"Blood libel"
 

As you may know, in the aftermarth of the murders out in Arizona, and the criticism of Sarah Palin's marketing campaign with gun sights over targeted senators, Sarah Palin made a statement in which she seems to accuse those people criticising her of blood libel.

I dont really want to have start a debate about Palin as a person, but rather the use of the term, and whether some terms are inherently toxic and cannot be used justifiably ever.

Shortly, for anyone not familiar with the term, "blood libel" specifically refers to claims that Jews use the blood of murdered children in religious ceremonoes. Palin claims that those who accused her of helping to create the atmosphere which fed the mind of the killer were treating her in the same way as those who create these lies treat Jews.

_

Those who have defended her have argued that the term, although it has the literal meaning described, is also a generic term for falsehoods in general... and that the outrage is false and manufactured.

Those who criticise the usage say that is based in an anti-semitic view of the world, is insensitive, is not balanced, etc.. but the issue is whether the term itself can be used.

_

Another, less contensious, example was last year a Tory MP inadvertently used the phrasing "freedom through work" when talking about welfare reform. Because it was more that he used the combination of words unthinkingly, it was not something that was seen as offensive, but it did bounce around Twitter abit and was at least an embarassment.

The concept of "gaining freedom from dependancy and depression and isolation through a hard days work" is clearly a reasonable one. Is it impossible to use the phrase this man did because it sounds like the words on the gates of Auschwitz?

I find it sad that supposedly educated politicians and journalists can be so ill informed as to say things like this.

I have also come across someone mentioning that there would be "an Islamic Crusade", and that "Rome is a Mecca for Catholics".

The parallel is simple. Lies promoted as truth to implicate an inocent as a villain for political gain.

Here is a link an article from the Wall St. Journal about the term and the current events:

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel' - WSJ.com

I share the same viewpoint as the author of this article.

Blood libel means blood libel. It doesn't mean libel, it doesn't mean general criticisms, it means blood libel. She made a mistake due to ignorance. That's the whole story.

By the same token may we assume that "Grammar's not your Grandma, it's your grammar"?

...Grammar Rock is brought to you by Nabisco

I think we the people need to find a way to repurpose the tools at our disposal and use them to collapse the twin towers of partisanship and political opportunism.

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

I can see Palin's point. It's almost as if this controversy hit her like some sort of improvised explosive device.

Palin's ignorance is what really scares me. She has no qualms about who she incites and how they might react. She is a loose canon and extremely dangerous to safety and equality in the U.S.A.

I have no interest in Palin's political ambitions, but what specific ignorance (of her's) are you referring?

That's the real nigger in the woodpile here, isn't it?

It's like a bunch of mean old liberals have nailed her to a cross while flooding her whole world and mudering the firstborn sons in all the families in Wasilla.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------

Guys, this whole thing just makes me feel like i'm drowning in the ricewater stool of a cholera-ridden Haitian orphan.

It's almost like she was accused of being responsible for that whole crazy AZ massacre thing (if not the actual murders) without a shred of evidence.

Its a quite specific term, and not one that is commonly used these days. I find it quite difficult to believe that she - or whoever wrote the speech - did not say it on purpose.

I know! It's like the lamestream media has locked her up in a vietcong prison for five years and subjected her to intermittent torture!

The more I think of it, the more I believe it was calculated. Her whole video response was a production---a performance---and well thought out. (Not to mention it being released after her being silent for days.) You don't pull such a term as blood libel out of your ass when you're putting something like that together. I don't think she got it from American action films or from Alaskan hunting parlance.

She wanted to make herself out as a victim, and what better way than to borrow some of the Jewish victimhood loaded in such a term as blood libel and at the same time incur more liberal "wrath"?

Poor, poor Mrs. Palin.

It was calculated. The question is whether to consider it cold.

crazy stuff man!

I totally agree with BG. It was "uncleverly" calulated by her speech writer (because Palin won't know how to cleverly defend the statement any how) but the fact that she let "it fly" is the part that seems so anti-semitic, not to mention it will be adding extra fuel to the fire (so to speak) of the guns & ammo debate here in the states.

/So, Okay, if you live is Alaska you might need to know how to shoot a rifle once in a decade or so if you desperately need food or a killer wolf is attacking your kid!? But what are the odds for this being a real situation?/

There is no doubt in my mind the use of the term was calculated as was every word in her monologue. If you want to understand why she used the term, you have to get away from the "she wanted to make herself out as a victim" narrative. She is not a victim, she is a fighter. The use of the term was an attack. To accuse professional communicators of a "blood libel" is probably one of the worst accusations you can make. She threw an overt insult directed at liberal politicians and pundits. And she further mocked the idea of changing the "tone". She basically told them (or you) to go "f" yourself(s) and that she is not going to change. That is what I heard and she endeared herself even more to me with that message.

