Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The fact that Condi has no children is VERY relevant

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:50 AM
Original message
The fact that Condi has no children is VERY relevant
The New York Post has an editorial blistering Sen. Boxer for bringing up the fact that Condi has no children of her own. To me, this is extremely relevant, given the fact that she is helping to send thousands of other parents' children to their DEATHS. It's so easy for these fucking neocons to draw up these war plans, knowing very well that these plans will never affect them directly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not so sure about that...
Bush and Cheney both have spawn, they don't seem to be bothered about it too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Maybe because they know their spawn will never have to fight and possibly die for their lie.
They will only benefit from the war profits. Life is good for the spawn of bu$hco,Inc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. Having children is a precondition for having compassion?
Boxer has overstepped here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
28. no, having a personal stake in the 'sacrifice' that Rice say she
"understands"- is what is at issue here.

If Rice had a husband, brother, sister, son, daughter, father or mother who was vulnerable to being sacrificed to the war/god of this administration, THEN she could begin to have a true understanding of what is being put in the balance here.

Boxer didn't do anything but point out an "UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH".

"Who pays the price?"- that is what Sen.Boxer asked- she acknowledged that Mz Rice 'feels bad' for the families- but "WHO PAYS THE PRICE?"-

She was 'right-on' DEAD on with her question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. What personal stake does Keith Olbermann have?
What personal stake do many DUers have - those without children or family in the war?

The issue is ability and integrity - not childlessness.

Making a person's parental status an issue is a creepy conservative thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #35
43. Kieth Olbermann doesn't send people off to die in unjust wars...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. thank you! Beelzebud- you answered perfectly- n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #43
61. Not the question. If the issue is that childlessness makes one IGNORANT
of the cost to Americans, how do you explain the passion and zeal of a Keith Olbermann?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. unless you are prepared to engage, childlessness does by definition...
make one ignorant of certain things clearly & on the face of it i.e. what it means to put milk on the breakfast table (and no i'm not talking about your cheerios) and short of milk for your coa-coa roos how much it costs, what it is to wash a child's bloody boo-boo kiss it make it better, or soothe a nightmare from a tiny, innocent mind...some people have no experience in these areas; only simply don't care, or care as much as they should

you can poo-poo everything that this implies, but there is a level of straight-up selfishness found in studied childlessness: lindsey graham, harriet meiers, condi rice...before long a pattern emerges

unless you would care to contend "the passion and zeal of a Keith Olbermann" is fake and only as such for the numbers sweeps & nielsen ratings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. "Straight-up selfishness"?
You have never met me, you don't have any idea who I am or how I live my life but because I chose not to breed, I must be selfish.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. That is how they think, jokerman
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 02:05 PM by RGBolen
give this thread a few more minutes and you will hear how we shouldn't be buying 3 or 4 bedroom houses and raise housing costs for "real" families, and how their children shouldn't be forced to take care of us when we become "old and alone."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. How many kids do you have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #66
91. 1, hubby has two, lost two, and we have 6 g-kids...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #63
85. I don't have children (not altogether by choice, btw)
but I have done many of the things you claim I don't know about--as a camp director, as a child care worker, sitting for the children of friends, as a Godmother (her name is Ellie, and she is CUUUUUTE!). The fact that I don't have children doesn't mean I don't know children, don't care for children, don't love children. I do know and love children, and I want them to grow to be safe. I would do anything I could to care for the children in my life, even if I'm not (usually) the person they wake up in the middle of the night, sick or scared.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Quake Donating Member (202 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #63
88. You definately know how to hit a nerve hard...
My spouse and I are childless, NOT by choice. 10 years of fertility treatments that broke both of us physically, emotionally and financially. Please think twice before calling us out on being selfish. If you couldn't have children, would you spend a couple college education's trying to have one? Don't ever call childless people selfish. That is simply ignorant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #88
93. every single person that has responded here seems to have not understood...
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 05:00 PM by bridgit
there is of course understanding where people try and are not able for whatever reason, i know a couple that tried invetero and failed twice, to hit the 3rd time with triplets...and now they are getting a divorce

but people such as were the source of my reply above i.e. Condi Rice, are imo ignorant of many of the details associated with children, and what it may take to nurture them...

if you would care to defend her position with respect to sending the loved ones of others into a war that benefits the global aspirations of oligarchs then please do be my guest but do not misrepresent my position for what are your internalized preconceptions

neither is it suggested as is too often the case, that by using the word 'ignorant', people have somehow suggested a low IQ...try to stick with the root word: ignore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. You make less sense with each post.
All I can tell is that you seem to be lumping all non-breeders (except those who have tried in vain) into the same slot as Rice. That is both ignorant and offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. restating the OP sub-line, Jokerman, in that you are so far off the map...
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 05:40 PM by bridgit
i see no way back for you, "The fact that Condi has no children is VERY relevant"

you think that Condi having no children IS NOT relevent, then take it to where it needs to be; in addition to which i have already stated a host of republican "non-breeders" (how offensive are you prepared to truly be), and therein is the core of what i have said in that they are all more than keen on sending the loved ones of others into harms way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #100
126. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. Ignorant is an accurate description of your post
Her part in sending people to war has not a fucking thing to do with whether she has procreated and you should bloody well know it. The majority of the war's planners have children.

Good fucking grief, part of the reason the planet's dying is because in our society, having a kid is an automatic Good Guy Badge. Sociopaths know this. Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. disagreed, there is clearly a vehement reaction from many who have not...
will not, are unable to "pro-create" for whatever reason, or have decided not to for reasons that speak to career goals & pressures...that's fine, i know many G&L folk that have no experience with the process either, and that's find as well...however...

