Boxer: I spoke “truth to power” by suggesting that childless hawks are moral monsters
posted at 4:21 pm on January 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s not her logic that bugs me since it’s just Chickenhawk 101, i.e., those who support the war but stand to suffer no personal loss from it must necessarily be indifferent to the human toll and therefore lack moral authority for their position. No hypocrisy to that, of course — not with Group Capt. Rick “Cobra” Ellensburg and the rest of the nutroots screaming eagles set to airdrop into Kabul.
What bugs me is the self-congratulation. If one of the most powerful pols from the most powerful state in the most powerful country on earth can assume the mantle of “speaking truth to power,” then what’s left of “power”? Is that just a synonym for “Bush” now? Or am I reading too much into what’s merely a tossed-off example of Boxer once again being a pandering moron?
Asked if her exchange with Rice was, as some suggest, a personal attack, Boxer insisted it was not.
“I spoke the truth to power,” she said. “Condi Rice is in the room when George Bush decides to send 20,000 more of our beautiful men and women into the middle of a civil war.
“And I’m not going to apologize for making an extremely clear point,” she said.
I await the day when a Democratic president defends one of his own statements as having spoken truth “to power.” Then we’ll be all the way through the looking glass.
Here’s what Condi had to say, FYI:
Rice, speaking Friday to Fox News, suggested the comments were unduly personal.
“I guess that means I don’t have kids. Was that the purpose of that?” Rice said. “Well, at the time I just found it a bit confusing, frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that. That the only question is, ‘Are you making good decisions because you have kids?’ “
I leave you with this photo from Boxer’s senate page. Judging by the looks on their faces, I’m guessing these four aren’t part of the nutroots’ “first ones in, last ones out” Green Beret advance team into Kandahar.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
What is it with this “truth to power” comment? They need to find a new phrase. Maybe I am stupid, but “truth to power” means what exactly. It makes no sense to me.
bopbottle on January 13, 2007 at 4:24 PM
I guess all future Secretary of State candidates must have children before being considered for approval?
hadsil on January 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Nope. Only if they plan on supporting any wars.*
* Doesn’t include Afghanistan!
Allahpundit on January 13, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I still think it is a maneuver to help make Hillary the first mommy president.
bbz123 on January 13, 2007 at 4:34 PM
It’s a trendy little quote they learned from watching West Wing.
bloviator on January 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM
‘Speaking Truth To Power’ is code for ‘I am a racist/sexist/ChristianBashing authoritarian grasping for power’ and my masters at the MSMs need to intervene to cover my now-exposed hate-mongering extremism in the service of the ‘common agenda’.
(D)emocrats will be (D)emocrats.
And the MSMs are having trouble with CYA missions for the new ‘majority’.
DANEgerus on January 13, 2007 at 4:40 PM
The end is near.
Griz on January 13, 2007 at 4:44 PM
political Hogwash!
Drtuddle on January 13, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Bingo! We have a winner. Allah, surely you, of all people, remember that they must… Must… MUST portray themselves as the outsiders, the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, the powerless, the voiceless, the meek inheritors of the earth… THE VICTIMS!
This attack also helps to deflect the fact that Condi would be, under different circumstances, a Democrat’s wet dream: a strong, independent, childless, single, black woman who has risen to power.
Damn her to hell for not being a useful Democrat poster-child!
SailorDave on January 13, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Yeah,SailorDave,pity she’s no McKinney.
bbz123 on January 13, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Thank GOD,I’m not the only one who reacts with a fingernails-on-chalkboard feeling when I hear “Truth to Power.” I just want to slap the person who’s uttering this meaningless garbage.
I got one for you.. how about for once a little “power to TRUTH!”? Ewww, no, too similar to the “Power to the People” saying of days gone by.
MsUnderestimated on January 13, 2007 at 4:55 PM
“Truth to power ” is mere socialist flatulence. We need to equip ourselves with some serious air-freshener for the next few years.
bbz123 on January 13, 2007 at 4:58 PM
So by sending 21500 more troops to Iraq, is the President somehow victimizing the solders. Boxer feels the need to protect them from harms way. In my way of thinking ,with an all volunteer military why would you enlist in time of war if not to go to war to defend your country. You enlist you fight thats what you get paid to do.
sonnyspats1 on January 13, 2007 at 4:58 PM
But how near is ‘near’???
PRCalDude on January 13, 2007 at 5:05 PM
A check bouncing moron. And that’s her strong suit.
Zorro on January 13, 2007 at 5:10 PM
From now on, any democrats without military age “family” will be prohibited from seeking the Presidency or for that matter, running for any office as it may involve participating in an “advice and consent” role, or voting for war.
