Do you know how to make money from AdSense automatically? You don’t!? I’ll teach you how!…

California pit bull Barbara Boxer just loves her anger so much that she shares it freely with anyone who dare defy her. Note also the thick condescending attitude with Senator Inhofe. The audience cheers Boxer while she waves her phallic……

No, Senator Boxer, I don’t have any kids. But, I was one for a time. I still have the attachment and feelings I had for my parents as I grew and I recall the love and affection they had for me. All that aside, I recall how I was brought up and it has served me well. Discipline and tough choices made me who and what I am today. Feel-good lunacy and hypocracy have made you who and what you are today.

Woody

woodcdi on January 14, 2007 at 10:12 AM

This, in a nutshell, is, I believe, the point! Boxer stated that she would not pay a personal price, either – from perspective, to remember what is important.

Many legislators will not, nor ever will pay a personal price for their decisions concerning war. Those legislators who have been there will of course have a different perspective and will pay (and I beleive have paid) a personal price one way or another.

Neither Boxer or Rice will. This argument could divide both parties.

If wars were decided and fought upon purely human concerns, perhaps there would be no war – who knows?

Since they are not, then we must finish what we have started and fight to win.

And another thing, Senator Boxer; Our military is an all volunteer force. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen chose to join and fight. What me having any kids has to do with any of this is beyond me – beyond your search for a valid excuse for not accepting responsibility for the security of the nation?

Woody

I figure if you’re here, you’re reading Mark Steyn anyway, but just in case, here’s his latest take on the media coverage of the incoronation of Spokesgranny of the House Pelosi, and also the coverage of the Boxer-Rice dustup. Note……

1. The majority of civilian men.
2. a greater majority of civilian women.
3. Any people born with a disability that prevents them from joining the military.
4. Any refomed hippies who came to believe in the use of military force after the age of enlistment.
5. I’m sure there are more…

Of course, any of these people are free to oppose military action. It’s great when you can stack the deck that way.

What the liberals will never acknowledge, is that the policy is either right or wrong on it’s own merits, regardless of you advocates it.

So US Senator Barbara Boxer has once again saved her most heated attack for Condoleezza Rice. This time attacking Condi for not having any kids to send to Iraq. As if not having a child to send to Iraq excludes someone from being able to make war re…

No, Senator Boxer, I don’t have any kids. But, I was one for a time. I still have the attachment and feelings I had for my parents as I grew and I recall the love and affection they had for me. All that aside, I recall how I was brought up and it has served me well. Discipline and tough choices made me who and what I am today. Feel-good lunacy and hypocracy have made you who and what you are today.

Woody

Why either of you waste time with such a spiteful, deliberately ignorant troll is beyond me. That old hag only comes on this blog to go after people with the same tired cliches and the same refusal to comprehend.

She does give those of you with enough patience the opportunity to shine, so maybe for you it’s worth it. But I have never, ever noticed that bitter old woman make either an intelligent or a gracious statement.

William2006 on January 12, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Terrific post. Thank you.

fogw on January 12, 2007 at 8:35 PM

“fogw,”

Thank you for your encouraging words!

I am happy that you enjoyed the post and that you took the time to express it.

William

I haven’t written anything about Barbara Boxer’s outrageous, disrespectful and sexists remarks to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
The liberal senator from California stated to Secretary R…

My point was to focus attention on our military families…

Tick, tick, tick…my day still has 24 hours in it!

“Gee, I thought single women had come further than that.”

Unwittingly, the ‘illustriously clever’ Ms. Boxer is attaining the reverse results. Life is magic!

Are you kidding ? NOW is too concerned with why they can’t play a round of golf with the boys at Augusta Nationl. WE know where their priorities are.

“big surprise to Lincoln and FDR”.

I guess Fox has decided that fact checking isn’t an issue given their core audience. Yikes.

honora on January 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Most of us are aware that Bill mis-spoke on that issue, but are honest enough to realize that even though his examples were not apropo to his point, there are many other examples that are and that proves Boxer is suffering from a delusional thinking.

Only someone who is terminally bitter would believe that all viewers of Fox are mindless robots that swallow everything that is said without thinking. The mindless robots are what the MSM and the liberal biased media are for. Watching Fox is a indication that a person is serious about getting a balanced reporting of the events affecting us today.

Or would Boxer assert that, by holding this policy and risking her “personal price”, Dr. Rice’s judgment is clouded by the exhilaration of making war? Lastly, if Dr. Rice’s policy advice was to “cut and run” would Boxer, in her oversight role for the country, inquire as to whether Dr. Rice is placing personal preferences ahead of conviction, principle and the good of the country? Would she ask why Dr. Rice doesn’t think we should do this for the future of our country’s children?

The manner in which questions can be asked, are boundless. A question I have, however, is what quality of Senatorial oversight do the Democrats provide if they staff this committee with members who can’t appreciate the policy options advocated because they have no personal price to pay? I have one answer for that! Great oversight, because it removes a heavy and influential conflict of interest, a conflict of interest greater and more burdensome than mere financial risk. That leads me to a last question: Then why would the Democrats staff the committee with a Senator who would ask questions like this of a Secretary of State, someone free of this conflict of interest? I’ll answer that, too. The Party needs to properly represent it’s views based on their modes of thinking, i.e., to tar Dr. Rice as deficient in the most often decried potential flaw in judgment that can be asserted on Capitol Hill — conflict of interest.

Today, Boxer says she was “speaking truth to power” to “send a powerful message”. The “truth” of the matter is that Boxer, again, did very little thinking before “speaking” and the “powerful message” she sent was that she rarely does it well. But at least she admitted that by telling us that she was “just saying what she felt” rather than what she thought.