since the Boxer Rice exchange refers to personal service and members of your family that are serving, asking each other if we qualify for the judgement of the two women is WELL within the boundaries of this thread.

I have asked for on topic action on threads that got FAR FURTHER off the beam and none came.

i think we all need to consider what the exchange between these women really means.

Do we have a right to ask others to sacrifice if we are not willing to do so?

that is VERY on topic
 
Back
Top