Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-31-2013, 05:54 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,396,786 times
Reputation: 1173

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
Reading thru this thread and it's clear that the liberals and democrats are driven by the raw emotional roller coaster, while conservatives are driven by logic and reason.

Gabby Giffords was the victim of a violent act from a crazy person, same with those poor children in Sandy Hook. The problem is not whatever these crazy people used to harm others, they are the problem because they are sociopaths.

Banning guns because of these insane people, is like banning cars, because then bank robbers would not be able to elude the police, or banning the internet so hackers could not steal personal date from a million credit card customers.

The democrats are using Giffords, and the parents and their dead children from Sandy Hook to keep people in a emotionally charged state, so they will do anything to stop the heartache. This way congress can pass whatever they want, pad the law with pork, and other unethical amendments, and criticize any person who opposes badly written law, as a heartless, cruel...fill-in-the-blank. I've seen people in this thread make essentially the same comments, for anyone that offers a different view.

I personally abhor the use of victims of crimes or disasters, as emotional props, in order to add weight to a politician's agenda, as they try to pass law, especially when the law being passed will regulate, and possibly infringe on our basic constitutional civil liberties.
Obviously you do not understand sociopathy. NOT ALL MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE ARE SOCIOPATHS. Clearly, the guy who shot Giffords was NOT a sociopath. Sociopathy CANNOT be "cured" with medication. We don't know exactly what was wrong with the guy who slaughtered all those children, but it does not sound like sociopathy at all.

 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:00 PM
 
Location: The Cascade Foothills
10,942 posts, read 10,233,135 times
Reputation: 6476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I am not sure why this Gayle Trotter was selected for the hearing, claiming that women need to have assault rifles for self defense.

Gayle Trotter Testimony Captivates Senate Gun Control Hearing
Lawrence O'Donnell ripped her testimony to shreds on his show last night - her and her made up scenario of a woman defending herself with an AR-14 while her kids screamed.
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Deepest Darkest NZ
717 posts, read 646,596 times
Reputation: 446
You don't think she might have a useful POV about gun control at all?
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:04 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,396,786 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
If she were speaking as a victim that's one thing but she's speaking as a lobbyist for her super PAC.
That makes it political with an agenda.

Sorry you folks on the left don't see it that way but I do.

Lobbyists should not be running the government, not in any industry and not for any cause.
She is speaking as BOTH. She in fact is a victim, and now she is speaking as a victim with the support of a super PAC, most likely because she really believes in what she's saying. That is enormously different from lobbyists who are lobbying totally for the MONEY and, for example, lobbying for the banks, have NOT suffered complete financial devastation from which they can never recover.

So Giffords is speaking as a victim and a lobbyist who was SHOT IN THE HEAD, has some brain damage, by a seriously mentally ill person. BOTH, lobbyist and victim of a shooting which destroyed her life as she knew it before the shooting.

I would have expected more from you than to try to make the victim of such a horrific shooting seem like a "slick, self serving, lobbyist," doing their work from no personal conviction but only for MONEY, and who can switch from one agenda to the next with no problem as long as the money is there. You efforts seem to have failed miserably.
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:19 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,396,786 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Ask Chucky Rangel...........

Congressman Charles Rangel, whose ethics trial starts tomorrow, appears to have improperly used political-action committee money to pay for his defense
Thanks. That seems to indicate that PAC money cannot be used as if it were personal income, so I don't see how, as Happy Texan is implying, the PAC money legally enriches Gifford and her husband. I also don't think money is the motivating force behind Gifford's speaking out personally and as a lobbyist.
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,642,217 times
Reputation: 9172
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And no lobbyist should. It should be Congress making the rules, not influential people welding money and telling Congress they represent what the people want.
They should be listening to their constituents. Period. Blabby is now a lobbyist. I wonder if she has any clue what her constituents want. I guess it no longer matters since she now represents nobody but herself. Why wasn't she blabbing before she got shot?
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:37 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,396,786 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
A lobbyist is a lobbyist. There's no flavors of good lobbyists vs bad or are you trying to say that Gifford's super PAC is a good lobby ?

Lobbyists are jobs. Someone pays them and they dance to that agenda.
Giffords runs her super-PAC just like LaPierre runs his NRA lobbying group.

I see no difference. Both have backers with $$$ that are pushing agendas.
In the case of a "lobbyist" who was shot in the head, barely survived, had the life she knew almost completely destroyed, your assertion above is totally absurd. Gifford is BOTH a victim of gun violence and now she is a lobbyist. I would guess that she would advocate for more reasonable laws and regulations regarding gun dealers and ownership if she were not paid one cent and if she were not supported by a PAC as a lobbyist.

Your argument is simply ridiculous that ALL lobbyist are created equal as money-hungry people with no principles at all who will say ANYTHING for money. Many may be like that, but Gifford is NOT one of those.

Your effort to paint her as a money-hungry, immoral lobbyist who will say anything for money is clearly a huge failure. Seems that its only your pride keeping you going, and maybe stubborness, which prevents you from admitting you are very wrong on this issue.
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,057,225 times
Reputation: 13772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
Yes, it's clear from reading this thread that the emotional maturity of most posting conservatives is around 11.

Do you understand that the Gifford's have their own agenda? Their OWN reasons for making a statement?

Remember when Michael J Fox testified about Parkinson's? Nancy Reagan about ALZ?

It works like that.
But it shouldn't. We should not be writing laws during highly charged emotional states, it makes for bad law.
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:42 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,396,786 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper View Post
They should be listening to their constituents. Period. Blabby is now a lobbyist. I wonder if she has any clue what her constituents want. I guess it no longer matters since she now represents nobody but herself. Why wasn't she blabbing before she got shot?
I think it's clear "they" are listening to their constituents; there just may be fewer people who support no gun laws than you think. There was a huge public outcry of rage after those 20 little 6 year olds were slaughtered by someone who most likely has a serious mental problem or at least he had no impulse control and was full of RAGE.

Btw, if you could control yourself to the point that you could stop calling Gifford names, your posts might be taken more seriously.

Btw, there is a large public contingent who support Gifford and her position on this issue. You know, when you're in a hole, you really should stop digging.
 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,073 posts, read 26,024,198 times
Reputation: 15531
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake View Post
Using people to further their agenda. Nothing new for the Democrats.
You mean people who were proponents, for cancer research, restrictions on asbestos and smoking shouldn't use people that contracted cancer in their fundraising. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a perfect example of a grass roots movement that brought about change that made us a better nation. It's nice to see people fight for a cause they believe in, rather than those that are in it for personal greed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:58 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top