Let’s hold them to this ridiculous standard.
darwin on January 13, 2007 at 5:12 PM
She’s harmless.
Just do what they do when they get a bad pope. Prey she dies in her sleep.
She’s all talk, no legislation.
Actually, I’m kind of fond of her for that reason.
Lefty talking points on CSPAN don’t really hurt anything, they’re just trying to get a riseout of you, and they’re doing it.
Chill out and enjoy some whiskey. The next 2 years will accomplish nothing, and I am GREATLY enjoying that.
Ringmaster on January 13, 2007 at 5:12 PM
A cynical, and personal, insult flung at a lady hardly constitutes, “Speaking truth to power.”
BTW: Boxer is a used-up, past her expiration date, hippie. Now that is “speaking truth to power.”
MCPO Airdale on January 13, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I’m willing to go along with Boxer’s logic here. If you don’t have kids, you aren’t allowed a say in whether we go to war. That means all the people who use birth control, or the gays and lesbians that don’t engage in procreative activities (not including Mary Cheney, who is actually pregnant) should STFD and STFU.
Right?
That is what she’s saying, isn’t it?
The Monster on January 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I think the only “say” they want anyone to have is “we surrender!”
darwin on January 13, 2007 at 5:21 PM
If Condi wants to have kids. I would be more then willing to help.
I’m just saying.
F15Mech on January 13, 2007 at 5:30 PM
So what do Barney Frank’s kids have to say about this?
bbz123 on January 13, 2007 at 5:33 PM
“So what do Barney Frank’s kids have to say about this?”
Not much … all of Barneys kids get flushed down the toilet.
darwin on January 13, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Just because Senator Boxer is short sighted and lacks empathetic benevolence, doesn’t mean everyone else does and neither does it mean she has an excuse to place her personality faults on anyone else either.
If Boxer thinks someone of Condi Rices’ well proven ability and credentials doesn’t understand the sacrifice and helps to decide wisely the actions of our Armed Services, then there is no one else who could, to the satisfaction of Ms Boxer either.
Speakup on January 13, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Barbara Walters, in my opinion, rues the day she put that animal on her show.
RightWinged on January 13, 2007 at 5:57 PM
If she ever does make an extremely clear point, I’d love to hear it.
Laura on January 13, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Senator Boxer’s use of the phrase “speaking truth to power” as purported justification for an ill conceived insult of Secretary of State Rice is just plain dumb. Senator Boxer was not speaking truth, but rather nonsense served up disrespectfully.
Phil Byler on January 13, 2007 at 6:13 PM
When someone says “Truth to Power” which is always a left-wing nutjob phrase, I automatically conclude that they are a paranoid idiot. Boxer fits that perfectly.
zerodamage on January 13, 2007 at 6:14 PM
I don’t like to be cruce but sometimes there’s simply no other way.
This woman is a flaming ass idiot and an intellectual midget.
rplat on January 13, 2007 at 6:16 PM
You are sobad. That was funny though. Notice how Boxer calls them “beautiful” children. There is a reason Democrats use words like this in this context. It implies that they see something we don’t. Want to guess what that is?
Glynn on January 13, 2007 at 6:17 PM
You’re not the only one. My mom would be pleased as punch if I brought home some lady(which Boxer definitely is not) like that.
Lonevoice on January 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Gremlins on the wings of airplanes?
lowandslow on January 13, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Caption under photo should read, “Eating with the Enemy”.
CliffHanger on January 13, 2007 at 6:27 PM
FU boxer…you showed how ‘little’ you are by attacking Condi…FU…
What’s your plan boxer…???…you have none…you MORON…
Maybe you can have your kids hold hands with the terrorists…that’ll work…
areseaoh on January 13, 2007 at 6:31 PM
DO they see dead pickles?
bbz123 on January 13, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Here what Babs would have to do to really “Speak Truth To Power”:
Go into Iran alone, without the cloak of American power around her and tell Ahmadinejad and the mullahs that they must quit trying to build nuclear bombs and that they must give women equal rights.
I’m another that is disgusted with people who use that term frivolously.
Lech Walesa “Spoke Truth To Power”.
The young people at Tienamin Square spoke truth to power.
Even Salman Rushdie spoke truth to power.
Boxer merely “mealeymouthed to someone who couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything to harm her.”
Most of the people that use that term, are, in reality “speaking lies to wimps with no power” (at least power that they have the political will to use).
