Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Dem Congresswoman Shot

  • PaulUMD said... (original post)

    I can understand why Jews might be upset by the "blood libel" thing, though it didn't really bother me. I just thought she missed an opportunity to cleanse her image and look more "presidential" (assuming she's still getting in the race) by talking about how she was not intending her map/statements as anything but metaphor, and that it was wrong to accuse her of doing so for other purposes. Yet, maybe it was a time to reconsider the type of speech we use in politics, that we're still on the same team even if we disagree of everything.

    Instead, she kinda went full retard. As usual, the Beck crowd and the base probably loves that, but I wonder if it's the nail in the coffin with Pub-leaning Indys when the time for primaries comes around.

    I think it's more likely her speech writer should be fired. No way she wrote that speech or probably even knew the original meaning of that term. It's been used in quite a few articles the past few days so the speech writer probably saw that and grabbed it as a buzz word...ooopppsss.

    But I do agree with her that many are falsely accusing her of a cause/effect relationship with the shooting.

    As far as looking "presidential", the next time she does that will be the first time.

  • PaulUMD said... (original post)

    Instead, she kinda went full retard. As usual, the Beck crowd and the base probably loves that, but I wonder if it's the nail in the coffin with Pub-leaning Indys when the time for primaries comes around.

    I doubt anyone cares about what she is saying. When 2012 comes around pubs are going to go after the dems and their spending habits, not that they don't do the same thing. One year from now no one will remember this. If anything it will be how everyone jumped to the conclusion about what caused this atrocity.

  • ColbertRepor said... (original post)

    ummm, i have known about what this means since i was 9 or 10 years old. i just copy/pasted the definition from wikipeidia after your remark.

    i posted what i said seconds after i watched the video online. Now it seems I am not the only one (including republicans) who think she was way out of line for using this.

    Uses of blood libel in the recent past.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think

    Alan Dershowitz (can't believe I am quoting him, LOL)

    "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."

  • SATerp

    dsnider2 said... (original post)

    Right, and she is the first and only one to use it in a different context, correct? That's what I'm talking about reaching for straws. You can find many quotes by people who have used it recently with a much different connotation. In todays vocabulary it's synonomous with being falsely accused. Get a grip.

    I consider myself fairly educated, not a genious by any stretch, and would not have known that it related directly to what you just posted. Good thing you have Wikipedia, huh ?

    Jonah Goldberg, a conservative JOO, said on Fox that Dems are at the point of picking on her use of semi-colons if need be, to trash her.

    Speaking for myself, I don't know why they're so afraid of her. They ought to be saying nice things about her, because if she ran for POTUS, she'd lose. But Dems are rarely rational or logical. shrug

  • Can all you macacas shut up about Palin and her use of blood libel?

  • PaulUMD

    terps99 (D-Punjab)

  • SATerp

    Gross indecency from Jonathan Alter of Newsweek:
    .
    .
    "Sad to say, if Giffords had died, she would have been mourned and soon the conversation would have moved on. But Giffords lives, thank God, which offers other possibilities. We won't know for weeks or months whether she can function in public. If she can, she will prove a powerful referee of the boundaries of public discourse--more influential, perhaps, than the president himself."
    .
    .
    Of course, to a Democrat and liberal fanatic her highest purpose would be to live and serve the Democrat cause. Otherwise, well, she's not so useful.

    And this paragraph from Mr. Alter:
    .
    .
    "Conservatives like to argue that these are isolated incidents carried out by lunatics and therefore carry no big lessons (unless the perpetrator is Muslim, in which case it's terrorism); liberals view them as opportunities to address various social ills. Obama is in the latter category and should act accordingly. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman."
    .
    .
    What kind of pathology infects liberal media leaders like Alter and Krugman?? Even a brass knuckled politico like Emmanuel blanched at the use of his phrase in this context.

  • dixonownsyou

    Wait, wait, wait...so do Jews eat Christian babies, or not?

    "And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings... There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."

  • SATerp said... (original post)

    ...
    And this paragraph from Mr. Alter: . . "Conservatives like to argue that these are isolated incidents carried out by lunatics and therefore carry no big lessons (unless the perpetrator is Muslim, in which case it's terrorism)

    ... What kind of pathology infects liberal media leaders like Alter and Krugman??

    Recent history doesn't exactly make that statement sound pathological...

  • ColbertRepor said... (original post)

    not sure if discussed....but well done Sarah Palin today using the term blood libel when discussing this.....if not bad enough Giffords was Jewish. Anti-Semitic or just a dumbass...u decide!

    blahblah

    LOL @ you. What an idiot!!!

  • An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.

    Friends say Palin, a possible 2012 contender, was galled as suggestions of her role in the tragedy have swirled."

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

    I think if something were to happen to Palin because of the shooting tragedy, those responsible for starting the BS Palin map thing as motivation for it will have blood on their hands.

    That said, there's a big difference between death threats and actually carrying a threat out...I don't think anything will happen to her.

    Death Threats Against Sarah Palin at 'Unprece

    Sarah Palin's intentions may have been to shift the blame away from herself with her fiery criticism of the media, accusing reporters and pundits of manufacturing a Instead, it's put her on the hot seat again for being insensitive to Jews.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blood-libel-sarah-palins-controversial-reference-riled-emotions/story?id=12601352
  • frode said... (original post)

    I think if something were to happen to Palin because of the shooting tragedy, those responsible for starting the BS Palin map thing as motivation for it will have blood on their hands.

    WTF??

    So people who may have suggested that Palin has blood on her hands because her map with Giffords' name on a target list may have made Giffords a target are retarded for suggesting that, but if the suggestion by those people that Palin's map with Giffords' name on a target list made Giffords a target actually makes Palin a target, then those people will have blood on their hands??

  • frode said... (original post)

    An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.

    Friends say Palin, a possible 2012 contender, was galled as suggestions of her role in the tragedy have swirled."

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

    I think if something were to happen to Palin because of the shooting tragedy, those responsible for starting the BS Palin map thing as motivation for it will have blood on their hands.

    That said, there's a big difference between death threats and actually carrying a threat out...I don't think anything will happen to her.

    I'm a bit confused by Palin's response in which she quoted Reagan and suggested that it's only the criminal who's at fault and not, in any way, the fault of society the criminal exists in. So why would she then be worried about the words of pundits and "the media" attacking her, if those kind of conditions created by an increasingly polarized view of politics aren't a concern to begin with?

    I'm not suggesting Palin and her ilk were at fault for the shooting, but I am suggesting she's trying to forward an argument that makes no sense. Then again, not making sense seems to be par for the course.

    I'm not exactly sure why both parties are trying to associate Loughner with one another, because the issue is much greater than one party. The issue is the political system in the U.S. could be at a turning point where we might have to learn to expect more violence towards our elected leaders. In that scenario, we all lose.

  • 3minute rule

    Wow, where was this level of mourning when Ft. Hood took place? Seems like cheap political rhetoric. Plus, it's F'n up watching the game.

    This post was edited by 3minute rule 3 years ago

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    WTF??

    So people who may have suggested that Palin has blood on her hands because her map with Giffords' name on a target list may have made Giffords a target are retarded for suggesting that, but if the suggestion by those people that Palin's map with Giffords' name on a target list made Giffords a target actually makes Palin a target, then those people will have blood on their hands??

    You honestly can't see the difference between the two? The people who are making these threats to Palin are doing it because they are under the impression she is somehow responsible for the shooting. It's a blatant lie that the shooting had anything to do with Palin's map; that lie was put out there specifically to smear her. If people take an active smear as justification for making death threats (and then carrying them out), I'd say that's a wee bit different than an insane loner who targeted the Congresswoman out of some delusional hatred he had specifically for her.

    This is the proverbial 'shouting FIRE in a crowded theater' scenario. The lie about the electoral map being a reason this guy targeted the Congresswoman would be the "FIRE" here.

  • SATerp

    terps99 said... (original post)

    Recent history doesn't exactly make that statement sound pathological...

    Way to miss the point of that paragraph, by focusing on minutiae.

  • shellsupporter said... (original post)

    I'm a bit confused by Palin's response in which she quoted Reagan and suggested that it's only the criminal who's at fault and not, in any way, the fault of society the criminal exists in. So why would she then be worried about the words of pundits and "the media" attacking her, if those kind of conditions created by an increasingly polarized view of politics aren't a concern to begin with?

    I'm not suggesting Palin and her ilk were at fault for the shooting, but I am suggesting she's trying to forward an argument that makes no sense. Then again, not making sense seems to be par for the course.

    I'm not exactly sure why both parties are trying to associate Loughner with one another, because the issue is much greater than one party. The issue is the political system in the U.S. could be at a turning point where we might have to learn to expect more violence towards our elected leaders. In that scenario, we all lose.

    I'm not saying your wrong, but wondering what evidence you have to support your last paragraph. It's well documented now that the Tucson shooter was an apolitical, nut that was not driven to action by any political rhetoric. If you go back through history, Giffords is far from the first political figure that has been shot at in this Country (e.g., Lincoln, both Kennedys, Wallace, Reagan, Ford). I don't see much difference in the level of the political rhetoric now from what it was in Bush's last term, the only difference is instead of the Left voicing its displeasure with Bush's policies you now have the Right voicing its displeasure with Obama's policies. The beauty of this country is being able to voice one's displeasure with the Gov't. IMO, it's dangerous to our country for either party to play partisan politics with that right .

    This post was edited by Bradleyfan 3 years ago

  • SATerp said... (original post)

    Way to miss the point of that paragraph, by focusing on minutiae.

    I didn't miss the point ... and it's not minutiae just because you say so. Stereotyping and making sweeping conclusions is generally a stupid idea, especially when conclusions are made about particular sub-groups based on the actions of a few crazy people. And that's true whether you're talking about muslims, tea-partiers, blacks, or liberals. The only exception to this rule is statements about NC State fans.

  • SATerp

    terps99 said... (original post)

    I didn't miss the point ... and it's not minutiae just because you say so. Stereotyping and making sweeping conclusions is generally a stupid idea, especially when conclusions are made about particular sub-groups based on the actions of a few crazy people. And that's true whether you're talking about muslims, tea-partiers, blacks, or liberals. The only exception to this rule is statements about NC State fans.

    The "sweeping statement" was made by Alter, mocking conservatives. Complain to him, there's plenty enough other stuff for me to dislike about him.

  • shellsupporter said... (original post)

    I'm a bit confused by Palin's response in which she quoted Reagan and suggested that it's only the criminal who's at fault and not, in any way, the fault of society the criminal exists in. So why would she then be worried about the words of pundits and "the media" attacking her, if those kind of conditions created by an increasingly polarized view of politics aren't a concern to begin with?

    I'm not suggesting Palin and her ilk were at fault for the shooting, but I am suggesting she's trying to forward an argument that makes no sense. Then again, not making sense seems to be par for the course.

    I'm not exactly sure why both parties are trying to associate Loughner with one another, because the issue is much greater than one party. The issue is the political system in the U.S. could be at a turning point where we might have to learn to expect more violence towards our elected leaders. In that scenario, we all lose.

    Let's put the political aspect on why she may have responded to this aside, she is being assaulted with accusations that her actions were complicit, if not causal, for a mass murder. How would you respond? I thought she was rather civil and restrained, because if I were in her shoes I would have blown a gasket telling some of these people how F'd up in the head they are.

    Those accusations being levied at her are politically motivated, the left has been out to destroy her since the day she was announced as a vice-presidential candidate. There is no one I can think of that has received more hateful, vitriolic speech directed at them then her. And not just politically, but on a personal nature. Her family has been disparaged as well, in a disrespectful and outrageous nature like no other politician I have seen.

    I wouldn't vote for her because I don't feel she has the qualifications to be President of the United States. But the left should feel disgraced and ashamed, and to try to cast stones about vitriolic speech, that is hillarious and borders on indecency.

    Just my .02 cents...............

  • SATerp

    There will be a special attendee at Christina Green's funeral tomorrow...

    I Just Lost It (Wizbang)

    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/01/12/i-just-lost-it.php

    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/01/12/i-just-lost-it.php
  • dsnider2 said... (original post)

    Let's put the political aspect on why she may have responded to this aside, she is being assaulted with accusations that her actions were complicit, if not causal, for a mass murder. How would you respond? I thought she was rather civil and restrained, because if I were in her shoes I would have blown a gasket telling some of these people how F'd up in the head they are.

    Those accusations being levied at her are politically motivated, the left has been out to destroy her since the day she was announced as a vice-presidential candidate. There is no one I can think of that has received more hateful, vitriolic speech directed at them then her. And not just politically, but on a personal nature. Her family has been disparaged as well, in a disrespectful and outrageous nature like no other politician I have seen.

    I wouldn't vote for her because I don't feel she has the qualifications to be President of the United States. But the left should feel disgraced and ashamed, and to try to cast stones about vitriolic speech, that is hillarious and borders on indecency.

    Just my .02 cents...............

    I can see what you're saying, but that's not what I was commenting on, and that was my fault I think as I should have been clearer. Palin was talking about the nature of criminality in her response today that got people riled up (aside from the blood libel gaff). So, I agree with you that by all means, you can and should respond if you believe you were being unfairly treated. I don't fault her for that.

    My point in regards to her response was to forward an argument that makes sense or that's intellectually honest.

    She's trying to have it both ways in her response. By suggesting on one hand that people act alone and become criminals in a vacuum completely free of influence from the world around them. Yet on the other hand it's the pundits and media's fault, through polarized and sensationalized coverage, that has created an atmosphere where's she's come under verbal attack and her safety would be threatened. I looked at her response again, and she said this: "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

    So, her intellectual stance on the causes of criminality is as follows :

    Criminals aren't pushed towards criminal behavior by the environment they experience every day, their actions are their own.
    Criminals are pushed towards criminal behavior by the environment they experience every day, their actions are due in part to this environment.

  • SATerp

    Watching that guy who's credited with saving Congresswoman Gifford's life, the student intern from UA addressing the memorial service, I felt like they were being addressed by a damn shark. That guy must have about 25 teeth in his lower front alone.

    And BTW, President Obama did a great job in his comments at the service. I'd like to see a lot more of THAT.

    This post was edited by SATerp 3 years ago

  • SATerp said... (original post)

    Watching that guy who's credited with saving Congresswoman Gifford's life, the student intern from UA addressing the memorial service, I felt like they were being addressed by a damn shark. That guy must have about 25 teeth in his lower front alone.

    And BTW, President Obama did a great job in his comments at the service. I'd like to see a lot more of THAT.

    He was certainly uncomfortable with the attention, but it was nice to see him recognized.

    Obama was very good last night.

    Hopefully, that translates into something going forward for both parties (but I really doubt it).

  • BeadsBees

    Stupid libruls/pubbots pushing their religious/fiscal/moral beliefs

    rabble rabble rabble