"...part of the reason the planet's dying is because in our society, having a kid is an automatic Good Guy Badge" is perhaps the most ignorant statement of them all, in that i see that as part of the reason the world should be saved; and only a sociopath is capable of up-ending, or back-ass-warding what is clearly a creative, forwarding thinking process of life itself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #101
113. What does that last clause even mean?
Are you even aware that some people become parents for selfish reasons, such as attention and social status?

Do you inhabit some parallel Earth that isn't overpopulated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #93
106. Nonsense. When I didn't have kids I was not ignorant of what it means to have them.
Not having children does not leave one without any ability to observe and understand life around them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #63
95. That is a breathtakingly blanket statement, I cannot accept it.
I'm simply amazed anyone would make it, particularly on DU. Where are such studies you mention?

I know childless people who are many things, some good some bad, none of which has to do with their decision not to have children. They may or may not be selfish, but so are people with children. If people decide to be childless they could also be unselfish in their caring for the environment and the effect of population growth. Or they may feel that they do not wish to be parents. I can't see what is wrong in that. As a matter of fact, if they feel that way, what kind of parents would they make?

IMHO, deciding to HAVE children is often made by irresponsible people who have no idea what parenting entails. If someone has thoughtfully decided that he or she would not be suited to parenthood, then they should be applauded for making such a thoughtful decision.

To me that is just common sense...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #63
107. Selfishness?
I think people who insist on populating the earth with little copies of themselves are the ones being selfish, personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #107
117. And that statement was just as bad as the original - in the opposite
direction.

Not everyone has children to populate the earth with copies of themselves.

Geesch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #63
116. Arent you camparing Neo Cons
to FDR Dems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #63
147. Wow.
I'm sure you don't mean to sound like a total bitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SanCristobal Donating Member (303 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #61
124. Isn't Olberman bad in bed?
That probably explains that.

A thread this dumb deserves dumb posts. To slightly misquote a great man, IT'S THE ISSUES, STUPID.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #61
144. That's not the issue at all MJ. Why discuss BS spin instead of the issue BB raised & what she
actually said.

The point was that both she and and Ms. Rice had no possible "immediate family" "personal cost" and pointed out "who will pay the cost?"

read a transcript here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3115277
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
115. Thank you, I have no kids
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
58. Boxer was just proving her point, that Condi does not have
to make any "sacrifice" in sending her children off to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L A Woman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #58
67. but if she HAD children...
she still wouldn't have to make any more sacrifice than Bush has. Her children would likely be at Yale or partying on Sunset Blvd. I don't understand the logic here.

Only people with children should be allowed to make any decisions?

We coddle children and people who have them FAR too much in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
77. were your
parents coddled?

Mine sure as hell weren't. Neither have I been- as a woman who became a single mother, are you a mother? Are you coddled? The notion that parents are coddled is bullshit.- can you back your assertion up with any real evidence?

As for your reading into this that only people with children should be allowed to make any decisions, I say you need to chill out.- THAT is not what was said, or what was inferred. I was watching the hearings, and the POINT was, that it is much easier to gamble away the lives and futures of people when those people have NO connection with you.

Just as you state, the likelihood of Mz.Rice or * or any other wealthy, powerful politician having to personally be touched by the tragedy that befalls those who do the actual fighting in this war, and those who love them is pretty damn slim- There are a FEW legislators who have near and dear ones in the military- but not many.

THAT was the point Senator Boxer was making. She said nothing about Condolizza's choice not to bear children.

That is other people's spin and hypersensitivity.

Your statement that we coddle children far too much in the country angers me with it's spiteful intolerance more than I can say-

Check out how many children live in foster homes please.- Then check out what the lives of those children is really like. If you have compassion fatigue, I hope you work through it. I ask you to consider if you would like to be a child today, and have to inherit the world that you and I are handing over to the next generation.....

I sure wouldn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #77
86. I was just thinking about this the other day.
I was driving down a street with homes much larger and more expensive than I'll ever own. Every house had toys and bikes in the driveway. I thought, "How do they afford this?" and then remembered that they get a tax cut fr every kid they have. I get one personal exemption--they get a bunch. And God knows what other things they get to list as deductions due to their kids.

And then I have to listen to the talk about how I don't know about real life because I don't have kids, as if they don't know where these kids keep coming from--they just show up and these poor parents have to shoulder the burden.

Parents are coddled in all kinds of ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. forgive me for
not understanding what you are saying. But I don't.

If people tell you that you don't know about 'real life' because you don't have kids, then you can enlighten them to the fact that being a parent isn't a pre-requisite for being a complete person. If they tell you you don't know what the experience of parenthood is, if you aren't or haven't been one- that's true.

That wasn't the issue here mycritters- Nor was it the issue Sen. Boxer was putting out there- (despite how it got twisted by the media and those who feel marginalized by society because of their decision not to parent) the issue I was addressing in my reply was the assertion made to me " that parents and children are FAR too coddled in America."

I asked the poster to prove that assertion.
They haven't responded yet- and your response doesn't answer this issue.- or if it does, I am too stupid to understand it-

Have you coddled your parent today?

mine are dead. And my kids don't coddle me- nor I them. But I'm not complaining.

peace,
blu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #86
129. Hilarious.
By that crazy logic, everyone with children should have big homes and are living it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #129
136. the more kids, the bigger and better house and more toys!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #86
134. Do you seriously think that child tax cuts are enough to buy an large expensive house
and lots of toys? That the tax cut outweighs what it costs to raise a child enough to be able to have the big house and toys? Dang, that's what I did wrong, only had 1 kid. If I'd had more I could be living in a large expensive house?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #77
133. Poor families and children don't exist. It's just that crazy liberal media.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #67
81. Self delete
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 03:41 PM by lukasahero
I really should know better. Will google the transcript myself. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
41. Boxer acknowledged Condi's compassion. But compassion
is not the same as sacrifice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
44. But Boxer didn't refer to Condi's "childless" status
She referred to "an immediate family member." Also, she put herself in the same category. She said her children were too old and her grandchild was too young.

