Wendy Davis ad goes too far! ad uses wheelchair to criticize paralyzed foe Abbott

[Jarhead]

Slick's interns were young women. Young. Hillary displayed not the least upset at his abuse of them. Ergo, she's into that sort of molestation. OK, so you're prefer to believe otherwise. That's your religion and you're entitled to it.

Monica Lewinsky was indeed young, but at 23, she was a consenting adult. I don't know how Hillary felt about his affair.

There must be a reason you and Jughead can't stay on topic.

Jughead? Quite mature.

No public defender is obligated to take a case. If it interferes with their personal beliefs, or if they believe the defendant to be guilty, it is the responsibility of the judge to grant their request to be taken off the case.

She opted to stick with it.

Just as Abbott did with those he represented.

Yet you criticized Abbott....but not Clinton.

Tells me you are a child.

FYI....That IS staying on topic.

Pay attention, child.

She damn sure was obligated to take the case, you moron.

Asked to be relieved?

But did she try to get out of it?

Gibson, the Washington County prosecutor and one of the only people still alivewith knowledge of the case, has said emphatically over the years that she did.

In 2008, Gibson told Newsday that "Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case. She made that very clear."

Recently, Gibson made similar comments to CNN. He said the judge, Maupin Cummings (now deceased), found Clinton on a list of lawyers who would represent low-income clients.

According to Gibson, Clinton called him and said, "I don't want to represent this guy. I just can't stand this. I don't want to get involved. Can you get me off?"

Here's the damn link again...

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

listen child.

Don't state as fact what is not fact.

If a public defender does not wish to represent someone, the judge is obligated to have her taken off the case. It is unfair to have a defendant forced to have an attorney represent them who doesn't.

IT IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE JUDGE TO DO SO IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTIAN THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL.

IMAGINE IF SHE LOST THE TRIAL. THE DEFENDANRT WOULD BE GRANTED A MISTRIAL SEEING AS SHE AND HER FRIENDS SAY SHE WANTED OFF THE CASE.

The fact that Clinton AND A FRIEND of hers say she wanted off but wasn't allowed was nothing more than rhetoric designed to fool the foolish and immature.

Like you.

 

[TooTall]

Perhaps you are correct.

Byu
So I must believe it is an educated guess when I say you would NEVER support Hillary Clinton for President.

Or are you one of those that have no idea of who SHE represented when she was a young attorney?

I prefer Bernie Sanders.

Okay, shoot. Who did Hillary defend? You're not going to repeat the lie that she defended one of the Black Panthers, are you?

I thought you were on top of things.

What does Hillary s laughing rape defense audio mean TheHill
AUDIO Hillary Clinton Speaks of Defense of Child Rapist in Newly Unearthed Tapes Washington Free Beacon

I can only pick apart one lie at a time.

Before I start, I want you to know that I find it interesting that you need a blog to tell you what Hillary's taped interview means, as if you can't think for yourself. And I suppose you can't.

I listed to the tape, and she was in no way laughing at the rape victim. She laughed about the absurdity of the case itself.

Hillary didn't want the case and tried to get out of doing it.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

Also, it was her JOB to defend the man. That's what public defenders do.

Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights requires the government to provide free legal counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases

So, is your big beef that she was good at her job? And do you think she should have sabotaged the case, just in case she might one day run for President?

She took the case.
No one HAS to EVER take a case. Especially when it comes to defending an alleged child rapist. She took the case because she did not want to jeopardize her career by denying it. Any moron would recognize it.
As for her lauging about it. I really don't care if she did it didn't. I don't pay attention to "opinions"....

It is all about the fact that she took the case and defended an alleged rapist.

Yet, for some reason, you forgive her.

Good for you.

You are a hypocrite.

She did her job, you idiot. She was a public defender. That's what they do.

So did Greg Abbott when he was a SC Justice. That is what they do!

 

[Jarhead]

People don't like dumb blondes. What's your theory why she is falling behind?

Holy cow, you don't even know who we were talking about, do ya? We were talking about Hillary Clinton, because Jughead and Censored can't stay on topic.

Hillary has no integrity either. No one on the left has integrity. You lie every day.

I'm going to have a party on election day. What are you going to do?

I'll probably watch you make an ass of yourself. LOL!

nahhh...that position has already been claimed by you.

lol...."her friend said she wanted off the case but was not allowed to be taken off the case"

You are certainly one who is not an attorney, doesn't know an attorney, and is easily fooled by lying politicians.

 

[EriktheRed]

I prefer Bernie Sanders.

Okay, shoot. Who did Hillary defend? You're not going to repeat the lie that she defended one of the Black Panthers, are you?

I thought you were on top of things.

What does Hillary s laughing rape defense audio mean TheHill
AUDIO Hillary Clinton Speaks of Defense of Child Rapist in Newly Unearthed Tapes Washington Free Beacon

I can only pick apart one lie at a time.

Before I start, I want you to know that I find it interesting that you need a blog to tell you what Hillary's taped interview means, as if you can't think for yourself. And I suppose you can't.

I listed to the tape, and she was in no way laughing at the rape victim. She laughed about the absurdity of the case itself.

Hillary didn't want the case and tried to get out of doing it.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

Also, it was her JOB to defend the man. That's what public defenders do.

Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights requires the government to provide free legal counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases

So, is your big beef that she was good at her job? And do you think she should have sabotaged the case, just in case she might one day run for President?

She took the case.
No one HAS to EVER take a case. Especially when it comes to defending an alleged child rapist. She took the case because she did not want to jeopardize her career by denying it. Any moron would recognize it.
As for her lauging about it. I really don't care if she did it didn't. I don't pay attention to "opinions"....

It is all about the fact that she took the case and defended an alleged rapist.

Yet, for some reason, you forgive her.

Good for you.

You are a hypocrite.

She did her job, you idiot. She was a public defender. That's what they do.

So did Greg Abbott when he was a SC Justice. That is what they do!

Yet for some reason, rather than make that argument to defend himself, he chooses to use the controversy of the ad to wheel himself away from the issue.

Wonder why that is....

 

[Carla_Danger]

Holy cow, you don't even know who we were talking about, do ya? We were talking about Hillary Clinton, because Jughead and Censored can't stay on topic.

Hillary has no integrity either. No one on the left has integrity. You lie every day.

I'm going to have a party on election day. What are you going to do?

I'll probably watch you make an ass of yourself. LOL!

nahhh...that position has already been claimed by you.

lol...."her friend said she wanted off the case but was not allowed to be taken off the case"

You are certainly one who is not an attorney, doesn't know an attorney, and is easily fooled by lying politicians.

Prove it....

Stephanie Harris, communications counsel for the Arkansas Supreme Court, said judges were more informal in assigning lawyers to cases in 1975.

"That was a time when judges just grabbed lawyers from the hall," Harris said. "There wasn’t always an actual procedure like there is now. It may have been the case that she didn’t want to represent them, but she was told to and that was the end of it."

"If we don’t like a defendant, we still have a duty to represent them and advocate on their behalf," she added.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

 

[Ibentoken]

When MSNBC and Mother Jones say you've gone too far, it's over.

 

[Jarhead]

I thought you were on top of things.

What does Hillary s laughing rape defense audio mean TheHill
AUDIO Hillary Clinton Speaks of Defense of Child Rapist in Newly Unearthed Tapes Washington Free Beacon

I can only pick apart one lie at a time.

Before I start, I want you to know that I find it interesting that you need a blog to tell you what Hillary's taped interview means, as if you can't think for yourself. And I suppose you can't.

I listed to the tape, and she was in no way laughing at the rape victim. She laughed about the absurdity of the case itself.

Hillary didn't want the case and tried to get out of doing it.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

Also, it was her JOB to defend the man. That's what public defenders do.

Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights requires the government to provide free legal counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases

So, is your big beef that she was good at her job? And do you think she should have sabotaged the case, just in case she might one day run for President?

She took the case.
No one HAS to EVER take a case. Especially when it comes to defending an alleged child rapist. She took the case because she did not want to jeopardize her career by denying it. Any moron would recognize it.
As for her lauging about it. I really don't care if she did it didn't. I don't pay attention to "opinions"....

It is all about the fact that she took the case and defended an alleged rapist.

Yet, for some reason, you forgive her.

Good for you.

You are a hypocrite.

She did her job, you idiot. She was a public defender. That's what they do.

So did Greg Abbott when he was a SC Justice. That is what they do!

Yet for some reason, rather than make that argument to defend himself, he chooses to use the controversy of the ad to wheel himself away from the issue.

Wonder why that is....

Simple answer.

He did what attorneys do. He represented his clients and did his best to achieve what they were looking for. There likely is not an attorney out there who has not represented someone who someone else thought to be a slime bucket. Does not mean he was a slime bucket. Perhaps those cases he won were winnable because the lawsuits were not warranted...or were astronomical in their demands.

But I have an idea. Make a judgment call on someone based on the ad of their political opponent. Only good things will come out of that.

 

[Jarhead]

Hillary has no integrity either. No one on the left has integrity. You lie every day.

I'm going to have a party on election day. What are you going to do?

I'll probably watch you make an ass of yourself. LOL!

nahhh...that position has already been claimed by you.

lol...."her friend said she wanted off the case but was not allowed to be taken off the case"

You are certainly one who is not an attorney, doesn't know an attorney, and is easily fooled by lying politicians.

Prove it....

Stephanie Harris, communications counsel for the Arkansas Supreme Court, said judges were more informal in assigning lawyers to cases in 1975.

"That was a time when judges just grabbed lawyers from the hall," Harris said. "There wasn’t always an actual procedure like there is now. It may have been the case that she didn’t want to represent them, but she was told to and that was the end of it."

"If we don’t like a defendant, we still have a duty to represent them and advocate on their behalf," she added.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

lol. Prove it?

LMAO....prove it????

Really? Prove it?

Listen up child. IF A PUBLIC DEFENDER DOES NOT WANT TO REPRESENT SOMEONE BE IT FOR REASON THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE GUILTY OR THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IOT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE TO HAVE THAT ATTORNEY RREMOVED FROM THE CASE.

FOR IF HE OR SHE DOES NOT HAVE THEM REMOIVED, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUARANTEED FAIR REPRESENTATION.

You want me to prove basic logic?

Sorry child, If you need proof of that, then you are not worthy of my time.

LOL....."hey judge, I don't want to represent this guy. I believe he is guilty and he is guilty of raping a child. There is no way I will bust my ass to get him off on such a heinous crime."

"You must represent him anyway!"

Gimme a break, child.

Go play your reindeer games with someone else. As I said earlier....you are no longer worthy of my time.

 

[EriktheRed]

I can only pick apart one lie at a time.

Before I start, I want you to know that I find it interesting that you need a blog to tell you what Hillary's taped interview means, as if you can't think for yourself. And I suppose you can't.

I listed to the tape, and she was in no way laughing at the rape victim. She laughed about the absurdity of the case itself.

Hillary didn't want the case and tried to get out of doing it.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

Also, it was her JOB to defend the man. That's what public defenders do.

Gideon v. Wainwright ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights requires the government to provide free legal counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases

So, is your big beef that she was good at her job? And do you think she should have sabotaged the case, just in case she might one day run for President?

She took the case.
No one HAS to EVER take a case. Especially when it comes to defending an alleged child rapist. She took the case because she did not want to jeopardize her career by denying it. Any moron would recognize it.
As for her lauging about it. I really don't care if she did it didn't. I don't pay attention to "opinions"....

It is all about the fact that she took the case and defended an alleged rapist.

Yet, for some reason, you forgive her.

Good for you.

You are a hypocrite.

She did her job, you idiot. She was a public defender. That's what they do.

So did Greg Abbott when he was a SC Justice. That is what they do!

Yet for some reason, rather than make that argument to defend himself, he chooses to use the controversy of the ad to wheel himself away from the issue.

Wonder why that is....

Simple answer.

He did what attorneys do. He represented his clients and did his best to achieve what they were looking for. There likely is not an attorney out there who has not represented someone who someone else thought to be a slime bucket. Does not mean he was a slime bucket. Perhaps those cases he won were winnable because the lawsuits were not warranted...or were astronomical in their demands.

But I have an idea. Make a judgment call on someone based on the ad of their political opponent. Only good things will come out of that.

Here's another idea: he knows that he doesn't have a good argument for his "tort reform" views, especially when he made out so well.

 

[Jarhead]

She took the case.
No one HAS to EVER take a case. Especially when it comes to defending an alleged child rapist. She took the case because she did not want to jeopardize her career by denying it. Any moron would recognize it.
As for her lauging about it. I really don't care if she did it didn't. I don't pay attention to "opinions"....

It is all about the fact that she took the case and defended an alleged rapist.

Yet, for some reason, you forgive her.

Good for you.

You are a hypocrite.

She did her job, you idiot. She was a public defender. That's what they do.

So did Greg Abbott when he was a SC Justice. That is what they do!

Yet for some reason, rather than make that argument to defend himself, he chooses to use the controversy of the ad to wheel himself away from the issue.

Wonder why that is....

Simple answer.

He did what attorneys do. He represented his clients and did his best to achieve what they were looking for. There likely is not an attorney out there who has not represented someone who someone else thought to be a slime bucket. Does not mean he was a slime bucket. Perhaps those cases he won were winnable because the lawsuits were not warranted...or were astronomical in their demands.

But I have an idea. Make a judgment call on someone based on the ad of their political opponent. Only good things will come out of that.

Here's another idea: he knows that he doesn't have a good argument for his "tort reform" views, especially when he made out so well.

uh....are you not paying attention?

He was representing the other side. Not the injured. Those being sued.

 

[HenryBHough]

T'ain't the representing that's troublesome; it's the chortling.

 

[EriktheRed]

She did her job, you idiot. She was a public defender. That's what they do.

So did Greg Abbott when he was a SC Justice. That is what they do!

Yet for some reason, rather than make that argument to defend himself, he chooses to use the controversy of the ad to wheel himself away from the issue.

Wonder why that is....

Simple answer.

He did what attorneys do. He represented his clients and did his best to achieve what they were looking for. There likely is not an attorney out there who has not represented someone who someone else thought to be a slime bucket. Does not mean he was a slime bucket. Perhaps those cases he won were winnable because the lawsuits were not warranted...or were astronomical in their demands.

But I have an idea. Make a judgment call on someone based on the ad of their political opponent. Only good things will come out of that.

Here's another idea: he knows that he doesn't have a good argument for his "tort reform" views, especially when he made out so well.

uh....are you not paying attention?

He was representing the other side. Not the injured. Those being sued.

I'm talking about his views and potential policies as a public official, which are relevant.

And again, why hasn't he himself made the "I was just doing my job" argument instead of screaming "Waaaah! She's picking on me because I'm in a wheelchair!"

 

[Jarhead]

So did Greg Abbott when he was a SC Justice. That is what they do!

Yet for some reason, rather than make that argument to defend himself, he chooses to use the controversy of the ad to wheel himself away from the issue.

Wonder why that is....

Simple answer.

He did what attorneys do. He represented his clients and did his best to achieve what they were looking for. There likely is not an attorney out there who has not represented someone who someone else thought to be a slime bucket. Does not mean he was a slime bucket. Perhaps those cases he won were winnable because the lawsuits were not warranted...or were astronomical in their demands.

But I have an idea. Make a judgment call on someone based on the ad of their political opponent. Only good things will come out of that.

Here's another idea: he knows that he doesn't have a good argument for his "tort reform" views, especially when he made out so well.

uh....are you not paying attention?

He was representing the other side. Not the injured. Those being sued.

I'm talking about his views and potential policies as a public official, which are relevant.

And again, why hasn't he himself made the "I was just doing my job" argument instead of screaming "Waaaah! She's picking on me because I'm in a wheelchair!"

Well, first off, he did not scream "waaaah! She is picking on me because I am in a wheelchair." The fact that you feel the need to say it that way, gives me reason to believe you feel weak in your position....or you are just immature...not sure yet.

During an interview, he was asked about the controversy that was started by the ad. So he responded.

I don't know why he did not respond to the crux of the ad. If I had to guess, he opted not to lend such criticism of his success as an attorney credibility...for all of us know, the more you respond, the more credible the criticism appears.

You and I can argue this all day long. But it is the electorate that will decide.

Me? I dont hold it against him. I don't hold it against Hillary either. They were simply doing what people legally paid them to do.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm going to have a party on election day. What are you going to do?

I'll probably watch you make an ass of yourself. LOL!

nahhh...that position has already been claimed by you.

lol...."her friend said she wanted off the case but was not allowed to be taken off the case"

You are certainly one who is not an attorney, doesn't know an attorney, and is easily fooled by lying politicians.

Prove it....

Stephanie Harris, communications counsel for the Arkansas Supreme Court, said judges were more informal in assigning lawyers to cases in 1975.

"That was a time when judges just grabbed lawyers from the hall," Harris said. "There wasn’t always an actual procedure like there is now. It may have been the case that she didn’t want to represent them, but she was told to and that was the end of it."

"If we don’t like a defendant, we still have a duty to represent them and advocate on their behalf," she added.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

lol. Prove it?

LMAO....prove it????

Really? Prove it?

Listen up child. IF A PUBLIC DEFENDER DOES NOT WANT TO REPRESENT SOMEONE BE IT FOR REASON THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE GUILTY OR THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IOT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE TO HAVE THAT ATTORNEY RREMOVED FROM THE CASE.

FOR IF HE OR SHE DOES NOT HAVE THEM REMOIVED, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUARANTEED FAIR REPRESENTATION.

You want me to prove basic logic?

Sorry child, If you need proof of that, then you are not worthy of my time.

LOL....."hey judge, I don't want to represent this guy. I believe he is guilty and he is guilty of raping a child. There is no way I will bust my ass to get him off on such a heinous crime."

"You must represent him anyway!"

Gimme a break, child.

Go play your reindeer games with someone else. As I said earlier....you are no longer worthy of my time.

Holy shit, you're stupid.

I don't care how guilty they are, or of what, they still have a right to a court appointed attorney, you boob.

She did her fucking job. You have nothing.

If she had quit her job, you'd be complaining about how she took a big dump all over our legal system.

 

[Ibentoken]

I'm going to have a party on election day. What are you going to do?

I'll probably watch you make an ass of yourself. LOL!

nahhh...that position has already been claimed by you.

lol...."her friend said she wanted off the case but was not allowed to be taken off the case"

You are certainly one who is not an attorney, doesn't know an attorney, and is easily fooled by lying politicians.

Prove it....

Stephanie Harris, communications counsel for the Arkansas Supreme Court, said judges were more informal in assigning lawyers to cases in 1975.

"That was a time when judges just grabbed lawyers from the hall," Harris said. "There wasn’t always an actual procedure like there is now. It may have been the case that she didn’t want to represent them, but she was told to and that was the end of it."

"If we don’t like a defendant, we still have a duty to represent them and advocate on their behalf," she added.

Did Hillary Clinton ask to be relieved from representing an accused rapist in 1970s PolitiFact

lol. Prove it?

LMAO....prove it????

Really? Prove it?

Listen up child. IF A PUBLIC DEFENDER DOES NOT WANT TO REPRESENT SOMEONE BE IT FOR REASON THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE GUILTY OR THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IOT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE TO HAVE THAT ATTORNEY RREMOVED FROM THE CASE.

FOR IF HE OR SHE DOES NOT HAVE THEM REMOIVED, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUARANTEED FAIR REPRESENTATION.

You want me to prove basic logic?

Sorry child, If you need proof of that, then you are not worthy of my time.

LOL....."hey judge, I don't want to represent this guy. I believe he is guilty and he is guilty of raping a child. There is no way I will bust my ass to get him off on such a heinous crime."

"You must represent him anyway!"

Gimme a break, child.

Go play your reindeer games with someone else. As I said earlier....you are no longer worthy of my time.

Holy shit, you're stupid.

I don't care how guilty they are, or of what, they still have a right to a court appointed attorney, you boob.

She did her fucking job. You have nothing.

If she had quit her job, you'd be complaining about how she took a big dump all over our legal system.

Why are you still defending the lying wench? She's finished.

 

[Synthaholic]

Washington (CNN) -- Wendy Davis is attacking her partially paralyzed Republican opponent Greg Abbott in the Texas governor's race -- with an ad that features an empty wheelchair.

"A tree fell on Greg Abbott. He sued and got millions. Since then, he's spent his career working against other victims," a narrator says of the wheelchair-bound Abbott.

Davis ad uses wheelchair to criticize paralyzed foe - CNN.com


Wow, sinking to the lowest. I'm sure she offending many paralyzed people with this trash!

What's offensive?

Are people in wheelchairs immune from criticism?

Seems you inte3ntionally missed the point.

People in wheelchairs are not immune to criticism.

Being identified as people in wheelchairs is the discussion.

How is it any less offensive than identifying a candidate by his/her cleft palate?

Or do you believe it is appropriate to identify people by their scars, missing limbs, birth defects, etc?

Except, she isn't identifying him as a person in a wheelchair.

She's identifying him as a victim of personal injury who sued for compensation.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Washington (CNN) -- Wendy Davis is attacking her partially paralyzed Republican opponent Greg Abbott in the Texas governor's race -- with an ad that features an empty wheelchair.

"A tree fell on Greg Abbott. He sued and got millions. Since then, he's spent his career working against other victims," a narrator says of the wheelchair-bound Abbott.

Davis ad uses wheelchair to criticize paralyzed foe - CNN.com


Wow, sinking to the lowest. I'm sure she offending many paralyzed people with this trash!

What's offensive?

Are people in wheelchairs immune from criticism?

Seems you inte3ntionally missed the point.

People in wheelchairs are not immune to criticism.

Being identified as people in wheelchairs is the discussion.

How is it any less offensive than identifying a candidate by his/her cleft palate?

Or do you believe it is appropriate to identify people by their scars, missing limbs, birth defects, etc?

Except, she isn't identifying him as a person in a wheelchair.

She's identifying him as a victim of personal injury who sued for compensation.

The close-up and continued shot of just a wheelchair in the shot identified him as someone in a wheel chair, no matter what her message was. Why not the shot of a broken tree across a house or something?

 

[Synthaholic]

Washington (CNN) -- Wendy Davis is attacking her partially paralyzed Republican opponent Greg Abbott in the Texas governor's race -- with an ad that features an empty wheelchair.

"A tree fell on Greg Abbott. He sued and got millions. Since then, he's spent his career working against other victims," a narrator says of the wheelchair-bound Abbott.

Davis ad uses wheelchair to criticize paralyzed foe - CNN.com


Wow, sinking to the lowest. I'm sure she offending many paralyzed people with this trash!

What's offensive?

Are people in wheelchairs immune from criticism?

Seems you inte3ntionally missed the point.

People in wheelchairs are not immune to criticism.

Being identified as people in wheelchairs is the discussion.

How is it any less offensive than identifying a candidate by his/her cleft palate?

Or do you believe it is appropriate to identify people by their scars, missing limbs, birth defects, etc?

Except, she isn't identifying him as a person in a wheelchair.

She's identifying him as a victim of personal injury who sued for compensation.

The close-up and continued shot of just a wheelchair in the shot identified him as someone in a wheel chair, no matter what her message was. Why not the shot of a broken tree across a house or something?

So, your beef is with the director of the video. OK.

You really should stop whining.

 

[TooTall]

Davis ad uses wheelchair to criticize paralyzed foe - CNN.com


Wow, sinking to the lowest. I'm sure she offending many paralyzed people with this trash!

What's offensive?

Are people in wheelchairs immune from criticism?

Seems you inte3ntionally missed the point.

People in wheelchairs are not immune to criticism.

Being identified as people in wheelchairs is the discussion.

How is it any less offensive than identifying a candidate by his/her cleft palate?

Or do you believe it is appropriate to identify people by their scars, missing limbs, birth defects, etc?

Except, she isn't identifying him as a person in a wheelchair.

She's identifying him as a victim of personal injury who sued for compensation.

The close-up and continued shot of just a wheelchair in the shot identified him as someone in a wheel chair, no matter what her message was. Why not the shot of a broken tree across a house or something?

So, your beef is with the director of the video. OK.

You really should stop whining.

"This message is approved by Wendy Davis."

 

[CaféAuLait]

Davis ad uses wheelchair to criticize paralyzed foe - CNN.com


Wow, sinking to the lowest. I'm sure she offending many paralyzed people with this trash!

What's offensive?

Are people in wheelchairs immune from criticism?

Seems you inte3ntionally missed the point.

People in wheelchairs are not immune to criticism.

Being identified as people in wheelchairs is the discussion.

How is it any less offensive than identifying a candidate by his/her cleft palate?

Or do you believe it is appropriate to identify people by their scars, missing limbs, birth defects, etc?

Except, she isn't identifying him as a person in a wheelchair.

She's identifying him as a victim of personal injury who sued for compensation.

The close-up and continued shot of just a wheelchair in the shot identified him as someone in a wheel chair, no matter what her message was. Why not the shot of a broken tree across a house or something?

So, your beef is with the director of the video. OK.

You really should stop whining.

LOL