Gabby Giffords Turns Slimewad

[Pogo]

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?

I see you haven't learned to read since last week. Well it was a lot to expect.
Look asshole, number one you don't own the place and you will NOT purport to dictate whrere I can post; number two, the exchange was between Stephanie and myself, and Glistening opted to jump in the middle and declare his ignorance about my meaning. I advised him it was over his head and he came back with the same ad hom slop that he's been flinging throughout this thread. At the same time he's crying "moron" he's posting moronic spelling gaffes. You think I'm not gonna take advantage of that?

Go fuck yerself. You're a fourth party.

 

[Listening]

Look everyone

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

What is pathetic is your attempt to, once again, deflect in a thread where someone has owned you.

I'd ask you if you could be a bigger asshole, but I am afraid you'd take that as a personal challenge.

 

[turtledude]

Look everyone

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

What is pathetic is your attempt to, once again, deflect in a thread where someone has owned you.

I'd ask you if you could be a bigger asshole, but I am afraid you'd take that as a personal challenge.

ROFLMAO

post of the month

 

[rightwinger]

Look everyone

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

What is pathetic is your attempt to, once again, deflect in a thread where someone has owned you.

I'd ask you if you could be a bigger asshole, but I am afraid you'd take that as a personal challenge.

Who deflected?

 

[Plasmaball]

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 ?

Where are the two things Gabby wants made into law in all of this nothing you posted?

As far as Gabby implying, tough shit, i watch you cons imply up the ass about Obama all day long on here. I don't see you crying about with your lame fake persecution complex.

 

[Stephanie]

Look everyone

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

look at your childish post. speaking of pathetic
damn do you people read your own post before you hit post reply...
what a hoot

 

[bripat9643]

Storm troopers....you nuts are awesome..

You mean like these?

They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.

Well, then, I suppose that the NRA is going to start sending gun catalogs to prison inmates......

You lose your constitutional rights when you are convicted of a felony.

It's amazing how stupid libturds are. Every little thing has to explained to them.

 

[Plasmaball]

Storm troopers....you nuts are awesome..

You mean like these?

[QUOTE="bripat9643, post: 9876240, member: 29100

They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.

Well, then, I suppose that the NRA is going to start sending gun catalogs to prison inmates......

You lose your constitutional rights when you are convicted of a felony.

It's amazing how stupid libturds are. Every little thing has to explained to them.[/QUOTE]
you mean cops? Stroomtroopers shoot lasers and wear white uniforms

 

[Plasmaball]

Look everyone

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

look at your childish post. speaking of pathetic
damn do you people read your own post before you hit post reply...
what a hoot

well we know you just copy and paste.

 

[bripat9643]

Why not? I think you're entitled to the same weapons as the average foot soldier.

Really? You think soldiers are exempt from background checks when they obtain the eligibility to those military weapons?

WTF does that have to do with anything SFB?

Because these nuts are fighting to preserve background check loopholes, and some of them even believe that background checks themselves are unconstitutional.

They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.

Right here:


“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


The Constitution authorizes government to enact restrictions, requirements, and impositions to purchasing a firearm.

Quite wasting bandwidth by posting the opinions of a gang of carefully selected political hacks. The 2nd Amendment couldn't be any clearer: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Even a brain damaged libturd can understand what that means.

 

[bripat9643]

Storm troopers....you nuts are awesome..

You mean like these?

[QUOTE="bripat9643, post: 9876240, member: 29100

They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.

Well, then, I suppose that the NRA is going to start sending gun catalogs to prison inmates......

You lose your constitutional rights when you are convicted of a felony.

It's amazing how stupid libturds are. Every little thing has to explained to them.

you mean cops? Stroomtroopers shoot lasers and wear white uniforms[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you trying to say?

 

[turtledude]

Really? You think soldiers are exempt from background checks when they obtain the eligibility to those military weapons?

WTF does that have to do with anything SFB?

Because these nuts are fighting to preserve background check loopholes, and some of them even believe that background checks themselves are unconstitutional.

They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.

Right here:


“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


The Constitution authorizes government to enact restrictions, requirements, and impositions to purchasing a firearm.

Quite wasting bandwidth by posting the opinions of a gang of carefully selected political hacks. The 2nd Amendment couldn't be any clearer: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Even a brain damaged libturd can understand what that means.

those assholes know what it really means-that is why they spend so much time trying to pretend it says something else

 

[Listening]

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 ?

Where are the two things Gabby wants made into law in all of this nothing you posted?

As far as Gabby implying, tough shit, i watch you cons imply up the ass about Obama all day long on here. I don't see you crying about with your lame fake persecution complex.

It would be great if you could at least reference the two things you are talking about. Because I don't recall anything about what she wants put into law.

BUT THAT ISN'T THE POINT OF THIS THREAD SO YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN OFF TRACK AND WITHOUT ANY KIND OF PROGRESSION BEHIND YOU. The trajectory of your post is wild and unguided.

Really don't care about what think about implying. She's using her situation to bolster her ability to lie (not going to argue if she is lying. You can give her a pass...that's your call. I call her a slimewad.)

As you said tough.....

 

[Listening]

Look everyone

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

look at your childish post. speaking of pathetic
damn do you people read your own post before you hit post reply...
what a hoot

well we know you just copy and paste.

And we know your older sister (six years old) posts for you.

 

[francoHFW]

Dems say you are misinformed. You call them a-holes. See the diff, hater dupes?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

I see you haven't learned to read since last week. Well it was a lot to expect.
Look asshole, number one you don't own the place and you will NOT purport to dictate whrere I can post; number two, the exchange was between Stephanie and myself, and Glistening opted to jump in the middle and declare his ignorance about my meaning. I advised him it was over his head and he came back with the same ad hom slop that he's been flinging throughout this thread. At the same time he's crying "moron" he's posting moronic spelling gaffes. You think I'm not gonna take advantage of that?

Go fuck yerself. You're a fourth party.

Ha. This is how you respond? You prove you have zero argument, you have yet to back your claims up. It took you more than 36 hours to return to this thread and make a bigger idiot of yourself than you already are. I crushed your argument and you chose not to respond. Instead you act like a troll. You take advantage of things in this thread that are not even relevant. You take advantage of the gaffes to hide the fact your position has been trumped by facts.

And you berate my reading comprehension? You refused to read links or direct citations. I note a few here, posted by Listening that you completely ignored. He cited statements from one of the LINKS I POSTED. There is selective hearing, and selective sight. You choose what you want to see.

When I have the upper hand in a debate, it is my joy to run people out of threads. You fell before superior arguments. You once told me to stop digging my own holes, you should stop and consider that advice yourself. Moreover, you responded to ad hominem with ad hominem. So what right do you have to impugn on him?

But hey, you can keep squabbling about minutiae such as spelling and name calling all you want. It has nothing to do with the topic. So, why are you still posting in this thread? All you're doing is grandstanding and making your abject stupidity and intellectual dishonesty more apparent. That or you must have the last word, which is pretty stupid within itself.

And you're off. We are a third party, not a fourth, genius. And plus, I am physically incapable of fucking myself. But I do see you have your head up your backside. You're gonna have to move all of that air out of your head to get it back out again.

 

[Pogo]

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?

I see you haven't learned to read since last week. Well it was a lot to expect.
Look asshole, number one you don't own the place and you will NOT purport to dictate whrere I can post; number two, the exchange was between Stephanie and myself, and Glistening opted to jump in the middle and declare his ignorance about my meaning. I advised him it was over his head and he came back with the same ad hom slop that he's been flinging throughout this thread. At the same time he's crying "moron" he's posting moronic spelling gaffes. You think I'm not gonna take advantage of that?

Go fuck yerself. You're a fourth party.

Ha. This is how you respond? You prove you have zero argument, you have yet to back your claims up. It took you more than 36 hours to return to this thread and make a bigger idiot of yourself than you already are. I crushed your argument and you chose not to respond. Instead you act like a troll. You take advantage of things in this thread that are not even relevant. You take advantage of the gaffes to hide the fact your position has been trumped by facts.

And you berate my reading comprehension? You refused to read links or direct citations. I note a few here, posted by Listening that you completely ignored. He cited statements from one of the LINKS I POSTED. There is selective hearing, and selective sight. You choose what you want to see.

When I have the upper hand in a debate, it is my joy to run people out of threads. You fell before superior arguments. You once told me to stop digging my own holes, you should stop and consider that advice yourself. Moreover, you responded to ad hominem with ad hominem. So what right do you have to impugn on him?

But hey, you can keep squabbling about minutiae such as spelling and name calling all you want. It has nothing to do with the topic. So, why are you still posting in this thread? All you're doing is grandstanding and making your abject stupidity and intellectual dishonesty more apparent. That or you must have the last word, which is pretty stupid within itself.

And you're off. We are a third party, not a fourth, genius. And plus, I am physically incapable of fucking myself. But I do see you have your head up your backside. You're gonna have to move all of that air out of your head to get it back out again.

Oh pissant please. I don't work for this thread; I was off line most of the weekend on a paying gig. Something you might look into.

And yes, you are the froth -- sorry, fourth party. Glistening is the third, having butted in to a response that wasn't directed to him; you then butted in to mine, which wasn't directed to you. Which means you're in even more need of getting a fucking life than he is, if that's possible. How scary is that.

And no, you ain't "running me out" of jack shit except in your wet dreams pally. Unless you can direct me to the pseudomilitary swearing-in ceremony I must have missed while I was away wherein you were appointed Lord God Supremo of the Internets.

Up yours, asshole.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Excuse me, Bripat, but which of the following posts that you have made in the last couple of hours is true?

"You lose your constitutional rights when you are convicted of a felony.
It's amazing how stupid libturds are. Every little thing has to explained to them."

OR,

"The 2nd Amendment couldn't be any clearer: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Even a brain damaged libturd can understand what that means."

As a "brain damaged libturd", I can not figure out which of the two above statements that you made is true.... Even a Tea Party radical, like you, can understand that it is impossible for both of them to be true.

 

[bripat9643]

Excuse me, Bripat, but which of the following posts that you have made in the last couple of hours is true?

"You lose your constitutional rights when you are convicted of a felony.
It's amazing how stupid libturds are. Every little thing has to explained to them."

OR,

"The 2nd Amendment couldn't be any clearer: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Even a brain damaged libturd can understand what that means."

As a "brain damaged libturd", I can not figure out which of the two above statements that you made is true.... Even a Tea Party radical, like you, can understand that it is impossible for both of them to be true.

They are both true, Nimrod. What part of "You lose your constitutional rights when you are convicted of a felony" didn't you understand?

 

[Geaux4it]

Why not? I think you're entitled to the same weapons as the average foot soldier.

Really? You think soldiers are exempt from background checks when they obtain the eligibility to those military weapons?

WTF does that have to do with anything SFB?

Because these nuts are fighting to preserve background check loopholes, and some of them even believe that background checks themselves are unconstitutional.

They are unconstitutional. Where does the Constitution state the government can impose requirements to buy a gun? The 2nd amendment states quite clearly that it can't impose requirements.

Right here:


“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


The Constitution authorizes government to enact restrictions, requirements, and impositions to purchasing a firearm.

And the constitution gives us the right through militias to say hell no, we disagree

-Geaux