Law enforcement is used to deal with evil after it happens usually. Seems like there should be things a civilized society could to do stop more "evil."

As for the last two parts of your comment-

If you agree with the Iraq war... do you agree with the way we borrowed money to pay for it?

Are you saying that you disagree with things like calling parts of the health care law "death panels?"

You made that assumption. The context of most of our discussions involving the concept of conviction is politics. Conviction in the political arena is rare in my opinion. Making the connections with other threads, most seem to agree with the proposition that the best politicians are the ones that are most willing to compromise. I have gone around and around on this issue with DC and he geneally believes my view on this is impractical, extreme and out of touch with pragmatism. I don't recall anyone supporting my point of view, or one that would indicate that having conviction in the area of politics is like a dime a dozen.

It is clear to me that I don't understand your point of view and you don't understand mine. I don't know what to add until you give some specifics. I do think it is a point worth discussing. As you might say - I don't accept the premise - with that as a given we are at a dead-end or you would consider any response as unresponsive.


I already agreed that she purposefully choose the term. her intent was to be provocative, her intent was to insult, her intent was to attack, her intent was to stir emotion. with all that as a given, I still support her, and I believe it was the proper context. I might not have used the term and it very may well prove to be an error, but I doubt it.

I agree.

She is "scrappy", she likes a good fight. Again, I agree. I even tried to explain the personality type, which I share with her. If there was no "fight", she would get bored, and go away. For example with me - I get love, friendship, kindness, civility, hugs and kisses at home. To satisfy my needs for "combat" I have other out-lets including TFP. If Palin wasn't fighting liberals, she'd be out hunting caribou or something.

Again, I agree. And my question was, given the above - what do liberals want to do? Do they (you) want to be doing the same thing next month? do you want to risk Palin stumbling on a fight that can carry her into the WH? Now she has a small hard-core support group, that has been made as solid as granit, she can not go lower in popularity, the next moves are up.

She's has about a 35-40% approval in the polls, I'd be careful in saying she couldn't get lower.

I'm like that movie, Inception (best movie of 2010, you gotta see it if you haven't) - and remember the line where the girl says: "Now, whose dream are we in...? I loved it, but I digress...oops, sorry...did it again.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I heard 20% somewhere, may have been MSNBC.

Saw it, it was utter shit, so if you're like the movie.... are you channelling Brittney Spears now? 'Opps I did it again....' Shall we expect a picture of ace in a schoolgirl uniform to be posted soon?

You sure do think you're a complicated person, but in reality, you're quite simple, you duck and dodge, change subjects, anything to actually avoid debate or the topic at hand, anyone can see that based on your posts here, anytime you get stuck, you just go off with some more aceisms and try to get the topic off track, not complicated to see that at all.

I will give you one thing though, you are like Palin in one way, neither of you know when to zip the lip.

Perhaps the part that is missing is that it is a choice between rational and democratic use of resources to best meet the health care needs of the people vs the rich buying the best healthcare and the poor making do with what they can get.

But this is also a digression.

Gallup has her at 38%. Do you have a source from MSNBC. Actually it doesn't matter I wouldn't trust them any more then I would FOX.

I read somewhere that socialism has an approval rating somewhere near 40% in the United States. So that's kinda interesting.

Getting back to the blood libel issue, I can't imagine, in conversation, using the term to refer to anything other than its dictionary definition.

This may be related to the fact that you are the sort of person who CAN find your ass with both hands and a mirror...

I'd never heard the term Blood Libel before this... Even if I had known what it meant, I would never have used it because I don't think the vast majority of people to whom I'd be speak would know what it was. I believe strongly that when making a speech, one should speak simply.

I have a feeling (just a feeling) that Ms. Palin was speaking someone else's words and was using a term that she didn't understand.

On the whole, I think Ms. Pailn is attempting to punch above her weight. American's love an underdog. They also love "the common man". I think many see Ms. Pailn as a latter day Mr. Smith, and she's ready to talk some plain sense to Washington. I would buy into that if I didn't get the feeling that everything she does is a calculated opportunity to increase her bank account (the fancy clothes during the campaign, leaving her governor seat so she could strike while the iron was hot and hit the speaking circuit).

I might be wrong on all of this, but from where I am sitting, the optics on Ms. Palin are not good.

Every morning! :thumbsup:

I think this may be the only time (that I can recall) I have agreed with your post 100%

And all you ever do is attack people for what they write. Never once have I seen you debate anyone without personal attacks.

Pan comes back after his 'perfect leaving post' (they always come back when they make a big show about leaving don't they?) to pick up right where he left off, complaining about apparent 'personal attacks'. Hear that pan, the world's smallest violin is playing the world's saddest song just for you. As I've stated before, don't like what I post, report it, don't want to report it, oh well, that's your problem. Remember before you 'left' because no one 'got it' but you apparently did, you said I was on ignore, try that again, but if you did that, you wouldn't get the attention you so desperately crave.

I agree with the kicking in all aspects. It has been proven here time and again, myself included. I will never be the first "kicker" but I will not be the last to be kicked either.... (I think it's an ego thing.) Even wild animals when they fight, hey usually fight to the death and the loser will usually be the one fighting the hardest at the end. It's nature, it's how those of us who accept and see we are just intelligent mammals with opposing thumbs, but we still have our forebearers instincts of survival, aggression and so on within all of us. some can control it more easily than others.

I disagree here. I think Palin is an attention whore out to profit in anyway she can on her name. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The GOP are trying to build this woman up and come 2012 whe will eithr implode on herwelf or destroy the GOP chances of winning the presidency in 2012.

---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

Then let's debate without any name calling or hostility. You can even pick the topic. I made this offer before with you and yet, you came back telling me how I was seeking attention and blah blah blah... so prove me wrong, take the challenge. we'll get an unbiased ref who can judge the tones we use towards each other.

Pan, I'm not going to get into this childish thing with you, you've never made the offer before, that I can remember anyways, but I may be mistaken, maybe you can direct me to this apparent offer. You don't like what I say or the way I say it, ignore me, I really could care less what you think of me, or what you think of the 'tone' I use here.

Considering the number of mods who posted in this thread or other threads you've complained about the apparent 'personal attacks' I've made and not one of them has PM'd me, warned me, or complained about the information or the 'tone' of my posts, all this seems like is another one of your look at me moments. You say you aren't seeking attention, but, well, to me that's all it looks like to be perfectly honest, and that isn't hostility, or name calling, that's my opinion of the way your posts look.

I don't need to be bothered with an 'unbiased ref' judging the 'tone' of my posts, the unbiased refs to me are the mods of this forum, and as long as they don't see fit to warn me for this apparent 'name calling' you seem to see which obviously isn't there, and 'hostility' which isn't there, I don't get hostile here, I can't be bothered to get worked up over words of people I've never met, I'm not the one who feels compelled to go on rants about basketball players, calling their mothers whores, simply because they decided to sign with another team, and make posts in obscenely large fonts, so please, don't come and talk to me about apparent hostility, until you've looked at yourself in the mirror.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- This entire conversation needs to get back on topic and off the personal attacks and hostile posts. Jay, the simple fact no moderator has yet to post anything does not mean your comment was alright or even allowed. In the future stick to the topic at hand and refain from hostile negitive comments directed at other posters. Understand?

Salon's Justin Elliot wrote this article last week about the historical context of the term.

Blood libel: A historical view - War Room - Salon.com

Go running to my ex and tell her what I'm posting like you always have... and yeah... like I said you can dish out but can't take it or even try to accept a legit challenge. You're right you KNOW NOTHING about me other than what the ex may have told you. Wonder how did I know you 2 were or are talking...hmmmm.... lol

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Hey Pan, What part of "This entire conversation needs to get back on topic and off the personal attacks and hostile posts" are you not understanding? That moderation comment applies to everyone. Keep your posts on topic. Last warning folks.

I think one question that has yet to be addressed would be what Sarah Palin might have intended with the usage of such a term. If she did use it intentionally, it was probably a ploy to gain attention, but it may also have been an attempt to quiet her dissenters with an accusation of significant weight.

Recently, there have been a lot of critical voices over the behavior of the Israeli government, and one of the responses by officials and supporters of the government has been to call the dissenters anti-Semetic. This is clearly, imho, an incorrect use of the term, but it's intention is to falsely accuse someone of something generally considered horrific in order to bully them into silence. Could there be a similar motive behind the use of blood libel? I still think Palin herself was ignorant of the term, but it's possible (probable?) that whoever wrote the speech is a seasoned political mind.

Motherfuckers are totally anti-semitic against Sarah Palin.

My own view - on the original point.

I think that Palin's speech writers new that it would cause, if not real hurt, at least consternation and offence. I think that they see it as playing well to their "core market" to draw criticism from the kind of people that would have been offended.

Even if you like her, it is hard to deny she is a polarising force in politics. I really dont understand personally how she has a following. Bush jr, for all his flaws, had a basic affability about him.

_

On the point of "toxic terms" though, surely there are some. The word "nigger" for example... all sorts of questionable and racist views exist on the fringes of the mainstream, but the word itself is utterly toxic.

I think there was another thread when this was being discussed.

Terms like "Paki", "Bengy", "Yid" etc are broadly no different to "nigger" in terms of being derogatory in most senses - but none of them carry the same stigma, either in the UK or US.

_

As I believe a commentator brought up recently, all of these people who call Obama "A Kenyan" - it is pretty obvious what they mean. If they called him "nigger" they would be politically finished, if they call him "Kenyan" they are not - but they are saying exactly the same thing when they say it.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Post edited. Please read the moderator notes in this thread. Hint: it's the bright orange type, often with a bright border.

As far as the topic at hand, I don't think any of you knew what "blood libel" was before this. She was the one defending herself from your ridiculous accusations, it's amazing you have to be reminded of that. This is just a smoke screen. You're not offended, you know what she meant, and you know why she said it. You found two words in her defense of herself, which was well deserved, that you can fit into your political motivations and accuse someone of something their not. She was wronged, not you, not liberals. Get over it.

Yep. Sarah Palin is the real victim in all of this. And her defenders are definitely doing so with a complete lack of political motivation.

really strange stuff. that you can blame somebody for death of 9 people because they used a crosshair on a map as a political metaphor, which has been done as long as politics has been around and to call that retard accusation out for what it is, I have some political motivation?

I really don't believe you can't see how ridiculous you are. I think you're smarter than that. For the life of me why your sticking by what started this tooth and nail....seriously, don't you feel simple....desperate, like your ideology really has gotten the best of you? You should.

Maybe the reason you're so confused is that you've just assumed that I'm blaming Palin for the shooting in Tucson when I'm not.

....waiting for you to defend her.....that will help my confusion.

I think that avoiding making lazy assumptions would aid the clearing up of your confusion more than anything I could do.

I can assure you that I knew what "Blood libel" meant before Sarah Palin said it, and I would imagine many other people did too.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- This thread is locked while the staff decides what to do about the multiple infractions contained within.