![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)

And here's Sarah Palin at CPAC, demonstrating the childish reactionism that we've come to expect.
Bonus facts:
1) The NYC drink ban didn't include Big Gulps
2) It was struck down by a judge anyway
3) The lovely people of facebook have christened Sarah Palin as "Bible Spice"
no subject
Date: 2013-03-18 11:33 pm (UTC)Maybe, if the abortion debate wasn't more complicated than a simple issue of privacy.
And what I'm saying about Palin is absolutely true. She did not know that Roe v Wade was about privacy. When asked during an interview, she advocated overturning Roe v Wade with one breath, and with the next stated that she absolutely believed in the right to privacy, with none of her misfiring synapses making a connection between the two. It was absolutely stunning.
Yeah, not buying that. It was ruled within the right to privacy, but that doesn't mean the ruling makes a lot of sense in that context. It's not an especially strong ruling, and the argument I'm sure they'd make is that the so-called "right to privacy" wouldn't apply to murder either. Thus the complexity of the situation that's not being recognized.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-19 02:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-19 05:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-19 12:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-19 11:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-19 03:31 pm (UTC)