It was a good point. The people making war policy do not have their own family members at risk of being shot at in Iraq, with the outstanding exception of the very few lawmakers who DO, such as Jim Webb. In past wars, the sons (and daughters)of Congress and the President went off to fight America's wars. This is extremely relevant, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. That's really just bullshit. Having kids or not is not relevant to policy.
That said,, I don't mind exploiting anything about the * administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
64. Exactly right, that's exactly why the "liberal" media is choosing to focus on that silly
little piece of a much more important puzzle, they're just avoiding having to discuss the much more relevent policy information that was being discussed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. The fact she has no children is irrelevant. Bush has kids and he's an ass. I have no kids
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 10:01 AM by xultar
and I'm anti-war. So did Boxer just diss me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. No, you're not making policy
Especially policy that sends other parents' children off to war. I'm not saying that having children is a prerequisite to be in government, or even make policy. I'm just saying from an emotional standpoint, it's impossible for Condi to know what it would be like to lose a child, because she doesn't have any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. BS. Cheney has kids. Bush has kids. Did that improve their understanding
of other people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. On the contrary, she's saying that Condi is ignorant -
while * and Cheney are psychopaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. Not having children makes a woman ignorant?
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. EXACTLY!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
130. Only if that woman sends other people's children off to die. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #130
143. Then she's just ignorant - not because she's childless. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
50. If that is dissing, Boxer dissed herself
She said she (Boxer) is not sacrificing because her children are too old and her grandchild too young. So it wasn't intended as fingerpointing insult, it is simply a fact that it is the families of the servicemen who are sacrificing, not the rest of us. Boxer, Condi, Bush and Cheney are all members of the rest of us in this case. Boxer was right on. If you had a family member in Iraq you would understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. No it isn't. Even if she had children, she'd still be cold and unfeeling.
Having children does not automatically instill a person with a 'motherly' instinct and empathy. There are plenty of people with children who lack the ability to parent and are abusive to them. There are plenty of people who have never had children who genuinely care about others - Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney come to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Dragon Lady Bush comes to mind on your first point...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. Boxer was out of line
There are many reasons why someone might not have children.

Like medical conditions. Like sexuality. Like personal choice.

As was pointed out - Bush, Blair and Cheney are all breeders.

They are ultimately responsible for this war - not Ms Rice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
48. See my post re what Boxer actually said
It was "immediate family member" not children when referring to Rice.

I just heard the tape replayed on Stephanie Miller's show. Please investigate yourself if you doubt this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
92. Boxer pointed out that Condi "had no skin in the game" so it was easy for her
and Bushco to roll the dice with the lives of others.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
112. Boxer never called Rice "Childless" - she referred to immediate family, which includes siblings
parents and children. Boxer's own parents are dead, she and her husband are too old, Boxer's siblings are too old, Boxer's children are too old and Boxer's grandchildren are too young. Condi's parents are dead, Condi has no spouse, no siblings and no children.

Boxer's point was very clear - neither SHE (Boxer) nor SHE (Condi) had any family member who would/could be sacrificed in this war.

How was pointing this important fact be "out of line"?

This has nothing to do with breeding....There are plenty of "Non-breeders" who do have "skin in the game" unlike Boxer or Condi. What if a "Non-breeder" was 20 years old - they had 4 siblings all above the age of 18 and both that persons parents were 40 (and could also be serving)?

This issue is not about whether someone is childless or a "Breeder".....its whether they have any family who can be sacrificed and the answer in the case of both Boxer and Rice is NO. That's why her comment and point were completely accurate and appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
9. Sorry, but it's not relevant.
Parenthood or lack of it has little to do with a person's sense of others or his/her sympathy for others. Barbara Bush has children, but it's obvious she doesn't give a damn about hers or anyone else's.

Further, there are many reasons why people don't have children and many times it has nothing to do with personal choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pennylane100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. I think she meant that Condi would not experience the loss of a child.
I have three children and when I cannot imagine the pain of losing one of them in a war that was built on a lie and whose sole purpose seems to be to put money into the hands of the already wealthy.

In these circumstances, I would be so filled with rage and the need to make these people accountable. I can totally understand what motivates Cindy Sheehan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
13. Rice can't know what a mother feels about her childen
No one with out children can claim to know what it's like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. You mean someone like Barbara Bush?
Did having children make her empathize?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Her kids were born to ruin the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. So what does having children have to do with it? It's just bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. She'll never have to send her kids off to war.
Let someone else see their son or daughter die. No problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Again, BULLSHIT. How many kids does Cheney have? How many does Olbermann have?
Who cares more about your kids?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. You win. I'm sure she'll make a fine president after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Another strawman? Embarassing.
Making an issue of whether a woman has children or not is tired, and the sort of slur best left to conservatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. I agree with you
it ls completely classless. And we wouldn't be having this conversation if Condi were a man. Kids or no kids. Boxer was WAY over the line here and I cannot stand Rice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. I have kids, and I don't think it makes me any more qualifieed to comment on the
war, or to oppose it, or to have legitimate views.