On the first day of this tragedy liberals were beside themselves trying to make connections with Palin, the Tea Part, talk radio, gun owners, etc. - she responded with "blood libel" and they have been making vailed attempts to back-off the charges ever since while still trying to hold on to the notion that "tone" is a problem. Only it is not their problem, but "my" (or people like me - gun owners, Tea Party suppporter, talk radio listeners, Fox Nes viewers, etc) problem. I can not wait for her interview with Hannity tonight.

Actually, it's almost like she's focusing on the fact that *some* folks rushed to judgment about the shooter's motivations in order to completely sidestep the questions regarding the appropriateness of her rhetoric. Though to be fair, that's kind of been the collective response from the folks who engage in that type of rhetoric.

I'm perfectly content in concluding that Sarah Palin is simply an ignorant person and probably tends to surround herself with ignorant people. While I certainly wouldn't blame Jewish people for being offended by the incorrect usage of such a term, I don't see it as racially offensive. Like everything else she does, it's intellectually offensive simply because someone that ignorant is given a microphone and is paid attention to. She may occasionally be guilty of malice, but first and foremost she's ignorant.

What purpose aside from looking stupid does the knowingly incorrect use of blood libel serve? Attention? She's already got that in spades.

I'm surprised nobody picked up on your subtle reminder that some of our talking heads (like Palin) don't seem understand how a turn of phrase could be offensive to others.

Or they do and WANT the offense to be taking to keep them in the headlines.

After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Okay, so she uses a victim narrative as a dirty fighter. How endearing.

Or this:

It's everyone's problem.

I hope it's as endearing.

blood libel was a poor rhetorical choice for a lot of reasons, but the tactical motivation behind its use is pretty obvious---getting palin some traction, making her appear to be responding, making her appear to be "fighting back" by whining loudly about what a victim she is blah blah blah. that's all it's about---getting traction, keeping the brand intact after a very bad news cycle period during which the neo-fascist "tea party" set got called out for their cheesy stupid violent backwater everyman with a gun rhetoric.

i dont see the phrase as "toxic" tho.
it simply refers to an old and quite ugly tendency within anti-semitism.
but if its going to be invoked, it should be done with circumspection.
the tea party types dont seem to be big on cicumspect. i mean, it's kind of hard to believe that these people would actually "be fighters" by arguing, in effect, that behind the shallow and superficial tragedy of people who got shot and killed or maimed or wounded tucson, the real victim of the real crime is sarah palin whose martyrdom is that of conservatives in general.

Well, roachboy, the more powerful rhetorical choice would have been to point out some of the specific illogical statements coming from the media, and liberals specifically. However, as many of us know, the current state of right politics in America isn't about logic, or facts, or reasoning. They're too boring and don't get good ratings or score many points in grassrootsiness.

No, the right is fuelled these days by showing how one can respond to the liberal/progressive/pseudo-left threat and that now isn't the time to pause or let up. Maybe it will never be time. The republic is at risk, remember?

The English language is a living language. She used it properly as have others outside of the historic origin of the term.

---------- Post added at 02:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 AM ----------

Based on what she has been called and then the suggestion that she purposefully incited the murder of innocent people - she is "a dirty fighter????

Yes, by calling the criticism of her rhetoric a "blood libel," she is a dirty fighter if a fighter. If she had decided to go the route of sincerity instead, I'd have a different perspective on this.

I'm just surprised she didn't call criticism of her "job killing".

She used it incorrectly, as a small few have also used it incorrectly in the past. The English language is a living language, but changing the meaning of a word overnight due to ignorance is not the mechanism of linguistic evolution.

Anyway, why should I trust the word of a giraffe*?

*not referring to the long-necked, African mammal, but rather a term I just made up which means people who use semantic arguments I disagree with

As an external observer of the American political situation, and a person with a fondness for the best of American ideas and thinkers, I am consistently shocked that Mrs Palin is apparently seriously considered a possible future president.

If I were asked to compare her to a British political figure, the nearest I could think of is Nick Griffin of the BNP. Over here, he's given his chance to speak, but generally that just serves to remind people what a boor and fool he is.

It seems that every time Mrs Palin speaks, she alienates some of her audience further, whilst at the same time driving many more to greater and greater fervour in their support of her.

What is it in a nation founded by some of the most intelligent and creative political thinkers of the Enlightenment, and existing in a pre-eminent almost unassailable position of wealth and local security that makes America today so susceptible to the idea that you are a nation under siege and surrounded by those that mean you serious harm?

Palin is good at the Palin brand. She's definitely got our Ace in her hole, if you knowwhatimsayin'.

I suspect that she may subscribe to the Newt Gingrich model of political participation, whereby if one can keep one's name dripping off the slobbering tongues of the establishment political press one can make money selling one's bullshit to chumps.

She doesn't need to sell her bullshit to too many people to maintain her wealth and attention. And if she can bolster her cred with her primary investors by offending the rest of us, then that's all to the good.

So in the long run, fil, do you think she'll run for president, or is it all a trick to get people to buy her books?

I think she believes what she's selling. If she thinks there is a remote chance that she can win, she will run.

