Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DaveFla, Jan 22, 2014.
NEWSFLASH: it's not just "rightwingers" who were acting as if it's specifically about her. Considering the claims were made long before her political career began, it seems that yours (and lacuna's) complaints should be directed at those who made the claim, not the sites who are merely printing what they found.
Who* made what "the claim*"? If you have information - along with a substantiating link - about "claims [...] made long before her political career began" that is pertinent - please share it with the rest of us.
Even discussing the divorce agreement thing, as esoteric and trivial as it is, only helps the democrat damage control on this candidate.
Even before clarifying the innuendos, or even having heard or read the innuendos, the candidate was damaged as far as I, and other conservatives, are concerned. Do you begrudge the Democrat machine's efforts to set the record straight?
DaveFla, watcha got?
Davis is being criticized because she has a chance to beat a right wing criminal in power.
Sounds like Christie !
I can't believe I'm posting this, but Coulter lays out the problem with Davis' bio pretty well.
Yes I know Coulter goes over the line, yada, yada... I agree. But it's a good column and stays on point (mostly.)
Excerpt for those who can't bother to click on a link...
Then Wendy left her kids with the sugar daddy in Texas -- even the daughter from her first marriage -- while she attended Harvard Law.
Slater says Davis' kids lived with Jeff Davis in Texas while she attended law school. Wendy Davis claims her girls lived with her during her first year of law school. Let's say that's true. Why not the other two years? And what was the matter with the University of Texas Law School?
Sorry, MSNBC, I know you want to fixate on how many months Davis spent in the trailer park and her precise age when the first divorce went through. And that would be an incredibly stupid thing for conservatives to obsess on, if they were, in fact, obsessing on it. But I'm still stuck on her leaving her kids behind while she headed off to a law school 1,500 miles away.
The reason Wendy Davis' apocryphal story was impressive is that single mothers have to run a household, take care of kids and provide for a family all by themselves. But Wendy was neither supporting her kids, nor raising them. If someone else is taking care of your kids and paying your tuition, that's not amazing.
If during the State of the Union, Obama snorted a line of coke off of Harry Reid's cheek, then walked onto the House floor and shot Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in the face with a .44 Magnum revolver, Fred would be in here defending all of it inside of five minutes.
True. About the only way that *might* hurt Obama with his base or the press would be if he used an automatic with a magazine that can hold seven or more rounds.
I don't know, I think some people might criticize him for not shooting Kennedy and Roberts too.
For what? You were the one who claimed the accusations on the divorce filing were "boiler plate." It would seem that if anything requires backing up, it would be your claim.
As for the divorce papers themselves, res ipsa loquitur...
My previous post regarding the boiler plate language of the divorce document was a reiteration of what a Texas lawyer said about it. I made no claim.
What I wrote:
You contend "the claims" - you are now terming "accusations" - about Davis were made "long before" she began her career in politics. I'm asking you to substantiate that this is in fact did happen and to provide the names or sources of "those who made the claim."
If it is true you should be able to provide a link to back up your contention rather than make a weaselly attempt to shift attention away from something you can't substantiate. This one's on you.
I would imagine the claims or accusations, however you wish to label them, were made by her then husband as they were listed on the paperwork filed in the divorce...
The divorce was in 2005. Her first state election was in 2008. You do the math.
A Texas attorney wrote it is standard boilerplate language commonly found in divorce documents. From what he wrote it doesn't mean it was included to warn a known offender, but because it was, or is, the language commonly included in a divorce filed in Texas. Although you admittedly "imagine" this is a "claim" or "accusation" against Wendy Davis by Jeff Davis, according to the attorney it isn't proof of such.
It reads in part:
Request for Temporary Orders and Injunction
Counterpetitioner requests the Court after notice and hearing, to dispense with the issuance of a bond, to make temporary orders and issue any appropriate temporary injunctions for the preservation of the property and protection of the parties and for the safety and welfare of the children of the marriage as deemed necessary and equitable. Counterpetitioner requests that Counterrespondent be temporarily enjoined, pending the further order of this Court, from:
(The filing then goes on to list numerous contingencies intended to protect the counter petitioner from possible abuses. This is what a good divorce attorney would do for his client. Click on the link to the PDF and read it for yourself.)
I don't believe the contingencies listed in this filing are proof the person filing for the divorce exhibited in the PDF was being accused any more than I think it likely Wendy Davis was being "accused" of being a drug addict or an alcoholic as some are implying.
So someone who just graduated from Harvard law school wouldn't bother reading their own divorce filing and then object to the "boilerplate" language?
You would need to ask Wendy Davis that question, but if it is standard boiler plate in Texas divorce filings as the aforementioned attorney contends, why do you think she would find it necessary to take exception to it?
I'll quibble with this part...
What's wrong with UT Law is that Harvard Law is unquestionably a better school. While UT Law is a fairly good school in it's own right, if you're going to go to law school to start with there are very few circumstances where it makes sense to not go to an Ivy League law school given the opportunity to do so (in fact "go to the best law school you get in to" is fairly typical advice, given that the perceived prestige of a law school has far more career implications than does that of an undergrad school).
And heck, by that token Coulter herself - who is from Albany, NY and later moved to Connecticut, but went to Michigan Law, ought to be asked "What was the matter with Albany Law School or UCONN Law?" The answer is undoubtedly the same, while it's not Harvard, Michigan is a lot better law school than those two.
Or if you are dealing with tone deaf lunatics who think it's ok to talk about women and minorities like it's still the prohibition era, sometimes you have to get it through their thick skull that intolerance is no longer socially acceptable.