Blood Libel

Surprised to see no one brought this up. I wish the rest of the country made no mention of Sarah Palin when she acts out.

I have been suspicious for a while but have finally concluded that she isn't for real. She's totally messing with all of us because she profits from the attention.

That said- any brave supporters of her care to defend or at least try to help the rest of us make sense out of her latest remarks.

Also, does anyone believe this could sink her?

Ask the pundants. :clap::lol: No, her words don't flow naturally. She was way too stiff, but she'll always have her loyal 25%.


By the way. I going to be doing communion over the radio. My opening line will be "Hi I'm Jesus, and I'll be your host":clap::funn::floor: COMMUNION! HOST! GET IT?? :floor:

This new round of idiocy just reflects on how people like Sarah Palin operate. This is how they get others to follow them. They make themselves out to be victims, and convince their followers that they, too, are victims. So, to answer your question, since there are so many people who enjoy victimhood, Sarah ain't going nowhere, unfortunately. :roll:

I wish the rest of the country made no mention of Sarah Palin when she acts out.

Yes wouldn't that be great if everyone would simply not mention her.

It does seem those against her do a better job of providing her with publicity than her supporters do.

Or even better try to adhere to the inspiring words delivered by the President when he spoke at the memorial.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

It does seem those against her do a better job of providing her with publicity than her supporters do.

I'm thinking it's because she has made it difficult for folks to continue to support her and for supporters to defend her. Her most recent remarks are so over the top that even conservative pundits are slamming her.

You asked why I brought it up in the same post in which I said I wished the country wouldn't give her attention. I brought it up because it is everywhere except here and I find that interesting.

Or even better try to adhere to the inspiring words delivered by the President when he spoke at the memorial.

Since she chose to release her video within 8 hours of the President's speech it is tough not to draw (negative) comparisons.

Surprised to see no one brought this up. I wish the rest of the country made no mention of Sarah Palin when she acts out.

I have been suspicious for a while but have finally concluded that she isn't for real. She's totally messing with all of us because she profits from the attention.

That said- any brave supporters of her care to defend or at least try to help the rest of us make sense out of her latest remarks.

Also, does anyone believe this could sink her?

The left attacked her and blamed her for Loughner, what did you expect her to do? Now you're attacking her for defending herself?

Yes, it would have been way too much to ask for her to rise above it and give a message that wasn't Sarah-centric.

Yes, it would have been way too much to ask for her to rise above it and give a message that wasn't Sarah-centric.

Had the left taken the "high road" from the beginning by avoiding knee jerk blame games, as President Obama suggested in his speech, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

we have two very different points of view in this country right now; it is a serious combination of morality and religion and politics...some continue to introduce violence into the equation. Hopefully, thoughtful people on both sides of the question will begin to work toward common ground...I sincerely hope we do not go back into the violence of the 60s where so many political leaders were killed and so many others injured badly.
this piece says it better than I can:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&hp

This deep divide in American political morality ? for that?s what it amounts to ? is a relatively recent development. Commentators who pine for the days of civility and bipartisanship are, whether they realize it or not, pining for the days when the Republican Party accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state, and was even willing to contemplate expanding it. As many analysts have noted, the Obama health reform ? whose passage was met with vandalism and death threats against members of Congress ? was modeled on Republican plans from the 1990s.

ight now, each side in that debate passionately believes that the other side is wrong. And it?s all right for them to say that. What?s not acceptable is the kind of violence and eliminationist rhetoric encouraging violence that has become all too common these past two years.

It?s not enough to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We need to have leaders of both parties ? or Mr. Obama alone if necessary ? declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds. We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law.

I believe the road Krugman speaks of needs to begin with each of us. Right here on Sowal, I wonder what might happen if, instead of all of us arguing for our point of view and labeling anyone who has a different point of view so that it becomes "us" vs "them", I wonder what would happen if we asked more questions of each other.