What are we going to do next - bash Hillary for having a career AND a kid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
104. Babs thought "Rule" was spelt Ruin LOL !
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 06:03 PM by EVDebs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
105. Babs thought 'rule' the world but 'ruin' is how it turned out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
29. I think my own interpretation of what Barbara said is this:.
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 10:38 AM by higher class
No one who is without children can understand - they have to use head and heart to put themselves in that parent's place - whether a person chooses to care and do the work to understand is one thing. How does a person whose full time job is to destroy our kids and the people of other countries get into the head of a parent who is suffering the loss. I would never say anything like this about another normal person. Her role as facilitator and advisor tells me everything I need to know to slam her. She is part of the KILLING MACHINE - why care about our mothers here and over there? Edited to add - how can people who work so hard at lying even bother to understand the loss of a child? The disparity of mindset is significant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sammythecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
31. If I were a mother, I don't think
I could claim to know what you feel about your children. I would only know my own feelings for my own children, and it's entirely possible my feelings could be quite different than yours. I don't believe mothers of the world share some mystical, secret, and common, epiphany received at the birth of children.

A good, and loving, woman will most likely be a good, and loving, mother. A woman who is an asshole will most likely remain an asshole after childbirth.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikey929 Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
15. Kids
Hey, I love having my two kids, but I would never harsh on someone for not having kids, nor make it a condition for a job. Boxer is out of line.

When debating politics, I prefer to stick to issues. When people -- either on the right or left -- start attacking someone personally, it detracts from the public discourse. There is a lot of name-calling on this board that really accomplishes very little except a chuckle once in a while. I like to see reasoned debate, not attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. But King George needs a son to carry on.
I'm not so sure Condie and George don't already have a kid...you decide.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k_jerome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. load of crap.nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sammythecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
18. I don't know if she intended it this way,
but her words sound like low blow to me. Totally irrelevant. She shouldn't have brought that up. It makes her look bad and weakens, rather than strengthen, her argument.

To say it strengthens her argument would be like saying having children must be a prerequisite to having any say in military matters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
21. I have to agree with the majority here. Being childless doesn't equate to lacking compassion.
I'm a parent myself and I can say that many of us are as selfish as it gets. Many childless people are as compassionate as it gets.

Condi's heartlessness is an individual trait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
22. I think Boxer put it wrong. Condoleezza can't identify because
she is an emotionally-crippled, sorry-excuse of a human being, and she would be that whether she reproduced or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
27. It's just as relevant as asking if a leader has combat experience.
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 10:28 AM by WinkyDink
I.e., both are irrelevant in determining the morality and/or the practicality of policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
36. it isn't 'children' it is a personal stake in this 'game'- and Rice has none-
no brothers-sisters-husband-children-father or mother to lose- or to stand to lose.
It is much easier to gamble away other peoples futures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. And if she had children would she have a personal stake?
Would her kids be on the front lines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. no- just as Sen Boxer pointed out-
when she said that her children were too old, and her grandchild too young-
Mz. Rice's children would be as sheltered by her power and wealth as *'s are- so no, she would still not have a personal stake.

Sen. Boxer didn't claim that SHEhad the same kind of understanding. As for me- my children don't have a chance of avoiding a draft. We have neither the 'connections' or financial advantages that insulate the 'privlidged' from the realities of life.

Have you ever heard of the "Peace Child?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #46
62. So her childlessness IS NOT RELEVANT.
Even if she had kids they wouldn't be at risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #62
87. as far as
I'm concerned, NO, it is not relevant- She is not going to be drafted, she is not the partner of someone who could be, she has no siblings, her parents are too old to be sent to fight and die- yes, the fact that she has no children is not relevant.
The FACT that she CLAIMS to 'know' what those who have lost loved ones, and who are witnessing their loved ones struggle to survive the horrible wounds that are being inflicted on so many of our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, IS THE POINT!!

Condolizza Rice will never have to know the fear, anxiety, pain and loss, that her "plans" and her plotting has, is, and will cost. She isn't an innocent civilian in Iraq, a soldier or personally connected in any meaningful way with anyone who has their feet on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Boxer even put the caviat in of- "not that I'm aware of" and Rice didn't have anything to say that changed it)

So her bullshit claim that she "understands the pain" is just that- And Senator Boxer rubbed her nose in that truth- while admitting that she herself was insulated from it as well.

This isn't about parenthood Mondo Joe- it is about who has to sacrifice for the 'great ideas' of the rich and powerful elite. And why the elite needs to calculate in the cost to our society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
37. Condi has no compassion and having children
would not change that for her..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
40. For 6 years Dems have been called
Un-American, Treasonous, Traitors, and a host of other names. To be honest, with the exception of Barney Frank who was just hilariously shoving it up the Cons asses yesterday, I think most of the Dems have been fairly cordial all thing considered. Boxer wouldn't have been out of line if she had told Condi to fuck off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
42. more tired old bullshit
I'm a woman. I have no children. I've opposed this war from before day 1.

Senatory Boxer should be ashamed of herself for perpetuating the kind of sexist bullshit that she should be fighting against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #42
51. Velma, I know you are a strong feminist as I am, but this isn't what
you think. Ijust heard the tape played and Boxer made reference to "immediate family" with regard to Rice. She did NOT say children. Immediate family can mean the other relatives of any childless person.

I do not have immediate family involved in this war. I am in the same category as Rice. Also I am in the same category as Boxer. I cannot know what the loss of a family member in Iraq would feel like.

Boxer was making a perfectly legitimate argument about the classist, not sexist, aspect of the war we are waging in Iraq. I don't know about you, but I am deeply anguished that only one class of citizen in our country is sent to fight our wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. thank you for the clarification
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 11:06 AM by VelmaD
I was going off what others on this thread were saying (some of which was pure sexist garbage). I should have known better and looked up Boxer's comments for myself.

You are dead on right about the classist issue in this war. But even so, a lot of anti-war people don't have an immediate family member in this war. It just seems like an odd thing to bring up...and I'd be surprised if it had been brought up in a Congressional hearing with any of the male members of the cabinet. Now...if Boxer wants to prove me wrong and do it...I will laugh my ass off at what's good for the goose FINALLY being good for the gander. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Thank you for your response! You are so right about people without
children being equally as passionate about opposing this war as any parent could be. As a feminist, it would not occur to me to say anything different.

I really don't think Boxer was making a sneaky reference here to Rice's childlessness, but I guess I could be wron. Boxer has been on our side on so many issues I think we're lucky to have her in the Senate. She has been a strong voice for us, I believe. If she can elaborate on the class issue, I think it would be a good thing. But probably uncomfortable for lots of folks in Washington...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
137. thank you for the clarification on what Boxer said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
45. I have no children...
Yet I've been against this and every other political war in my lifetime.

George Bush HAS children yet he seems to enjoy sending others off to die.

How doe this jive with your bullshit theory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #45
56. EXACTLY. There is no logic to the premise.


__________________________

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tigereye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
47. there is something seriously wrong with Rice
she's a supercilious, driven and one-track mind mouthpiece who has shelved any bit of integrity she might have had to obtain the kind of power that most only dream of.


It has nothing to do with whether or not she has kids. Damn, does she irritate me so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
53. she can be attacked for many things but not having children isn't one of them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #53
109. Spot on
With all the things our opponents have wrong with them, it's a mystery to me why people so often pick irrelevent and childish things to pick on. Rush is fat. Coulter looks like a man. Bush is bisexual. Rice doesn't have kids. It's irritating and wholly unhelpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
54. HOW DARE SHE NOT HAVE A CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE RECIPE?
I mean, it was soooooo important in 1992, when "working mom" Hillary Clinton, the "face of evil", went up against "grammy" Barbara Bush ... and then, when Hillary went up against "homewrecker" Elizabeth Dole in 1996, the fact that E.D. had no kids never batted an eye ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
57. No actually the fact that she has no children is none of Sen. Boxer's damn business
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Boxer never referred to Rice about not having children. Just gave her examples
of other people who did.

Before you get outraged, why not bring up the c-span vid from yesterday and see it for yourself.

Or you could take the word of a right-wing editorial in a right-wing rag.

I watched the hearing live yesterday, with a bunch of other DUers, and NOT ONE of us even mentioned Boxer going after Rice's childless status. You know why? Because it didn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Read what she said
"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."


http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm


Looks like she is talking about children and the ages of one's children. I've run into quite a few people who think like Boxer, you run into these kinds of people on DU. Trust me the child free understand very well exactly what she said and what she meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #60
71. Absolutely
>Trust me the child free understand very well exactly what she said and what she meant.<

And we continue to understand exactly what was said and what was meant by a very ill-advised remark. (Does Ms. Boxer know, for instance, that as of the last census, there are 13 million adults in the United States that have voluntarily chosen to not have children? These numbers are rising as well. Does she know that they vote?)

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #71
94. choosing not to birth a child is a personal and
private matter. I am very aware of the pressure, disdain and ....prejudice, that some people dump on others who have chosen not to parent. I don't endorse this predjuce- and I sincerely respect the right that each one of us has to choose to live our lives as we see fit.

The sad reality is, one out of every 6 children in America lives in poverty-

One out of every 10 senior citizens in America live in poverty.
One out of every four homeless persons is a child.
More US children live in poverty than any other developed country-

And from the Children's Defense Fund:



For every five children that fell into poverty since 2000, more than three fell into extreme poverty.
The number of children in extreme poverty (with incomes below $7,610 a year, or about $20 a day, for a family of three) grew almost twice as fast as the rate of increase for child poverty overall (20 percent compared to 12.4 percent).

The U.S. has the highest child poverty rate of any wealthy nation.
A child in America is more likely to live in poverty than a child in any of the 18 other wealthy industrialized nations for which data exist, according to data from the cross-national Luxembourg Income Study.

One out of every six households with children in America was “food insecure” in 2004 (without access to enough food to fully meet basic needs at all times due to lack of financial resources), according the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The majority of food insecure households have incomes that are near or below the poverty line.

More than seven out of 10 poor children live in a working family.
Contrary to popular perceptions about poor families, 71.5 percent of children in poverty lived in a family where someone worked full- or part-time for at least part of the year. More than one in three poor children (34.4 percent) lived with a full-time year-round worker.

There are more poor White non-Hispanic children (4.5 million) than poor Black children (3.8 million) or poor Hispanic children (4.1 million), even though the proportion of Black and Hispanic children who are poor is far higher. Poor families have only 2.1 children on average.

Poor children are at least twice as likely as non-poor children to suffer stunted growth or lead poisoning, or to be kept back in school. Poor children score significantly lower on reading, math, and vocabulary tests when compared with otherwise-similar non-poor children. More than half of poor Americans (55 percent) experience serious deprivations during the year (defined as lack of food, utility shutoffs, crowded or substandard housing, or lack of a stove or refrigerator).

America can lift more children out of poverty.
America cut its child poverty rate in half in the 1960s. Since then, child poverty has grown while national efforts to improve economic security have focused on the elderly. Three fourths of poor children would be lifted out of poverty if government programs were as successful at reducing child poverty as they have been at reducing poverty among seniors. In 2002 public benefits lowered poverty by almost half and child poverty by more than one-third. Moreover, research has shown that if people were able to fully access all of the benefits for which they are eligible, poverty could be reduced by an additional 20 percent and extreme poverty would fall by 70 percent.



