१ ऑगस्ट, २०११
"Gabby is voting to support the bipartisan debt-ceiling compromise."
And, as the bill passes the house, presumably everyone is reminded of the new commitment to civility that went to hell somewhere between Obama's Tucson speech and the Satan Sandwich.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३२७ टिप्पण्या:
327 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I am surprised she came back, what with all the Tea party Terrorists in the House.
The bill has the support of brain-damaged congresspersons everywhere.
However, it was nice to see the progress she has made in her recovery.
So, who takes the blame when some Tea Party congressperson gets attacked?
A nice woman who got shot by a lunatic. Overcoming odds to do what she thinks is right, and her duty. She doesn't deserve to be drawn into the partisan sewer of this issue. Harsh comment, in a way I wouldn't have expected.
She doesn't deserve to be drawn into the partisan sewer of this issue.
She's a politician.
We can assume her decision when and how to return was political.
We can also assume all the other politicians who used her shooting as a bludgeon on the GOP did so for political reasons.
She doesn't deserve to be drawn into the partisan sewer of this issue.
Wake me when she denounces the way her fellow democrats used her tragedy to demonize the Tea Party.
Until then, STFU.
That she was elected to public office does not foreclose a certain sense of decency.
She doesn't deserve to be drawn into the partisan sewer of this issue.
I agree. This is Kos Kidz-level behavior.
STFU, eh? You're a disgrace.
Oh boy.. Are they going to wheel her in like sox did Ted Williams?
I would not put it past the dems.
Btw. I have no intertubes these days so my commenting will be scant.
"We can assume her decision when and how to return was political.
I wonder how much of the decision was hers.
That she was elected to public office does not foreclose a certain sense of decency.
you're correct, it does not.
however, as fen noted, her fellow democrats used her tragedy to demonize the Tea Party. a lot of politicians and other political players have an attitude of "free speech for me but not for thee" and i note that democrats are fully, if not overly, represented in this kind of political gamesmanship.
pot, meet kettle.
what goes around, comes around,
"Wake me when she denounces the way her fellow democrats used her tragedy to demonize the Tea Party."
My guess would be she knows nothing of all that shit.
Congress needs huggers for its special members.
what goes around, comes around
What other Democrats may have done in no way justifies attacking her and she is in no way responsible for their bad acts.
If she where a Supreme could she still?
Where is Gabby.. pardon if I sound harsh but shes not legislating.
If she were a republican the dems would have forced the issue.
OK - I 'll be the bad guy. No one has asked, nor has anyone reported, just how well Giffords' bullet-penetrated brain is working. The published photo shows her with a zombie-like look.
Interestingly, her website has not had a single article about the congresswoman's progress since she was shot six months ago. The last article features the return of aide Ron Barber who was also shot -- but nary a word about Gabrielle.
Incivility is anyone who is not of the progressive stripe speaking. Civility is calling anyone you don't agree with a terrorist, extremist, hostage taker, etc.
Liberals; the epitome of hypocrisy.
I wonder how much of the decision was hers.
Wondering is against the new New Civility.
O'Really had a segment with Bernie Goldberg about how all the Lefties are comparing the Tea Partiers to terrorists and suicide bombers.
Particularly amusing since the Lefties call the real terrorists anything but terrorists.
So much for civility.
Lem said...
Oh boy.. Are they going to wheel her in like sox did Ted Williams?
That they dragged her back for this was pretty low in itself. She didn't look well.
I'm a Republican. My view on this issue is nonpartisan.
I'm a Republican. My view on this issue is nonpartisan.
What is your view, and what do you consider to be the issue?
No one has asked, nor has anyone reported, just how well Giffords' bullet-penetrated brain is working.
Just because you don't know doesn't mean she's not sufficiently recovered to do her job. If she's not, the GOP-controlled House has procedures to handle the issue.
As a physical therapist professional, I am applauding her miraculous recovery. Brava, Brava!
We all know the Progs love a group think, group chant, group journolist, collective message.
It is no conincidence that the Progs used her shooting to try and assign blame to the Tea Party as extremists... and now their favorite talking point is "right wing Tea Party Terrorists".
Just saw a report on Fox that VP Biden is quoted as calling Tea Party "terrorists" in Dem meeting today.
Bernie Goldberg on O'Reilly wonders why the left can't call terrorists ....terrorists, but they have no problem calling regular Joe citizens of the Tea Party terrorists. The guy that obliterated Fort Hood, cannot be called a "terrorist" says PC left, media...but I can?
Wait, my 19 yr old daughter says I've been terrorizing her boyfriend for years...I take it back.
If she were a republican the dems would have forced the issue.
By that I mean.. not having a special election to replace her, Gabby's constituents are being deprived of representation.
My view is that she's entitled to the presumption that she's exercising her judgment, in accordance with her elected responsibility. If you have evidence to the contrary, state it. The issue is: should she be portrayed as a vegetal tool of partisans on the basis of her appearance/injury?
"And, as the bill passes the house, presumably everyone is reminded of the new commitment to civility that went to hell somewhere between Obama's Tucson speech and the Satan Sandwich."
The new commitment to civility didn't exist before Obama's speech, didn't come into being during that speech, and hasn't existed for an instant since the speech. It was only ever a rhetorical club used by the left (on whom the irony was wasted) to beat Republicans over the head as (in Fen's words) they "used [Giffords'] tragedy to demonize the Tea Party."
I remember that incident very well. I remember what calumnies were hurled and by whom.
shake-and-bake said...
"She doesn't deserve to be drawn into the partisan sewer of this issue. "
Nobody would have blamed her for resigning from Congress, but she chose to remain in office, at lesat de iure. That limits the credibility of saying she shouldn't be "drawn in" to the partisan sewer.
My view is that she's entitled to the presumption that she's exercising her judgment, in accordance with her elected responsibility.
Does that include the possibility that her judgement told her she should seize maximum attention for the "yes" vote she was about to cast?
Does the presumption that she's exercising her judgement include the possibility that she knows exactly how her shooting was used, and she's fine with that?
Or are we supposed to presume her judgement is all good, and full of non-political intentions?
...she chose to remain in office, at lesat de iure. That limits the credibility of saying she shouldn't be "drawn in" to the partisan sewer.
It doesn't justify boorish behavior. Moreover, if you act like a Kos Kid people won't be able to tell the difference.
>i/i<
"By that I mean.. not having a special election to replace her, Gabby's constituents are being deprived of representation."
I don't disagree with this. But around here it wouldn't make much difference. Hell, 'we' elected Grijalva. The vote is the same, only the faces of those elected change. Your point stands though.
We have no idea what is going on in her mind. Her being there and looking so frail made me uneasy and made me wonder if she is subject to manipulation. But that says as much about me as her. In fact we don't know, so STFU is pretty good advice.
According to The Blonde, the area of the brain where Ms Giffords was shot precludes her from making the kind of analytical decisions required for this sort of thing.
So this was a stunt.
"Or are we supposed to presume her judgment is all good, and full of non-political intentions?"
As an opinion I'd say she hasn't much judgment at all in the present moment. Though, if I had to choose a character for approbation it would be her husband, who is I'm guessing allowing this to happen.
"So this was a stunt."
I completely agree with this.
As there is nothing so low as the democrats for a vote. From the grave, even.
The AZ Republic, June 9, 2011:
"We want to give people a clear picture (about Giffords). It's not in anyone's interest to have anyone feel misled. But it's hard because we satisfy one person and one set of questions, and tomorrow, we're on to the next. The feeling is like it's never enough."
It won't be. Not from now on. The inquiries will keep coming until the day Giffords decides if she will return to Congress.
Is she ready to do that?
No.
Is she close?
No.
How clearly have doctors been able to determine the damage done by the bullet?
"An MRI is the most complete way to look at someone's brain, but she cannot ever have an MRI," Carusone said. "She has bullet shards inevitably in her head, and because MRI is magnetic, that obviously would be bad. That is a problem that shooting victims have. They have to use a CT scan. If she had suffered a stroke, they could do an MRI and get a much better picture of the damage to her brain. But that will never happen."
So what kind of game are the Dems playing? "Sham, Sham, Sham!"
Has anyone taken the position, on the basis of medical evidence, that she lacks the mental capacity to cast this vote? The GOP? Her constituents? I repeat: if you have such evidence, state it. If you are engaging in unbased speculation, STFU. Put up or shut up.
She's a democrap! I'm not surprised how they vote!
What surprises me more is that most Americans will now feel they have "no choice." Since they don't want to add religious zealots to the list of things they don't want.
The stupid party still IS.
The Democrats seem to have no limit of crass hypocrisy. Making jokes about a brain injured, guiltless victim is just crass.
One thing I have always liked about this forum, especially those with whom I agree, is that it is usually a pretty thoughtful and tempered discussion.
If I want crass and infantile, I will go to HuffPo, Kos, etc.
Elevate your game.
She may or may not be competent to cast the vote, but bringing her out on the floor of the House was a calculated, cynical piece of poltical theater. But we're not supposed to notice that, are we?
Please, folks. I detest what many lefties are doing to our country and to our children and grandchildren. There are many things available to be said. Raising boorish questions that embarrass ourselves and our allies is wrong and unnecessary. I'm extremely glad that Rep. Giffords is able to return, even though I disagree with her voting pattern. To snark at her personally at this moment amounts to trashing her when she's down - and that's unbecoming to Americans. Thanks for reading.
bringing her out on the floor of the House was a calculated, cynical piece of poltical theater.
What I'm not seeing here is the big partisan advantage to having her take the floor of the House to cast a vote that Boehner's asking his party members to vote for.
Sure you can notice it. But you shouldn't cast aspersions you can't substantiate.
Chip S: exactly.
I’m active duty Army and a Tea Partier…so do I turn myself in now or wait till the door is busted off its hinges? Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to find the bad guys, I’ve been hiding behind myself (or would it be in front of myself).
Gabby has earned it.
She was mostly killed for being a strong person, and then she came back to continue blessing us with her remaining strength.
Politics are second here. If we are fellow human beings, we need to love her.
The Liberals who throw out those vile terms and descriptions do not care.
And the GOP and Tea Partiers will be blamed when the economy continues to wither.
I am very glad that Gabby is doing better. I do wish her a full recovery.
Creepy political stunt.
And I completely disagree with the stupid notion that because of the terrible crime committed against her she's now somehow immune to political criticism even though she put herself (or was put) back into national political business. It's the old "absolute moral authority" garbage that bestows "special weight" on the opinion of certain people based on immutable characteristics.
While it may be reprehensible and crass to make stupid comments about Giffords, it's not out of line if this sort of commentary is acceptable about other politicians.
My view is that she's entitled to the presumption that she's exercising her judgment, in accordance with her elected responsibility.
Then you have no excuse for her failure to denounce those who used her to demonize the Tea Party.
You can't have it both ways - either she is responsible for what is done in her name or she is too addled to exercise judgement.
Being shot does not excuse one from being a bitch.
To snark at her personally at this moment amounts to trashing her when she's down
How is she down? She's made enough of a recovery to represent her people in Congress and cast votes in their name.
What I'm not seeing here is the big partisan advantage to having her take the floor of the House to cast a vote that Boehner's asking his party members to vote for.
So what was the purpose of her being there at that moment, if not political theater? She is clearly not ready to resume her duties.
Fen said...
She doesn't deserve to be drawn into the partisan sewer of this issue.
Wake me when she denounces the way her fellow democrats used her tragedy to demonize the Tea Party.
Until then, STFU.
==================
I suggest Fen, that you have a little decency and STFU about it. The woman was in an induced coma when all that shit flew about and I doubt the issue was on the radar screen in her later recovery.
There is something infantile about the foot-stomping, demands for strangers to apologize, denounce others, take some "pledge" - or you will be displeased!
Fuck you if you are displeased. Who cares if you are displeased?
The woman answers to her constituents.
No sign that her District in AZ wants a special election, no sign that her slow recovery is not yet finished. Republicans have the House, her vote is nor determinative of anything. And her staff does all the constituent work just as they did before her wounding, just as well...sort of like the Staff of Strom Thurmond did during the 4 years he was a Zombie.
I note, for the hell of it, that the mental competence bar for casting a vote in the HoR is staggeringly low. When in law school I worked as an elevator operator in the Longworth House Office Building. When the "vote" bell rang in the evening, we routinely collected congressmen (yes, mostly men) so drunk they could barely stand.
@Palladian--Why not go all-out and add "cunning" to your description of this "stunt"?
The woman was in an induced coma when all that shit flew about and I doubt the issue was on the radar screen in her later recovery.
Bullshit. Your position is that she knows enough about current events to cast votes in Congress, but she has no idea what was done in her name while she was in a coma.
Thats ridiculous.
There is something infantile about the foot-stomping, demands for strangers to apologize, denounce others, take some "pledge" - or you will be displeased!
Huge difference between that and apologizing to Americans for the way your colleagues used your tragedy to demonize them.
She's associated directly with it, and until she denounces it, she's fair game.
So what was the purpose of her being there at that moment, if not political theater?
I don't know. But I wasn't offering up commentary on it.
If you don't know, why are you getting all worked up about it?
Maybe it just gives her a little bit of a morale boost. Hell, maybe Boehner asked her to do it as a dramatic show of bipartisanship.
I have no fucking idea. That's why I'm not jabbering about it.
I think you guys are just being chauvinists about it because a woman was shot.
das stimmt Cedarford (and shake..).
The Fen-tard sort of crass pseudo-conservative is an insult to the few valuable aspects of Reagan -era GOP. Tea? no. Meth-baggers. We don't have to agree with Gifford's politics, or her vote support the D-CC (tho' Yea is the pragmatic vote, rather than selfish, cynical Nay). But suggesting's she's a gimp or something--uncalled for.
Let us not forget that today is the day when Vice President Joe Biden called his fellow Americans "Terrorists".
Palladian - "While it may be reprehensible and crass to make stupid comments about Giffords, it's not out of line if this sort of commentary is acceptable about other politicians."
Depends on the circumstances. If a Supreme Court Justice was shot and had a long recovery, it would be a problem. An acting elected or appointed executive in government? A problem..
A judge in a "bank" of some 20 judges where only 3-7 are called to rule on a case just left on the sidelines because of incapacitation in a shooting and slow recovery? No immediate problem.
The need to force a shot soldier to resign , be medically discharged because they "might not fully recover in the next 1-2 years sufficiently to do duties"? Nope. Soldiers are put in a structure with redundancy.
A legislator like Giffords - whether she is able to be in Congress or has to be away from Congress for medical care? No burning issue. Her vote is not needed, her staff continues to serve constituents.
Well, Fen, the rest of the world is ridiculous. She didn't address ugly things that were done by people of her own party. That pretty much puts her in the majority in Congress, no? How many people failed to condemn lies and slanders told by their own side in the past? Do you have snark for them? Or only for the person who was wounded and seeks to recover?
FWIW, a lot of rock-ribbed conservatives are rejoicing over how far she's come. Your 'logic' by which she's either evil or incompetent isn't compelling, or reasonable. Going after her tonight is bizarre and distasteful - and embarrassing to many of us who generally oppose her ideological positions.
Let us not forget that today is the day when Vice President Joe Biden called his fellow Americans "Terrorists".
And therefore it makes sense to shit all over Giffords for casting a vote? WTF?
I think you guys are just being chauvinists about it because a woman was shot.
Her sex doesn't make a difference. Boorish behavior is boorish behavior whether it is directed at a man or a woman.
From her facebook posting, Apr 29th:
"Congresswoman Giffords is disappointed that Endeavour was unable to launch today, but realizes that mission safety must come first. Launch delays are not uncommon with the space shuttle. We are looking forward to the quick rescheduling of this scientifically important mission...
."
But lets pretend she hasn't the first clue that "her shooting was incited by conservatives and the Tea Party".
I am becoming very cynical toward cynicism.
And therefore it makes sense to shit all over Giffords for casting a vote? WTF?
I'm not doing that. I saying that, if she's recovered enough vote in Congress, then why hasn't she addressed the way she was used to slime Americans as terrorists?
From the article:
Ms. Giffords smiled as she moved through a crowded hallway. She did not answer questions, but raised her hand to wave as she walked into a waiting elevator.
She does not look well. I have no way of knowing, but I've been around brain injured people before, and I doubt if she's making many decisions on her own.
What you guys are saying, and whats entirely unreasonable, is that she is immune to this kind of criticism because she just recovered from being shot.
Gabby is down alright.
Her wound was intended to be deadly.
By a miracle, she is that one in 10,000 who recovered from a powerful head shot. But her full bodily strength could not return to her from that trauma for a year to 14 months.
Yet she bravely resumed her work as a Congresswoman today.
I understand that Gabby never had moral authority that anyone here respected, and she has no more today because she was shot down.
What she has is my support as one human to another. Love your neighbor is a command, even if the command was from a Jewish King.
One vote in the House minority remains one vote.
Is she able to say, "no comment."
Boorish behavior is boorish behavior whether it is directed at a man or a woman.
Whats boorish about it? If she's competent enough to vote in Congress, she's competent enough to denounce the way she was used to demonize us.
So why hasn't she?
You don't like the timing of the question? Then when can it be asked? In a month? In a year? Never?
I don't think it's up to her to fulfill your political wishes, Fen.
Tell you what--after she gives her first post-recovery speech, we can give it a close reading. If she calls for lots of new federal spending, I'll join in criticizing her as much as I'd criticize any other mid-rank Member of Congress. And if she blames Sarah Palin for the shooting in Tucson, then I'll denounce her along with you.
But I don't think that a Facebook post about her husband's scrapped launch is any kind of major engagement with public issues. Seems more like she took one small step toward that today.
Yet she bravely resumed her work as a Congresswoman today.
Bravely? What was brave about it?
And there's a difference between "boorish behavior" and legitimately questioning why she's participating in politics at this point in her recovery, and if she's being manipulated into doing it by political operators.
Mocking and insulting a crippled woman makes you look like a schmuck.
It doesn't matter who the woman is or what she did. Her name could be Casey Anthony McHitler and you'd still look like a schmuck for picking on a crippled woman.
So even if you think the only appeciable difference between a politicians and slime molds is that slime molds don't robo-call you for campaign donations, I would still advise against taking your anger out on this particular politician.
Then the question is, will she remain in Washington and resume her work as a Congresswoman, or return back home after this appearance? That will tell us about her progress.
I don't think it's up to her to fulfill your political wishes, Fen.
Of course not. But until she addresses what was done in her name, we are free to assume she approves of it.
And I wouldn't raise the issue if she hadn't stepped into the chamber today. If she's well enough to vote in Congress, she's well enough to denounce the way her tragedy was used to divide America.
But I don't think that a Facebook post about her husband's scrapped launch is any kind of major engagement with public issues.
It shows she was tracking current events. You really think the "Tea Partiers targeted you for death" angle never came up?
"So even if you think the only appeciable difference between a politicians and slime molds is that slime molds don't robo-call you for campaign donations, I would still advise against taking your anger out on this particular politician."
So are we allowed to question her ability to participate in national political issues or are her votes now sacrosanct?
Mocking and insulting a crippled woman makes you look like a schmuck.
What are you talking about? I haven't mocked or insulted her. Who here has? Quote it.
No, Fen, that's not what anyone is saying that I've heard. What I'm saying is that there are mechanisms in place if her constiuents, the GOP, or the Democrats believe she shouldn't cast a vote because she lacks mental competence. Nobody has initiated those procedures. So if it is your opinion that she is incompetent, support it. The anecdotal observations of other injuries that have posted here are meaningless.
Gabby Giffords was a liked nice person before she was shot. She is not responsible for dicks who used her shooting for political advantage. I disagree with her politically, but as Democrats go she was relatively moderate. So lighten up on her. Yeah, she will get somewhat special treatement. Yes she is being used. But how about a little grace. If she runs again for the House or runs for the Arizona sentate, then by all means start asking the tough questions (if you are an Arizona voter).
If you want to let loose with your rhetorical guns, I could think of better targets. Just sayin.
@Palladian--My initial foray into this thread at 9:28 invited Giffords's critics to explain what cynical ploy she was engaged in, wittingly or not. I really thought I must have missed something that others saw. After 45 minutes of back-and-forth, I still haven't seen even an attempted conjecture on that score.
So, once again: Exactly what cynical aims do you think were advanced by her casting a vote in support of legislation backed by the Republican Speaker of the House?
And stop putting words in people's mouths. Nobody--absolutely no one in this entire thread--has said she deserves immunity from criticism. Speaking only for myself, I'm asking exactly what it is you think she should be criticized for?
Fen's position is clear on this, but not yours.
What I'm saying is that there are mechanisms in place if her constiuents, the GOP, or the Democrats believe she shouldn't cast a vote because she lacks mental competence.
This is a serious question: what are those mechanisms?
Were they ever used with Robert Byrd or Teddy Kennedy?
Do you think the choice to invoke this mechanism would not be highly charged and political?
I haven't mocked or insulted her. Who here has? Quote it.
You might start with the second comment in this thread.
Next, explain why accusing her of being either a cynical exploiter of sympathy or a catspaw for unnamed sinister plotters is neither insult nor mockery.
Fen...If you don't see bravery in Gabby's actions today, then you need to go through a near death trauma and slow recovery of your own.
People do not pop up and go on to the next thing like the movies show them doing with no hairs out of place and a cocky attitude.
It is a long, slow and depressing experience that gives you a strong empathy for others in that position.
Be happy for her.
Were they ever used with Robert Byrd or Teddy Kennedy?
No. Nor--as was noted earlier in this thread--were they used with Strom Thurmond, despite the well-known fact that he barely knew where he was toward the end.
It looks like Fen's the real victim here.
But how about a little grace. If she runs again for the House or runs for the Arizona sentate, then by all means start asking the tough questions (if you are an Arizona voter).
It's tough to start asking the tough questions after a year of pretending they didn't exist.
FWIW, I think if she is back as a real live, honest to goodness Congresswoman, then she can be just as criticized as any other.
I am happy for her personally, but we don't need people in politics who are off-limits.
why should she have to do anything other than recover and return to work?
But she hasn't recovered and she hasn't returned to work.
They brought her out specifically to generate emotional support for the budget bill. Don't you find that somewhat distasteful? Of is anything involving this woman now sacrosanct and above criticism?
shake,
There have been other politicians that have stayed way past their time, but were not removed by their constituents. It's not unusual. Can she talk? If so, could she explain what she likes about this bill? Why she wants to vote for it. I'll proffer that she can't express herself.
As I've said before, I've been around brain injured people and wouldn't be surprised to find out that she has expressive aphasia.
Gabby Giffords was a liked nice person before she was shot. She is not responsible for dicks who used her shooting for political advantage.
Contradiction. If Gaby was a "nice person", she would address the way her tragedy was used to divide America. Not because she was responsible for it, but because she was involuntarily associated with it.
If she's mentally competent to cast a vote for Arizona in Congress, she's also competent enough to give her tacit approval to the demonization of her fellow Americans in her name.
And if thats the case, then there is nothing out-of-bounds for criticizing her silence of consent.
No. Nor--as was noted earlier in this thread--were they used with Strom Thurmond, despite the well-known fact that he barely knew where he was toward the end.
Ok, then it seems safe to assume that not invoking these mechanisms is no sign that someone is capable of doing the job.
ISTM getting someone out of Congress simply because they are incapable of doing the job is nearly impossible.
I'm looking at you, Charlie Rangel.
Ok, then it seems safe to assume that not invoking these mechanisms is no sign that someone is capable of doing the job.
That's right. Obviously, that decision has usually been left up to the voters in the person's district.
I'd like to invoke a mechanism that obama isn't doing his job. Where do I find this mechanism?
They brought her out specifically to generate emotional support for the budget bill. Don't you find that somewhat distasteful?
Let's start by finding out who "they" are. Will you still find it distasteful if it turns out that Boehner was involved?
Of is anything involving this woman now sacrosanct and above criticism?
Once again: Nobody is saying this.
If Gaby was a "nice person", she would address the way her tragedy was used to divide America. Not because she was responsible for it, but because she was involuntarily associated with it.
She's no more responsible for the bad behavior of members of her party than she is for bad behavior on this thread.
That's right. Obviously, that decision has usually been left up to the voters in the person's district.
Very true.
It would be best if the voters in the district know the full abilities of Giffords.
I wonder what it would be like to run against her.
You might start with the second comment in this thread: "The bill has the support of brain-damaged congresspersons everywhere"
Thats the "insult" you're going to hang yourself on? Its in poor taste, but are you denying her brain has been damaged by the shooting?
Next, explain why accusing her of being either a cynical exploiter of sympathy or a catspaw for unnamed sinister plotters is neither insult nor mockery.
How does accusing her of either insulting or mockery? You've gone all emotional because she was a victim. You want to give her a pass on all behavior because she was shot. To even speculate that her motives are impure is "insulting".
Rubbish.
Fen...If you don't see bravery in Gabby's actions today, then you need to go through a near death trauma and slow recovery of your own.
Been there. There was nothing "brave" about returning to work. You guys are emotionalizing this. By the 200th comment, you guys will have her become the 2nd Coming.
Let's start by finding out who "they" are. Will you still find it distasteful if it turns out that Boehner was involved?
Of course. Whatever gave you the idea that I love John Boehner or the Republican Party?
Let's face it, if she isn't able to talk by the time her reelection comes around, she won't win.
I wonder what it would be like to run against her.
Fen, do you live near Tucson by any chance?
If Gaby was a "nice person", she would address the way her tragedy was used to divide America. Not because she was responsible for it, but because she was involuntarily associated with it.
She's no more responsible for the bad behavior of members of her party than she is for bad behavior on this thread.
See? More evidence of how you guys are emotional little wretches over this.
No one has said she should denounce it because she was responsible for it. What I've said is that its necessary for her to address it because she was associated with it.
Fen, I disagree with your position. And if you really are trying to be a conservative, you are not helping.
Fen- "What are you talking about? I haven't mocked or insulted her. Who here has? Quote it."
Fen- Being shot does not excuse one from being a bitch.
You want to give her a pass on all behavior because she was shot.
We let you post here, and you have less to work with. just sayin.
She's no more responsible for the bad behavior of members of her party than she is for bad behavior on this thread.
Her family pointed at the tea party hours after the shooting.
No, she is not responsible for them. But if the wrong person were publicly blamed for my shooting, I would feel awful about it. I would reach out. Although I'm not a politician, and I have nothing to gain politically from such aspersions having been cast.
Geez, Joe Biden has brain damage and trouble with judgement and speech, but he makes a fine Vice Prexy, what with calling US citizens who jes' only disagree with him terrorists 'n' such.
He makes Forrest Gump look like William F. Buckley.
People with expressive aphasia have a tendency to say yes when they mean no, to say that they're hot when they mean cold. And here's the best one, while looking in the cabinet for something to drain the pasta, saying that they are for a dog sled when they mean colander.
I thought that I'd toss that one out there.
are for = are looking for
Fen- "What are you talking about? I haven't mocked or insulted her. Who here has? Quote it."
Fen- Being shot does not excuse one from being a bitch.
I didn't call Gaby a bitch. If I had meant to, I would have said "being shot does not excuse her from being a bitch"
Fred: Fen, I disagree with your position.
What is your disagreement? That she should *never* be criticized for refusing to denounce the way she was used to tar conservatives as terrorists?
When can we criticize her? How about "when she's considered competent enough to go back to work and cast a vote in Congress".
Seriously. Is your position that she should never be criticized for that? Or just that its too soon?
I want her to demand an apology from her fellow democrats. And until she does so, I consider her to be in support of their actions.
Pogo said...
Geez, Joe Biden has brain damage and trouble with judgement and speech, but he makes a fine Vice Prexy, what with calling US citizens who jes' only disagree with him terrorists 'n' such.
Like Little Zero, Halo Joe is looking a lot older these days.
I guess seeing everything you thought would be a big effin' deal turn into a Satan sandwich has to be a real downer.
And you realize how much all those little people really can't stand you anymore.
More evidence of how you guys are emotional little wretches over this.
You're the one who's still got a case of the vapors over what was said back then.
I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I'll close with this. I don't believe she's immune from criticism. As a Republican, I've been critical of many of her positions. What I do believe is that she is a duly-elected member of Congress, and if someone believe she lacks mental competent to fulfill the duties of that office, then that person bears the burden of persuasion. I am not persuaded. I have known many who are physically impaired but mentally sharp. I have seen nothing which suggests her vote was uninformed. Many of the comments here are mean-spirited and assume she was complicit in some theatrical production the consequence of which was fully supported by GOP leadership. So it strikes me as gratuitous nastiness.
Chip throws a tantrum to make my point for me. Thanks.
Sure thing, Chip. Being accused of inciting the murder of 6 people, being labelled a terrorist... no biggie.
refusing to denounce the way she was used to tar conservatives as terrorists?
When did she refuse? And why is she responsible for the bad actions of others acting while she was incapacitated?
Acting like mirror images of Kos Kidz does not reflect well on conservatives.
I re-watched a video of Gabby.
She seems to be alert to people she knows. She would reach out and caress their faces to show her love back to them.
I expect her mind is slowed now. But so are lots of people that I encounter every day. This is an elite thinking group assembled around an amazing Professor.
But she seems no slower mentally than many old people serving in Congress.
Her physical strength will come back to her over many months. That will be her most frustrating handicap because the formerly graceful and fit person now needs to sit down and has balance issues.
A handicap like hers will make her stronger in the long run. It requires a strong person to overcome the depression from the loss she has had.
But if she never becomes a wise opponent, then commenters here should rejoice that they are up against such a weak person now.
Thankfully, Fen, what you want doesn't matter to her, or to most of us. You seem childish, and petty
What is childish and petty about this:
What is your disagreement? That she should *never* be criticized for refusing to denounce the way she was used to tar conservatives as terrorists?
When can we criticize her? How about "when she's considered competent enough to go back to work and cast a vote in Congress".
Seriously. Is your position that she should never be criticized for that? Or just that its too soon?
Try to put your emotion aside and answer my questions without falling back on the ad hom.
If she's competent enough to vote, she's competent enough to denounce what was done in her name. The people that were unfairly maligned deserve that much.
I didn't call Gaby a bitch. If I had meant to, I would have said "being shot does not excuse her from being a bitch."
Sure, you're clearly very responsible with your political speech.
traditional: But if she never becomes a wise opponent, then commenters here should rejoice that they are up against such a weak person now.
Sure. Because criticism = wishing she were enfeebled.
Your "righteous" defense of the victim has turned you into an idiot.
Fen, so far as we know she has not refused "denounce the way she was used to tar conservatives as terrorists." Nor does her not doing so justify boorish behavior. This isn't a bar fight.
antiphone: Sure, you're clearly very responsible with your political speech.
Get back to me when you learn to comprehend what you read.
Nor does her not doing so justify boorish behavior. This isn't a bar fight.
No, it's a blog.
Is accusing people of "boorish behavior" part of the new civility?
Has anybody here expressed anything close to happiness for Gifford's troubles? I haven't seen it.
shake-and-bake said...
"I have known many who are physically impaired but mentally sharp."
The late Chief Justice, for example; despite efforts by a few partisan hacks to claim that he'd deteriorated mentally in a misbegotten effort to balance the scales with Justice Douglas, the decline seems to have been purely physical.
Fen, so far as we know she has not refused [to] "denounce the way she was used to tar conservatives as terrorists."
She has not refused to denounce? You've got the burden of proof backwards. Until she denounces what was done in her name, she's a party to it.
Nor does her not doing so justify boorish behavior. This isn't a bar fight.
Then stop making it into one. There is nothing "boorish" in criticizing her for not addressing it. And I wouldn't have criticized her if she was not well enough to return to Congress. If she's healthy enough to vote, she's healthy enough to address that issue. Until then, her silence indicates she approves of what was done with her name.
In this case at hand, we seem to have someone who is mentally impaired (unable to talk) but physically able to walk.
Is accusing people of "boorish behavior" part of the new civility?
It is when it's addressed to someone engaged in boorish behavior. And as a conservative I'm quite frankly embarrassed by the right-wing version of Kos Kidz behavior we're witnessing here.
Giffords was not & is not responsible for the way her misfortune was exploited-- despicably-- by others. At a time when she was, you know, in a coma. She's not obligated to apologize for things in which she didn't participate, things she didn't even witness. Who knows to what extent she's even aware of the disgracefulness that went on at the time? Why would she-- upon regaining consciousness-- want to read old copies of the NYT or watch old Chris Matthews shows or whatever?
Time has passed. I'm sure she herself would like to move on from the calamity she suffered. Still suffers. There are other pressing political issues going on at the moment, to say the least. She has just now returned to the public eye. Why bring all that up now-- all things she wasn't even around for? Unless she's specifically asked to comment on the issue. An issue that, *for her personally*, would seem tangential to her own brutal, grueling experience.
Which is *not* to say I've forgiven the bastards-- including the President, with his nauseating (and nauseatingly lauded) memorial speech-- for that repulsive spectacle: the blood libel, the cynical exploitation, the egregious hypocrisy. Or that I think it's not relevant, or that we shouldn't bring it up. On the contrary. But I just think Giffords herself doesn't enter into it-- because she was out of it.
Whether she's being used now? I cannot judge. But again, it's obviously not something I could or would criticize *her* for.
HockeyBun: And why is she responsible for the bad actions of others acting while she was incapacitated?
For the 3rd time - no one is saying she is responsible for the actions of her family and fellow democrats while she was incapacitated.
Acting like mirror images of Kos Kidz does not reflect well on conservatives.
*yawn* You don't even understand what you have read. Or its deliberate. Please try to keep up.
And as a conservative I'm quite frankly embarrassed by the right-wing version of Kos Kidz behavior we're witnessing here.
Could you please explain what you mean by that term?
To me, it indicates people who take joy in the real life suffering (or death) of their political opponents. Like the Fallujah contractors or Tony Snow.
It doesn't mean questioning a politician's motivations. We should all always do that.
HockeyBum: And as a conservative I'm quite frankly embarrassed by the right-wing version of Kos Kidz behavior we're witnessing here
And you're so disappointed in Bush that you're going to vote for a socialist next election. M-kay.
by the right-wing version of Kos Kidz behavior
Oh please. Take your faux outrage eleswhere. No one has behaving like that. You just don't want Democrats to be held accountable for all the false witness they bore.
I'll get back to you right now, Fen. You're a disgusting little maggot with a persecution complex and no integrity. You spend an inordinate amount of time trolling the internet posting vulgar insults directed at "libtards", yet you demand apologies from the people you spend so much time insulting. How's that for reading comprehension?
Is accusing people of "boorish behavior" part of the new civility?
Disapproval of boorishness is part of the old civility.
yashu: Giffords was not & is not responsible for the way her misfortune was exploited-- despicably-- by others.
No one has said she is responsible for it. You guys keep repeating the same lame strawman over and over again. Your arguments must be very weak.
She's not obligated to apologize for things in which she didn't participate, things she didn't even witness.
She's obligated to denounce those things that were done in her name. Thats the entire point. Until she does so, its fair to assume she approves of the despicable way her shooting was used to tar the right as terrorists.
Disapproval of boorishness is part of the old civility.
What do you find boorish on this thread?
Stroke-caused aphasia is nasty. Evaluating the extent of the brain damage involves not only working to restore speaking but also the re-routing the brain waves to permit the meshing of thinking and speaking functions. But there is also the problem of loss of comprehension and reaction to all that her ears are hearing.
I can easily imagine that the intrusion of the bullet was just as damaging as a stroke. I am sure that her doctors know how much she needs to improve in these areas.
IMHO, our victim would not have cast a ballot if she had all her faculties working correctly. After all, she had not read or heard arguments on the the bill. I say that because I believe that she has always been moral and honest -- even if she was a friend of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Libtard: Fen. You're a disgusting little maggot
Yawn. Yes, for criticizing Gaby for not denouncing charges of terrorism launched at the Right in her name...
You spend an inordinate amount of time trolling the internet posting vulgar insults directed at "libtards",
I call em like I see them.
yet you demand apologies from the people you spend so much time insulting
Never called Gaby or any other honest Democrat a libtard. That insult is only reserved for those liberals who do not argue in good faith. Like you.
And there's a huge difference between me insulting your feeble mind and... the MSM and Democrat pols accusing the Right of formenting terrorism in a transparent attempt to shut down the democratic process with calls for "civility".
gadfly,
I would say that this injury is worse that a stroke-caused aphasia, and that no amount of rehabilitation will restore the mental abilities that she possessed before her injury.
TS: What is truly unbelievable, Fen, is that you are purposely switching her role from someone who was the target of a crazed assassin, who was nearly murdered in cold blood for simply being a member of congress, to yet just another person to blame in the unholy hell of the political world.
Unholy hell? You're emotionalizing again. Get ahold of yourself.
The only thing I have done is claim that: if Gaby is healthy enough to cast a vote in Congress, then she is also healthy enough to denounce the deeds that were done in her name. That she chooses not to do so indicates she approves of what was done in her name.
For that, you and yours are having an emotional breakdown.
Fen said: She's obligated to denounce those things that were done in her name.
Unless you're claiming that people have said, "Vote for Giffords because wingnuts were responsible for her shooting" then you're simply wrong that those wild claims about tea partiers were made "in her name."
What you mean is that her name was invoked by others to advance their own political ends. And that is something that is done all the time by all sorts of people. Nobody has to spend precious time disassociating herself from all that sort of stuff.
Finally your claim that "If she's well enough to vote on the debt-ceiling bill she's well enough to do X, Y, and Z" is utterly illogical.
Could you please explain what you mean by that term? (boorish)
How a sampling of examples, including one from you:
"The bill has the support of brain-damaged congresspersons everywhere."
"Wake me when she denounces the way her fellow democrats used her tragedy to demonize the Tea Party. Until then, STFU."
"what goes around, comes around"
"Congress needs huggers for its special members."
"she chose to remain in office, at lesat de iure. That limits the credibility of saying she shouldn't be "drawn in" to the partisan sewer"
"She's a democrap! I'm not surprised how they vote!"
"...presumption that she's exercising her judgement include the possibility that she knows exactly how her shooting was used, and she's fine with that? Or are we supposed to presume her judgement is all good, and full of non-political intentions?"
"there is nothing out-of-bounds for criticizing her silence of consent"
After all, she had not read or heard arguments on the the bill.
She can't read? I did not know that.
TS: the idiots who are making her a political football
Says the idiot making Gaby a martyr beyond reproach...
Fen...Don't you understand that a recovery takes a course of time?
What she is capable of doing tonight will change over time as she is given therapy and loving companionship.
The loving companionship of dogs has been proven to significantly help the course of healing for traumatically wounded men.
The Good Samaritan parable ends with the the point is to "Go and do likewise."
Everyone wants you to join in as a mature lover of your neighbor and quit being in such a hurry to get past any half-dead crime victim to get on to important politics.
Politics passes away. Love is eternal. If dogs can do it, why can't we learn a new tricks from them?
Hockey- the only two in there that were remotely boorish (brain-damaged support and huggers) were obviously jokes made in an over the top fashion for effect.
Other than that, completely appropriate criticisms/questions for a Congressman.
No more ignorant than your assumptions, TS, but thanks for letting me express what I think. I really appreciate it.
Have one of the A-house Jareds put like a few .9 rounds in Fen-tard's head. Then when he recovers (assuming he does), he can re-create the Gabby experience, and be encouraged by all the well-wishers, fans, and like People magazine articles. Fen, superstar gimp! And then he might think twice 'fore dissin' the handicapped.
Problem solved.
Ah, MayBee, the we was jes jok'n and ask'n questions defense. Please.
I don't see any reason to go after Giffords, what did she do?
And speaking of which, I don't see any reason to go after Michelle Obama either, which many do. She really has no power.
It's unseemly and a distraction. If I liked that sort of crap I'd be a lefty.
Fen...Don't you understand that a recovery takes a course of time?
Yes. As I already indicated, I have recovered from gunshot wounds.
What she is capable of doing tonight will change over time as she is given therapy and loving companionship.
You seem to have a double standard. She's competent enough to vote, but she's not competent enough to be expected to denounce the way Democrats used her tragedy to attack conservatives.
Everyone wants you to join in as a mature lover of your neighbor and quit being in such a hurry to get past any half-dead crime victim to get on to important politics.
It should go without saying that I'm happy she is recovering, but Gaby is a politician. As evidenced today, she's a sitting voting member of congress. She is not beyond reproach because she was shot.
If she had not re-entered the public arena today, I would never have voiced any criticism of her.
Can you at least agree that, at *some* point in time, Gaby should take a stand against the disgusting things that were done using her name?
See, I'm beginning to think your motivation here is that you simply do not want the MSM and Democrats to be criticized by her for what they did in her name. Its about the politics for you.
"Mocking and insulting a crippled woman makes you look like a schmuck."
What are you talking about? I haven't mocked or insulted her.
And yet you assumed my comment was directed at you. Interesting.
My God! I hope the Progressive Caucus doesn't try to euthanize her!
Jared Loughner: Have one of the A-house Jareds put like a few .9 rounds in Fen-tard's head
How cute. J-Libtard wants me shot for criticizing Gaby's silence on the way her tragedy was used to demonize people like me as terrorists.
STFU klanyokel 'fore I smash in your byatch face. All you need to know
Rev: And yet you assumed my comment was directed at you. Interesting.
And on cue, Rev pulls an O'Reilly..
Keep tacking to the "center" to re-establish your credentials as a "reasonable" moderate, Rev. I think you have a few more principles you can throw overboard.
Jared Loughner: STFU klanyokel 'fore I smash in your byatch face. All you need to know
As yes, the "civility" everyone has been lecturing me about.
Don't you understand that a recovery takes a course of time?
Put me down as someone else who has been shot. I still have problems relating to the experience, and that was 44 year ago.
Gotta admit, the bar is set pretty low brainpowerwise when you recall that Minnesota had Mark Dayton as a Senator.
We are the Special Olympics state, I swear. Because now he is the Governor.
Finally your claim that "If she's well enough to vote on the debt-ceiling bill she's well enough to do X, Y, and Z" is utterly illogical.
Do you listen to yourself?
She's well enough to understand the debt-ceiling issue and make an informed vote on the floor of Congress.
But she can't put out a simple statement that says: "I resent the way my tragedy was used by opportunists to bear false witness in an attempt to shut down legitimate debate in America. They should be ashamed, and I call on them to apologize for it"
Jared Loughner: Have one of the A-house Jareds put like a few .9 rounds in Fen-tard's head
Althouse Civility Police: [....]
[chirp]
[chirp]
[...]
At this point I would like to call AllenS (no relation) to address Fen's complaint about Giffords:
Put me down as someone else who has been shot. I still have problems relating to the experience, and that was 44 year ago.
You see, Fen, there is more to what you are demanding of Giffords than simply "releasing a statement." You are demanding that she revisit the entire episode, an episode that has changed her life forever.
But as AllenS has stated, this is not an easy thing for a shooting victim to do. You have no standing to set a timetable for her to meet your demand.
So why don't you just calm down and reread the best comment in this thread, posted by yashu @11:13. It expresses my view on this topic more eloquently than I could hope to express it myself.
You just don't want Democrats to be held accountable for all the false witness they bore.
You really are an asshole. No one is excusing bad behavior by Democrats. We're telling you to stop acting like one.
Althouse Civility Police: [....]
Don't look at me--I'm just working the logic beat.
But for the record, I denounce calls to violence such as J's.
Feel safer now?
Oh yes, your sarcasm and insincerity really drive home your points about civility....
Okay, two final comments.
1. The vote was 269-161. The vote cast by Giffords was identical to that cast by most Rebublicans. What, exactly, is the real-world horror that the critics of Giffords' vote would like to see remedied? That's the only legitimate issue here. Is anyone seriously suggesting that she turned the tide? That the vote would have turned out differently if she had not appeared on the House floor?
2. Thankfully, the views expressed by the "presumed to be brain dead" crowd represent such a small slice of humanity as to be meaningless.
What, exactly, is the real-world horror that the critics of Giffords' vote would like to see remedied?
The "real-world horror" (your emotionalism) is that she's being used by Democrats. Again.
"She may or may not be competent to cast the vote, but bringing her out on the floor of the House was a calculated, cynical piece of poltical theater."
1. The vote was 269-161. The vote cast by Giffords was identical to that cast by most Rebublicans. What, exactly, is the real-world horror that the critics of Giffords' vote would like to see remedied? That's the only legitimate issue here. Is anyone seriously suggesting that she turned the tide? That the vote would have turned out differently if she had not appeared on the House floor?
========
Who knows? The written statement released by her office (as opposed to a spoken statement) said:
"I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what's going on in Washington. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy."
So perhaps she thought she was going to keep the economy from crashing(!).
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi, who supposedly wasn't whipping this vote, wanted to send a message.
Perhaps there is a future calculation there, something about the new civility and doing something for Gabby! (like Health Care was for Teddy!)
Who knows?
Look, there's nothing about you declaring something to be the only legitimate issue that makes something the only legitimate issue.
I'm fine saying, she's a politician. A political decision was made for her to return in the way she did, at the time she did, to cast the vote she did.
Because she is a politician, the decision can be questioned, criticized, debated, praised, and derided.
Fen, you're shouting into an echo chamber that is cabined by the contours of your skull.
Fen, The fact that I find your argument unpersuasive has nothing to do with my views of your civility. Go ahead and pore over this thread and see where I've criticized you for anything but a faulty argument.
It's a matter of simple observation that there have been some tasteless comments by other people. Whether they strike someone as funny or appalling is a matter of upbringing or personality or maybe chemical intake. Why do you conflate those comments with yours?
There are no mechanisms, other than by popular vote, to remove a congresswoman or man who has been incapacitated. There are also no mechanisms to challenge her vote on the basis of competency. If she can show up and push the button, she is allowed to vote.
Her term ends in 2012, unless she is reelected. The people can reelect her if they choose, regardless of her condition. I imagine this has happened more than once, but it happened with Charles Sumner of Massachusetts before the Civil War, after he was brutally beaten by a southern Congressman. Sumner could not go to Congress, but his empty desk was a lot more powerful than his vote.
These questions are all for the people of her district to decide, as it should be.
This place sounds like Daily Kos in this post. Let it go, people.
HockeyBum: You really are an asshole. We're telling you to stop acting like one.
How am I being an asshole? See, your reacting emotionally, like all the feebs on the NYTs comments page (they are immortalizing her). You get all pissy over any criticism of Gaby, just because she was shot.
The only criticism I've made is that Gaby should call out those who used her. Until she does, its fair to assume that a) she's too brain-damaged to do so and thus should not be allowed back at work, or b) she approves of the tactic of using her tragedy to shut down honest debate. Like you've been doing the entire thread.
You have an issue with that, take it up with your self-esteem counselor.
At least this helps explain the revisionist history of JFK. The guy was a drug-addled incompetent. But because he was assasinated, we get the "Camelot II" bullshit.
No one is excusing bad behavior by Democrats
Show me where you have called out the Dems for bad behavior...
It's a good thing for Gabby Giffords that she's recovered enough to cast her vote--and a bad thing for our country, that both parties get together to raise the debt ceiling while lying to the American people that they have "cut spending".
The human brain has capabilities which science is only beginning to understand. People have suffered worse trauma than being shot in the head and have gone on to full recovery. The same cannot be said for Sheriff Dupnik's victim--two tours in Iraq couldn't kill Jose Guerena, but with 22 bullets from Sheriff Dupnik's SWAT team in him, he died after an hour.
she's being used by Democrats
This is pure idiocy.
There are 193 Democrats in the House. There were 269 votes cast in favor of the bill Giffords voted for. Do the math.
Seminar Caller: Fen, you're shouting into an echo chamber that is cabined by the contours of your skull.
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Idiot.
At least Chip *has* an argument.
I'm sure we can all agree that the "New Civility", which was part of a plan to blame the GOP for Gifford's shooting, was never sincere.
So why did so many people agree to push that angle? Obama was being told he needed another Oklahoma City. Michelle Obama sought to make it about intolerance. Obama tried to be all "Together We Thrive", but he decided in the end to use it as a pro gun-control moment. Despite project Fast and Furious. The MSM was happy to explore Sarah Palin's role.
If people are uncomfortable criticizing Gifford for not criticizing all of that, perhaps we should take the occasion of her return to remind the public of that awful, dishonest, awful moment in politics.
It may help voters understand who to trust.
Chip: This is pure idiocy. There are 193 Democrats in the House. There were 269 votes cast in favor of the bill Giffords voted for
Yes Chip, if you assume Democrats were using her for her vote on this bill, then its an idiotic argument.
Good. That's all I was asking when I jumped in.
But Fen, that's still putting a big onus on her: the onus to publicly "denounce" her party/ the MSM. And now (the week of the debt limit crisis), unprompted, i.e. not in reply to a question but spontaneously bringing up the (months old) matter herself.
Not an easy thing to do-- but rather, a conspicuous, attention-getting, controversial, politically bizarre act, not to mention *untimely* (a non sequitur given the current news cycle)-- and let's just say the woman is dealing with a lot of other things at the moment. Like her recovery.
The onus belongs where it belongs-- on the jerks who exploited her misfortune. Why burden her, who's undergone & undergoing so much, with any obligation to do anything about what others did when she was unconscious?
Also, the claim that unless you publicly "denounce" something done "in your name" (even when you're in a coma) you thereby approve of it, is quite problematic. Are we to charge e.g. Jodie Foster with approving of Reagan's shooting?
Finally, as much as it may rankle, that (nauseating) Obama speech was supposed to quell & end the madness, the MSM blood libel etc. He (nominally) "denounced" it (IIRC with one little word, later omitted by the NYT), conflated with all that other "incivility," of course.
And at the time, a lot of conservatives received it that way, were assuaged, even grateful, effusive in their praise. (Ugh.) Even those of us who hated O's speech, who were not assuaged, were still relieved to move on from such an ugly episode.
So in that sense-- certainly, as far as the MSM is concerned-- the matter is closed. Giffords would be needlessly reopening something the Great O Himself brought closure to. That's that, like it or not.
NB I don't think what Fen is saying is beyond the pale, just ill-considered.
What yashu said, again.
PS that's not to say *we* can't reopen the matter. It was a very instructive episode; agree with MayBee on that.
Just that there's no point for & no ethical obligation on *Giffords* to do so.
But Fen, that's still putting a big onus on her: the onus to publicly "denounce" her party/ the MSM. And now (the week of the debt limit crisis), unprompted, i.e. not in reply to a question but spontaneously bringing up the (months old) matter herself.
Thats a fair point.
Why burden her, who's undergone & undergoing so much, with any obligation to do anything about what others did when she was unconscious?
You make it sound like she has PTSD. Or is too fragile atm to revisit anything associated with the incident. Fine. But if thats the case, she should not be making decisions on things like defense authorizations or gun control. She shouldn't be in Congress.
Also, the claim that unless you publicly "denounce" something done "in your name" (even when you're in a coma) you thereby approve of it, is quite problematic.
We'll just have to disagree on this. If I was the victim and I knew that my shooting had been used to accuse liberals of inciting terrorism, I would feel morally obligated to correct the record.
Are we to charge e.g. Jodie Foster with approving of Reagan's shooting?
Actually I do. She's my favorite, but if you research the history you'll find that she encouraged Hinkley to remove Reagan. Yes, it was loose talk to a deranged fan, but she was still responsible for it.
I'd like to be the first person in this thread to go on record as denouncing Chris Matthews, on my own, without Giffords's help.
I second Chip in his formal denunciation of Chris Matthews.
Who cares about Gabby?
"The issue is: should she be portrayed as a vegetal tool of partisans on the basis of her appearance/injury?'/shake-and-bake
No. I'm a neocon M.D.. It's not everything and I'll have to look again, etc., so it's still just worth two cents; but Gabby looked amazingly good to me in a tough venue, both in appearance following a bullet head wound to the side of the head/face and beyond, as I understand it; and in physical function - in moving and looking around as though she was in good contact with the immediate stimuli.
So I'm not going to assume that she has any significant cognitive or expressive impairment unless/until proven otherwise. [She could also have an "expressive" impairment without a "cognitive" impairment, but still understand how to make her meanings known by other indications.]
And even if she does have a cognitive impairment, that still makes her no worse than the average Progressive - sorry, I just couldn't resist!
"She was mostly killed for being a strong person"
Did I miss something? I thought she was nearly killed because her assailant was a frickin' nutcase.
As for the rest of this thread, let me just say: if I ever need a hole dug with the utmost tenacity... I now know who to hire.
And on cue, Rev pulls an O'Reilly
That's right. I don't actually think you're a douchebag, I just say that so that left-wingers will like me.
No class.
200 comments and no mention of the 6 people that the "brave" "heroic" "Gabby" survived.
Can anyone even name them without doing a google search?
And yet you insist this isn't political...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा