Isaac Chortiner says it best:

This seems pretty clear to me. Ginsburg is saying that the lack of support for Medicaid-funded abortions surprised her because she assumed that unnamed people or groups would have wanted certain populations (i.e. the poor) to have more abortions. Considering that the main impetus behind forbidding Medicaid abortions came from the right, Ginsburg's "surprise" obviously refers to her realization that the right-wing did not want greater access to abortions for the downtrodden. Now, I know nothing about this subject, and I am far from knowledgeable a...

Isaac Chortiner says it best:

This seems pretty clear to me. Ginsburg is saying that the lack of support for Medicaid-funded abortions surprised her because she assumed that unnamed people or groups would have wanted certain populations (i.e. the poor) to have more abortions. Considering that the main impetus behind forbidding Medicaid abortions came from the right, Ginsburg's "surprise" obviously refers to her realization that the right-wing did not want greater access to abortions for the downtrodden. Now, I know nothing about this subject, and I am far from knowledgeable about whether Ginsburg's assessment is fair (even she admits it was wrong!). But it is perfectly obvious that she is making a point that has nothing to do with Goldberg's article [alleging liberal support for eugenics].

I take it your irrelevant personal attack means you concede the argument about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

No. My relevant observation based on hundreds upon hundreds of past comments means that I knew that you knew you would think that before you thought it. It would not matter if there were dozens of comment, studies, facts, evidences to the contrary. You know what you are going to think about EVERYTHING before you think about whatever. The vast history and record of progressives on this matter is clear. And your record is clear as well. You said a few weeks ago that you were a sociologist. My comment was based on the purpose and point of your M.O. to proffer plausibility as a m...

I take it your irrelevant personal attack means you concede the argument about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

No. My relevant observation based on hundreds upon hundreds of past comments means that I knew that you knew you would think that before you thought it. It would not matter if there were dozens of comment, studies, facts, evidences to the contrary. You know what you are going to think about EVERYTHING before you think about whatever. The vast history and record of progressives on this matter is clear. And your record is clear as well. You said a few weeks ago that you were a sociologist. My comment was based on the purpose and point of your M.O. to proffer plausibility as a means to divide and confuse.

You say you are a Sociologist. This lends context to all your comments and opinions.

For the record, for those who may come along and read this...

August Comte, the father of Sociology said:

“the
entire systematisation of human life on the basis of the preponderance
of the heart over the intellect.”

It is the art of propaganda. That is all it is.

Jk, my "irrelevant personal attack:" was relevant because it speaks to your constant MO and disregard for evidence you do not like.
It was not personal. It was just a fact.
And it was not an attack. It was the truth about my opinion.

The fact that you describe my comment as "personal irrelevant attack" is itself a personal irrelevant attack because, as I have shown, your assertion is not true in the least.

that is all you do at Clipmarks. Propaganda. But, you are my favorite propagandist.