As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred

  • Thread starter Thread starter Norm640
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see a complete lack of ignorance in your snap reply. She supports unfettered abortion. That is a fact. That is what she is using to catapult her to office. So she is by default a baby murderer, for her policies would enable that.

Charity is one thing, willful ignorance is another. But if that is working for you, carry on.

Try reading the article, too, brah…
tjones80 said:
I see a complete lack of charity in your post.
Click to expand...
 
I think you should have used the title in the news article:

**As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred **

or you could use the USA Today article talking about the same thing:

Report: Wendy Davis admits to flubbing bio details

But whether she is directly murdered somebody or whether her guilt is through formal or direct material cooperation with evil, the fact that she apparently lied on her biography is pretty telling.

But you are supposed to use the exact headline in the thread title (CAF rules, and all)
 
Well, one time I did use the exact title in the headline, and my post magically disappeared. I know the rules, but there are anomalies…

I see no difference between direct murdering and enabling it, indeed using your power to encourage it. Mortal sins all around.
markomalley said:
I think you should have used the title in the news article:

**As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred **

or you could use the USA Today article talking about the same thing:

Report: Wendy Davis admits to flubbing bio details

But whether she is directly murdered somebody or whether her guilt is through formal or direct material cooperation with evil, the fact that she apparently lied on her biography is pretty telling.

But you are supposed to use the exact headline in the thread title (CAF rules, and all)
Click to expand...
 
Norm640 said:
Well, one time I did use the exact title in the headline, and my post magically disappeared. I know the rules, but there are anomalies…

I see no difference between direct murdering and enabling it, indeed using your power to encourage it. Mortal sins all around.
Click to expand...
The issue at hand is that she lied on her bio. And that SHOULD be a pretty bad thing regardless.

(From the USA Today piece linked above):
  • She claimed to have been 19 when she was divorced from her first husband. She wasn’t; she was 21.
  • Her second husband helped her pay for the last two years at her university and then paid for a Harvard law degree for her by cashing in his 401k and then she got another divorce (and the husband got custody of their daughter…and she was ordered to pay child support – the fact that the father got custody rather than the mother is VERY, VERY telling). She claimed that they had joint custody.
Those details would be pretty hard, in my book, to forget about or get wrong.

And then this quote from the Dallas Morning News is pretty telling about her character:

“Wendy is tremendously ambitious,” he said, speaking only on condition of anonymity in order to give what he called an honest assessment. “She’s not going to let family or raising children or anything else get in her way.”
What a good example for the women of Texas…
 
A family friend’s story is similar to this, but the gender roles were reversed.

A nice family, six kids, married for 20-25 years. The mom worked hard for many years to put the dad through law school. He graduated, started working, had an affair with his secretary, and filed for divorce. He moved in with his mistress. The oldest kids were grown by this time and wanted nothing to do with him and neither did the teenagers. The two youngest kids wanted to visit him but he didn’t want to see them. It looks like his “first family” was simply a stepping stone to get what he wanted. The wife was of course devastated. Not only did her husband cheat and leave her, but he used her to pay for his schooling and just when their family was supposed to be doing very well (dad working as a lawyer, good salary), the family gets ripped apart, dragged through court, dad has no interest in his family. I believe she got both child support and spousal support.

The courts usually place the children with the mother, although a lot of them try to get close to 50/50. Being placed with the father is a huge red flag. Either she got herself into trouble or (like our friend’s husband) she didn’t want them, at least not for a while. Maybe when she realized it didn’t look good for her image, then she wanted them back? I am not impressed with this Wendy Davis and if I lived in Texas I would not vote for her. First that stunt about the 20-week abortion ban (why does she want babies to get murdered, especially after they feel pain and look unmistakably like babies?) and now this. :eek:
 
You’d be hard-pressed to find any politician who hasn’t embellished, omitted details, or otherwise lied about their past. In the end, who cares what they were doing 30 years ago?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
You’d be hard-pressed to find any politician who hasn’t embellished, omitted details, or otherwise lied about their past. In the end, who cares what they were doing 30 years ago?
Click to expand...
I’m just as shocked as you are that a politician would lie for a political advantage. [/sarcasm]

But, if you’re going to lie, do so about something that isn’t easily thrown back in your face to show that you’re the liar that everyone already assumed you were.
 
Dawnia said:
I’m just as shocked as you are that a politician would lie for a political advantage. [/sarcasm]

But, if you’re going to lie, do so about something that isn’t easily thrown back in your face to show that you’re the liar that everyone already assumed you were.
Click to expand...
And don’t build your candidacy around those lies.
 
DeniseNY said:
And don’t build your candidacy around those lies.
Click to expand...
And that’s the point. Davis’s candidacy was ALL about the narrative of the plucky single mom who through her own efforts went to Harvard Law school while supporting a child. If that’s your bragging right, at least tell the truth.

Oh and along with being a liar and abortion supporter she made a crass remark about her opponent “not walking in my shoes.” Her opponent is a paraplegic and in a wheelchair. He is very pro life and a spokesman for the rights of the disabled as well as the unborn.

It seems like some of the people who were bragging and boasting about all of her donations and how she was going to be a force to reckon with in this race are strangely silent…

If schandenfreude is a sin, I’m in deep trouble. This woman wreaked havoc upon the system, had a bunch of screaming harpies take over the state house and based it all on the right to kill a 25 week baby. I am not shedding too many tears to see Abortion Barbie exposed for the dishonesty that seems to be a major personality trait.

Lisa
 
“Abortion Barbie?” Nice bon mot. What some one did thirty years ago may often not matter, but what a politician did just may matter very much to their future constituents. Suspect the politician who seals their records. What they did helped make them the candidate that you vote for today.
 
Norm640 said:
Well, one time I did use the exact title in the headline, and my post magically disappeared. I know the rules, but there are anomalies…

I see no difference between direct murdering and enabling it, indeed using your power to encourage it. Mortal sins all around.
Click to expand...
You do not have the authority to state what a moral sin is. You can state that the matter is objectively of grave matter but that is all.

None of us-except Priest in in Confession- can state that this or that action is a mortal sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top