Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-21-2014, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,626,176 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...christies.html

No, Pubs never do this stuff, do they?
Christie was already elected and just got sworn into office.

In Texas the campaign is just starting up for the next Governor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2014, 03:54 PM
 
3,555 posts, read 4,102,673 times
Reputation: 1632
And we seriously had these same righties arguing earlier that Democrats get a pass from media.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 03:56 PM
 
Location: MS
4,395 posts, read 4,921,511 times
Reputation: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
A local paper interviewed her and asked her about all the discrepancies.
She didn't address them at all and instead said that Abbott was behind this "smear campaign".
Abbott is the Republican running against her
.

She didn't clarify any of her statements which were proven wrong.
Instead she said her language needs to "be tighter" whatever the hell that means.
Politicians digging up dirt on their opponents? That can't happen.

Or is it only acceptable when the smear campaign is against a Republican like maybe Jack Ryan? Jack Ryan (politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:00 PM
 
9,617 posts, read 6,079,659 times
Reputation: 3884
If so, then the same is more plausible with Gov Christie, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Antoher "Long Knives" thread. Wendy must really be making inroads to have all this "attention" her way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:04 PM
 
9,617 posts, read 6,079,659 times
Reputation: 3884
Yep. Low character, thin to no resume, waving the flag of restricting reproduction necessary, pwog. Oh, and the Hawvard schooling. They just keep stamping 'em out in the dem factory. Never mind the mold is defective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230 View Post
Well, I think it's safe to say that Wendy Davis' political career is over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:08 PM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,887 posts, read 10,061,540 times
Reputation: 7698
Nobody needs to lie or exaggerate about abortion activist Wendy Davis, she's a documented liar and fraud so digging up silly stuff like this isn't needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, AZ
878 posts, read 739,133 times
Reputation: 220
While serving on Fort Worth City Council, Davis voted in the Republican Party primaries. Davis has said she was Republican because she liked Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger and she wanted to vote on judicial nominees in Republican primaries. She voted in the Republican primaries in 1996, 1998 and 2006 and she has given $1,500 to Granger. Wendy Davis as a Republican supported this woman in 2008 and agreed with what she stood for when it came to abortion.

Kay Granger signed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

TITLE I: Prohibiting Federally-Funded Abortions and Providing for Conscience Protections

Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or the woman would be place in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

TITLE II: Elimination of Certain Tax Benefits Relating to Abortion

Disqualifies, for purposes of the tax deduction for medical expenses, any amounts paid for an abortion.
Excludes from the definition of "qualified health plan" after 2013, for purposes of the refundable tax credit for premium assistance for such plans, any plan that includes coverage for abortion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 05:13 PM
 
Location: My little patch of Earth
6,193 posts, read 5,377,884 times
Reputation: 3059
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
A local paper interviewed her and asked her about all the discrepancies. She didn't address them at all and instead said that Abbott was behind this "smear campaign".

Abbott is the Republican running against her.

She didn't clarify any of her statements which were proven wrong. Instead she said her language needs to "be tighter" whatever the hell that means.
In front of her father, her mother, her preacher and in front of God.......these are simply nothing more than outright lies.

But in front of voters she wants us to think these are just a little mis-statement or two.

Wendy, Wendy, Wendy......yeah, yeah, yeah.....

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 05:27 PM
 
1,179 posts, read 1,555,399 times
Reputation: 840
The thing that is really bothersome is that she abandoned her own daughters go to law school, and lost custody of them.

Her own daughters did not want to live with their mother?

And the left said Sarah Palin was a bad mother for what was it? Having a job?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 05:29 PM
 
1,179 posts, read 1,555,399 times
Reputation: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62 View Post
Shux, I thought maybe you had found something that had evidence of a drug problem. This is just another case of a judge playing it safe and ordering someone to not do something just because they might do it. It is like the warnings on the side of the pesticide bottle saying " Not for human consumption".

Other than smearing Wendy's reputation for those that dont read past the first few words in a sentance, what does this story offer? It doesn't seem to do anything but put unsupported suggestions in the minds of the gullible. It would be better if it had reported that some evidence of drug use had been reported and how the court ruled on it. But, no, it only says the court made an order without even checking to see if there was any evidence.

Kinda the same if I order you to stop playing with yourself in public. Never claimed you do, or did.....just said to stop.
So why didn't he issue the same order to father? You know, the one who was awarded custody rather than their mother?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top