Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I disagree. I assume Bush is not telling the truth when he says he has never discussed abortion with him. I also assume that she has told him she is anti-RvW and would overturn it. That's not my litmus test and I think soime of the commentators are making a more principled argument too. She is not qualified. Period. She could promise to overturn Roe v Wade. Pour a couple of bottles of 85 Lafitte Rothschilde down my gullet and blow me till the cows come home, npi, and I still wouldn't support the nominiation. But I understand that it's hard for a leftie to understand principle.
|
Principles, principle, principles... you wield that word like Bush uses "progress."
Any position can be a principled stance, depending on the speaker's values. I think your right wing social views are looney tunes - card carrying crazy. Given that, what added value does calling your silly position a "principle" add to it? You're trying to create moral high ground for yourself using your own very twisted morals as a baseline. Perhaps thats why Wonk's been slapping you around. You argue from a position of superiority that exists nowhere but between your ears.
