Thanks, Jeff! You're right, and I was about to post the same thing. Broketrash disputed what I said ... by repeating what I said!
How come you and I have to spend all our time nowadays explaining each other's posts -- not even just defending, but actually explaining -- to HerrKaiser and broketrash?
As for Broketrash, I don't know, and as for HerrKaiser, who finds me incomprehensible and, I think, just called me a liar (but from his prose, it's difficult to tell
), I just
won't say.
Why on earth would I want to "dodge the economic motivating factors in voting decisions"? Economic factors are unquestionably among the biggest motivators in voting decisions. With the exception, that is, of voting by affluent Democrats and middle- or lower-income Republicans -- two groups who for some reason vote against their own economic interests. Apparently they're more motivated by their views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
Oh, right. The literature of the past could not possibly have any relevance or interest in the present\.
Unless, of course, it's the Bible, being used by Conservatives to justify homophobia. ...
And by my count, that's officially three and four times you guys have refused to acknowledge the question that Jeff and I have raised about how this policy of punishing parents for their deeds will affect their children. Guess concern for the well-being of kids is just more of that silly liberalthink, hunh?
That tells you something about the Conservative mentality, doesn't it? It's typical. It's inconvenient to the Conservative position to acknowledge that innocent children might be affected by the Conservative program for the mothers of those children, so Conservatives just ignore the inconvenient detail and
pretend that the inconvenient detail doesn't exist. Instead, they find some way to attack whoever points out the detail they don't want to deal with.