Palin Came Off Very Presidential In Her Response

[Vanquish]

USArmy...at least you're consistent. That's about all I can say for you.

Blood libel is a very SPECIFIC term that means NOTHING like what she used it for. She's not accusing people of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood. So yet again, she acts like an idiot...one of her aides misuses a thesaurus...and we get a sound bite proving she's retarded.

 

[DiveCon]

My question is will we ever have one?

given the current political climate, would one actually run?

Ron Paul runs every election cycle. Gary Johnson is running this coming cycle. Mike Gravel was decent, and I think Colin Powell would have been a good president. They run, America just doesn't vote for them.

Mike Gravel is a nut, Ron Paul comes across as a nut, Powell just doesnt want the job
so far, what i know of Gary Johnson i would support him

 

[USArmyRetired]

USArmy...at least you're consistent. That's about all I can say for you.

Blood libel is a very SPECIFIC term that means NOTHING like what she used it for. She's not accusing people of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood. So yet again, she acts like an idiot...one of her aides misuses a thesaurus...and we get a sound bite proving she's retarded.

CBS news thinks she came off as presidential-esque. A lot of prominant jews are supporting her comments.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Excellent response to the recent attacks.....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb0VW8vnMhQ[/ame]

 

[DaGoose]

Excellent response to the recent attacks.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb0VW8vnMhQ

Excellent response to Sarah Palin................

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tTDiZZYCAs[/ame]

 

[del]

USArmy...at least you're consistent. That's about all I can say for you.

Blood libel is a very SPECIFIC term that means NOTHING like what she used it for. She's not accusing people of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood. So yet again, she acts like an idiot...one of her aides misuses a thesaurus...and we get a sound bite proving she's retarded.

CBS news thinks she came off as presidential-esque. A lot of prominant jews are supporting her comments.

name one, hack.

 

[Ravi]

If you by presidential you mean spending one minute on the victims and then six minutes and forty three seconds wallowing in self pity and casting blame on others for her vitriol, then yeah, she looked extremely presidential.

 

[California Girl]

I agree that she came out of hiding to speak before the president spoke.

She wasn't 'hiding', she was letting the liberal media rant and rave for a few days, before she came out and poked them in the eye.

 

[teapartysamurai]

USArmy...at least you're consistent. That's about all I can say for you.

Blood libel is a very SPECIFIC term that means NOTHING like what she used it for. She's not accusing people of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood. So yet again, she acts like an idiot...one of her aides misuses a thesaurus...and we get a sound bite proving she's retarded.

CBS news thinks she came off as presidential-esque. A lot of prominant jews are supporting her comments.

name one, hack.

Hack this!

EXCLUSIVE: Alan Dershowitz defends Sarah Palin's use of the word "blood libel."

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
​

Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’ - Big Government

Now what you got to say?

 

[del]

CBS news thinks she came off as presidential-esque. A lot of prominant jews are supporting her comments.

name one, hack.

Hack this!

EXCLUSIVE: Alan Dershowitz defends Sarah Palin's use of the word "blood libel."

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
​

Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’ - Big Government

Now what you got to say?

good work covering retard's ass.



for bonus points, name another.

 

[Liability]

Jews have been slimed, historically, with a pretty specific claim that constitutes what has become known as "a blood libel" or even known as "the blood libel."

Thatsaid, Jews don't own the term. Making use of that label under appropriate circumstances has absolutely nothing whatsoever on Earth to do with anti-Semitism.

The absolutely bullshit claim that Gov. Palin had ANY responsibility for Loughner's actions is a blood libel. It falsely says that the blood of the innocents is somehow on Gov. Palin's hands.

Her reply was perfectly reasonable and said fairly.

That won't stop some on the left from piling on with additional layers of total bullshit, as we've just seen.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Jews have been slimed, historically, with a pretty specific claim that constitutes what has become known as "a blood libel" or even known as "the blood libel."

Thatsaid, Jews don't own the term. Making use of that label under appropriate circumstances has absolutely nothing whatsoever on Earth to do with anti-Semitism.

The absolutely bullshit claim that Gov. Palin had ANY responsibility for Loughner's actions is a blood libel. It falsely says that the blood of the innocents is somehow on Gov. Palin's hands.

Her reply was perfectly reasonable and said fairly.

That won't stop some on the left from piling on with additional layers of total bullshit, as we've just seen.

LIEability, you're really not very good at presenting an argument. I wonder, are you really a member of the bar, or do you spend your days in a bar with your lap top?

 

[rikules]

She showed true conviction, passion with a dash of American patriotism this morning in her response to the shootings over the weekend. We saw a glimpse of what is yet to come in a true leader that will take the reigns in 2012. Today was a turning point for her because she has shown that she can overcome violent political attacks from the left and the MSM. Her choice of words "Blood Libel" was brilliant and prominent jews are coming out defending her tonight. Today was the day that Palin made her first stand and it wont be the last. The more attacks on Palin, the more she will endure and overcome with villigence and strength. She has the left totally in her grasp.

I'm sure that in your deranged brain that is true

However, sane and rational people saw palin as a spiteful demigod who refused to take any responsibility for her words while blaming the liberals for EVERYTHING and inciting even MORE HATED

 

[teapartysamurai]

name one, hack.

Hack this!

EXCLUSIVE: Alan Dershowitz defends Sarah Palin's use of the word "blood libel."

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
​

Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’ - Big Government

Now what you got to say?

good work covering retard's ass.



for bonus points, name another.

YOU tell us to name ONE!

I do so AND WHO IS THE RETARD???????

All you can do in response is sputter that it's just "cover."

I think we see who's trying to cover his ass!

You stuck your neck out in your usual hubris that you know what you are talking about, and once again it's proved you don't.

And what do you do? As usual with any liberal, er I mean moderate, er I mean centrist, er I mean yadda yadda yadda . . . you just sputter than you are right anyway!

Nice try, but ArmyRetired is right about the term blood libel. YOU are the hack for trying to make it otherwise.

What are you going to do next?

Say, I need to name two Jews, and then three, and then four?????????

 

[del]

Hack this!



Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’ - Big Government

Now what you got to say?

good work covering retard's ass.



for bonus points, name another.

YOU tell us to name ONE!

I do so AND WHO IS THE RETARD???????

All you can do in response is sputter that it's just "cover."

I think we see who's trying to cover his ass!

You stuck your neck out in your usual hubris that you know what you are talking about, and once again it's proved you don't.

And what do you do? As usual with any liberal, er I mean moderate, er I mean centrist, er I mean yadda yadda yadda . . . you just sputter than you are right anyway!

Nice try, but ArmyRetired is right about the term blood libel. YOU are the hack for trying to make it otherwise.

whatever, honeybuns. your opinion is extremely important to me,

really.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Jews have been slimed, historically, with a pretty specific claim that constitutes what has become known as "a blood libel" or even known as "the blood libel."

Thatsaid, Jews don't own the term. Making use of that label under appropriate circumstances has absolutely nothing whatsoever on Earth to do with anti-Semitism.

The absolutely bullshit claim that Gov. Palin had ANY responsibility for Loughner's actions is a blood libel. It falsely says that the blood of the innocents is somehow on Gov. Palin's hands.

Her reply was perfectly reasonable and said fairly.

That won't stop some on the left from piling on with additional layers of total bullshit, as we've just seen.

LIEability, you're really not very good at presenting an argument. I wonder, are you really a member of the bar, or do you spend your days in a bar with your lap top?

Oh really?

Hey Del! I have another!!!!!!!!

The original “blood libel” is the false accusation (originating in medieval Europe, still repeated in the Arab world) that Jews murder non-Jewish children for ritual purposes, a claim used throughout history to incite hatred and sometimes violence against Jewish communities.
Some conservatives–including Reynolds, Gov. Palin, Breitbart, and others–are suggesting that today’s media climate, in which millions of people are being falsely accused of complicity in the Tucson murders simply because of their belief in limited government, has analogous features. (Charles Krauthammer used the term “libel” today in the Washington Post, without the additional word “blood,” and it is possible that he intended to imply similar metaphor, albeit less directly.)
Of course, the Jews of medieval Europe who were the victims of the blood libel did not have the political freedom that Americans enjoy today, and which we conservatives are using to defend ourselves. That is such an obvious difference that no one felt it necessary to make the point when using the analogy–which, like any analogy, is inexact and open to debate.

There is also nothing unusual about using a term with a specific historical origin and applying it to other cases. We use the term “lynching” to describe the unfair targeting of a particular individual, even though lynching emerged from a very painful context of racial prejudice against blacks the American South. Few argue that the term “lynching” is off limits for that reason.

The test of any analogy is not just whether it is appropriate, but also whether it is accurate. Anti-Israel activists have spent the past decade campaigning on false analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa, without regard to the facts of life and law in either. (Often, like Jimmy Carter, they invoke the Israel-apartheid analogy even as they admit it is not true–their purpose is simply to demonize Israel and isolate it as part of a calculated political strategy).

As Jim Geraghty has pointed out, American commentators on both the left and the right have long used the term “blood libel” as an analogy–often with far less justification. In addition, Jews and Israelis commonly use the term in discussing unfair accusations in the context of debates about the Middle East and other issues.

So there is nothing offensive per se about using the term “blood libel,” in an analogy, as long as it is appropriate and bears some reasonable relation to the facts, which I believe it does in this case.
Some of Gov. Palin’s critics go even further in their attacks, speculating–without proof–that she does not understand what the term “blood libel” means: “[O]ne wonders if Sarah Palin is familiar with its actual definition and history,” one wrote.

And so we have moved from “blood libel” to political lynching, in which Sarah Palin is presumed guilty no matter what she says or does, and must be punished.

Worst of all, the attacks on Gov. Palin obscure the terrible event itself, and the continuing struggles of the bereaved and wounded in Arizona. We ought to remember the words of George Orwell, who wrote, in “Looking Back on the Spanish War”:

From Blood Libel to Lynching - Big Government

You done making fools of yourselves liberals (once again) or are you thirsty for more?

You California Coward. You would lecture me to calm down.

But YOU won't get off your ass to find the evidence I will.

 

[teapartysamurai]

good work covering retard's ass.



for bonus points, name another.

YOU tell us to name ONE!

I do so AND WHO IS THE RETARD???????

All you can do in response is sputter that it's just "cover."

I think we see who's trying to cover his ass!

You stuck your neck out in your usual hubris that you know what you are talking about, and once again it's proved you don't.

And what do you do? As usual with any liberal, er I mean moderate, er I mean centrist, er I mean yadda yadda yadda . . . you just sputter than you are right anyway!

Nice try, but ArmyRetired is right about the term blood libel. YOU are the hack for trying to make it otherwise.

whatever, honeybuns. your opinion is extremely important to me,

really.

Which is another way of admitting you lost, but you are going to claim victory anyway.

Yeah, you are the first ever do that.

Guess, I'll have to embarrass you more!

The hits keep coming, oh ignorant one.

 

[del]

Jews have been slimed, historically, with a pretty specific claim that constitutes what has become known as "a blood libel" or even known as "the blood libel."

Thatsaid, Jews don't own the term. Making use of that label under appropriate circumstances has absolutely nothing whatsoever on Earth to do with anti-Semitism.

The absolutely bullshit claim that Gov. Palin had ANY responsibility for Loughner's actions is a blood libel. It falsely says that the blood of the innocents is somehow on Gov. Palin's hands.

Her reply was perfectly reasonable and said fairly.

That won't stop some on the left from piling on with additional layers of total bullshit, as we've just seen.

LIEability, you're really not very good at presenting an argument. I wonder, are you really a member of the bar, or do you spend your days in a bar with your lap top?

Oh really?

Hey Del! I have another!!!!!!!!

The original “blood libel” is the false accusation (originating in medieval Europe, still repeated in the Arab world) that Jews murder non-Jewish children for ritual purposes, a claim used throughout history to incite hatred and sometimes violence against Jewish communities.
Some conservatives–including Reynolds, Gov. Palin, Breitbart, and others–are suggesting that today’s media climate, in which millions of people are being falsely accused of complicity in the Tucson murders simply because of their belief in limited government, has analogous features. (Charles Krauthammer used the term “libel” today in the Washington Post, without the additional word “blood,” and it is possible that he intended to imply similar metaphor, albeit less directly.)
Of course, the Jews of medieval Europe who were the victims of the blood libel did not have the political freedom that Americans enjoy today, and which we conservatives are using to defend ourselves. That is such an obvious difference that no one felt it necessary to make the point when using the analogy–which, like any analogy, is inexact and open to debate.

There is also nothing unusual about using a term with a specific historical origin and applying it to other cases. We use the term “lynching” to describe the unfair targeting of a particular individual, even though lynching emerged from a very painful context of racial prejudice against blacks the American South. Few argue that the term “lynching” is off limits for that reason.

The test of any analogy is not just whether it is appropriate, but also whether it is accurate. Anti-Israel activists have spent the past decade campaigning on false analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa, without regard to the facts of life and law in either. (Often, like Jimmy Carter, they invoke the Israel-apartheid analogy even as they admit it is not true–their purpose is simply to demonize Israel and isolate it as part of a calculated political strategy).

As Jim Geraghty has pointed out, American commentators on both the left and the right have long used the term “blood libel” as an analogy–often with far less justification. In addition, Jews and Israelis commonly use the term in discussing unfair accusations in the context of debates about the Middle East and other issues.

So there is nothing offensive per se about using the term “blood libel,” in an analogy, as long as it is appropriate and bears some reasonable relation to the facts, which I believe it does in this case.
Some of Gov. Palin’s critics go even further in their attacks, speculating–without proof–that she does not understand what the term “blood libel” means: “[O]ne wonders if Sarah Palin is familiar with its actual definition and history,” one wrote.

And so we have moved from “blood libel” to political lynching, in which Sarah Palin is presumed guilty no matter what she says or does, and must be punished.

Worst of all, the attacks on Gov. Palin obscure the terrible event itself, and the continuing struggles of the bereaved and wounded in Arizona. We ought to remember the words of George Orwell, who wrote, in “Looking Back on the Spanish War”:

From Blood Libel to Lynching - Big Government

You done making fools of yourselves liberals (once again) or are you thirsty for more?

You California Coward. You would lecture me to calm down.

But YOU won't get off your ass to find the evidence I will.

you must lead a very full life.

 

[rikules]

Jews have been slimed, historically, with a pretty specific claim that constitutes what has become known as "a blood libel" or even known as "the blood libel."

Thatsaid, Jews don't own the term. Making use of that label under appropriate circumstances has absolutely nothing whatsoever on Earth to do with anti-Semitism.

The absolutely bullshit claim that Gov. Palin had ANY responsibility for Loughner's actions is a blood libel. It falsely says that the blood of the innocents is somehow on Gov. Palin's hands.

Her reply was perfectly reasonable and said fairly.

That won't stop some on the left from piling on with additional layers of total bullshit, as we've just seen.

nor has it stopped the right (and palin and limbaugh and YOU) from piling on the BS...as we all see....

 

[teapartysamurai]

LIEability, you're really not very good at presenting an argument. I wonder, are you really a member of the bar, or do you spend your days in a bar with your lap top?

Oh really?

Hey Del! I have another!!!!!!!!

The original “blood libel” is the false accusation (originating in medieval Europe, still repeated in the Arab world) that Jews murder non-Jewish children for ritual purposes, a claim used throughout history to incite hatred and sometimes violence against Jewish communities.
Some conservatives–including Reynolds, Gov. Palin, Breitbart, and others–are suggesting that today’s media climate, in which millions of people are being falsely accused of complicity in the Tucson murders simply because of their belief in limited government, has analogous features. (Charles Krauthammer used the term “libel” today in the Washington Post, without the additional word “blood,” and it is possible that he intended to imply similar metaphor, albeit less directly.)
Of course, the Jews of medieval Europe who were the victims of the blood libel did not have the political freedom that Americans enjoy today, and which we conservatives are using to defend ourselves. That is such an obvious difference that no one felt it necessary to make the point when using the analogy–which, like any analogy, is inexact and open to debate.

There is also nothing unusual about using a term with a specific historical origin and applying it to other cases. We use the term “lynching” to describe the unfair targeting of a particular individual, even though lynching emerged from a very painful context of racial prejudice against blacks the American South. Few argue that the term “lynching” is off limits for that reason.

The test of any analogy is not just whether it is appropriate, but also whether it is accurate. Anti-Israel activists have spent the past decade campaigning on false analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa, without regard to the facts of life and law in either. (Often, like Jimmy Carter, they invoke the Israel-apartheid analogy even as they admit it is not true–their purpose is simply to demonize Israel and isolate it as part of a calculated political strategy).

As Jim Geraghty has pointed out, American commentators on both the left and the right have long used the term “blood libel” as an analogy–often with far less justification. In addition, Jews and Israelis commonly use the term in discussing unfair accusations in the context of debates about the Middle East and other issues.

So there is nothing offensive per se about using the term “blood libel,” in an analogy, as long as it is appropriate and bears some reasonable relation to the facts, which I believe it does in this case.
Some of Gov. Palin’s critics go even further in their attacks, speculating–without proof–that she does not understand what the term “blood libel” means: “[O]ne wonders if Sarah Palin is familiar with its actual definition and history,” one wrote.

And so we have moved from “blood libel” to political lynching, in which Sarah Palin is presumed guilty no matter what she says or does, and must be punished.

Worst of all, the attacks on Gov. Palin obscure the terrible event itself, and the continuing struggles of the bereaved and wounded in Arizona. We ought to remember the words of George Orwell, who wrote, in “Looking Back on the Spanish War”:

From Blood Libel to Lynching - Big Government

You done making fools of yourselves liberals (once again) or are you thirsty for more?

You California Coward. You would lecture me to calm down.

But YOU won't get off your ass to find the evidence I will.

you must lead a very full life.

Get this! He asked for the evidence and now he's whining that I provided it.

Who has an empty life?