LegendHasIt on January 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Didn’t realize this new thread was born…sorry for the duplicate comments (from old Boxer/Rice thread)…
Ms. Rice comments:
Unwittingly, the ‘illustriously clever’ Ms. Boxer is attaining the reverse results, making a greater fool of herself and building up Ms. Rice’s status, not only domestically. Life is magic!
Ms. Boxer:
Tick, tick, tick…my day still has 24 hours in it!
Except for the soldier on her right (our left), the other 3 gents display a ‘constipated look’, or “do I have to be in the same pic with this witch?”. But they are “beautiful”, as she says.
The Libs have a plan regarding the military – everyone watch for this – it’s clever but these shenanigans can’t be allowed – fluff with our soldiers is and has to remain unacceptable!
Entelechy on January 13, 2007 at 6:37 PM
“Spoke Truth To Power”?…sounds like a song from Good Charlotte..lol
EnochCain on January 13, 2007 at 6:38 PM
The last time I heard that phrase muttered was from Cynthia McKinney and her “band of bigots”. Paranoid idiot indeed.
BacaDog on January 13, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Where’s honora or the other apologists for Boxer who were questioning those of us who knew exactly what Boxer was saying yesterday? Hmm, not to be found I guess. Boxer won’t apologize for being clear? Of course, who would apologize for something they didn’t or don’t do. Give it up Bow Wow Boxer, your days as the majority will be short-lived…..please keep talking “non-sense to power”….
ritethinker on January 13, 2007 at 6:43 PM
That eliminates the obvious snowwhite, but also my favorite dwarf, Mr. Kusinich.
With such an evolutionary handle, you could have said “…down the bidet” :)
…or “We’re beautiful, and you’re not”
Stating the obvious – I.Love.This.Story. And she’s my Senator, pity.
Entelechy on January 13, 2007 at 6:54 PM
If we don’t get the Middle East stabilized and get a strong handle on the GWOT in the next few years, Boxer’s grandchild WILL be old enough to be involved before this is over. Doesn’t she see that? If she’s thinking about that “personal price,” then she should want to hit this thing hard TODAY and get it over with before that baby gets old enough to fight or be the victim of an attack on his or her office building some day. Even if we stay aggressive in the Middle East, the GWOT may very well still be in full swing when that grandbaby is old enough to be directly involved. She’s a moron if she thinks pulling out of Iraq will change that. (Well, she’s a moron no matter what, but she’s showing it more clearly than usual…)
George H.W. Bush didn’t finish this thing when he was president, and now his son is having to try to finish it. If George W. Bush doesn’t stay serious this time, it’ll be back to bite us in less time than it took then. Why can’t they see that? What part of “Death to America” is hard to understand?!
aero on January 13, 2007 at 6:55 PM
In all honesty I have no idea what it is.
Frankly using children in the name of whatever political move/cause/game sickens me and I want no part of it.
F15Mech on January 13, 2007 at 7:01 PM
I still think it is a maneuver to help make Hillary the first mommy president.
She’ll still be a chickenhawk with no moral authority, though, because neither she nor her child have served or are serving. Right?
In the past, “Truth To Power” only applied when any lefty moonbat addressed a Republican White Male. Now it also applies to other Republicans, including black female ones. We’ve come a long way, baby!
Lehuster on January 13, 2007 at 7:11 PM
“Resisting the man” was popular in the 60’s (remember, that was FORTY YEARS AGO!!! and these liberal moonbats were cutting their political teeth then). And they have used that rant to scare normally rational people into believing in these conspiracies. Watergate was the pivoltal event that encouraged the moonbats to suspect every conservative agenda since then. Because generation “X” are the children of those moonbats and unlike their parents, for the most part, have no intellectual investment in these crazy ideals their parents have and taught them. IE, They are easily led to support “bleeding heart” causes and ignore the realities of the costs associated with their freedoms.
People like Boxer are selfish and take for granted the freedoms she enjoy’s which were bought and paid for with the lives of those she has complete contempt for.
Her contempt is evident in her attitudes towards our troops.
1) She treats them like victims when they DO NOT, nor do their families, view them as such.
2) That exposes her belief that they are stupid and SHE and her ilk have to protect them from Bush. Again, they DO NOT feel that way. They want to complete their mission.
3) She uses them while alive for photo ops, and as casualties as political ammunition for her diatribes in attempting to further her political party’s base of power.
George Orwell wrote: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
To me that means we owe a debt of gratitude to ALL our troops and they deserve our unflinching support for them and their mission.
To Boxer it is just another opportunity to further her crazy agenda and the more casualties our troops sustain, the more empowered she feels.
The silver lining to this dark cloud is that eventually the moonbat ideals will go the way of the Dodo. “Resisting the man” JUST FOR SAKE OF RESISTING is a dying idea and I think this generation is just the ones to finally bury it. Our troops ARE NOT swayed by her and her ilk and that is most promising indeed. Perhaps, and I pray to God that I am right, this generation will rival that of our fathers and grandfathers as the greatest generation!
csdeven on January 13, 2007 at 7:26 PM
They invested a lot into John Kerry with how only a “war hero” has the moral authority to go to war and everyone else, even a pilot in the NG, must not send men to war lest they be a chickenhawk. They didn’t leave much room for a woman or a Barack Obama to be their nominee in the very next presidential race following the Kerry one.
No matter how dovish a party or candidate wants to portray itself and how opposed to troops in Iraq they are, that candidate will need to claim he or she has the moral authority to send young men into war if need be, if they want to be elected. And each candidate will be asked “do you have the moral authority to go to war?” in the debates.
By the way, this is why Hillary was claiming she wanted to join the military when she was younger. They will need to create moral authority by proxy and sell it to the voters.
The problem with the “I have kids so I can send other people’s kids to war” proxy nonsense is that it would actually seem to make them more chickenhawkish by the template they’ve been using, unless they send their own kid off to war with the other kids. In which case, the single female without kids has more moral authority to send people’s kids to war because she hasn’t failed at sending her own non-existent kid.
Perchant on January 13, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I wish Condi had shot back with something like, “Stop speaking as if our soldiers are moronic babies who don’t know what they signed up for. They are the bravest, best-trained, most educated fighting force on the planet, and they know what their job is. Their lives are not mine or the president’s or their mothers’ to sacrifice. They are volunteers, and they knowingly and courageously offer themselves for the greatest cause in the history of mankind: freedom. You should kiss the ground they walk on, Ms. Boxer. Next question.”
Now that would be speaking truth to power.
aero on January 13, 2007 at 7:54 PM
You need to get a job whispering this stuff into a microphone. Slap down..
RalphyBoy on January 13, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I’m just neo-con enough to remember this phrase, and actually had a feminist professor once try to indoctrinate me about it. I seem to remember it had something to do with the more modern phrases of “the personal is the political” and coming at things from “a position of strength.” Darn that Boxer lady now for making me wish I paid more attention in class.
dapro on January 13, 2007 at 8:22 PM
On Friday’s show, Rush read a passage fron Ian Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged, that completely describes people like Barbara Boxer.
Rush reading:
” The hallmark of the second-rater is “resentment of another man’s achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone’s work prove greater than their own; they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal, for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire,” someone to look up to. You don’t have that when you’re at the top. “They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them – while you’d give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors……..”
My Comment:
As I see it, Boxer has a particular hatred for Rice because of the very reasons just stated, which can be summed up in one word: JEALOUSY.
pocomoco on January 13, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Boxer spoke “stupidity to righteous governance”.
csdeven on January 13, 2007 at 8:44 PM
I do think this far leftism will die out with the boomers. Most of those college protesters grew up and got over themselves, and the remainder went into politics. But most of the newly elected Dems are more centrist; they had to be to get the votes.
And this is anecdotal, but all the teenagers I know are fairly conservative. Not that there’s any shortage of moonbats out there, but I’d be willing to bet that the moonbat median age is getting pretty high. I’m very hopeful about the next generation.
Laura on January 13, 2007 at 9:10 PM
pocomoco, great post. It’s not “lonely at the top” for nothin’; what would Ayn Rand say to today’s atmosphere, post 9/11 et all?
True! Plus lack of class and manners = filth/trash in power, yet still inferior to the most powerful woman in the world! One word, indeed, JEALOUSY.
Love your handle, btw.
Entelechy on January 13, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Let me get this straight.
If you don’t have kids old enough to serve in the military, you can’t speak with Absolute Moral Authority regarding any possible military action.
But if you do have kids in the proper age bracket, you don’t have Absolute Moral Authority unless they’re actually in the military. Bonus points to you if they died in action. Double secret bonus points if you happen to be anti-war.
If you don’t have a child risking his/her life every day as a police officer, you can’t comment intelligently on law enforcement related matters.
If you don’t have a child training to be an astronaut at NASA, you can’t talk about a manned mission to the moon or Mars.
If you’re not black, you can’t talk about civil rights. Double secret bonus points if you’re a black Muslim.
Wow. This game is kind of fun. I’m white, male, Christian and childless. How else can my free speech be stifled?
