Gabby Giffords Turns Slimewad

[Listening]

Truthfully what in the hell do you expect?

SHE is the VICTIM of gun violence for no reason that I can see.

What do you expect her to say, it was just an accidental discharge of a weapon no big deal?

What would you say if your head was opened up by some gun toting lunatic?

Sorry but posts like this do a disservice to those who want to own guns responsibly. What the NRA and second amendment rights groups need to do is figure out, if possible, how to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics and criminals.

I don't think that is even possible but tearing down a person who is a victim of a gun crime does not really help the cause of gun ownership one bit.

Like everyone else on the PC BS Bus, you miss the point.

She has every right available to each of us under the constitution including the 1st. Nobody disputes that.

I'd never seek to shut her down.

But if she uses that right, combined with the money raising PAC she has to LIE in an effort to achieve her ends.....she gets no pass.

What if she has been shot in the rear end. Does that remove your sympathy for her ?

 

[rightwinger]

As a liberal you insult the intelligence of normal people every time you speak, but does this grave offense against dignity warrant you being denied the right to speak?

I didn't do anything to Gabbie Giffords, so why do you feel it proper to strip me of my rights? Should you have your free speech rights stripped from you when Obama says something stupid?

RW should define "sensible" before he starts playing with the 2nd Amendment rights of others. How would he like it if we started violating his constitutional rights because of how we felt? He would be objecting just the same. Liberals look to rule based on emotion, not on facts.

Given that no gun related legislation will ever be "sensible" to NRA bots, I fully expect what your response will be

But let's look at what Gabby Giffords considers to be sensible

We don't want crazies getting guns. If we don't check their background, we can't verify if they are a criminal or nutjob

There is no "sensible" reason you need a 30 round magazine

Hey Shit for brains. civilian police officers routinely have 30 round magazines. other civilians have just as much a reason for them as civilian cops

criminals won't buy from someone who is going to do a background check. Dopers don't buy dope with prescriptions either moron

Sorry shit for brains

You are not entitled to the same weapons as cops

I am sure you meant to include your rational for this position. Making a claim about what people are entitled to is pretty risky business.

But, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to your argument.

No....
Actually shit for brains, you are not entitled to the same weapons as police

But I welcome you to find any court decision that says you are

 

[Listening]

being shot in the head will do that..Looks more like the Op is scum. But we knew this

So what is your excuse ?

Being shot in the head will do what ?

Cause you to take a personal tragedy and play it up for political clout ?

You go Gabby...right down the toilet. Along with Lakhota.

What makes a personal tragedy off-limits politically, if that personal tragedy involves a political issue?

I can't understand the NRAbots.....

The woman takes a bullet in the head, is nearly killed and has her life destroyed

Then they accuse her of " exploiting" the attack when she wants to do something to prevent it from happening to someone else

Shot in the head = You can lie.

Got it.

The left never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Listening]

RW should define "sensible" before he starts playing with the 2nd Amendment rights of others. How would he like it if we started violating his constitutional rights because of how we felt? He would be objecting just the same. Liberals look to rule based on emotion, not on facts.

Given that no gun related legislation will ever be "sensible" to NRA bots, I fully expect what your response will be

But let's look at what Gabby Giffords considers to be sensible

We don't want crazies getting guns. If we don't check their background, we can't verify if they are a criminal or nutjob

There is no "sensible" reason you need a 30 round magazine

Hey Shit for brains. civilian police officers routinely have 30 round magazines. other civilians have just as much a reason for them as civilian cops

criminals won't buy from someone who is going to do a background check. Dopers don't buy dope with prescriptions either moron

Sorry shit for brains

You are not entitled to the same weapons as cops

I am sure you meant to include your rational for this position. Making a claim about what people are entitled to is pretty risky business.

But, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to your argument.

No....
Actually shit for brains, you are not entitled to the same weapons as police

But I welcome you to find any court decision that says you are

What ? No argument ?

[shocked]

 

[rightwinger]

"Being shot in the head will do what ?

Cause you to take a personal tragedy and play it up for political clout ? "



"political clout" like being a senator?

a lunatic with a gun took that clout away from her but now she's just "playing it up" ??

talk about twisted slime...

She wasn't a senator.....she was a member of the house.

And yes, she is playing it up. Or was she as big a liar then as she is now ?

Playing up taking a bullet in the head and losing your ability to speak?

Can you a bigger asshole?

 

[rightwinger]

Given that no gun related legislation will ever be "sensible" to NRA bots, I fully expect what your response will be

But let's look at what Gabby Giffords considers to be sensible

We don't want crazies getting guns. If we don't check their background, we can't verify if they are a criminal or nutjob

There is no "sensible" reason you need a 30 round magazine

Hey Shit for brains. civilian police officers routinely have 30 round magazines. other civilians have just as much a reason for them as civilian cops

criminals won't buy from someone who is going to do a background check. Dopers don't buy dope with prescriptions either moron

Sorry shit for brains

You are not entitled to the same weapons as cops

I am sure you meant to include your rational for this position. Making a claim about what people are entitled to is pretty risky business.

But, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to your argument.

No....
Actually shit for brains, you are not entitled to the same weapons as police

But I welcome you to find any court decision that says you are

What ? No argument ?

[shocked]

You are welcome to point to any court decision that says private citizens are entitled to the same weapons as police

Why don't you start with Heller?

 

[Plasmaball]

being shot in the head will do that..Looks more like the Op is scum. But we knew this

So what is your excuse ?

Being shot in the head will do what ?

Cause you to take a personal tragedy and play it up for political clout ?

You go Gabby...right down the toilet. Along with Lakhota.

What makes a personal tragedy off-limits politically, if that personal tragedy involves a political issue?

I can't understand the NRAbots.....

The woman takes a bullet in the head, is nearly killed and has her life destroyed

Then they accuse her of " exploiting" the attack when she wants to do something to prevent it from happening to someone else

Shot in the head = You can lie.

Got it.

The left never ceases to amaze me.

what was the lie? Again are you against what the ads are for? Instead of calling the woman who was shot in the head slime, how about you just you know, argue her message? I know you really can't so you go after her character, because you are a welching loser.

 

[Listening]

Hey asswipe.....

This has little to do with guns.

It has to do with a former congresswoman (and not a very good one at that) playing on the sympathies of others to fund a pac which is openly engaged in political lying....not at all for the purposes of gun control.

So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.

Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.

I see nothing in the post you quoted about "asking for it".

Don't worry your pointy little head over it. There's a lot you don't see even in your own posts.
.Maybe you'd better figure those out first.

Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.

We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.

Clearly the meaning is over your head, so as I said, don't strain yer brain. That's why I posted it to Stephanie -- she's at least intelligent enough to figure it out. So again -- you worry about your own drivel.

What is clear is that you've got nothing behind you. Keep it up. Everyone suspected you were a moron.

Now they know.

Speaking of morons -- thanks for the spiffy new sigline.

"Being shot in the head will do what ?

Cause you to take a personal tragedy and play it up for political clout ? "



"political clout" like being a senator?

a lunatic with a gun took that clout away from her but now she's just "playing it up" ??

talk about twisted slime...

She wasn't a senator.....she was a member of the house.

And yes, she is playing it up. Or was she as big a liar then as she is now ?

Playing up taking a bullet in the head and losing your ability to speak?

Can you a bigger asshole?

Well, you are proof I COULD be, if I wanted to be.

I've already addressed this 100 times.

You are simply not worth it.

 

[Listening]

being shot in the head will do that..Looks more like the Op is scum. But we knew this

So what is your excuse ?

Being shot in the head will do what ?

Cause you to take a personal tragedy and play it up for political clout ?

You go Gabby...right down the toilet. Along with Lakhota.

What makes a personal tragedy off-limits politically, if that personal tragedy involves a political issue?

I can't understand the NRAbots.....

The woman takes a bullet in the head, is nearly killed and has her life destroyed

Then they accuse her of " exploiting" the attack when she wants to do something to prevent it from happening to someone else

Shot in the head = You can lie.

Got it.

The left never ceases to amaze me.

what was the lie? Again are you against what the ads are for? Instead of calling the woman who was shot in the head slime, how about you just you know, argue her message? I know you really can't so you go after her character, because you are a welching loser.

Awww...what's the matter Noballs......

You've yet to make a reasonable argument here. And lecturing me like this is pathetic.

Liberal Incivility and Gabby Giffords Commentary Magazine

As Politico reports today in a story that runs under the headline “Gabby Giffords gets mean,” the former congresswoman has taken off the gloves in a series of political ads aimed at taking out Republicans she doesn’t like. In them, her super PAC seeks to exploit the suffering of other shooting victims but twists the narrative to make it appear that people like Martha McSally, the Republican woman running for Giffords’s old seat, were somehow involved or even complicit in violent shooting of a woman named Vicki by a stalker.

As Politico notes:

Some longtime supporters are starting to cry foul. On Friday, the Arizona Republic’s editorial page, which is typically liberal leaning, called the “Vicki” ad “base and vile.” The commercial, the newspaper said, put the murder “at McSally’s feet, as if she were responsible. A murder indictment implied. But, of course, McSally had nothing to do with” the death.

This is rough stuff by any standard but for it to be the work of a woman whose shooting elevated her to the status of secular saint is particularly shocking. Other ads that her group has produced pursue the same specious line.

All may be fair in love, war, and politics but there’s a lesson to be learned here and it’s not just that sympathetic victims can turn nasty if they don’t get their way on policy questions.

****************************

Beyond that, she is targeting Republicans that she has no connection to.

Anyone else question whether or not this is just one of several lines of attack on the opposition that has nothing more than a desire to obtain power associated with it ?

Oh well.

The last I checked. The dems are the minority in the senate come January. Wonder why ?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey asswipe.....

This has little to do with guns.

It has to do with a former congresswoman (and not a very good one at that) playing on the sympathies of others to fund a pac which is openly engaged in political lying....not at all for the purposes of gun control.

So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.

Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.

I see nothing in the post you quoted about "asking for it".

Don't worry your pointy little head over it. There's a lot you don't see even in your own posts.
.Maybe you'd better figure those out first.

Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.

We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.

Clearly the meaning is over your head, so as I said, don't strain yer brain. That's why I posted it to Stephanie -- she's at least intelligent enough to figure it out. So again -- you worry about your own drivel.

What is clear is that you've got nothing behind you. Keep it up. Everyone suspected you were a moron.

Now they know.

Speaking of morons -- thanks for the spiffy new sigline.

Yes, yes, attempt to embarrass your opponent with his spelling errors rather than presenting a cogent argument. Smooth move slick.

 

[Pogo]

So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.

Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.

Don't worry your pointy little head over it. There's a lot you don't see even in your own posts.
.Maybe you'd better figure those out first.

Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.

We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.

Clearly the meaning is over your head, so as I said, don't strain yer brain. That's why I posted it to Stephanie -- she's at least intelligent enough to figure it out. So again -- you worry about your own drivel.

What is clear is that you've got nothing behind you. Keep it up. Everyone suspected you were a moron.

Now they know.

Speaking of morons -- thanks for the spiffy new sigline.

Yes, yes, attempt to embarrass your opponent with his spelling errors rather than presenting a cogent argument. Smooth move slick.

Hey, it's his post. And I thanked him for the irony.

Fascinating how you missed his entire post before mine too. You know, the one above with ad hom and no content? Selective hearing -- I've heard about that.

He's not even my "opponent" -- my post was responding to Stephanie. He jumped in.

 

[Listening]

So you're now admitting that your OP and all those posts you made to that effect had their collective proverbial head up its ass? After pissing away bandwidth denying just that?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.

Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.

Don't worry your pointy little head over it. There's a lot you don't see even in your own posts.
.Maybe you'd better figure those out first.

Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.

We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.

Clearly the meaning is over your head, so as I said, don't strain yer brain. That's why I posted it to Stephanie -- she's at least intelligent enough to figure it out. So again -- you worry about your own drivel.

What is clear is that you've got nothing behind you. Keep it up. Everyone suspected you were a moron.

Now they know.

Speaking of morons -- thanks for the spiffy new sigline.

Yes, yes, attempt to embarrass your opponent with his spelling errors rather than presenting a cogent argument. Smooth move slick.

Follow that and his claims about what is and isn't in specific posts.

He clearly is sinking.

 

[turtledude]

Hey Shit for brains. civilian police officers routinely have 30 round magazines. other civilians have just as much a reason for them as civilian cops

criminals won't buy from someone who is going to do a background check. Dopers don't buy dope with prescriptions either moron

Sorry shit for brains

You are not entitled to the same weapons as cops

I am sure you meant to include your rational for this position. Making a claim about what people are entitled to is pretty risky business.

But, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to your argument.

No....
Actually shit for brains, you are not entitled to the same weapons as police

But I welcome you to find any court decision that says you are

What ? No argument ?

[shocked]

You are welcome to point to any court decision that says private citizens are entitled to the same weapons as police

Why don't you start with Heller?

that case hasn't come before the Supreme Court yet moron. but what do you think Miller held

but if you had an IQ above 80, you would know the following

HELLER HELD that firearms in common use and not unusually dangerous are protected

police weapons by definition meet both tests

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, the irony of the last line of this post.

Your overall contribution makes no sense (but I am not surprized). Only schills use this kind of twisted verbage in an effort to come off looking like they actually have something worthwhile to stay.
Thanks for pointing out that you can't produce it, yet you'll whine about it anyway.

We take you seriously...why ? That's right....we don't.

Clearly the meaning is over your head, so as I said, don't strain yer brain. That's why I posted it to Stephanie -- she's at least intelligent enough to figure it out. So again -- you worry about your own drivel.

What is clear is that you've got nothing behind you. Keep it up. Everyone suspected you were a moron.

Now they know.

Speaking of morons -- thanks for the spiffy new sigline.

Yes, yes, attempt to embarrass your opponent with his spelling errors rather than presenting a cogent argument. Smooth move slick.

Hey, it's his post.

Fascinating how you missed his entire post before mine too. You know, the one above with ad hom and no content? Selective hearing -- I've heard about that.

He's not even my "opponent" -- my post was responding to Stephanie. He jumped in.

I'm ignoring your responses for the most part, because none of them attempt to address the fact that Giffords own PAC decided to run that trash in the first place. You ignore the outright degeneracy she engaged in. Moreover, I am not interested in your deflections. Stop playing the troll and present a cogent point, or leave the thread. You clearly have nothing but your childish retorts to offer.

And you say I have selective hearing? Your sigline quotes Listening for two supposed spelling errors. Your post is a direct response to Listening. But then you say you were addressing Stephanie. Have you lost track of all of the mistruths you've posted?

 

[Lakhota]

Why did Sarah Palin target Gabby Giffords?

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry shit for brains

You are not entitled to the same weapons as cops

I am sure you meant to include your rational for this position. Making a claim about what people are entitled to is pretty risky business.

But, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to your argument.

No....
Actually shit for brains, you are not entitled to the same weapons as police

But I welcome you to find any court decision that says you are

What ? No argument ?

[shocked]

You are welcome to point to any court decision that says private citizens are entitled to the same weapons as police

Why don't you start with Heller?

that case hasn't come before the Supreme Court yet moron. but what do you think Miller held

but if you had an IQ above 80, you would know the following

HELLER HELD that firearms in common use and not unusually dangerous are protected

police weapons by definition meet both tests

Afraid they don't. Even Rightwinger Scalia acknowledged the police and military are permitted weapons private citizens are not

 

[Stephanie]

 

[rightwinger]

Look everyone

Steph is trying to post with the adults,...isn't she pathetic?

 

[Listening]

I am sure you meant to include your rational for this position. Making a claim about what people are entitled to is pretty risky business.

But, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to your argument.

No....
Actually shit for brains, you are not entitled to the same weapons as police

But I welcome you to find any court decision that says you are

What ? No argument ?

[shocked]

You are welcome to point to any court decision that says private citizens are entitled to the same weapons as police

Why don't you start with Heller?

that case hasn't come before the Supreme Court yet moron. but what do you think Miller held

but if you had an IQ above 80, you would know the following

HELLER HELD that firearms in common use and not unusually dangerous are protected

police weapons by definition meet both tests

Afraid they don't. Even Rightwinger Scalia acknowledged the police and military are permitted weapons private citizens are not

All anyone asked for was some support for your claim.

Being permitted and entitled are not the same thing BTW.

And just because Scalia said it....well.....

But, why don't you provide the link to Scalia and it will go to your credit (your first ever supported claim).

 

[Listening]

Why did Sarah Palin target Gabby Giffords?

Link.