Am I the only one that feels uncomfortable with the Democrats using yet another Dead or in this case injured member of congress as political capital?

I'm glad Gabby appears to be recovering but have to question motive on her appearance last night. She can't even form or comprehend simple sentences written or spoken, yet we are to believe she has command of her mental capacity enough to read, comprehend or even be briefed on a 74 page bill sufficiently enough to make an informed vote.

Of course Democrats and the usual media suspects are using this to try and force us into believing one of the ugliest political moments in the last 3 years, (debt ceiling bill), should now be looked at as a National Bipartisan Feelgood Holiday. I say bullshit.

This is just one in another long list of sickening episodes showing just how low Democrats will stoop to further their agenda.

Let's look at a short synopsis on their track record.

Paul Wellstone;
Yes, there is precedence for the claim that Democrats use these types of events for political gain. In 2002, following a plane crash which killed Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone weeks before the November election, Democrats famously and tastelessly turned the memorial into a fiery campaign rally. Republicans who showed up to mourn and pay their respects were loudly booed out of the assembly. This actually embarrassed John Kerry so badly he called Trent lot to apologize for the event.

Ted Kennedy;
This guy was predetermined to to be the poster boy for Obamacare. "Do it for Ted" was the mantra.

Gabby;
Obama's speech after the AZ shooting is exhibit A supporting my premise.

Anyone who doubts whether or not the left viewed Obama's speech as a political opportunity would need only to examine the media coverage.

Before, during, and after, the focus was entirely on Barack Obama’s performance. That aspect was not at all surprising, considering that only two months before, the left was pining for “their own Oklahoma City Bombing.” For a president whose party had just suffered one of the worst mid-term defeats in the history of the nation, it was, by their own words, the moment they had been waiting for. Analysis of the event entirely ignored the reason for the President’s speech, but breathlessly centered on whether he would be able to recapture his magical appeal from the campaign.

To say the circumstances surrounding Obama’s speech were more akin to a political rally than a memorial service would not be a stretch at all.

To his credit, he didn’t jump on the liberal bandwagon in blaming conservatives for the shooting, but he did wait long enough for the production and distribution of T-shirts recycling his campaign sloggans to be distributed to the crowd in attendence. (“Together We Thrive” originated from Obama’s Organizing for America website in 2008.)

Indeed, anyone watching the spectacle on television with the sound turned down would have mistaken it for just another 2008 Obama rally. Anyone listening to only the whistles and applause from the audience would have a hard time believing the occasion for the celebration was because a madman had shot twenty people, leaving six of them dead. It was almost like the Paul Wellstone Memorial all over again.

Likewise, Democrat activists hijacked the funeral of Coretta Scott King in 2006 in another attempt for a midterm election bump. While Reverend Joseph Lowery used the occasion to gather applause for statements opposing the Iraq war–with George W. Bush in attendence, no less–Jimmy Carter attempted to stir up racial animosity and fear of anti-terrorism measures by reminding the crowd that King’s family had themselves been the target of a federal wiretap. (Somehow, Carter neglected to mention it was the Kennedys who saw fit to wiretap the Kings.) Former President Bill Clinton likewise gave a long-winded speech about racial division before pausing to remember outloud that he was at a woman’s funeral.

If trial lawyers are branded the profession of “ambulance chasers,” then surely any hearse traveling down the road will have Democratic activists in hot pursuit.

The Democrat party is looking more like "Weekend At Bernie's" literally using their dead and injured friends to prop up a facade than a party with any vibrant notion of solutions to our countries dilemmas.

At the same time, Biden, other DEms and lib pundits are compariing the repubs in Congress to "terrorists".

ANd I thought they had determined the whole Giffords shooting thing was caused by some map Sarah Palin posted online?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Because it's not like the GOP have exploited the name or image of Ronald Reagan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it's not like the GOP have exploited the
> name or image of Ronald Reagan.

Nobody paints Reagan as a victim. Let alone one of the Democratic party. If you recall back around the time of the Giffords shooting there were people actually retarded enough to place blame on the GOP and the tea party for the shootings.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the same time, Biden, other DEms and lib
> pundits are compariing the repubs in Congress to
> "terrorists".
>
> ANd I thought they had determined the whole
> Giffords shooting thing was caused by some map
> Sarah Palin posted online?

Yep. And I hope they keep it up. With polls showing American's more closely identify with the Tea Party politically then congress, the President or Joe Biden for that matter, they are shooting themselves in the ass with well over 50% of the electorate every time they open their stupid fucking pie traps.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it's not like the GOP have exploited the
> name or image of Ronald Reagan.

@ WTL - I'm willing to listen if you could follow up with some examples.

I also had some confusion and misgivings about the Gabby Giffords vote. 1) As far as I knew she was still recovering from the shooting and 2) Assuming she has recently recovered how was she able to really make an informed decision?

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it's not like the GOP have exploited the
> name or image of Ronald Reagan.

Funny, I thought all the dems (except Obama) wanted him impeached and thought he was an idiot. So really, what does that have to do with anything on the apples and oranges scale? Nada.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

There have been many attempts by politicians trying to gain strategy by basically saying, "See , look at me! I'm like Ronald Reagan. Newt does it as well as a lot of other liberal Republicans and it drives me crazy. Everyone seems to have a claim on the mantle of truth Ronaldus Magnus.

Even Obama;

Since taking a “shellacking” in the 2010 mid-term elections, and more frequently in the past few weeks when talking about the debt ceiling, President Obama has taken to mentioning Ronald Reagan. On July 13, frustrated at the debt-ceiling impasse, Obama stormed out of a bipartisan meeting on the hill, claiming that ”Ronald Reagan wouldn’t sit here like this.” It is always nice to see a president attempt to mould himself on the Gipper, but the president would be wise to avoid quoting Reagan too liberally, lest he actually be compared to him. Such comparisons would not be favorable.

Lest we compare where our current economic recovery is to the same point in Reagan's first term.

For instance, during the comparable quarters of the Reagan presidency in 1983, the recovering economy grew at 5.1 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2011 11:32AM by mcsmack.

Oh and hello from George Town. Always happy to take pics of tourists.



Thanks to photobucket.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2011 01:21PM by mcsmack.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because it's not like the GOP have exploited
> the
> > name or image of Ronald Reagan.
>
> Nobody paints Reagan as a victim. Let alone one
> of the Democratic party. If you recall back
> around the time of the Giffords shooting there
> were people actually retarded enough to place
> blame on the GOP and the tea party for the
> shootings.


Who is painting Giffords as a victim? They seem to be celebrating her resiliency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

FurfaxTownie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because it's not like the GOP have exploited
> the
> > name or image of Ronald Reagan.
>
> @ WTL - I'm willing to listen if you could follow
> up with some examples.
>




> I also had some confusion and misgivings about the
> Gabby Giffords vote. 1) As far as I knew she was
> still recovering from the shooting and 2) Assuming
> she has recently recovered how was she able to
> really make an informed decision?

The injury affected her motor skills. Her cognitive abilities haven't been in question.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because it's not like the GOP have exploited
> the
> > name or image of Ronald Reagan.
>
> Funny, I thought all the dems (except Obama)
> wanted him impeached and thought he was an idiot.
> So really, what does that have to do with anything
> on the apples and oranges scale? Nada.


Excuse me? Which party was responsible for actually impeaching a President? You know what they say about living in glass houses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FurfaxTownie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Because it's not like the GOP have exploited
> > thename or image of Ronald Reagan.

Again, expoiting someone's achievements is different than exploiting their status as a victim.

> The injury affected her motor skills. Her
> cognitive abilities haven't been in question.


Based on the brain regions affected by the bullet's path, Cohen believes that Giffords probably suffers from specific cognitive difficulties , including gaps in the right half of her field of vision and weakness on the right side of her body. "The brain is so predictable to what the injury is going to look like — it's like real estate," he says. These problems will require the full range of therapeutic practices.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/13/what-gabrielle-giffords-can-expect-when-she-leaves-rehab/#ixzz1TtU6dIAb

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Because it's not like the GOP have exploited
> > the
> > > name or image of Ronald Reagan.
> >
> > Funny, I thought all the dems (except Obama)
> > wanted him impeached and thought he was an
> idiot.
> > So really, what does that have to do with
> anything
> > on the apples and oranges scale? Nada.
>
>
> Excuse me? Which party was responsible for
> actually impeaching a President? You know what
> they say about living in glass houses.

Not sure what your point there was? Nixon is the best example of running someone out of office in recent memory. Clinton was impeached but managed to survive. So how does that pertain to the discussion at hand at all?

I am glad to see Giffords is recovering, but the Democrats have been anything but "toning down the rhetoric" of late, and her shooting, while tragic, was performed by a true loon. Why was it important for her to show up to this vote is really the point. And of course the media turns the whole episode into one big feel good moment with sympathy to the Democrats as their heroic survivor comes in to cast a vote. I suppose it was some vague attempt to distract from the fact that this was the biggest loser of a vote for the American people in years - since nothing was really "cut" other than the growth of spending, and there is no real plan to deal with the deficit at all. Even the select committee they setup will be hard pressed to put in place any form of real reform to do anything, especially with Harry Reid already crowing that he will definitely be raising taxes when the results are in. How again does that help the business community feel that there is any stability in the next 6 months to a year? Really?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Not sure what your point there was? Nixon is the
> best example of running someone out of office in
> recent memory. Clinton was impeached but managed
> to survive. So how does that pertain to the
> discussion at hand at all?
>

You chastise the Dems for "wanting to impeach" Reagan, and then when I point out the GOP actually did it you go, "How does that pertain to the discussion at hand?" I don't know. How did your "wanting to impeach" remark pertain to anything? As for Nixon, you think what he did wasn't worthy of his resignation? He was "run out of office" by his own actions.

> I am glad to see Giffords is recovering, but the
> Democrats have been anything but "toning down the
> rhetoric" of late, and her shooting, while tragic,
> was performed by a true loon. Why was it important
> for her to show up to this vote is really the
> point. And of course the media turns the whole
> episode into one big feel good moment with
> sympathy to the Democrats as their heroic survivor
> comes in to cast a vote. I suppose it was some
> vague attempt to distract from the fact that this
> was the biggest loser of a vote for the American
> people in years - since nothing was really "cut"
> other than the growth of spending, and there is no
> real plan to deal with the deficit at all. Even
> the select committee they setup will be hard
> pressed to put in place any form of real reform to
> do anything, especially with Harry Reid already
> crowing that he will definitely be raising taxes
> when the results are in. How again does that help
> the business community feel that there is any
> stability in the next 6 months to a year? Really?


How does anything you just wrote pertain to Giffords?

Was bringing her in for the vote exploitative? Maybe, though she went along with it and I really doubt she had to be cajoled to do it. Just like the GOP trotting Nancy Reagan out at its conventions all of the time. It's all political theater and to act like the Dems do it and the GOP doesn't is just disingenuous.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excuse me? Which party was responsible for
> actually impeaching a President? You know what
> they say about living in glass houses.


I seem to recall it was the one where the intern showed up in a blue dress with a fresh box of cigars?

Wasn't much of a party, two people, a hallway and the oval office.

That is unless you are saying Clinton was the victim in that case?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2011 01:45PM by SoylentGreen.

Yes I do think the shooter of Gabriel Gifford thought he would be a hero to the Tea Party.

Yes I do think he inspired by Palin's target poster, as were the bombers that bombed Democratic Senators offices on the list during the election.
Attachments:

Shame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes I do think the shooter of Gabriel Gifford
> thought he would be a hero to the Tea Party.
>
> Yes I do think he inspired by Palin's target
> poster, as were the bombers that bombed Democratic
> Senators offices on the list during the election.

Of course you do. You can't think for yourself.

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Excuse me? Which party was responsible for
> > actually impeaching a President? You know what
> > they say about living in glass houses.
>
>
> I seem to recall it was the one where the intern
> showed up in a blue dress with a fresh box of
> cigars?
>
> Wasn't much of a party, two people, a hallway and
> the oval office.
>
> That is unless you are saying Clinton was the
> victim in that case?

Not at all. Clinton's impeachment isn't relevant at all. Yet RV thought Democratic desires to impeach Reagan (which I never heard of at the time, mind you) somehow were.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Shame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes I do think the shooter of Gabriel Gifford
> thought he would be a hero to the Tea Party.
>
> Yes I do think he inspired by Palin's target
> poster, as were the bombers that bombed Democratic
> Senators offices on the list during the election.

I suppose all the Republican and Tea party "terrorists" and extremists should look out.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not at all. Clinton's impeachment isn't relevant
> at all. Yet RV thought Democratic desires to
> impeach Reagan (which I never heard of at the
> time, mind you) somehow were.

You mean... all the time that Oliver North was being grilled in Congress - you never heard them talk about impeaching Reagan? Really?

LOL

Reagan was reviled by the Democrats for years. They constantly called him an idiot, scatterbrain, etc. Now suddenly he is the man Obama calls upon in meetings - if it isn't Lincoln. Clinton being impeached - again, has what to do with trotting out Giffords to be exploited here? And why did whomever get impeached matter at all as a question? I was pointing out that Reagan - who was never painted as a victim as far as I know - ok well he was shot by a loon - was sort of an odd comparison to Giffords and I was trying to see what relevance it had to the point of the discussion.

Right.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2011 02:09PM by Registered Voter.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Democratic desires to > impeach Reagan (which I never heard of at the
> time, mind you) somehow were.




http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-15/news/mn-4220_1_president-reagan

You got it right...Reagan was an idiot. Dems never seriously thoght there were grounds for impeachment...a passing comment/thought isnt a serious proposal.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes I do think the shooter of Gabriel Gifford
> > thought he would be a hero to the Tea Party.
> >
> > Yes I do think he inspired by Palin's target
> > poster, as were the bombers that bombed
> Democratic
> > Senators offices on the list during the
> election.
>
> I suppose all the Republican and Tea party
> "terrorists" and extremists should look out.

Do you really think Democratic constituents are as stupid and gun crazy as Republicans?

Of course not.

You got it right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You got it right...Reagan was an idiot. Dems
> never seriously thoght there were grounds for
> impeachment...a passing comment/thought isnt a
> serious proposal.

It was on the news all the time while North was being grilled. I remember very clearly it was more than just a passing comment - it was on the news with regularity.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you really think Democratic constituents are as
> stupid and gun crazy as Republicans?
>
> Of course not.

Considering that after all the BS about gun toting Republicans during the health care debate, the main actors with weapons (or airplanes, etc) were democratic leaning whackos.... yeah - I think the crazy libs are the violent retards out there.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2011 02:22PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You got it right Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You got it right...Reagan was an idiot. Dems
> > never seriously thoght there were grounds for
> > impeachment...a passing comment/thought isnt a
> > serious proposal.
>
> It was on the news all the time while North was
> being grilled. I remember very clearly it was more
> than just a passing comment - it was on the news
> with regularity.

I posted a link mentioning it above.

But that still won't stop people from making stuff up here.

RR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She can't even form or comprehend simple sentences
> written or spoken, yet we are to believe she has
> command of her mental capacity enough to read,
> comprehend or even be briefed on a 74 page bill
> sufficiently enough to make an informed vote.

I trust Giffords 100000 times more to case an informed vote than your Tea Party god Eric Cantor.

I think most of this Reagan channeling being done by Obama and his cohorts stems from the conservatives pointing out and quoting JFK contrasting how much closer he was to Reagan than present day progressives. This is true especially when it comes to tax policy.

TEFRA in which Reagan was quoted out of context by Obama was a self admitted mistake by Reagan. The one thing he would have done different is make the Democrats come up with real cuts first, before any loopholes were closed and the tax base expanded. 2 for 1 didn't happen as we all know. And it damn sure isn't the Democrats, progressives, socialists whatever the fuck you want to call them goal now.

The only ones that are truly Reagan-est in this debt ceiling debacle are the ones that are so naive as to believe real cuts in spending are coming in the future.

With all that, it doesn't look like the Republicans were hurt anywhere near as much as some pundits would have you believe...

Generic Congressional Vote
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > She can't even form or comprehend simple
> sentences
> > written or spoken, yet we are to believe she
> has
> > command of her mental capacity enough to read,
> > comprehend or even be briefed on a 74 page bill
> > sufficiently enough to make an informed vote.
>
> I trust Giffords 100000 times more to case an
> informed vote than your Tea Party god Eric Cantor.

Yes and I trust Michelle Bachmann with her headaches a hell of a lot more than a congresswoman with a bullet through her brain.

But hey! I know you have no problem using mentally incapacitated people to further your agenda at every opportunity. Good thing you don't believe in hell fuck wart!

.
Attachments:

RR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes and I trust Michelle Bachmann with her
> headaches a hell of a lot more than a
> congresswoman with a bullet through her brain.
>

When did Giffords announce she was running for POTUS. I must have missed that, because that's the issue with Bachmann. Not her Congressional duties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I dont like the name Gabby nor do I like the name Pippa. I really dislike the name Steney.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Yes and I trust Michelle Bachmann with her
> > headaches a hell of a lot more than a
> > congresswoman with a bullet through her brain.
> >
>
> When did Giffords announce she was running for
> POTUS. I must have missed that, because that's the
> issue with Bachmann. Not her Congressional duties.

Point of order: I do not believe the lady can communicate in the conventional sense so in order for her to announce anything, she'll have to .... use Morse Code I guess.

Second Point of order: I believe where this came from was an across the aisle comparison of two members of Congress with a third thrown in. At no point has Bachmann been elected to the office of POTUS at this particular time and date.

Carry on.

I think they should pay for her new face.

Where is the NRA? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they should pay for her new face.


I think you should fuck yourself.

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Point of order: I do not believe the lady can
> communicate in the conventional sense so in order
> for her to announce anything, she'll have to ....
> use Morse Code I guess.
Attachments:

Why are the vast majority of anti-democrats, anti-Obama threads, which are VERY opionated, started by an unregistered user?

Because the anti-Obama, anti-democrat is pulling the equvalent of a childs game here called "ding-dong ditch".

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are the vast majority of anti-democrats,
> anti-Obama threads, which are VERY opionated,
> started by an unregistered user?


Probably because registered FFXU users are overwhelmingly liberal.

lafksjd;al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are the vast majority of anti-democrats,
> > anti-Obama threads, which are VERY opionated,
> > started by an unregistered user?
>
>
> Probably because registered FFXU users are
> overwhelmingly liberal.

ding-dong ditch

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ding-dong ditch

Right...

lafksjd;al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why are the vast majority of anti-democrats,
> > anti-Obama threads, which are VERY opionated,
> > started by an unregistered user?
>
>
> Probably because registered FFXU users are
> overwhelmingly liberal.

With the 1000s of posts by unregistered users?
So you are admitting that the vast majority of these 100s of posts come from a very small group (perhaps 1 or 2) users? Yeah, doesn't surprise me either.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are the vast majority of anti-democrats,
> anti-Obama threads, which are VERY opionated,
> started by an unregistered user?

I LOVE opionated threads. I just can't get enough of opions.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With the 1000s of posts by unregistered users?
> So you are admitting that the vast majority of
> these 100s of posts come from a very small group
> (perhaps 1 or 2) users? Yeah, doesn't surprise me
> either.

I never admitted anything. You just put words in my mouth.