I think he spoke way too soon concerning the possible motives of the shooter, and he should have bookended his remarks on divisiveness with a statement that these were personal opinions and not related to the case, but there’s is nothing despicable whatsoever in commenting that there seems to be too much vitriol in political speech these days. Hell, you yourself seem to frequently push in the direction of vitriolic in your postings.
Not sure what this has to do with the shootings, but really? Against, as in “I oppose enforcing immigration laws?” Seems rather rather more simplistic than is likely the case. Don’t worry, I won’t demand a cite from you, I’ll look it up myself.
Another voice for the ignorance of the term “Blood Libel” among reasonably well-educated Christian Americans. I first encountered it within the last decade as I was doing research for myself in Medievalism.
Palin for making sure everyone knows she’s the real victim in all of this.
I didn’t know so many people were ignorant of what the blood libel was. How can anyone have a basic education or be at all well read and not know that?
Regardless, if you don’t know what a phrase means, you shouldn’t say it.
Gee, I wonder why she’s so hung up on that issue. After the Virginia Tech shooting, she proposed a bill (now law) that added mental illness and criminal backgrounds to gun control background checks. That seems pretty freaking reasonable. I don’t know what else she’s proposed, but I’m not seeing a problem there.
How about Republican Peter King’s proposal to ban guns within 1000 feet of government officials? Any righties upset about that? At least the Dems are philosophically consistent. King is ostensibly all for gun rights, but not if he’s in your presence.
I thought that’s what the background checks were for already. Or is she more clueless than most?
Not a rightie but I really get tired of these meaningless gesture laws that don’t do a thing.
Killing people is already against the law and it’s didn’t prevent the shooting.
It happens. I grew up, and live in south Florida around a very high Jewish concentration and never heard the term either. I’m pretty well acquainted with a lot of Jewish culture. I had heard the silly myths about Jews sacrificing/ eating babies/ blood before though I never knew that term as specifically associated with it. Further, I’d never heard it at all before this incident. I hold two university degrees as well as several professional ones. Perhaps this type of speech is more prevalent in the Northeast?
Actually upon further thought I HAVE heard the phrase, though not in relation to the usage here. I remember hearing it used in church to refer to the passover. I have never heard it outside that context, and that took some remembering as I have not attended church in nearly 16 years.
You mean the same legislation that the NRA supported? I guess even a one trick pony like McCarthy can have a good idea from time to time. Her latest attempt falls far short of the mark, and she is using the tragedy for her own grandstanding.
Yes, the NRA supported the bill after she proposed it. I didn’t see them recommending it before the massacre.
King is a jackass and his proposal is useless, misguided, and most of all, self-important. But I think his NRA ratings are poor and he’s not that much of a gun law advocate.
I’m sure you were equally outraged and condemned the map put out by the Democratic Leadership Committee in 2004 with bullseyes on red states.
Oh, but that’s states, not actual representatives. So how about the interactive map from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with targets over specific Republican representatives, detailed here.
:rolleyes: Palin spoke of the charges against her as a “blood libel” – equating them with a medieval charge against Jews (that they used the blood of Christian babies to make matzohs for Passover), which (1) unlike the charges against Palin here, was totally unfounded; and (2) unlike the charges against Palin here, was totally uninvited (at least, it does not appear Jewish spokespersons of the period ever expressed any ill-will towards Christian babies even in theory); and (3) when used by Palin, is just too preposterous, dishonest and cynical for words.
Now, if you want to draw parellels between this and use of “nigger,” then the equivalent usage would have been Palin saying, “They’re trying to make a nigger out of me.” (Something I have heard white Southerners over a certain age say on odd occasions.)
I’ve heard of the concept before, in relation to the extreme anti-jewish beliefs common in some parts of the middle east. However, I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard the term blood libel. Or if I had, it wasn’t often enough that I recognized what it meant when Palin used it.
Rather than being surprised that so many people have not heard of blood libel, or the concept behind it, I’m rather happy. The fact it isn’t widely known means that at least one specific type of bigotry has quit being spread, in America at least.
I hope that some future discussion has a large number of people going ‘nigger is a racist term? I never heard of it…’ Or gook. Or wetback. Or all the other common terms of hatred floating around there.
I think there’s a difference between a target and crosshairs. The target is something you aim for and the crosshairs are something you aim with. Targeting someone for defeat, even using the graphic of an archery target, is a far cry from using crosshairs, which scream “assassination”. The gun to a knife fight was an unscripted regrettable statement and I wish Obama would have apologized for it.
If that’s all you got, you have nothing close to equivalency. Show me any Democrat talking about “reloading” or “second amendment remedies” or “taking someone out”.
Yes. Free speech allows them to talk like that, but they don’t like it very much when other people use their own free speech to denounce and condemn them. I would suggest, that IF they ever run for any office, “freedom” also allows people to NOT support, nomionate or vote for them - ever again.