So did NARAL. Roberts’ “support” of the organizations in question had nothing to do with their activities.
An analogy: if PETA hired me because they had been defrauded for office renovations by a carpenter who accepted money but never did any owrk, you wouldn’t say I “supported” PETA’s goals by suing the carpenter to get their money back, would you?
Roberts’ brief was addressing the limited quesiton of whether the abortion protestors violated a specific law. He said what the Supreme Court ultimately said: they did not. He was right. That doesn’t remotely translate into support ofr the organizations, no matter how much …er… “truth stretching” you wish to mention.
If you believe that links for “support” may be stretched so thinly, I’d like you to explain your shocking support of NAMBLA… since you pay federal taxes to the VERY SAME government whose federal constitution protects NAMBLA’s most odious activities. It’s an outrage, you pervert, you.
Most people who vote liberal/democrat vote on their principles.
If you lie and cheat to try to swing moderates and dumbasses to your side, you are going to lose your mainstream democrat base, and be left with easily swingable middle-of-the-road types, morons, and extreme left-wingnuts.
As a Democrat, I have to ask again why you’re trying to destroy the party. Are you a closet Bush supporter? Do you fellate Karl Rove in your head every night before you sleep?
And what point? The NARAL ad is demonstrably false, and raises an issue that doesn’t actually exist. Roberts never did what he was accused of in the ad, never acted in the way accused of in the ad, and had nothing to do with the bombing or bomber being showcased in the ad.
If anything, this makes it easier for Roberts to get a pass on anything else, as it’ll be easier to dismiss as “NARAL-style disinformation”.
Now don’t go all lawyer-slippery on me, Bricker. As I understand it, Roberts wasn’t hired by the abortion crew, he voluntarily worked on it as part of his firm’s pro bono case. You see the difference, I hope. Volunteer work argues a certain amount of personal commitment on Robert’s part. How much, I dunno. Perhaps we should ask him about that.
It doesn’t take that many people peeling off and voting for a Nader before the Democrats are screwed.
The only way your plan works is if Democrats are just as stupid as you think Republicans are. Well? Are they? Are Democrats gullible enough to fall for some Swift Boat Vets of their own? And would you really crow about that if they were?
If you have information that Roberts actually bombed an abortion clinic, or even helped bomb one, please share. Certainly, no one, NARAL included, has made such a claim. They claim that his pro bono work means he approved or condoned such activities. That’s a bit of a stretch, but hardly a huge, stinkiing Swift Boat whopper.
The ones who watch TV for their main news sources are just as stupid as the Pubbies. It’s not so much what party you belong to as how you inform yourself. And there are a lot of independent voters who are just as hazy as the TV idjits. I’ll never forget the TV interview I saw with a woman who had just voted for Bush at the polls, and clearly had no idea why she had done so.
I’m afraid America has been pretty thoroughly dumbed down, jsgoddess.
Wouldn’t crow about it, but I’d take the win. I am attracted to Dem policies because I think they work better for average people, not because they make me feel morally superior to others. That’s a formula for losing.
I seem to recall some discussion of the fact that the work was strictly voluntary. Wasn’t something he had to do or was ordered to do. Had the opportunity, took it. Was this not the case?
Yep. Lie to the dumb ones and manipulate them, for their own good!
Again, the only thing bad you can say about Rove is that he’s not on your side. Everything else you’re defending. The means don’t matter, after all. All that matters is power. Winning.
Funny how your “Dem policies” sound an awful lot like “Rep policies” to me.
It is isn’t it?
NARAL employs a little artistic license in their ad, some rightwingers whine about how unfair and misleading that is, and the great liberal truth brigades start barking like Pavlov’s dogs. With this sort of response, Bricker’s probably right about the pubbies picking up a few more seats come 2006.
It’s this kinda shit which brings both parties into the sty.
Wrong is wrong. I don’t give too hoots who did it first. There is no reason for NARAL to try to attach the name of an honorable man to terrorists. Good Lord. This sounds just like all of those jackasses who were saying that the anti-war people were “siding” with Al Qieda.
I am so tired of each side simply digging in their heels based on the idiotic, kindergarten chant of “you did it first!”
Oh and by the way, Bush is an Idiot, and Clinton got a blow-job. That ought to cover it.
Actually, Squink, I haven’t seen anybody on this thread defending the truth of NARAL’s assertions, which is what Pubbies typically do. We liberals, admitting that NARAL has stretched the truth fairly extensively, are just arguing that it’s acceptable to use the Pubbies’ own tactics against them. You see the difference?