Recently, I was labeled angry, bitter, and fearful by a poster...it would be funny, if it were not so sad. This person (as far as I know) has no information about me other that what I have posted here...and yet feels confident to label me with words that anyone who does know me, find laughable...so, my job is to ask myself what (if anything) about my posting would lead to that label?

Many times over the years I have asked questions of those with opposing opinions in an attempt to understand where they were coming from...I have not received many answers.

Anyone interested in having a real discussion with questions and answers and thoughtful reflection...in an attempt to really understand and perhaps make our world a bit less caustic?

Had the left taken the "high road" from the beginning by avoiding knee jerk blame games, as President Obama suggested in his speech, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

You mean like the "high road" of placing your opponents heads in gun sights? That "high road"?

I used to want her to shut up. Now I hope she just keeps on talking. She's a narcissistic idiot.

I'm no fan of Palin, but perhaps the most absurd thing I have heard about the 'blood libel' quote was on 'The World' program that WFSU airs every evening. It turns out the term 'blood libel' has anti-Semitic connotation I will not go into, but boy, did they ever delve into it on the radio program...and they loosely (at least to my ear) connected dots between Palin's comments and underlying anti-Semitism. Yikes. I think she is a dodo bird but to blame her for a pshychotic sociopath's murder spree and tag her with anti-Semitism within one week is over the top. Tough week for Palin. Or maybe not if it furthers her fundraising:roll:

You guys actually listened to her latest remarks? Something must be working because if you guys are listening, she is getting an audience. I could care less about what she says so don't choose to listen to her and have no idea what you are talking about.

we have two very different points of view in this country right now; it is a serious combination of morality and religion and politics...some continue to introduce violence into the equation. Hopefully, thoughtful people on both sides of the question will begin to work toward common ground...I sincerely hope we do not go back into the violence of the 60s where so many political leaders were killed and so many others injured badly.
this piece says it better than I can:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&hp

I believe the road Krugman speaks of needs to begin with each of us. Right here on Sowal, I wonder what might happen if, instead of all of us arguing for our point of view and labeling anyone who has a different point of view so that it becomes "us" vs "them", I wonder what would happen if we asked more questions of each other.

Recently, I was labeled angry, bitter, and fearful by a poster...it would be funny, if it were not so sad. This person (as far as I know) has no information about me other that what I have posted here...and yet feels confident to label me with words that anyone who does know me, find laughable...so, my job is to ask myself what (if anything) about my posting would lead to that label?

Many times over the years I have asked questions of those with opposing opinions in an attempt to understand where they were coming from...I have not received many answers.

Anyone interested in having a real discussion with questions and answers and thoughtful reflection...in an attempt to really understand and perhaps make our world a bit less caustic?

Honestly I think most of the aggressive behavior we've seen has less to do with politics and more to do with the state of the economy. I'd bet if you did a study of violent crime you would find increases at times during economic downturn. As the economy heals and as people get back to work and their 401Ks rebuild, I'm guessing the tone of our poltiical debate will also come down.

Had the left taken the "high road" from the beginning by avoiding knee jerk blame games, as President Obama suggested in his speech, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

30A- did you watch the video or read her speech? :idontno:

In her puling, self-pitying video rant, of which she frames herself as Executive in Chief; and even goes as far as saying and, YES, God Bless America as though she was mocking anyone who dare think she can't be Presidential, she mentions the term blood libel.

The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews.

Gifford happens to be Jewish and so was Gabriel Zimmerman.

But what really irked me the most was you could see the anger seething in her, showed phony signs of remorse (sounded like she was reading a book at storytime) and then has the gall to defend crosshairs and violent rhetoric and imagery while at the same time hypocritically called for unity.

I would say that concerning this murderous rampage, and Palin's paranoid, unempathetic response to it was Palin's "Katrina." But, that would be a comparison to W Bush, and I would be comparing her to a really, really bad President and that would elevate her status.

Her plan is all about whording the money, and she can still make buckets of it if her Jonesian (as in Jim) base continues to think she is actually capable of a competing spot on the Republican Ticket. She probably already knows she is not Presidential material, so this mis-step may cut off some of the money supply temporarily, which is her #1 concern.

What came around obviously went around.

30A- did you watch the video or read her speech? :idontno:

In her puling, self-pitying video rant, of which she frames herself as Executive in Chief; and even goes as far as saying and, YES, God Bless America as though she was mocking anyone who dare think she can't be Presidential, she mentions the term blood libel.

The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews.

Gifford happens to be Jewish and so was Gabriel Zimmerman.

But what really irked me the most was you could see the anger seething in her, showed phony signs of remorse (sounded like she was reading a book at storytime) and then has the gall to defend crosshairs and violent rhetoric and imagery while at the same time hypocritically called for unity.

Blood libel in modern times denotes a situation where an individual or group are inappropriately charged with murder or as being murderous.

Anger was seething in me reading all the crap people posted linking Tucson with Palin and other characters like Beck. People's reactions to that event were emotional and irrational and socially unacceptable.

My suggestion to everyone here with Palin Syndrome would be: if you don't like her, ignore her. That's what I try to do. But whatever you do, don't try and pin the the death of six people at the hand of a schizophrenic madman on her simply because she put a political map up on her web site during the last election. I mean, really, seriously? You have to be freaking kidding.

...and here I am again, stuck in another stoopid SoWal Palin bashing thread! ARGH. Exit, stage right!

:trainwreck:

I'm not attacking her for defending herself...

The left attacked her and blamed her for Loughner, what did you expect her to do? Now you're attacking her for defending herself?

WHAT PALIN DID

She utilized a gun metaphor as the paradigm for speaking to her supporters in recent months. Maps of US districts were marked with gun sight graphics and she defiantly used terms such as "reload" and "aim" as the means of "taking out" opponents.

This afforded her the airtime she sought. Foes condemned her rhetoric. "Real Americans" ate it up. Here's what Congresswoman Gabby Giffords had to say about it- (the most compelling part is at 2:00)

?I think it?s important for all leaders ? to say look, we can?t stand for this ? They really need to realize that the rhetoric, and firing people up ? for example, we?re on Sarah Palin?s ?Targeted? list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we?re in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they?ve got to realize that there are consequences to that action.?


YouTube - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Talks Palin Cross Hairs


After Congresswoman Giffords was shot in the head, pundits revisited Giffords warning about Palin's rhetoric and speculated on its connection with the tragedy.

In response, Palin released an 8 minute video during which she painted herself as a victim and compared the idea of drawing connections between violent rhetoric and violence as a "blood libel" against her.

She used this term in spite of its most known meaning/connotation. In case there is any ambiguity as to what that is, feel free to Google it. You'll find that the first result comes from Wikipedia:

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have?alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration?been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and, historically, blood libel claims have been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children.

Palin used the term in spite of the fact that Giffords is a Jew.

**********************

WHAT I BELIEVE SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE

I think she should have kept it short, taken the high road and made it about the real victims rather than herself. I think she should have praised the heroes of the day. I think she should have left her defense for a separate conversation.

In that conversation she should have succinctly made a point like the following and then moved on-

"It is outrageous and despicable for anyone to use this tragedy to play politics. Americans are much too smart to buy into the liberal mainstream media notion that I am (or anyone else is) to blame for the actions of a nut and a coward. My thoughts and prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords and her family and all of the other victims of this horrible event."

At no point should she have used anything resembling language that references the plight of Jews. Duh.

WHAT PALIN DID

At no point should she have used language that references the plight of Jews. Duh.

That sentence proves the two major points of this discussion:

1. She and her speechwriters are ignorant, insensitive, and oblivious, or...

2. They planned and purposefully planted the reference in the speech to garner more Palin rage from the Left, which they know makes her base give her more support and money.

Did I mention that she's a narcissistic idiot?