Identity Crisis

Darla said:
Eh eh eh. You are dead wrong here.

Anyone who doesn't see that ROberts is an activist judge who will overturn Roe v Wade at his first opportunity, hasn't been paying attention. You bet he will.

He just needs the justices. You bet Fiorina is one more YES vote for that judge. YOu bet Boxer is one more NO vote against that judge.

You bet Fiorina will outlaw abortion, she is extremely bitter that she was unable to have children and hates women who end the pregnancies she couldn't have.

She has spoken openly about this.
Click to expand...

Darla believes her own strawmen are real.

stupid liberals
 
Darla said:
Ok, here is the conversation as it transpired.

Now, your original argument to Cawacko appears to be that Dems use abortion as a scare tactic because R's do nothing about it except lie to their base. I think that probably was true for a very long time, but you have to be asleep to not see that the W appointments changed that. Roberts is an activist judge. I don't think that can be in question? If you dispute Roberts being an activist judge, then say so, and we can start over from there. But I would doubt that anyone who is not a right wing moron watched Citizens United and didn't understand we are dealing with a right wing activist judiciary.

So if you accept that, then your argument would have to be that Roberts is an activist judge, but...he won't be that way when it comes to Roe V Wade. FOr which I 'd like to see your reasoning. I might find it interesting, but I won't find it persuasive since you know, the lives of women will be hanging on the balance of a hunch.

In none of this can I possibly see how the question of which Fiorina values more; tax cuts for her wealthy cronies and herself, or denying the women she hates for being able to get pregnant, the right to end their pregnancies, impacts this discussion.

Firstly, that is unanswerable for anyone other than Fiorina. We can only know that she has informed us in no uncertain terms that she values both.

Secondly, and more importantly - wtf difference could the answer possibly make? Is there going to be some magic new senate rule stating that right wingers only get to vote for one of their preferred policies?

In fact ,this is a huge herring and your post made little sense.
Click to expand...

That' wasn't really my point Darla. I don't have a strong opinion about Cheif Justice Roberts but I have a sneaky hunch you are right. That given the opportunity he would adjudicate to outlaw abortion.

My point is that Republicans cynically use these controversial and emotional wedge issues to advance their real cause which is their economic agenda. That they talk a good game about these social wedge issues but it's just that, mostly talk. What have they accomplished on these particular wedge issues that have gained them a lot of support from conservative working class whites? Not much. What have they accomplished with their economic agenda? A hell of a lot. Marginal tax rates for the wealthiest are at historic lows and you now see the greatest disparity of wealth in this nation since the guilded age. This is my point about Fiorina. Yes she may be a frightening opponent of womens reproductive rights but I promise you, if needed, she would drop her opposition in a New York minute if that was needed to get another tax break for the rich.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that if they had their way these reactionaries wouldn't outlaw abortion or put gays in concentration camps. I believe they would. I'm just saying money is far more important to them then these social wedge issues.

As for my comment about Ms. Boxer, that was just admiting that Democrats are not beyond using wedge issues to manipulate the public either.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
That' wasn't really my point Darla. I don't have a strong opinion about Cheif Justice Roberts but I have a sneaky hunch you are right. That given the opportunity he would adjudicate to outlaw abortion.

My point is that Republicans cynically use these controversial and emotional wedge issues to advance their real cause which is their economic agenda. That they talk a good game about these social wedge issues but it's just that, mostly talk. What have they accomplished on these particular wedge issues that have gained them a lot of support from conservative working class whites? Not much. What have they accomplished with their economic agenda? A hell of a lot. Marginal tax rates for the wealthiest are at historic lows and you now see the greatest disparity of wealth in this nation since the guilded age. This is my point about Fiorina. Yes she may be a frightening opponent of womens reproductive rights but I promise you, if needed, she would drop her opposition in a New York minute if that was needed to get another tax break for the rich.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that if they had their way these reactionaries wouldn't outlaw abortion or put gays in concentration camps. I believe they would. I'm just saying money is far more important to them then these social wedge issues.

As for my comment about Ms. Boxer, that was just admiting that Democrats are not beyond using wedge issues to manipulate the public either.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mott.
 
My original point was to show how far away from the center the Republican Party has shifted. It's just one of the many reasons that people should start getting used to the fact that President Obama is going to serve two terms.
 
ohiodem said:
My original point was to show how far away from the center the Republican Party has shifted. It's just one of the many reasons that people should start getting used to the fact that President Obama is going to serve two terms.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I totally got sidetracked when SF started bragging about his moonrock collection. I totally agree with you though.
 
Darla said:
I'm sorry, I totally got sidetracked when SF started bragging about his moonrock collection. I totally agree with you though.
Click to expand...



The above is a prime example of how delusional the left has become. they just start rambling about phantom conversations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top