Children don't ASK to be born- and they can't choose who births them. We are all former children- Most people will become senior citizens. Both vulnerable populations deserve to be protected and provided for. That is part and parcel of living in a society.

peace-
blu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
89. look deeper- she clearly
left room for Rice to say "I have a brother, partner, spouse"-
Sen. Boxer, and Mz.Rice are beyond the age of being draft worthy- and their social class puts them into a place where that would be highly unlikely. What was being pointed out very bluntly- and very painfully for those who like to play dice with the lives of other people. When those they love live in blissful isolation.

Read the excerpt again- read where Rice tries to say that she 'understands' what the families go through.
SHE DOESN'T understand- she never can understand what they go through. And her shameless lip-service and pretend concern is a slap in the face to all those who are grieving and suffering- and all who will know this pain as a direct result of the crap she is trying so hard to sell.

Ask a Gold Star Mother/wife/child what it feels like- none of us who aren't one can really understand.

That was the whole point. IMO- and I was watching the hearings when this was said.

You may indeed be harassed and subject to prejudice because you do not have children, and that is WRONG- but it wasn't the issue here- the issue is about gambling with the other peoples futures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
146. Read more of what she said. In context. From the transcript.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3115277


I'm not sure RGBolen, what you mean by:

"I've run into quite a few people who think like Boxer, you run into these kinds of people on DU. Trust me the child free understand very well exactly what she said and what she meant."

There's some cryptic presumption about "these kinds of people on DU." Another presumption that you know what " the child free understand very well."


Senator Boxer's point was that those who are decision makers (she and Condi for example) don't have an immediate family personal stake in "who pays the price." Her point, her question, her examples in the transcript, were about "who pays the price."

Trust me, anyone who reads the transcript and doesn't fall for the bogus controversy distraction will "understand very well exactly what she said and what she meant."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3115277
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
68. I don't see how it's relevant.
Plenty of parents don't have any trouble sending other people's kids off to death.

Can't Boxer find anything legitimate to gripe about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #68
97. That was not what was said by Boxer.
My question to you: Why do you buy into what the RW media is telling you to believe, instead of listening with your own ears to what was said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedStateShame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
69. Has it occurred to anyone that this is only an insult to one side?
In the context in which Boxer used it, she was stating that Rice had no basis on which to decide what to do with some of our nation's youth. But to the party of White Jesus, being unmarried and childless is despicable and weird. That's what the GOP didn't like about Harriet Miers, not her lack of judicial experience!! I think the fact that one side of the media, i.e. Der Fox Uber Alles, is taking umbrage is very telling about the people that are left to support the Criminal in Chief. Killing 100,000 brown people who talk funny is okay, but not marrying is suspicious behavior!!? Oh, and every time I see footage from Fox and Friends, I feel like I'm looking at 3 people who were the products of siblings having sex.

:rant:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoping4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
72. WTF? How has having kids influenced Bush, Cheney, etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Well they're MEN.
:eyes:

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoping4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. I'm surprised that this sentiment has any support on DU.
Are to assume that since Boxer is privileged that she is incapable of having empathy for those who are underprivileged?:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insane_cratic_gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
75. Condi will not have a "Personal" loss
related to the Iraq war, Or death.

Most people position if from a point of humanity. People like Condi and law makers tend to depersonalize war because its' the only way to wage it! Why do you think we say "casualty of war" Or "Collateral Damage" Not only because the loss can be huge but because it takes away the significance (except for those personally affected) of one life or many.

Bush and Condi, Rummy, Dickey are all responsible for the loss of life. Yet they knew none of those who have died, personally (Except for Saddam my Rummy will weep). "They" can't seem to induce empathy while others can. Those who are anti war are indeed plagued or privileged (depending on what side of the fence you stand on) by empathy. To politicians, when sending others to war, empathy is a nail in your designs and schemes. It hinders you. You can not in good conscience risk your child's life for war designed on lies. Why is only 2 congressman have kids in Iraq?

I believe Barbara is correct in stating, you have no loved ones facing down a bullet, you set aside empathy because you have no personal ties, except career ties related to the Iraq war.

Do you not think the only reason Bush and Condi are pushing for the success in Iraq, is not for American lives, but so their own part in the disaster will not be so tarnished? Trying to throw more troops will not make it so, but they will still keep trying to save their pet project.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poiuytsister Donating Member (591 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
76. My son is an airman about to leave for Iraq
AGAIN! I really can't put into words the terror I am feeling right now. I am paralyzed with fear for him. I sit and sob when they read off the names Would of service persons who die every week.

I believe so strongly that any politician with children of the correct age should be forced to send their children into combat before they can send anyone Else's. AND THAT GOES DOUBLE FOR THOSE FUCKING TWINS. Would Bush think a tiny bit harder if his girls were on the front line?

Bottom line: it will never happen, I know.
Bottom bottom line: I don't those two bimbos to be the ones watching my sons back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
78. BOXER NEVER SAID CHILDREN, SHE SAID IMMEDIATE FAMILY
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 03:28 PM by LSK
As in sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. Aunts and uncles aren't immediate family. But SO FUCKING WHAT?
If you'er an orphan you aren't adequate to policy level jobs?

