• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

It would have been better if you had not issued a thinly disguised "apology" at all. I see - I made you do it. I put the imagery in your head. I am responsible for you slandering me.

No, I am sincere in my apology and should have resisted the temptation.

But it seemed to me it was a quite over the top so i responded in kind, and shouldn't have.

Read it again and perhaps you'll rethink the imagery yourself, and whther or not it was fair to Sarah Palin, or whether it was more akin to hate sppeech..

"Palin has the potential to be the most divisive and mean character in American history going back to those who fanned the flames of the Civil War some century and a half ago. When I first saw and heard her acceptance speech at the 2008 GOP Convention, all the warning bells went off. George Wallace was such a character but his appeal was narrow and very limited compared to Palin. She is the deadly poison in the medicine cabinet labeled with a skull and cross bones that if ever taken could well send America to the emergency ward. I only hope and pray should that eventuality ever happen, the patient survives".

It is that a fair and accurate description of the former governor of Alaska? What do you think?
 
Here is the perfect summery of Palin and this issue:



This man is intelligent and he's right. Who is he? I might watch more of his videos.
 
This speech is just another reason as to why Sarah Palin is just awesome and classy...

... or awful and classless. She had nothing to say (that wasn't self serving) and said it on a day that she should have kept her mouth shut. I thought the problem with Palin was her adject ignorance. Now I see a dangerous wart called narcissism (which I shoud have concluded based on her book that suggested that she could have won the last election if McCain people just got out of the way.)
 
Last edited:
abc: "sarah palin has, once again, managed to make herself part of the story"

she "has put herself back in the middle of it"

The Note: Obama, Palin And Arizona: A Tale Of Two Speeches - The Note

oh?

sarah interjected herself into this tragedy?

she's the person responsible for making herself the center of this sadness?

krugman, the ny times ed staff, olbermann, matthews, media matters, the sheriff, clyburn, markos, david gregory and christiane amanpour had nothing to do with it?

i guess saturday, sunday, monday and tuesday never happened

on msnbc:

RealClearPolitics - Video - MSNBC's Matthews: We "Can't Exonerate" Palin "Until We Know The Truth"

guilty til proven innocent, says the staunch defender of civil rights

the problem, mr matthews, is america IS learning the truth

the haters are losin it, folks

there's just something about mrs alaska that drives em over the edge
 
Last edited:
Here is the perfect summery of Palin and this issue:



One of the best political commentators around and he nailed it, but also I believe that Sarah Palin had every right to speak out against those who were suggesting that the act of an insane psychopath had anything to do with her.. She could not have, and should not have, remained silent. I doubt Krauthammer would either if he were similarly maligned.
 
abc: "sarah palin has, once again, managed to make herself part of the story"

she "has put herself back in the middle of it"

The Note: Obama, Palin And Arizona: A Tale Of Two Speeches - The Note

oh?

sarah interjected herself into this tragedy?

she's the person responsible for making herself the center of this sadness?

krugman, the ny times ed staff, olbermann, media matters, the sheriff, clyburn, markos, david gregory and christiane amanpour had nothing to do with it?

i guess saturday, sunday, monday, tuesday and wednesday never happened

on msnbc:

RealClearPolitics - Video - MSNBC's Matthews: We "Can't Exonerate" Palin "Until We Know The Truth"

guilty til proven innocent, says the staunch defender of civil rights

they're losin it, folks

there's just something about mrs alaska that drives em over the edge

That man is an idiot.
 
abc: "sarah palin has, once again, managed to make herself part of the story"

she "has put herself back in the middle of it"

The Note: Obama, Palin And Arizona: A Tale Of Two Speeches - The Note

oh?

sarah interjected herself into this tragedy?

she's the person responsible for making herself the center of this sadness?

krugman, the ny times ed staff, olbermann, media matters, the sheriff, clyburn, markos, david gregory and christiane amanpour had nothing to do with it?

i guess saturday, sunday, monday, tuesday and wednesday never happened

on msnbc:

RealClearPolitics - Video - MSNBC's Matthews: We "Can't Exonerate" Palin "Until We Know The Truth"

guilty til proven innocent, says the staunch defender of civil rights

the problem, mr matthews, is america IS learning the truth

the haters are losin it, folks

there's just something about mrs alaska that drives em over the edge

You got it!

And they become more ridiculous every time they say speak their minds. They're losing, they know it, and yet each time they lose the argument they spike the rhetoric up a notch.

They simply have no credibility at all, and people are recognizing that at a greater pace than ever before, thanks largely to what's been said by the Left this past week. The middle now realizes just how dangerous these people are to a civil society.
 
Palin have 95% name recognition and 22% positives. In which direction do you think that 22% rating will go after today? Answer: South.
 
Palin have 95% name recognition and 22% positives. In which direction do you think that 22% rating will go after today? Answer: South.


Is that important to you, Chappy? Is that what this is all about?
 
Is that important to you, Chappy? Is that what this is all about?

To Palin it is. She has realized that any kind of media coverage is good coverage. So long as her name is in the headlines, she's content.
 
Is that important to you, Chappy? Is that what this is all about?

To Palin it is. She has realized that any kind of media coverage is good coverage. So long as her name is in the headlines, she's content.
 
This man is intelligent and he's right. Who is he? I might watch more of his videos.

That's Charles Krauthammer, one of the most intelligent and insightful political writers/commentators anywhere.

This from Wikipedia:

Charles Krauthammer is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and political commentator, and physician. His weekly column appears in The Washington Post and is syndicated to more than 200 newspapers and media outlets. He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. He is also a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington and a regular panelist on Fox News’s Special Report with Bret Baier.
 
That's Charles Krauthammer, one of the most intelligent and insightful political writers/commentators anywhere.

This from Wikipedia:

Charles Krauthammer is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and political commentator, and physician. His weekly column appears in The Washington Post and is syndicated to more than 200 newspapers and media outlets. He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. He is also a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington and a regular panelist on Fox News’s Special Report with Bret Baier.

Thank you, sir.
 
To Palin it is. She has realized that any kind of media coverage is good coverage. So long as her name is in the headlines, she's content.

Well, as the Prof has pointed out in a recent post on this thread, the media certainly gave her a lot of coverage before she even spoke out.

Why do you suppose that is? Why was the media, in this case the left wing media, giving her so much coverage following the murders in Tucson?
 
Charles Krauthammer describes Sarah Palin's speech as “unfortunate and unnecessary,” and, this is the “perfect summery” according to Grim. Well, forgive me if I think Grim is a wide-eyed optimist if he thinks that was beneficial to Palin.
 
really? seems i read it and pretty instantly knew what it meant.



could be the phrase was in her mind because there was a wall street journal article that used the exact same description. its the title of a thread on this forum.


;) course that would require you to admit she reads the wall street journal.

You REALLY think she wrote that, all by her wittle sewf? Really?....... really?.....(sigh)
 
:shrug: my undergrad was in history, but i don'y recall studying much antisemitism outside of the middle east. the basic common-usage that i've heard seems both fairly intuitive and applicable; false testimony about murder.

as for palins' speechwriter; it was a facebook post. her speeches are given off of scribbled words on her palm, remember? :)

Written there in simple words by a Speechwriter, and your point?
 
Charles Krauthammer describes Sarah Palin's speech as “unfortunate and unnecessary,” and, this is the “perfect summery” according to Grim. Well, forgive me if I think Grim is a wide-eyed optimist if he thinks that was beneficial to Palin.

I respect the hell out of what Krauthammer has to say, but that doesn't mean I march lock step with everything he says. He may be right from a political standpoint about her video, but I was speaking from a personal one. I believe she was totally justified in making that speech, because she had just been accused in essence, of being an accomplice in that shooting.

Other than that, I agreed completely with what the man said and stand by my statement on the man, and that commentary.
 
what utter and complete bull****. there is precisely zero connection between sarah palins speeches and that nutjob deciding that his congresswoman was part of the secret plot to have the US sieze control of grammar.

However,the PR professionals who craft all of the words that are repeated, over and over on the conservative media stream, know full well that words have "meanings" for people, based on feelings. These words/phrases elicit strong emotional responses that do not necessarily have any basis whatsoever in logic or reason.

Think about his question "'What is government if words have no meaning?'", and then think of the term "death" tax. Which I guess means I oppose the estate penalty, because I think it's stupid to kill people to show people that killing people is wrong, right?

Then think about his reading list: Marx, Hitler, Ayn Rand. I'm not certain, but wasn't manipulation of the masses through the media a theme of Rand's?, As well as Hitler's and Marx'. I'm gonna look that up. As well as the rest of that "incoherent" reading list.:comp:

Could this be the first provable case of an individual being driven mad by "messaging"?

Is that why the right's ready response seemed crafted to spin away a "righty" shooter, and therefore seems "overdone"? Is it because they have been expecting it to happen?

Is what we're seeing right now the misfiring of what I believe they call a ""crisis" or "emergency" management plan", drawn up in advance of a potential PR problem? Like Sea World had for when shamu killed that trainer. That campaign either won an award or was nominated for one or was used as a shining example of an excellent one.

anorexia and bulimia-first acknowledged illnesses associated with the effects of marketing/PR/persuasion/propaganda.

Maybe a little, teeny tiny connection.

Just sayin...:mrgreen:
 
You do have to admit it's cute, though, the way so many people who had never heard the term until today are already such experts in the matter!

I'm pretty well read and I personally have never even heard the term be used in any kind of discussion that didn't involve Christian persecution of Jews. However, this is par for the course. The Tea Party and its leaders Beck, Palin etc are all trying to portray themselves as the new Jews. It's the neo-Protestant tradition in America. They really do believe they are the chosen people of God. I have this really interesting book on the matter which talks about how twisted and warped politics and protestant traditions are in America. I'll inbox you the details.
 
Last edited:
Is there some sort of copyright on the expression? I've never heard of any phrase being forbidden or taboo before, so all of this is rather new and interesting.

We are entering an exciting new age perhaps where the language police will gain ever more power and control over the public vocabulary, and the word Nazis will have their own Bureau of Criminal Phraseology.

Think of it this way, if Conservatives and undeclared Conservatives pretending to be Independents can claim the word 'marriage' as being defined by "traditional" usage of the word, I'm quite sure Jews can claim the words 'blood libel'.
 
The Tea Party and its leaders Beck, Palin etc are all trying to portray themselves as the new Jews.

Jesus with a jumprope.

Seriously. That is as paranoid as anything Beck ever froths on about.

Really seriously. I didn't have to look up the phrase because I know it. Both in it's historical context and the modern usage which encompasses the idea of wrongful accusation and persecution.

I would be willing to bet whoever wrote the script for that video liked the imagery of the WSJ article and decided to borrow the phrase.

Period.

It is really as uninspired and dull as that.

There is no giant conspiracy. No intentional secret neo-religious message. No racist insensitivity. No hidden meaning at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom