If Giffords runs for the Senate, should the GOP let her go unopposed?

[Brittain33]

Really necessary to start a sarcastic thread reacting to one far-fethced comment in a place where there are hundreds of absurd ones a week?

[Brittain33]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Napoleon]

Guys, I can't believe we're having this discussion again.

The topic was interesting before veering off topic; the idea of a potential sympathy factor is something we could debate. Remember 2000 Missouri?

[Brittain33]

Phil, I don't care for your one-on-one fights with px and I think they're pointless for both of you. I responded because you started a new discussion that telescoped it out into 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.

As for BRTD, I've spoken out on some of his Bushie-bashing polls on the forum forum.

[krazen1211]

Guys, I can't believe we're having this discussion again.

The topic was interesting before veering off topic; the idea of a potential sympathy factor is something we could debate. Remember 2000 Missouri?

That's a good point, but lets remember than Ashcroft was considered vulnerable for that entire cycle, and that polling was close even before Mel Carnahan died, and of course that Carnahan was more popular than Ashcroft was in terms of approval rating and whatnot. More importantly, 2 years later, Jean Carnahan lost.

It's entirely possible that some possible potential sympathy factor might have been there, but overall the results seem to be dictated by political realities to me.

I have to wonder how MO democrats would have voted had they known that Ashcroft would become Attorney General if he lost. Better damage control to keep him in the Senate.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Frodo]

No -and besides I don't believe Gabrielle Giffords would appreciate such special treatment just because of the Tucson massacre.  It would be patronizing to say the least.  She would want to be treated like any other politician.  

[feeblepizza]

Just because someone got shot in the head doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

[Sam Spade]

locked.  Even though I hate the system, I have to work within it which means some points will be given.