Anything to get back to "time-tested truths"...whatever they may be.

palin may believe in the palin brand and her handlers may as well, but there are basic problems with it that (i would hope) will prevent her from being more than a marginal side-show that appeals to the fears and images based in fear particular to our local poujadistes. the problem is the persistence of an assumption of stupidity and/or ignorance at the center of brand identity. so when she defends the blood libel usage

Sarah Palin defends ?blood libel? use - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

a significant aspect of the defense is defending herself against the assumption that she didnt know what the term meant.
then there's a reiteration of exactly the victimization narrative we've been talking about (sorry ace, dear, but you're entirely wrong again)
and then some lame-ass assertion that the poujadistes are being censored and that the demise of this confederacy of dunces would kill off the republic.

so it seems to me the assumption of stupidity gets affirmed most effectively when it is being refudiated.

Let's simply say that not everyone agrees with you:

Read more: Dershowitz, others defend Palin’s use of ‘blood libel’ | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

Palin has never said her intent was to run for President, she was not even interested in the VP slot on the McCain ticket until she was approached. She stepped down as governor of AK to move on with her life, virtually ending her political career - but liberals would not leave her alone. Liberals keep bring the issue up. Liberals are obsessed with the idea of Palin running. Liberals feel it is their job to eliminate her from a Republican run at the nomination, but what they do back fires. They think by trying to knocking her down, they build themselves up but they come across as being very foolish.

It sounds like you're suggesting that the liberals have created a postmodern Prometheus in Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin™ is a liberal creation?

Here is the dynamics of this situation. Palin was the reason why I voted for McCain. And after the defeat I did not like the resignation as governor, I assumed she retired from formal political life, but would continue on helping conservatives here and there. So, I was luke warm on the idea of her even running and I thought it would be a long-shot just to get the nomination, and even more of a long-shot to win a national election.

Now, I am 100% with her until the end. I would work on her campaign as hard as if I were running. So, if she has a base of about 20-30% Republicans with a good number like me - over 2 years anything can happen. As the young folks say: It's on!:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

My take on Palin is that she would be very happy in a minor support role in the Republican Party. However, in order for her to serve in that capacity there has to be strong leadership with conviction. No other Republican political leader is standing tall taking the hits that she is taking, no leader is strongly defending her message, while liberal make personal attacks. The strategy being employed by liberals is a tried and true one, other conservatives are hiding behind Palin's skirt. I know it, she knows it, they know it. So, the more she is attacked and the more there is a lack of leadership from Republicans - given her nature the attacks are "forcing" her into a position of running.

My mind is made up, I will not support any current Republican leader who has been silent over these past few weeks and is entertaining any notion of changing the "tone".

I don't believe she believes all she's selling. I think she sells what she thinks her base will ingest, regurgitate and spew. Too bad Christmas has passed, we all could have chipped in and bought (as the old saying goes) her a huge wooden cross and some nails, then she could climb up and nail herself to it.

ace, you say you see "minor support role for the Republican party," but I see "leading the way towards whatever it is she thinks America needs to return to."

She's said herself that she'll do anything politically if she feels she'll succeed at it, even beating Obama.

She's the champion of neo-Reaganomics and American exceptionalism. She knows it. I know it. And you know it.

She's a leading political reactionary, and this happens to make her the leading voice in opposition to liberalism and progressive politics in the U.S. If she wanted to be a minor player, she'd spend more effort in flying below the radar rather than keeping her image polished. But we all know her strengths don't lay in gruntwork behind the scenes. They lay in being in the limelight. Her "blood libel" video is evidence of this. She could have easily made statements to the press or even held interviews. Instead she chose to make a polished video statement.

I expect right-wingers are all too eager to jump to Palin's defense. The organization you've cited which is defending Palin? They're called "Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin". I don't expect objectivity from them. Regarding Dershowitz, he said this:
Note, please, that Dershowitz has very clearly not disconnected the term from being associated with Jewish issues. Palin herself is not Jewish (by a long shot), and she was not speaking in the defense of Jewish people, but herself. She used the term incorrectly, and it's not surprising that Jewish organizations all over the world are pissed about the incorrect use of a serious accusation.

Look at the time line, then reconsider what I wrote.

To me it is beyond belief that people thought that she would seriously run for President after resigning as Governor mid-term. Liberals could have let the concept of her running die that moment, but for some reason they did not, why?

Of course she was not going to close the door on the possibility of running for President. who did not know that, yet the talk and attacks continued, why?

Her voice and her stature grows stronger with each attack by liberals, why don't you see that? Don't some liberals joke about loving to see her as the Republican Pary nominee? Now, I hope they get their wish.

I wish McCain had that kinda attitude - if so we would not even be discussing this.

We rarely talk about her policy positions, but I agree with the above. Are her beliefs a problem, or is the narrative that she is "ignorant" - which is it? can she be "ignorant" and be a champion of anything?

If she reacts to the political environment that is bad, if X responds to the political environment that is...What?

Also, she doesn't change her message, her tone, her core values. She stands strong. I don't see that as reactionary.

Yes, I know you want her to be Obama-like. I don't.

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------

What is your point? Dershowitz is not conservative nor does he consider himself a person who supports Palin. He simply offers his honest opinion. I stated that you have a point of view that is not shared by all - hence it is a matter open to an honest discussion - yet you claim unfairly that Palin is ignorant. I shot a hole in your argument and your response to that is incoherent and it appears that you lack the ability to admit that you could be wrong on Palin being ignorant.

ace--you aren't talking about anything. your construction of obama these days is particularly absurd. cheney did an interview yesterday in which is praised obama's foreign policy as a vindication of the bush administration's....he's talking about going after "job-killing regulation"----you may be getting triangulated again.

as for your absurd narrative about palin being resurrected through some imaginary "liberal resentment"---i don't know where you're getting your infotainment from. it's been pretty clear what sarah palin (tm) has been after. she's a political brand. whether she is able to run coherently for president or merely profits unreasonably from playing chumps like you is likely a six of one half dozen of the other matter to sarah palin inc.

your relation to the brand "sarah palin" is beyond bizarre. i don't imagine you're speaking for anyone but yourself---and i think you don't even believe this stuff--that you're just trying it out like wearing a gown to a company social event. have fun with that.

ace, you don't seem to accept the plain fact that Palin has positioned herself as an opposing force to liberalism and progressive politics in the U.S. via a reactionary politics. The Republicans have done the same. It fuels Beck's hue and cry. To the Tea Partiers, reactionary politics is its raison d'être.

It's not that difficult.

---------- Post added at 03:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Ace, just stop. You know Sarah Palin is an unintelligent woman. It's impossible for you not to know it. All of the dissonance in the world can't hide her consistently unintelligent statements. She's just said another stupid thing in a long line of stupid things. She's stupid. It's only a reflection on you because you're one of her inexplicable supporters. If you could peel yourself away from the dissonance for a second, you'd come to the conclusion that because she's so unintelligent, she isn't deserving of your admiration on issues which require intellect.

I invite you to suspend dissonance for a moment. Think about all the things she's said in the past, how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, death panels, her inability to name a single newspaper or magazine, her wanting to stand with our North Korean allies, admitting that she and her family used to cross the border into Canada for better healthcare while bemoaning 'Obamacare', blaming the Gulf Oil spill on environmentalists, notes written on her hand during a convention speech, calling out Rahm Emanuel for using 'retarded', but not Limbaugh... the list is nearly endless in her two and a half years on the public stage. She's a stupid woman, Ace. Blood libel is just another in a long, long line of very stupid statements.

Even if your reading of Dershowitz is correct, and it's not, that doesn't make Sarah Palin intelligent and it doesn't make her usage correct. If Dershowitz is saying that Palin used the term correctly, then he's wrong. Blood libel doesn't mean "you aren't allowed to criticize me", which is exactly how Sarah Palin used it. It never has and likely never will.

Hi Ace,

I never said SHE was putting herself into the role as potential president, but mentioned that I am shocked that she is considered a viable candidate. I meant that it is stunning to me that ANYONE believes she is the sort of person who might do it well.

If Sarah Palin is so righteous and brilliant and statesmanlike, why is it that she is so lacking in a characteristic as simple as tact?

I've been sort of out of the loop lately. Life overwhelming attention to current events kind of thing. But I really don't need to see anything more than the 'crosshairs map' and the use of 'blood libel' to understand that she really is an unthinking, uncouth kind of person. Insults from the press and 'liberuls' aside. In this context, it makes the fact that I vehemently disagree with her politics secondary.

She's a boor. A female boor. And I wouldn't support her regardless of what party she belonged to.

They used to say: you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
A sentiment a long time now forgotten.

This entire "blood libel" argument is too silly to waste time on, but I will comment on Palin.

Sorry, Ace, you have misjudged her capabilities to be President. There is something intangible which is lacking in her. There have been some adjectives thrown around in here which feel overly harsh, but a more palatable synonym would suit perfectly.

For example, I don't think she's a boor, but I do think she lacks a necessary level of sophistication to handle that unexpected situation appropriately. 99% of the time, she'd handle herself with grace and dignity. It's that 1% which matters, though.

I don't think she is stupid. However, I do believe she lacks the level of intellect that is required to command respect of other intellects - which is TERRIBLY important in diplomacy.

It isn't really about whether she could carry enough votes or not, it is whether she would be able to handle the job. She wouldn't. I can think of no circumstance where Palin would get my vote for President, and I can't wait for Obama to leave.

Triangulated? Before arriving at that conclusion did you decide that Cheney has credibility worthy of you using him as a source to prove I might be wrong about Obama? Did not think you were a fan of his, go figure.

Nice tone - I am a "chump" because I support Palin.

As I have stated in the past, I speak for myself.

Now, words don't matter. What I write here is not important, all we need is you to tell everyone what I believe. With a skill like that, why do we even need a forum. You can save us all time and effort - just tell everyone what they believe. I thought my ego was big.

I live with passion, emotion and conviction. I love life and I always have fun doing what I do. Thanks for you concern.

Is 'tone' the new buzzword for the month? I only ask ace because it seems to be your newest one I've heard most often in the past couple of weeks.

Edit: Found this while skimming through Google News
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...k-fox-strategy

I accept it...

What I don't accept is...never mind...I doubt I can ever explain it in a way that you understand because you can not accept certain truths about the current political climate. For example - liberal say there was no connection to right-wing "tone" and the AZ murders - but there is a connection to right-wing "tone" and the violence that lead to the AZ murders and it has to change???????

I don't even like Beck. The first few times I saw his show I thought he was a clown. If you can find it, that was my first comment on him. And the only reason I tune him in periodically is because he is a content topic of conversation. Beck has been smart enough to evolve and has toned down his, what I call "clown" act. AS liberals are locked into what was, he is solidifying his popularity with his audience and people who now tune into him for the first time will find he is not the caricature he is made out to be by liberals. Again, liberal miscalculate and over shoot their target.

Sarah Palin is first and foremost a money-grubbing attention whore. Plain and simple. She's the poster child for the mindless devotion Americans seem to have for reality television.
Everything she says and does is calculated to get her words and face plastered all over the national media - to sell books and garner speaking engagements. For her to step up and admit that perhaps it's not healthy to continuosly speak in violence-ridden metaphors would only alienate her from her shrinking base.

I don't believe for a second she'll run for President, except to keep her name in the spotlight. After all, we already know what she thinks of public service jobs.

Wash, rinse, repeat. She is just stupid, right. She just says stupid things. She is just stupid. I got it.

And, you think I have a problem?

I could respond to every one of those issues, including honestly stating when I disagree with what she said or admit it being an error - as I have done - and it would not matter. Wash, Rinse, Repeat - I got it.

He has done televised live interviews as well as having his statements appear in digital and print media, do your homework.

---------- Post added at 11:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

And I basically agree. Now the tide has turned for me. I am 100% behind her run for President.

One of the characteristics I like in a leader is, conviction. Palin has conviction to a level I have never seen in a politician - and I love it - it is so refreshing.

The lack of conviction is what I dislike most about Obama. The lack of conviction is why I did not support McCain. It is the reason I will never support Romney. It is the reason why I have respect for a guy like Kucinich while I disagree with him on everything. I am the guy who says, go to universal single payer healthcare rather than an unworkable compromise like Obama-care that is loaded with problems that can bankrupt the country and completely ruin our system. I am the guy who says win the war in Afghanistan or bring our troops home now. Etc. Etc. Etc.

---------- Post added at 11:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------

Nobody is perfect.

You clearly don't.

Her weaknesses are not intangible. If it were possible to have an honest discussion here on her weaknesses that would be a fair discussion. I am not one who believe people come out of the womb, prepared to be a leader or President. I first look for certain characteristics in people I give my full commitment and support to - one characteristic Palin has is, and her record reflects it, is that she is a winner - she rises to the level to get the job done. She is an over-achiever, scrappy, I love that in leaders. I have a strong bias against pompous overly intellectual empty suits. I live in a real world, not a theoretical text book world.

Kind of hard to win something that is that much of a clusterfuck now isn' it? Saying 'win the war' is easy, actually winning it, not so much, maybe had the war been run properly from the beginning, and a certain former president hadn't had his GPS break down and point him in another direction, things would be better off, or maybe if the country had a president of the entire country, rather than the president of Kabul, say 'win the war or bring the tropps home' all you like ace, leave now and you'll be left with the same thing as before, then what?
Conviction can only get one so far in the political arena, you simply choose to look past Palin's many, many, many faults, and grasp on to her conviction. Obama has conviction, you just don't agree with him, so it's quite obvious that you wouldn't like the man regardless what he did.
I find this hilarious, fuck the intellectuals and their fancy book learnin.

Nice tone. She is ignorant, stupid, uncouth and a whore. Wash, rinse, repeat. Got it.

Is 'tone' a FoxNews thing? I'm honestly curious as you've been on a 'tone' kick the past couple of weeks, seems it's like the McDonalds treat of the week from back in the day.

I tell you repeatedly, that I simply disagree with you when I do and generally leave it at that - why do you insist on trying to tell me what I don't understand?

Commitment is all?

The worst most evil and corrupt leaders in the world were committed.

I don't think that a dogged commitment to an idea is a good thing, in and of itself - especially if it's a bad idea!

I have said bring the troops home, do a search.

Now this is getting interesting. How can I not be insulting...have you read what I wrote???? She has faults, she has weaknesses, she is not perfect. Gee. What do you want????

I guess it is all relative...

If you have no sense of perspective, you don't understand. But, if you know the bio of Bill Gates of Microsoft, you know that there is practical "learnin" and there is theoretical b.s. - it is the practical "learnin" that changes the world. I guess it may take a level of wisdom to understand the difference that is beyond what one may read in a book. But, I know, I know - I got the problem. Right. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Well, I assume that you must take your position on Beck with some bitterness considering that he's somewhat of a political ally of Palin's. They tend to think the same way it seems, even though they may not act the same. You know, how they tend to do things like compare their plight to that of Martin Luther King. I'd guess that's no accident.

And for the record, despite how toned down he may have become, I do think he's somewhat of the caricature you've hinted at. I've seen clips of his show recently. And not much has changed from what I've seen them a year or two ago. It's difficult to take him seriously. I try to laugh at him, except I'm stopped by some automatic moral apprehension. I think it's because people do take him seriously. If he were on the Comedy Central, I think I'd laugh.

Why would I be bitter? Beck's initial "act" was over the top.

Palin has not done what you suggest. MLK nor Palin were in a plight, there were in a fight. Again, you have this victim narrative going real strong in your mind, I would never say MLK was a victim nor would I say that regarding Palin. MLK sought the opportunity to change America. Palin is not going to run from an opportunity to do so. I don't follow Beck enough to comment.

It's easy to say ace, but you have to remember, you guys started that mess, what happens after you 'leave', the exact same thing as before, so, no need for me to do a search.
How can you not be insulting? By acting like a big boy and having big boy conversations, you're supposedly 50, you should know how to have grown up conversations by now, you want to insult me, go right ahead, you'll only make yourself look foolish and immature, so, no skin off my nuts.

I was merely saying 'conviction' can only get one so far in politics, and you chose to grasp on to that and hold on tight, have you read what I wrote????
Of course ace, it's always about everyone else not understanding, Wash, Rinse, Repeat. You need to take your own advice and change the record, I guess your level of wisdom is so far ahead of everyone elses that we all just need to catch up to your practical learnin Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

No.

Evil prevails when good people compromise their convictions.

It's funny. all of the folks in politics I admire most have political conviction, too. very strong political convictions. and intelligence. vision. oh, here's a good one, accomplishments. yet none of them exhibit it in a way that is popularly described as refreshing...like, like, like a cold, refreshing Mountain Dew after an afternoon in the Alaskan frontier shootin' grizzlies.

ack. we are doomed.

If you read what I wrote you would know I agree.

I shared an honest bias that I have and I explained it. the purpose was to share some insight with those who actually read stuff here on why I am such an ardent Palin supporter and why I don't like Obama. I admit the importance of passion and emotion and having leadership who can stir passion and emotion. I admit the symbolism of not backing down and how that moves me. I illustrate why liberals employing their current strategy may back-fire. I admit Palin is less than perfect and I am. I say I have concerns, that she will need a good team. I do all this sincerely and honestly, but i am told I don't mean what I write, that I don't understand "it" and that I have a problem. I got it, trust me. But, just like Palin did, I give you the royal...:thumbsup:...:rolleyes:

Theoretical b.s....wow. I still don't see how people can engage with this person when he says things like this. I understand the desire to try and prove you are right but someone is so far gone that they believe things like this, it's not even worth engaging with them.

I was referring to your dislike for Beck and his ties to Palin.

She evoked the words of MLK in her recent interview with Hannity.

If you're not in a plight, then why fight unless you are an aggressor or opportunist? I don't consider MLK a victim. I wouldn't consider Palin so much a victim if she weren't so insincere in her responses to her critics. Rather than simply come out and fight it head on, she instead comes out with this "blood libel" move.

I'm beginning to think she doesn't have the tact or the wherewithal to address criticism. In a way, she confirms its legitimacy in her failure to do so.

Names?

I respect Kuchinich.
I would have voted for Hilary Clinton over McCain.
I loved the fact that "Voter intent" Murkowski, waged a write-in campaign and won - it changed my whole view point on her.
And I think Mother Teresa actual cared about the people she helped.

I read what you wrote, I just find it amusing an apparently 50 year old man can't have a conversation without wanting to be insulting.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.:rolleyes:

Why not say you don't think there is a difference? Why not simply do that, I won't make fun of you - I would just share what I think are the differences. But, when you mock me while saying you don't think there is a difference you set the stage for what follows and I am often (more often than I like) immature.

---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:56 PM ----------

If I live to be 100, I won't change. All I will ever be able to do is try to control my nature. The first step is understanding it, and I do. And, I openly tell you and others what to expect, and what I find surprising is how you folks act surprised - like "apparently 50 year old man..."

I will put this into words here, because it is as good for me as it is for anyone who wants to understand different types of human behavior - and I am not saying I am proud - it is what it is.

If you are kicking me in the gut, while saying lets change the tone - my response is not to the request of changing the tone.

If we are kicking each other and you say lets change the tone, but you got in the last kick - my response is not to the request of changing the tone.

If we are kick each other and I got in the last kick and you say lets change the tone, i will stop kicking you but I won't believe you will stop kicking and will be very defensive for a long time.

But on the bright side if you never start kicking me, I will never start kicking you.

I know it is childish, immature, neanderthalish, etc, etc, etc., but armed with the information the real question is what do you do with it? I think Palin has a similar personality to mine, hence I say the constant liberal attacks are the absolute wrong thing to do!

And we're left with another aceism, I know ace, it's up to everyone else, and what they choose to do with it. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Again with 'changing the tone', I'm convinced this is a FoxNews thing, I don't get it here in Canada so I may be incorrect, but I find it amusing you've used it about 6 times or more on this page of the thread alone.

Have a good one, I've got a hockey game to watch.

You had me right up until the hockey game.

Haha, come on Tully, it's the Habs/Sabres on TSN, you know you're sitting on the edge of your seat to find out who wins.

Yea, ya got me... I was lying I really like hockey. Oh and Palin would make a great POTUS.

Well, Palin as POTUS would be interesting for sure, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would certainly have enough ammo to keep their shows going strong, and it would be interesting to see her interact with other leaders, of course it's probably more amusing from the outside than it is from the inside.

They're busy enough and have enough money. Now is not the time to elect another Bush Jr. type to the oval office. In fact I think electing Palin might be the only thing that would make me miss Bush Jr.

Umm, are the Montreal Canadians nicknamed the Habs? Because I have the Sabres playing them on channel 400 right now.

Agreed, not the time to do that indeed.

Yep, the Canadiens are the Habs, that would be the game I'm watching on TSN.

Sure, I'll give you some names. Just not tonight. I'm not in the mood. Tomorrow. :)

Wow, you managed to quote me and misquote me within a few sentences.
So much for living in the real world.

I said she's an attention-whore. Not exactly the same meaning as "whore."
I never called her stupid or uncouth, either. I'll give you ignorant, though.

Like the media, she's learned that the more fear you instill in people, the less likely they are to think for themselves, seek the truth, or care about real issues. I mean, when you can convince people that $3/hr dishwashers are more dangerous to America than hedge fund managers and CEOs who steal Billions, I'd say there's some stupidity involved, but not on Palin's part. Unless she actually believes what she's shoveling. And I don't think she does.

Threadjack
 

Whoa, whooaa, whoa there horsey. :)

Let me get this straight...

If a political ally has commitment, that's a good thing, but if an opponent has commitment, that's a bad thing?

Please tell me that you're NOT reducing things to this level - I have more respect for you than that.

No. I respect people with conviction regardless of ideology. I also respect debate regarding different approaches to achieve a common goal. It is very easy for me to work with those of different ideologies or with different approaches to for example over-come "evil".

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

I am not the one calling for a change in "tone". If that is your goal, it is up to you to act, isn't it? If it is not your goal, why have we been discussing this?

---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

In responding to your post, I was also summarizing many comments from many posts and sources. My point was to illustrate the absurdity in the desire from some to change the "tone".

I guess then the question is "what is your definition of "evil?"

Conviction isn't exactly a rare trait. You're going to have to be more specific.

My dog has conviction.

I know ace, like I said before, it's everyone else never you, it's up to everyone else, never up to you, you're immaturity is everyone else's fault, never yours, Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Let's see how many time you can say 'change the tone' or use 'tone' in a sentence on this page, my guess is you'll shatter last page's record quite easily.

I am not on any missions from God. I say, live and let live. It is pretty simple.

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

That is why I am a dog person. Dogs have conviction, cats don't. Hope that makes it clear.

No, actually, it doesn't. My two cats have strong convictions. In some ways stronger than my dog's, now that I think of it.

Ahh yes, but cats have convictions that ace doesn't agree with, therefore no convictions, much like Obama, ace doesn't agree with his convictions, therefore he has none, ace agrees with Palins convictions, therefore she has strong convictions. Seems if ace doesn't agree with it or with something, it doesn't exist.

I expressly told you what my problem is.

I don't blame anyone for who I am.


You focus on the negative because we are not friends. On the bright side of my personality type, if we were friends - I would be the guy who when the world is dumping on you, I would go into the sh*t and pull you out (or at least get you an umbrella), no questions, no conditions, no qualification - I would just do it as if I were doing it for me.

Actually, if you folks changed your "tone" I would get bored and leave. Try it and see what happens.

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

My wife has a cat, and I have to disagree. When a dog focuses on something that focus is unshakable unless you do something very dramatic. When I observe cats they will be focused intently for a very short period of time, get bored and be indifferent or go to sleep.

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

Not fair. I often, as I have done with Obama, asked for help in understanding what he does and why he does it. I am among the first to say I don't understand, when I don't get it.

I agree that it is very possible that I don't understand cats.

Ace, your definition of evil is "live and let live?" How is that a definition of evil? Doesn't even make any sense to me.

No, I focus on the negative because not much positive come from you, it's always the same, it's always up to someone else, never up to you, you take responsibility for something your immaturity for example , then say it's up to everyone else what they'll do with it, like we're suddenly supposed to cater to a 50 year old man who can't have big boy conversations because he happens to have the menatlity of a 10 year old and wants to take his ball and go home, it has nothing to do with not being 'friends' or not being 'friends', I'm really not interested in your personality type, it's just more aceisms to me.
Promises, promises
Oh, it's fair, you've said in the past Obama has no convictions, which is why you don't like him, didn't see much qustion asking going on there, just that he has none, yet your girl Palin has supposed strong convictions, why, because you agree with her and disagree with Obama.
No idea, I hate cats, just find it amusing you seem to think things or people you don't agree with have no convictions

so long as people like ace remain a quaint minority who cultivate the garden of neo-fascism in a blissful state of unknowing immediacy, the tendencies to substitute self-congratulation for argument and to draw validation from the fact of confrontation rather than from argument (either at the level of internal coherence or at that of descriptive power with respect to the world) are just funny.

but if people who think this way manage somehow to get power, useful tools for some corporate oligarchs (which is now the case) or not, then they'll be every bit as dangerous.

consider this new ace-ism about purity of belief and how it wards off "evil"----why lots of fine blonde boys from germany thought much the same way in the 1930s. that kind of thinking helped motivate the extermination of the left and homosexuals and the physically infirm. then it really started to unfold its special magic.

this thread is an even stronger argument than is the sarah palin (tm) show that the ultra right should never be allowed anywhere near power.

Well, I'm fully ready to have a debate with ace, it's just that he doesn't tend to engage with arguments. He instead prefers to debate the validity of premises, using such tools as red herrings, false equivalences, and straightforward confusion.

And so everything becomes a false start, or it devolves into an argument about something unrelated, such as the differences between the behaviour patterns of cats and dogs.

It's not exactly the same mode that Palin operates in, but I can see the parallel. I'm just surprised he hasn't gone on about "time-tested truths" while neglecting to elaborate on just what that might mean.

or cats, apparently.

For example, if you try to enslave people, even if it is not me, I consider that evil. If you murder people, you would be considered evil in my view. You see - live and let live.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

You see this is how I know you don't read what is written. I don't agree with Kusinich, he has conviction and I respect him. I think Hilery Clinton has 100 times more conviction than John McCain. The thing about conviction is that you know what you are gonna get. If you have read what I wrote you would know this, yet you come to conclusions either on purpose or in ignorance in error.

People are killing each other all the time. I think the murder rate for the US is higher then most developed nations. Not really sure what you do about that. Any ideas?

Who in the US is trying to enslave other people?

Is there anything you consider evil, if so what and why?

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

On the subject of this thread, my premise is that the english language is a living language and the use of the term blood libel was used correctly and in context by Palin. The premise that I found invalid is that Palin is ignorant. Aside from the tangents here and there what I argue is very solid.

Like I brought that up???? You said your dog had convictions, then you followed up with a musing about the convictions of your cats. I would love for a real impartial person to read this thread and comment on it, it would be enlightening.

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

I love you guys, I am literally laughing out loud.

Did you know cats are evil.

http://www.thefunnyjunks.com/wp-cont.../scary-cat.jpg

---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

Law enforcement.

Cats. I ask my wife all the time what reward she gets from having a cat.

Seriously, I have never called anyone in the US evil. However I did consider Saddam Hussein evil and I supported Bush's efforts in removing him from power.

But it turned out that way because you failed to understand that people with convictions are a dime a dozen. Almost everyone has convictions. That's not worth arguing. What's worth arguing about are people's specific convictions within the context of their careers and daily lives.

Well, we could very well unpack this and talk about it, but will you at least accept the premise that Obama has strong convictions just as Palin does? He even wrote a damn book full of them.

Okay, so let's assume that Palin isn't ignorant (I don't think she is on this particular matter). We can look at your "living language" argument. I don't buy it though. I think the term blood libel still carries around much of its history. I don't hear it used very often, and it's still used quite readily in actual blood libels carried out in recent times against Jews.

Palin could have used the term false accusations. There are false accusations regarding murders all the time. "Blood libel" need not be conjured. Why? Because of the confusion of actual blood libels against Jews. They still happen from time to time.

Now assuming that Palin isn't ignorant about it (I don't think she is): I think she used the term in a calculating way to goad liberals into another round of criticisms about her and her own mode of rhetoric. Plus the use of the word blood suits her own rhetoric just fine.

She wants liberals on the attack. It's an important part of her energy and high public status. You admit as much yourself. But she just so happens to encourage it on purpose. She criticizes the "lamestream" media of "manufacturing a blood libel." If you ask me, she's manufacturing her own confrontational political environment to help her leverage her reactionary politics. She wants to paint liberals—and by association, liberalism—as an unjust and destructive force in America, and she can't very well do it if they don't play her game.

Oh, I read what is written ace, you just use so many different aceisms it's kind of hard to keep track of which way you're going. That's nice, you respect Kisinich and think Clinton has 100 times more conviction than McCain, still doesn't change the fact you've stated Obama has no convictions while giving no examples to back it up, so you were basically, talking out your ass, but please continue ducking and dodging and changing the subject with your aceisms, it's quite amusing