Why, oh WHY, make the issue personal rather than faulting Rice on her merits - the lack of which is considerable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. I guess you missed the part before that where Boxer said about her own family
This whole dispute is big red herring.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. No, I got that too. But it doesn't excuse her making a dumb comment
about Rice. Even if Rice had immediate family, they'd be safe as the immediate families of Cheney and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. thats what she meant
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 03:51 PM by LSK
"you dont have any immediate family who will be in harms way"

Did you see the actual footage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pS_8Q2oU-o&eurl=
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #84
99. BINGO! THAT is what Senator Boxer meant.
The repukes are making this into something it isn't and never was. Even IF Condiliar had kids, they wouldn't be in Iraq and any of her immediate family wouldn't have to go, UNLESS they wanted to. Boxer just stated a FACT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
79. It's not relevant at all...
Only in your bizarre fantasy land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
102. Horseshit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
103. Since their drinking episodes, Jenna and Barbara have disappeared
with the exception of the Argentine purse stealing incident ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
108. this whole flap is just desperation
They are running out of things to flame about. It was a reasonable observation. It was making the point that if you don't have immediate family at risk you MIGHT not be as intimately tuned in to the realities. One can accept or reject the point, but it was not a "personal attack for not having chidren" and did not say that disqualified one. The RW respones on this should be IGNORED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #108
139. You're right. It wasn't a personal attack on child free people.
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 01:48 PM by Pithlet
But the right wing spin machine know exactly how to push buttons. They knew they could spin it that way and some people on the left and right would foolishly take the bait, raise a holy stink and detract from the issue, and trash Boxer in the process. They jumped on the chance, and by the looks of this thread they succeeded. Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
110. If a Republican smeared a childless Democrat this way, you'd be up in arms.
Fuck double standards. America needs us to act like grown ups. Do your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caria Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
111. Once again they are attacking a dem as a diversion
The more time spent on this, the less on the shrub's latest speech and its ramifications.

That said, I just want to point out that while Condi's lack of loving human connections IS relevant, it absolutely does not follow that this in any way extends to all childless people, or all unmarried people, etc., etc. CONDI is the one who claims to understand pain but shows no evidence of understanding - or even caring about - the pain others feel as a direct result of her actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
114. 49 yrs old, I have no kids.
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 08:28 PM by FogerRox
I would make a great SOS. IMHO your point is moot.

Condi is a Neo COn.

I am a FDR DEM.

Actually, I cant have kids, my stuff is broke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
118. I heard a commentator, not sure where, say that Boxer blew what she meant to say
She meant to say something like: "Neither you or I have children that age...." which puts an entirely different spin on it. I don't remember where I heard that, I had the news on and was half asleep. But it makes much more sense than Boxer going after Condi personally. Another "botched" comment that has exploded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. Who among us could hold up under such scrutiny
if any time we misspoke, it was going to be blown up by our enemies and spread hither and yon by the media. Not me. And I would reckon not too many. They are making something out of nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
120. Childless and anti-war
I am childless and a feminist and against the war. I think I would be against the war in a much more personal, gut-wrenching way if I had a child in harms way. That seems obvious to me. I don't have much problem with what she said. She put herself in the same boat because her kids are too old to go. She obviously didn't mean that people without children in the war cannot care at all because she cares.
Madspirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hailtothechimp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
121. Two kids here. And I would do ANYTHING to keep them safe.
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 12:28 AM by Hailtothechimp
So yes, it is wholly relevant for me whether or not someone has kids.

I don't think Boxer was talking about kids directly with her comments, and it's no surprise the right wing is twisting it like they are. It's Mary Cheney, part 2.

I hope that bastard Limbaugh weighs in on this. He has no kids. So he can't say much, even though he'll find some way.

Having kids does not make me any better than someone who does not. But it has changed me as a person, and it will forever change the way I look at the world around me. Any parent would probably say the same thing.

Look at any political candidate, and they will showcase their family every chance they get. Obama, Edwards, Gore, Clinton.....they all do it. Heck, I do it with my holiday cards every year. And why not? Life takes on a new meaning when other lives are dependent on you.

Barbara Boxer's point about personal sacrifice was well taken, and even if she wasn't meaning to get into having kids or not, it's still a valid point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdpeters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
122. And that's how the right wing redirects the debate on worthless distractions
The Secretary of State makes a total fool of herself in her testimony to Congress trying to defend this *ahem* "augmentation", and they've got us talking about whether or not Boxer hurt her feelings.

Snap out of it!! Don't you see what they're doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #122
131. Roger that n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #122
132. And some in their rightious indignity are eating it up with a spoon.
Crazy, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaglass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
123. I don't think that just because someone has children they
- in general - have any additional personal stake in war.

I have a 15 yo son and I can't even explain 1.) the fear I have of a draft or 2.)the fear that when my son is of age that he might voluntarily join the military. Of course I have been against this war since before it began and at that time my son was much younger and my being against it really had nothing to do with my son potentially going over there.

But I have a friend with a son who graduated from HS last year and a son my son's age, who continues to vote for Bush. There is NO DOUBT in my mind about how much she loves her sons and how devastated she would be if they were drafted or joined up but it didn't impact her decision to vote for a war-monger.

People can have a personal stake in this war without having children or family members who could potentially go. They can also have sons of military age but not feel a personal stake in the war.

I'm not dissing Boxer, I think way too much is being made of this, but I think she made a generalization that isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SanCristobal Donating Member (303 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
125. Condi is a hottie! Boxer is just jealous.


Even Angelina Jolie is scoping out Condi, or eye-Condi as I like to call her. What do Angelina Jolie and Barbara Boxer have in common? They are both j to the a because Condi's body is hot and tight while they have been ravaged by childbirth. What a bunch of haters!

Dumb threads should get dumb posts. Talk about issues, and don't keep dumb comments like Boxer made in the media any longer then necessary.

No one in this country sends their kids of to fight wars. America has a volunteer military, parents don't sell their children into service. This is just as true of poor inner city and mid-western families as it is the Bush family. People serve by choice, this isn't an issue to any one but Charlie Rangel. The real issue is that a couple years inactive service has apparently turned into many years active service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
127. I checked NOW's website expecting to see this headline
"DEMOCRAT BOXER TO CHILDLESS WOMEN: YOUR OPINIONS DON'T COUNT, PLEASE KEEP THEM OUT OF THE PUBLIC ARENA"
Of course it wasnt there. I hate double standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. no double standard- Boxer said nothing of the kind-
I hate people who put words into other people's mouths.

ASSuming what someone meant to say, rather than looking at what they ACTUALLY said-

makes an ass out of u and me. ASS u me.

actual statement:
...............................................................................................
Boxer:
"Who pays the price?"

Rice:
"I fully understand the sacrifice that the American people are making, and especially the sacrifice that our soldiers are making. . . . I talk to their families. I see it."

Boxer:
"Madame Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it; that's not the point.
I was making the point about who pays the price for your decisions.
Now the issue is who pays the price?
Who pays the price?
I'm not going to pay a personal price.- My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.
You're not going to pay a particular price,- as I understand, within immediate family."


.............................................................................................
I've watched many a man take a blow to the testicles- I can IMAGINE the pain that they experience- but I will NEVER truly understand that pain, personally, because I do not have testicles- and never have had them.

There is a MASSIVE difference between 'imagining' and knowing from your own personal experience.

Boxer clearly stated she was NOT among those who were even in the 'lottery' for having to find out what it feels like to have someone within your immediate family PAY THE PRICE of Condolizza's decisions.- And was reminding Rice of the UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. well put
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 01:36 PM by frogcycle
this entire thread is a prime example of how easily people are manipulated by the roveistas

we live in a Miller Lite commercial. John Madden leans forward and says "he says less filling" and we go at each other like a bunch of hyenas. I could start a thread entitled "black is white" or "up is down" and I bet there'd soon be a couple of pages of people arguing over the nuance of what exactly I meant by use of the word "is"

It reminds me of many a business meeting I have suffered through when someone has like 20 powerpoint slides to get through, and the first 50 minutes is spent arguing over the phraseology of the agenda slide. The whole damned world has ADD. Throw out a scrap and watch all the dogs fight over it. Sheesh.

The right wing is going to make some sort of federal case out of every word uttered henceforth by any dem in a position of power or striving thereto.

It is NOISE! IGNORE it. Do not start quibbling over the nuances. When someone makes an outrageous accusation DO NOT try to find common ground with them, admitting to at least a kernel of truth in what they say, trying to 'make nice'. This is not "how to get along on the playground". Do not try to 'respect them as a human being' and say 'I know you are sad, and I am sorry'. Dr. Spock be damned. These people are trying to fuck with your head. Don't let them.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buzzard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #128
149. Exactly, she basically said neither of them were in a position to pay a personal price in terms of
immediate family because neither had children, grandchildren, spouses siblings that would be serving. It would help if people actually read what was being said. She never said that she couldn't feel empathy or compassion just that a personal price would not be paid by either of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #127
150. The era of arrogant, uniformed, antagonistic misogyny on DU is so OVER
The era of arrogant, uniformed, antagonistic misogyny on DU is so OVER

There is a link to the actual transcript in this link. You might want to start there, to achieve an informed opinion, esp. as you "hate double standards."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3104754&mesg_id=3121312


"DEMOCRAT BOXER TO CHILDLESS WOMEN: YOUR OPINIONS DON'T COUNT, PLEASE KEEP THEM OUT OF THE PUBLIC ARENA"

This is a total misrepresentation of what was actually said. Or meant. It is a repeat of the Right Wing Repug Faux News Bullshit Bogus Controversy that they perpetrate on the public because THEY DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS, OR WANT US TO DISCUSS, (YELLING LOUDER NOW) THE ACTUAL ISSUES.

You didn't really check the NOW website, did you? You didn't read the transcript either, did you? It's easier to ignore the issues, fall for the faux catfight controversy and feel superior to look down on women, both women, either woman, it doesn't matter. ALL women. NOW. And present it as if you are "defending" something. As if you didn't just pick up this opinion readymade off Faux News.

Your arrogant post is the epitome of a "double standard." Pretending to be informed or outraged, with no actual information or real target for the random rage.

Women are just convenient targets, arent' they?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raysr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
138. No apologies
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 01:51 PM by raysr
the republics have used that tactic over and over again to humiliate and cower the dems. They don't apologize for anything. Did "macaca"? No, I despise every and all republics, and will for the rest of my life. It's not a political party, it is, in fact, a sick fuck religion. "By the way, Ms. Rice, why are you a dried up "barren doe"? "Oh I see, your carreer came first. No apology needed, move along".
Is there anyway way to e-mail Boxer and erge her not to cave? She's one with the automated response as I recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
140. Why is it that when sending people off to be killed is discussed, people think that the issue...
is best considered from the perspective of the parents of the soldiers in question, rather than from the perspective of the individual's own perspective? Why is it "The decisions should be made by someone who understands what a parent would feel like having a kid sent" rather than "The decisions should be made by someone who would understand how it would feel to be sent"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
141. what's Chimpy's excuse? Father of 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
142. Folks --Puhleeeeeeezz don't fall for or feed the BOGUS controversy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
145. she supports a war that used 1000 tons of uranium that now burns Babys in the Womb till the sun dies
caution graphic/ but google: 'depleted uranium extreme birth defects' and they are EXTREME !! and WE DID IT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
148. Amazing Dems would respond to FOXnews senselessness
you guyz are tripping
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC