Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   Right wing columnist for the Wall Street Journal takes shots at Gabby Giffords for her opinions on gun control   (blog.seattlepi.com) divider line 46
    More: Dumbass, Gabrielle Giffords, Wall Street Journal, James Taranto, Jared Loughner, gun rights, incivility  
•       •       •

1366 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2013 at 9:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-24 09:48:13 AM  
Gabby Giffords has no business telling us what her opinion on gun control is.
 
2013-04-24 09:48:59 AM  
It's too bad the WSJ has become another NYPost. Stay classy!
 
2013-04-24 09:50:32 AM  
Haven't read this guy's article, but her article was a little over the top in some places.  It's understandable, but.. yeah... ok I'm leaving now.
 
2013-04-24 09:51:00 AM  
What an asshole.
 
2013-04-24 09:52:23 AM  
"Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.
 
2013-04-24 09:52:39 AM  
"We need universal background checks like I need a hole in my--"

blog.seattlepi.com

"Right. I uhh...look. If we want to fix this problem, we first need to target--"

blog.seattlepi.com

"Ummm...this legislation is going to blow up in our face if we don't--"

blog.seattlepi.com

"We can stop mass shootings if we remove loopho..."

blog.seattlepi.com

"If...uhh...if we aim to..."

blog.seattlepi.com

"Well...shoot."
 
2013-04-24 09:53:18 AM  
He probably hates James Brady even more.
 
2013-04-24 09:54:46 AM  

TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.


Then the republicans should love her. They only care about things that affect them directly. Kind of like that guy that only supported gay marriage when he found out his son was gay.
 
2013-04-24 09:55:32 AM  
If he wants to make a more convincing argument he needs to walk a mile in her shoes.

I'll even buy him the ammo to let him prove it.
 
2013-04-24 09:55:56 AM  

TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.


and if it helps other people well then screw'em right?
 
2013-04-24 09:56:36 AM  

heidinoele: TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.

Then the republicans should love her. They only care about things that affect them directly. Kind of like that guy that only supported gay marriage when he found out his son was gay.


That too, yes. We are in agreement. But see, the country called that republican out for what he was doing. They did it pretty fast. So why is Gabby considered a hero for pretty much doing the same thing?
 
2013-04-24 09:57:59 AM  
I think if anyone is allowed to have slightly stronger than usual opinions on gun control, especially mental health background checks for firearms purchases, it's the woman who survived being shot in the head by a paranoid schizophrenic.
 
2013-04-24 09:59:29 AM  

TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.



Do you also rail against homophobic legislators who change their minds after their son or daughter comes out?
 
2013-04-24 10:00:15 AM  
Right wing columnist for the Wall Street Journalprint edition of Fox News....

As of August 1, 2007, the opinions of anybody at the WSJ are of no more consequence to intelligent and infromed debate than those of any employee of Fox News.
 
2013-04-24 10:01:03 AM  

TerminalEchoes: So why is Gabby considered a hero for pretty much doing the same thing?



We should all celebrate when a human being, especially one in power, re-discovers they have empathy.
 
2013-04-24 10:01:24 AM  

xalres: I think if anyone is allowed to have slightly stronger than usual opinions on gun control, especially mental health background checks for firearms purchases, it's the woman who survived being shot in the head by a paranoid schizophrenic.


One might even say she had a...change of mind?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-24 10:02:02 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.


Do you also rail against homophobic legislators who change their minds after their son or daughter comes out?


Yes.
 
2013-04-24 10:02:16 AM  
No matter how hard he back-peddles, spins, prevaricates, dodges and explains, James Taranto is a turd.
 
2013-04-24 10:04:38 AM  

TerminalEchoes: heidinoele: TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.

Then the republicans should love her. They only care about things that affect them directly. Kind of like that guy that only supported gay marriage when he found out his son was gay.

That too, yes. We are in agreement. But see, the country called that republican out for what he was doing. They did it pretty fast. So why is Gabby considered a hero for pretty much doing the same thing?


The country didn't. Fark and other liberal nesting grounds kinda did.

The anti gun rights movement is in more desperate need of turncoats than the pro gay rights movement. Warmer welcomes are implied.
 
2013-04-24 10:09:59 AM  

TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.


Are Yahoo comments down or something?
 
2013-04-24 10:10:55 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: We should all celebrate when a human being, especially one in power, re-discovers they have empathy.


To be fair, the point (well.... no... to point is just to be a trolly dick and yell LIBS LIBS LIBS, but the implied point, I guess) is that it's not really empathy if you only care because it happened to you.

I'm glad she discovered some common sense on the issue, but the point still stands that she only started giving a shiat about the problem when it affected her. That's not empathy. That's the opposite of empathy.

It doesn't change her arguments one way or the other, but it does say something about her personally.
 
2013-04-24 10:12:04 AM  

TerminalEchoes: Do you also rail against homophobic legislators who change their minds after their son or daughter comes out?

Yes.



I am not sure why encouraging people to stay as sociopaths is a good thing, but whatever floats your boat, I guess..
 
2013-04-24 10:12:33 AM  

skozlaw: To be fair, the point (well.... no... to point is just to be a trolly dick and yell LIBS LIBS LIBS, but the implied point, I guess) is that it's not really empathy if you only care because it happened to you.


I think that's called sympathy.
 
2013-04-24 10:13:24 AM  
A WSJ columnist criticizing another writer's mental handicap.

Guess that's the joke.
 
2013-04-24 10:14:43 AM  

TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.


"Well f*ck them, they should've admitted I was right in the first place!"

You know, attitudes like that tend to, as they say...

shoot yourself in the foot.

/Sunglasses
 
2013-04-24 10:14:48 AM  

skozlaw: Cubicle Jockey: We should all celebrate when a human being, especially one in power, re-discovers they have empathy.

To be fair, the point (well.... no... to point is just to be a trolly dick and yell LIBS LIBS LIBS, but the implied point, I guess) is that it's not really empathy if you only care because it happened to you.

I'm glad she discovered some common sense on the issue, but the point still stands that she only started giving a shiat about the problem when it affected her. That's not empathy. That's the opposite of empathy.

It doesn't change her arguments one way or the other, but it does say something about her personally.


She was in Congress, mate. It ain't breaking news. Not even on CNN.
 
2013-04-24 10:16:11 AM  

skozlaw: I'm glad she discovered some common sense on the issue, but the point still stands that she only started giving a shiat about the problem when it affected her. That's not empathy. That's the opposite of empathy.



I disagree. Her chance of getting shot again is vanishingly low. She will not gain any appreciable benefit out of her change of heart. Her efforts on this front have to be because she believes she will be helping others avoid her fate.
 
2013-04-24 10:19:16 AM  
She probably believes every word in the piece but did she write it? If she's capable, that's a good thing. Good on her. If she's not and didn't write the piece the turd has a point.
 
2013-04-24 10:21:00 AM  

Cletus C.: She probably believes every word in the piece but did she write it? If she's capable, that's a good thing. Good on her. If she's not and didn't write the piece the turd has a point.


Okay. Yahoo comments are down.
 
2013-04-24 10:21:51 AM  

TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.


It would be identical if she were a sudden advocate of post-bullet spattered brain reconstruction technology. Instead she still has enough brain function to realize the fundamental problem.

/and chris reeve didn't petition to regulate horses either because you have made another false equivalence, a conservative republican virtue
 
2013-04-24 10:25:22 AM  

skozlaw: Cubicle Jockey: We should all celebrate when a human being, especially one in power, re-discovers they have empathy.

To be fair, the point (well.... no... to point is just to be a trolly dick and yell LIBS LIBS LIBS, but the implied point, I guess) is that it's not really empathy if you only care because it happened to you.

I'm glad she discovered some common sense on the issue, but the point still stands that she only started giving a shiat about the problem when it affected her. That's not empathy. That's the opposite of empathy.

It doesn't change her arguments one way or the other, but it does say something about her personally.


It says something about someone when they get shot and almost die that they realize, hey, there oughta be some better regulations on these bang-bang shooty things?

If you don't learn something from that experience, I'd say there's something wrong with you.
 
2013-04-24 10:26:23 AM  
Giffords is something of an extremist on this issue, and a portion of what she's been advocating recently is illogical or stupid.

That's not to say that I don't understand why she's advocating those positions, but the fact that she's motivated by delusional paranoia born of personal trauma doesn't do anything to convince me that they're  more likely to be logically sound.

The fact that a number of her positions have reversed from what she advocated the last time she was clear-headed instead of motivated by emotion related to personal trauma on the subject doesn't really speak well of the probably strength of the arguments either.

//I mean, I have actual logical reasons for disagreeing with her, but we've had those discussions a billion times and I don't feel like going for a billion and one.  This is more a semi-stealthy request that we stop treating her like she has something inherently useful to contribute to the discussion.
 
2013-04-24 10:27:09 AM  

Cletus C.: She probably believes every word in the piece but did she write it? If she's capable, that's a good thing. Good on her. If she's not and didn't write the piece the turd has a point.


Oh, holy shiat a politician put their name to something that wasn't wholly their own work!? Nooooo!!

She's absolutely wrong on the issue. But going all "hurrr there's no way she wrote this in 5 hours because retarded" to score cheap points just means you're an unbelievable asshole.
 
2013-04-24 10:27:14 AM  

Cletus C.: She probably believes every word in the piece but did she write it? If she's capable, that's a good thing. Good on her. If she's not and didn't write the piece the turd has a point.


She probably worked on it for a long time and had it mostly finished before the vote ever took place, then just made some quick modifications and published it once the results came in.  At least that's what I'd do if I was her therapist.
 
2013-04-24 10:28:07 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Giffords is something of an extremist on this issue, and a portion of what she's been advocating recently is illogical or stupid.

That's not to say that I don't understand why she's advocating those positions, but the fact that she's motivated by delusional paranoia born of personal trauma doesn't do anything to convince me that they're  more likely to be logically sound.

The fact that a number of her positions have reversed from what she advocated the last time she was clear-headed instead of motivated by emotion related to personal trauma on the subject doesn't really speak well of the probably strength of the arguments either.

//I mean, I have actual logical reasons for disagreeing with her, but we've had those discussions a billion times and I don't feel like going for a billion and one.  This is more a semi-stealthy request that we stop treating her like she has something inherently useful to contribute to the discussion.


You're right. When I want to know more about automobile accidents, or house fires, or rapes, I skip talking to the victims. What would they know? They're all emotional and sh*t.
 
2013-04-24 10:28:34 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Giffords is something of an extremist on this issue, and a portion of what she's been advocating recently is illogical or stupid.

That's not to say that I don't understand why she's advocating those positions, but the fact that she's motivated by delusional paranoia born of personal trauma doesn't do anything to convince me that they're  more likely to be logically sound.

The fact that a number of her positions have reversed from what she advocated the last time she was clear-headed instead of motivated by emotion related to personal trauma on the subject doesn't really speak well of the probably strength of the arguments either.

//I mean, I have actual logical reasons for disagreeing with her, but we've had those discussions a billion times and I don't feel like going for a billion and one.  This is more a semi-stealthy request that we stop treating her like she has something inherently useful to contribute to the discussion.


Yeah, because blocking all reasonable legislation that prohibits unstable nuts from purchasing firearms is illogical and stupid.
 
2013-04-24 10:29:36 AM  
People are some times not aware of the significance of an issue until they experience it.

One, for instance, may not know just how much of an utter clusterfark the health insurance/health costs are in this country is until they become sick and have to actively use those programs.

I am absolutely certain there are Many legitimate issues and problems going on in this world that <b>you</b> do not rail against because it is not brought to your attention. Personal experience is the best way it's brought to your attention.

Or should every single person be an advocate for every single problem?

Why aren't you making a stand against every single thing, huh?
 
2013-04-24 10:31:04 AM  
I never said a word about dry skin....UNTIL IT HAPPENED TO ME!!!
 
2013-04-24 10:32:40 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The fact that a number of her positions have reversed from what she advocated the last time she was clear-headed trying to get elected as a Republican instead of motivated by emotion related to personal trauma personal experience of the consequences of those former positions on the subject doesn't really speak well of the probably strength of the arguments either.



Just as plausible.
 
2013-04-24 10:58:50 AM  
Hey this kind of fallacy works great.

What does she know she's never been shot!

What does she know? As a shooting victim she's only thinking about herself!
 
2013-04-24 01:00:11 PM  
"How many times do we have to shoot someone in the head before she'll shut up? Jeez..."
 
2013-04-24 01:19:57 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: I disagree. Her chance of getting shot again is vanishingly low. She will not gain any appreciable benefit out of her change of heart.


The human mind doesn't typically work that way. If statistics were more important than personal experience nobody would ever get in a car.

verbaltoxin: If you don't learn something from that experience, I'd say there's something wrong with you.


Cubicle Jockey: Her efforts on this front have to be because she believes she will be helping others avoid her fate.


I know it's fun to glom to someone else's comments and use them as a jumping off point for your own opinions regardless of relevancy, but nothing I said is relevant to either of these two comments. I didn't say she didn't change her opinion or that some part of her current motivation isn't in helping others, just that it's not empathy when the reason you change your opinion is because something happens to you.

She may be empathetic now, but it was still her own personal suffering that actually changed her tune, not concern for anybody else's suffering.
 
2013-04-24 03:09:07 PM  
They turned on Jim Brady who was one of their own. There's no reason to think they'd be any kinder to Giffords.
 
2013-04-24 03:46:45 PM  
TerminalEchoes:
That too, yes. We are in agreement. But see, the country called that republican out for what he was doing. They did it pretty fast. So why is Gabby considered a hero for pretty much doing the same thing?

Because even though she didn't make gun control her top priority, unlike the republicans she wasn't a pro-gun asshole before she got shot. Republicans have been known to "change their minds" about teh ghey when they were outed or someone close to them was.

Simply put, having little or no public opinion about something until it affects me or mine is different than publicly criticizing something until it affects me or mine. Got that?

/logic iz hard
 
2013-04-24 05:04:31 PM  

TerminalEchoes: "Taranto has drawn a bead on Giffords, a gun owner and defender of gun rights during her stint in the House of Representatives."

And that's exactly why I give her no respect. It's no different than Christopher Reeve only caring about spinal research once it affected him personally. It's not heroic, it's a self-serving thing.


Using that standard, no, it's not self-serving. By your account, Christopher Reeve cared about spinal research after his accident - because it might help him as he went forward. Giffords has already been shot. Gun legislation will not go back in time and prevent her shooting. She is working to prevent what happened to her from happening to others, so she is not serving her self-interests. And, frankly, with the heat associated with the gun debate, her stance actually increases her chance of being shot again rather than lowering it.

And, even if your argument were consistent, it's a silly point. Yes, people care about the things they are aware of, and they are more immediately aware of things that happen to them or to people close to them. It is mental negligence to discount their thinking simply because they never really thought about something before it happened to them. What is despicable is maintaining a thoughtless stance when one is made aware of something. For example, Conservative A who comes to support equal human rights for gay people because he has a gay child is morally superior to Conservative B who has a gay child and still wants to deny human rights to gay people. And the people who cry that Conservative A is self-serving make it even harder for other conservatives to support full human rights. Holding such a stance actively makes progress slow down.
 
2013-04-24 05:52:37 PM  

Jim_Callahan: /I mean, I have actual logical reasons for disagreeing with her, but we've had those discussions a billion times and I don't feel like going for a billion and one. This is more a semi-stealthy request that we stop treating her like she has something inherently useful to contribute to the discussion.


See, there's the problem. I get it, she's advocating stuff that you don't agree with. You've had reasonable discussions about the proposed policies in the abstract, and logical reasons for disagreeing with those proposed policies. And it's really difficult to attack someone who was all gung-ho about guns, then got shot in the head, and now is about as anti-gun as you'll see in politics these days. I mean, she's a sympathetic character, because freakin children died around her while some psycho pumped bullets into a collection of her friends and family.

But here's the thing - if you can't come up with a way to keep that from happening, then maybe you should reexamine those policy disagreements. Instead of just asking us - politely, I'll admit - to ignore the consequences of our current policy, maybe it's time to work towards preventing those consequences. Because sitting on our hands, waiting for the magic bullet to show up and preserve ALL the liberties and save ALL the children AT THE SAME TIME, FOREVER isn't going to happen.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report