Dave Shay on January 13, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Laura, you are right about the younger generation. After all, it is the younger generation that has signed up in record numbers post 9/11 to defend this nation. There will be some unfortunate kids who get brain-washed and bitch-slapped by nut-jobs like Holloway at Duke and your Ward Churchills, but there won’t be as many as days gone by. There is just too much info out there now a days for a prof. or MSM to have total access and influence over a kid. Don’t forget the most significant part..Talk Radio, specifically Rush and the Rush-baby phenom……
ritethinker on January 13, 2007 at 10:06 PM
“Projection is not just a river in Egypt…”
IOW, I cannot ascribe to you qualities or skills I not only do not have, but that I don’t even know I’m missing.
as to “speaking truth to power” — I don’t even unnerstaand that one. Is the assumption that, normally, one lies to power? Or that one is a big fat hero for not being a toady? ..for once.
*ptui*
Claire on January 13, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Dave Shay please report to room 3 for castration and rights revocation ASAP.
F15Mech on January 13, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Boxer is in need of serious Shrink Time.
Since when are those in uniform. “Children”?
Jack.
Jack Deth on January 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM
What right does Boxer have to use the “Truth to Power” stance in her political posturing? At a minimum, shouldn’t she at least have some experience with truth, in order to be credible?
Meanwhile:
Orphan. Boxer dissed an orphan during the hearings. How mean and cruel can one get? How low is that? How heartless and cold? Picking on an orphan … a rich white woman picking on an orphaned black woman. By all the standards hammered into us by the Left itself, isn’t that apogee of oppression? Now, remember everyone, that was a Democrat Party Senator – the rich white aging chick trying to shred the credibility of the salaried working black woman. The Republican Party woman, that would be the Anti-Slavery Party.
Looks even viler doesn’t it when one uses the meme established by the Liberal Left.
naliaka on January 14, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Just give the Boxer witch a broom . . . and a date with the Donald.
Texyank on January 14, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Didn’t get to read all the comments here, so forgive me if this has already been said.
Boxer is one of the three muskuntears from frisco. They all are from rich backgrounds and live in the richest part of frisco. Her partners in crime are two other career politicians, Feinstine and Pelosi. No manners, no class, just lots of money so they can sit in judgment of all others. Fine examples of the LLL.
R D on January 14, 2007 at 12:41 AM
I wonder if Boxer would have said that if Condi were a lesbian?
Mojave Mark on January 14, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Yeah, she’s a miscreant but it was the CONTINUALLY SODOMIZED Republicans whining like little girls who demanded and apology in the first place, an apology, which any random IDIOT could tell you, was NEVER GOING TO COME!! Thus making the stupid, scared to fight back, Republican WIMPS look EVEN GAYER ( if that’s possible!), when she FARTS IN YOUR FACES AGAIN.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha………
It’s like these dunce ass Repubs live in some alternate universe where they congratulate themselves for taking the “high road” and getting their arses kicked! Haven’t you stupids realized that the beast which inhabits liberaldom knows no comity? Has no bounds? Didn’t the behavior of Jimma Carter teach you how feculent and vile they are on the inside? Didn’t the tacit approval of his scurrilous actions by the MSM teach you anything? You’ll notice that Drudge is the ONLY NEWSOURCE IN AMERICA, that is even mentioningthe fact that Pelosi’s a fraud who just let companies in San Fran, duck the brand new all purpose “Minimum Wage Law”!
BUY A VOWEL AND GET A CLUE WOULD YA? THEY HATE YOU Not “dislike”, not “have distaste for”, not “agree to disagree”, nope none of the above, THEY HATE YOU. With an unbridled passion that can only be compared to the hatred that Satan has for God. Ever see the old comedy “How to Murder Your Wife” starring Jack Lemmon and Virna Lisi? It’s all about this super rich bachelor who wakes up married to the chick that came out of the cake at his friends bachelor party. Anyway, long about the middle of the flick, the wife, who now loves him ( italian speaks very little English, sexy as all get out), has disappeared. Lemmon’s put on trial for the murder and in a crucial scene, realizing that he cannot win the case, Lemmon reverses field and confesses. He takes a piece of chalk and during his “confession”, he draws a chalk “button” on the rail of the witness box, then in a great monologue, he mesmerizes the men on the jury with the thoughts of what the world could be like withouttheir nagging wives.(paraphrased) “No more, honey do this, no more nagging, no more shrewish woman constantly pointing out your faults, and all you have to do is PUSH THE BUTTON. That’s it, just push the button”. Well, you guessed it, it was after all the sixties and musical comedy was very big, one by one they ALL PUSHED THE BUTTON. The jury then refuses to convict and it’s happy ending time. I said all this to say, that this is what the liberals would do to you if they could, THEY’D PUSH THE BUTTON. For God’s sake, they kill their own children and wear TEE-SHIRTS about it! Why do you keep thinking they’ll like you, or treat you fairly? Wake up and STOP BRINGING A KNIFE TO A GUNFIGHT!
Soothsayer on January 14, 2007 at 12:45 AM
I was about to jump all over you. Then I reread it. You are absolutely correct and the right has to reach in those panties they’ve been wearing and see if they still have any BALLS left. I’m beginning to wonder.
R D on January 14, 2007 at 12:55 AM
She is from SAN FRANSISCO! What do you think?
R D on January 14, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Boy that picture with Marines speaks volumes doesn’t it? Those guys have that preverbial deer in the headlights look. Through no fault of their own they’re now part of her “truth to power” tour.
Soothsayer, excellent point. I am fed up with these namby pamby Republicans who just want to be everyone’s friend. What the hell is wrong with these people? I wish some people with some BALLS would get up there and take no prisoners.
Catie96706 on January 14, 2007 at 1:06 AM
With Boxer, Pelosi and Bawney Fwank running things, Gays gone wild will be the theme.
R D on January 14, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Can Democrats ever do anything wrong?
Clinton was not at fault for lying under oath, suborner to perjury, it was the Republicans.
Clinton was not at fault for frisking, fondling, and manhandling married women, some who were mourning the death of their husbands, it was the Republicans’ fault.
Clinton was not at fault when found guilty of civil rights violations in Arkansas.
Mrs. Clinton was not at fault when she could not produce law files until a few years after the case expired and they suddenly appeared in the White House, not in Arkansas.
Robert “KKK Recruiter” Byrd was not dragged through the mud when he used the “N” word twice on national television. He got a pass from blacks and Democrats and the news media, just like the aforementioned Democrats.
John F. Kerry also got a pass on his outrageous, condescending comments regarding the Vietnam veterans and soldiers, as well as current soldiers and veterans. He also got a pass for voting for the war before he voted against it, and a pass for stating in the debate against George W. Bush that he personally opposes abortion but he won’t allow his own personal Religious and moral values to affect his performance in the Senate yet he turns around and actually tells us that he follows his moral and ethical values, and, furthermore, he actually takes sides based on the very thing he said he does not use as a compass, his moral and personal and religious convictions.
The list can go on and on, including Charlie Rangel who accused Bush of starting a draft, when Bush was not starting a draft, but Rangel and his friends WERE pushing a bill to start a draft, using deception to demonize Bush, creating the very problem themselves.
Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Boxer, Gorlach, and so on, all are part of the problem, yet they get a pass.
Yes, there IS a bias in the media and it clearly favors Democrats, liberals, left wingers, fifth columnists, communists, and even Islamic Jihadis.
William
William2006 on January 14, 2007 at 1:08 AM
William, you write like I wish I could. Good job.
R D on January 14, 2007 at 1:14 AM
R D,
Thank you!
William
William2006 on January 14, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Yeah so wake up and stop asking people who hate you to “apologize”. And stop expecting their fellow travelers in the press to “call them” on their hypocrisy, fraud, lies, corruption or WHATEVER. Republicans are supposed to have money arent’ they? Well start your own danged MEDIA! And not just some websites, if Al Gore can start his own cable channel, why haven’t some well heeled Republicans? If all it takes is money to buy a newspaper, why haven’t some deep pocketed Republicans bought a bunch of them?
Oh that’s right, conservatives DO own newpapers or at least the corporations that own them, but curiously all they do is hire liberal reporters who slant the news to the left of all places, go figure.
Soothsayer on January 14, 2007 at 1:25 AM
“Soothsayer,”
At this time, the main stream news media is overwhelmingly left wing, liberal, communist in their approach to the news. Hollywood is the same.
Nevertheless, what you suggested has already begun.
Fox News is not a Conservative news outlet, it is a fair and balanced outlet and it is obvious when I watch it.
I watch Public television and see piece after piece picking at the US, President Bush, the war, conservatives, pro-lifers, and on and on, and that service is funded by taxpayers!
I watch CNN, BBC, MSNBC, and others, and they editorialize the news to attack Bush, the US, the soldiers, and so on, as well as pro-lifers, conservatives, and on and on. They have guests on to discuss different topics and they are overwhelmingly one sided, lop sided attack pieces against Bush, the war, conservatives, Republicans, etc., and pro Democrat, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-leftists, and so on.
Fox News actually presents a varied panel which represent different sides of an issue, which is refreshing.
Some news outlets have lost a great deal of business. The New York Times and other news papers, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, have lost a great deal of business as subscribers have dropped their subscriptions. This happened to the LA Times after their obviously biased hit pieces during the last few elections, national and California local. They changed their personnel to some extent as a result.
Some news papers, like the Philadelphia Inquirer, are, or might be, purchased by a more conservative ownership and might see a difference in their publication, a more balanced news presentation.
Regarding the liberal, leftist dominance in Hollywood, conservative film makers and documentary makers have joined together and have begun to make their own films. This will take time for these flms to be made, sold, distributed, and find their way into neighborhood theaters, but that is already underway as well.
So, regarding your comment, conservatives have heard you and they are actually doing exactly what you say.
There will be a major difference, however, in the news and movies. They will be more balanced, less biased, a refreshing alternative to the current, overwhemlingly biased news and Hollywood offerings.
Your suggestion is a great one and I hope that this comes to pass, for we do need more balance in our country.
William
William2006 on January 14, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Hey! Soothsayer. Fox News ring a bell? Rush Limbaugh? Hannity? Micheal Reagan? The big three networks and the biggest newspapers around still work the news to their favor. And their favor is undermining the US at every turn, and that comes close to treason, especially with the NYTimes. Hard to beat that. I doubt many watch algores channel, and Air Amerika is just about gone, if not gone already. Things are looking up for the VRWC though! ;-)
R D on January 14, 2007 at 1:47 AM
See there William, you did it again!
R D on January 14, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Well let me count the ways
1) Hate crimes… I know they are awful crimes but it is already against the law to harm/murder someone… whether it’s for reasons of race or not… hate crime law are tools of the left to silence the right… only conservatives are racist you know.
2) Fairness doctrine… Reagan ended this evil law and began the conservative radio revolution… with out his efforts you and I would never have known the word Rathergate. After all didn’t they prove that the documents were “fake but accurate”?
3) Just look north (Canada)
4) Just look east (Europe)
5) Just look west (China)
6) Just look south (Cuba rising)
Starting to feel like I on an Island and the tide is rising.
Gwillie on January 14, 2007 at 1:59 AM
No Gwillie, that’s just algore talking. The tide isn’t rising, It’s just a little wave. The Dhimmicrats will have their say, then the Real Americans will slap them back into place. Red state America will wake up again!
R D on January 14, 2007 at 2:16 AM
Hey R D:
the next time you quote me can you please fix my typo’s ;)
Gwillie on January 14, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Will do Gwillie! LOL :-)
R D on January 14, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Here… ‘m….
R D on January 14, 2007 at 2:23 AM
Goodnight Gwillie, William and Soothsayer. ’til next time……
R D on January 14, 2007 at 2:50 AM
It’s too bad that this is being played out in terms of left vs. right. The left should be able to recognize a fallacious ad hominem argument as well as the right. At any rate, here’s my analysis of Boxer’s attack.
An argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person) occurs when the following happens. X says Y, where Y is some controversial proposition. Z comes along, attacks X, and then concludes that the attack has in some way showed Y to be dubious or X to be lacking the proper judgment or right to assert Y in the first place.
An ad hominem is non-fallacious when the attack is relevant either to Y’s truth or X’s judgment. An attack is relevant when it supports the conclusion drawn by Z, e.g., conclusions such as:
* Y is false.
* X’s judgment is faulty.
* X doesn’t have the right to say Y.
An ad hominem is fallacious when the attack doesn’t give us a reason for accepting at least one of these conclusions. That’s why (fallacious) ad hominems are classified by logicians as a fallacies of relevance.
Let’s look at Boxer’s ad hominem. (Interestingly, Boxer denies having attacked Rice personally, probably because she thinks of personal attacks mainly as name-calling affairs, e.g., “you’re an idiot.” But name-calling is only one kind of personal attack. It’s possible to make non-malicious personal attacks that don’t involve petty insults. Boxer did attack Rice, whether or not that attack was malicious.)
Anyway, here’s the structure of Boxer’s attack. Rice says that we should send more troops to Iraq. Boxer comes along and points out the following: Rice has no children and hence does not have a personal stake in sending more troops. Now comes the salient question: what are these facts supposed to prove in regards the truth of Rice’s position on sending more troops to Iraq or on her judgment in holding that position?
Boxer’s implied–but not stated–conclusion is that Rice’s judgment is compromised on the issue of sending more troops to Iraq. But how does Rice’s not having a personal stake in the war, i.e. not having an adult child who might die, impact her judgment? The reasoning seems to be that Rice et al. would be more hesitant in sending more troops if their adult children might be harmed. But this is question-begging: why is it a good thing to be hesitant about sending troops to war? We know that soldiers die in war. If that’s our main concern, then we’ll never send troops to war. (Note well: I am not saying that we should be undiscerning and hasty in sending troops to war.) Moreover, hesitating to send more troops may actually lead to more loss of life. In other words, there may be a high price to pay for not sending in more troops.
Boxer’s ad hominem fails, then, because it has no bearing on the issue of sending more troops to Iraq or on Rice’s judgment. That issue is a matter of military strategy and foreign policy–it is not a matter of who has children in the war and who doesn’t.
Bill Ramey on January 14, 2007 at 7:02 AM
All of Barney Frank’s kids get flushed down the toilet….HARSH darwin…..but so hysterically factual, I might wet my pants….
seejanemom on January 14, 2007 at 9:02 AM
William, you are right on.
There is also a BIG jealousy factor with the Dems just wishing they had someone like Condi. She is so intelligent, honest, talented, she has it all.
Ayn Rand is right on and this book was written a long time ago, but it applies to the situation.
The Dems are just so UGLY in every way.
By the way, why haven’t we heard from NOW defending Condi? If the situation were reversed, they would be screaming!
bjb on January 14, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Boxer has confused the Cub Scouts with the US Military.
Wander on January 14, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Dick Morris was right CondiRice2008 or at the very least NFL Commissioner.
kiakjones on January 14, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Barbara Boxer – An argument for keeping abortion legal.
Soothsayer, will you be on the ballot in 08? You have my vote!
TugboatPhil on January 14, 2007 at 2:14 PM
I am so tired of hearing folks yell about Bush “sending” other people’s “children” to Iraq. Military folks are not re not children. They are adults. Young ‘uns, lot of them, but adults nonetheless. Adults who have made a consious decision to join the military and who then receive the best training possible anywhere in the world, who are then sent out to do the jobs they have been trained to do. What an insult to our military guys and gals, to keep talking about them as if they are “children” who cannot make a coherent decision about themselves, their jobs, their future.
woodie4827 on January 14, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Her logic escapes me…
moc23 on January 14, 2007 at 6:49 PM
You make a good point – they are the best trained, most committed. intelligent buc=nch you’ll ever spend time with – however, here is the point I draw from this –
These soldiers are our children, mothers, fathers, etc.. This is only admitting to the human element of the conflict, which is always present.
Likewise, the enemies we fight are someone’s children, etc..
In a perfect would perhaps we could play a good rousing game of volleyball (best two out of three maybe) to settle our differences.
Seeing that we are not likely to get there for some time, it is our duty to equip our warfighters with the best training, equipment, and support (including government taking the restraints off) to go out and destroy the enemy. This is harsh, but it is the only way to win.
They, by the way, are equally dedicated to their cause but do not suffer idiots in government telling them they can’t kill.
For the idiots in our government placing restrictions on ours is tantamount to murder.
I do, however, believe that having served in the forces and/or having a child gives one a different perspective in their decision making process that those who have not or do not have cannot fully grasp.
This is not to say that they should not have a say, merely that all thoughts must be heard and weighed out then the best decision made and carried out – not modified in mid-stream due to a lack of thought and/or planning.
Unlike our current leadership.
There is still time to win – the only question is will our government (both parties) do what is right or will they do what is both politically expedient and good for their business (personal and professional)?
Emmett J. on January 14, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Boxer is doing nothing more than searching for excuses for her lack of courage to make the tough choices necessary to secure freedom. She is weak and does not belong in the Senate – or anywhere else in government.
Woody
woodcdi on January 14, 2007 at 8:29 PM
1. Is she wearing white after Labor Day?!
2. Does she expect to be taken seriously with that scarf tied around her neck in a military facility, where any fool would have chosen a sweater?
Jaibones on January 14, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Hmmm…so only people with children understand the value of human life…hmmm…that’s pretty stupid.
JackM on January 14, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I have only one thing to say to Boxer:
“A little less talk, a little more shut the hell up.” – Dr. Daniel Jackson, Stargate: SG-1.
Rusty Bill on January 15, 2007 at 12:03 AM
What self-righteous, self centered arrogance and condescension!
Barbara Boxer was showboating because the limelight, the cameras were on her, and she took advantage and tried to look tough and take a shot at someone in a high state of office, Condaleezza Rice.
Speaking Truth to Power?
More like compensating, or overcomenstating, for her inferiority complex and her lack of etiquette and sense of decorum.
William
William2006 on January 15, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »