If Giffords runs for the Senate, should the GOP let her go unopposed? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2024, 11:31:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  If Giffords runs for the Senate, should the GOP let her go unopposed? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: If Giffords runs for the Senate, should the GOP let her go unopposed?
#1
Yes, she should go unopposed.
 
#2
No, I'm heartless.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: If Giffords runs for the Senate, should the GOP let her go unopposed?  (Read 3092 times)
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« on: February 12, 2011, 03:17:23 PM »

Having the nerve to oppose her would obviously be "very unappetizing!" I'm sure it would somehow be racist, too.

Your take?
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2011, 03:32:41 PM »

I have no idea what you're talking about.


Pleas see this...


If she decides to enter the race, she will be a difficult target for Republicans. Attacking an assassination survivor sounds very unappetizing to me.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2011, 03:41:06 PM »

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.


Over the top, overly dramatic Republican thread alert. My take is this borderline trolling and has no point other than to start arguments.

Over the top, overly dramatic Dem hack alert: px. Still not banned from the forum for the same points you made above.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2011, 03:44:49 PM »

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.


No, it isn't. You can do better than that.

As Napoleon pointed out, when a similar example was brought up (this time, mentioning a big, bad Republican!), you called him a hack and a troll.

You're worthless here, px.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2011, 04:11:40 PM »


It's probably a mainstream thought knowing many of the dumbs that frequent this forum.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2011, 04:19:18 PM »

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.


No, it isn't. You can do better than that.

As Napoleon pointed out, when a similar example was brought up (this time, mentioning a big, bad Republican!), you called him a hack and a troll.


Because the cases were completely different?
Anyway, I don't intend to stroke your ego anymore. You can have all the fun of the world with yourself and your new-found pal.

Reagan: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Giffords: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Oh, I know why they were completely different: because of the political parties of the victims. Got it.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2011, 11:21:56 PM »

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.


No, it isn't. You can do better than that.

As Napoleon pointed out, when a similar example was brought up (this time, mentioning a big, bad Republican!), you called him a hack and a troll.


Because the cases were completely different?
Anyway, I don't intend to stroke your ego anymore. You can have all the fun of the world with yourself and your new-found pal.

Reagan: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Giffords: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Oh, I know why they were completely different: because of the political parties of the victims. Got it.

Were you bullied much when you were younger? I'm trying to understand why you say things as so unempathetic as this. You seem to genuinely believe people who disagree with you are nasty jerks, and that justifies being nasty in return in advance of them actually proving you right (or when one person in the group does something you think is nasty.) It's really depressing. One comment from BRTD or px and you will respond with a cascade of truly mean strawmanning.

Actually, your first question should be posed to px since he has this obsession with Christie because he's a "bully."

There are plenty of people here that I disagree with but I don't think they're nasty. Napoleon is a perfect example. He has called out px here and elsewhere for his terrible attitude. I wouldn't say Napoleon and I see eye to eye, by the way.

What is unempathetic about my response? For whom am I supposed to have empathy? Px? Because my response was clearly wasn't an attack on Giffords. I don't know why I should have empathy on px when he goes on this extremely hackish tirades, using some of the most eye roll-worthy strawman arguments and then when someone pokes a hole in his argument or makes a good comparison, he simply responds, "Stop it, hack troll."

Yes, px is a nasty hack here. Truth be told, we get along very well off of the forum. But I'm absolutely going to call him out here when he's a douche. Same with BRTD, another widely recognize culprit. But you won't call them out. You'll make me the issue and lecture me about it.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2011, 11:34:22 PM »

And I don't even understand what was "truly depressing" and "mean" about the quoted post. Just more drama from you.

Show me one time you've called out px for his well recognized horrific attitude here and then you'll have some authority on this. Otherwise, it's more of your whining about me and nothing more.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2011, 11:23:43 AM »

a generalized attack on hypothetical Democrats, and I am a Democrat who doesn't care for being stereotyped or accused of stupid, irrational, or manipulative behavior, so it struck a nerve.

It wasn't about hypothetical Democrats; it was about hack trolls like px.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 14 queries.