To give the devil her due…
Given SP’s general lack of intellect, I seriously doubt she had any idea what the term meant, or had any idea of it’s antisemitic connotations. The speech was obviously written for her and she probably thought it a catchy bit of wordplay.
I say this with all due humility because TBH, I’ve never heard it either. When I watched the video, I thought it was just another cute palinism like “refudiate”.
Her speechwriter should have known better however.
SS
Unfortunately, there comes a level of claimed stupidity that sort of gives away when someone is trolling.
Hello, you.
Please do not connect me or my OP or any of my posts with this post. I am writing this because SteveG1 quoted me above his post.
I am a pacifist, I deplore the kind of violence that has occurred in Tucson. Without any hint of sarcasm or wink wink, I clearly state that I DO NOT SUPPORT OR ENCOURAGE a violent act against Mrs. Palin or anyone else.
Nobody should be targeted in a physical sense. You want to vote? Vote with your voter registration card, not your N.R.A. Membership card.
Again- I do not support or condone this mindset. MY OP regarding taking responsibility for the real life violence wrought because of the words she has used is pretty clear. She and her machine bear some but not all responsibility. The video she released that is linked elsewhere in this thread is worth watching. ( And as I admitted, I’ve not viewed it all yet but in fairness I must make myself view the entire clip ).
No targeting. No threats of physical retribution. No hints of violence. Not from my posts either directly or by inference or tone. You don’t like the job a public servant is doing? Then vote them out. Period. ( and yes I am aware that Mrs. Palin is not currently holding public office, so she cannot be voted out. )
Cartooniverse
My post was not a call to violence. How insensitive of you to even imagine so!!!
I was talking figuratvely and everyone should be able to read my mind and figure that out.
In short I was deliberately going way over the top.
Thanks, I had not noticed this.
Another bit of evidence that this is a made up “persona” that is merely being trotted out by someone for amusement.
Poke it with a stick for amusement if you wish, but don’t take it seriously.
I want to point out too, that this would sure seem to support the idea of a double standard that is going on, as to who is aloowed to say what, and in what way they can say it. How subtle or obvious that is, is open to discussion.
To get this back on track and away from all the birtherism, retardebating, popularity polls, crosshairs, trolling and other bits of horseshit that distracts from the real problem, let me say again: Sarah Palin is not responsible for Saturday’s actions because of the crosshairs and rhetoric. Sarah Palin is responsible for this shooting, as is everyone else who prognosticates on Fox News or lobbies Congress or legislates this country in a direction where it’s easier to get a gun than it is to get treatment for mental health problems. *This *is what is fucked up. *This *is what set off Saturday’s events. *This *is what people should be up in arm-- er, fucking pissed about.
Should the rhetoric be toned down? Absolutely. Because it could still lead to a violent tragedy. But the rhetoric isn’t what set off Jared Loughner. His apparent mental illness did. Has he been diagnosed? No, and that’s the problem. It’s too hard to get access to mental health treatment in this country. While people were screaming about how public health care would set up death panels, it distracted us from the death panels with undiagnosed mental illness looming in the corner with their fucking glocks.
Again I say:
Part of the reason is that the problem crosses partisan lines. The issue has two parts - gun control and care for the mentally ill.
The congresswoman who was shot, a Democrat herself, was also a gun rights supporter, who legislated on the matter - and she’s not alone. Presumably, she is herself partly to blame:
No-one wants to go there.
Likewise, care of the mentally ill is a problem that no-one wants to really deal with. It raises problems for both sides - it would be costly and have a potential impact on civil liberties …
Since when do Republicans have a problem violating civil liberties to protect this country? Oh, right…it’s only okay when it involves wire-tapping brown people’s phones. But as long as our right to own a fucking hand canon isn’t infringed upon…
Heh, I assumed the Republicans would have the greater problem with the “costly” part, and Democrats would have the greater problem with the ‘violating the civil liberties of the potentially mentally ill’ part. 
I’d personally love to discuss the matter; it’s of keen interest to me. I assume that it’s entirely self-evident that its easier to get a gun than get mental health care, for a number of reasons.
I’ve found, however, that most people don’t want to debate issues regarding mental health here.
What do you mean by “don’t want to debate”? There is at least as much actual dialog about issues regarding mental health as there is about other grand issues here – i.e. not much real dialog, but plenty of discussion.
Looks like political consultant Jon Henke, neolibertarian, was the first to use the term "blood libel, in association with this shooting incident. I wonder if that means he is Palin’s political advisor.
Not that I care that much who advises her, but I do often wonder what is the flow chart of the right wing echo chamber.
one question: When did we stop being sheep and become mice? I must have missed the memo.
I think Glenn Reynolds had a WSJ editorial that used it first a couple of days ago.
Sure. I’d tentatively agree with your statement, even, and only point out that the issues are not merely funding ones.
Several months ago, we had a long and contentious thread about a guy who had threatened to shoot himself. The police came to place him on a psych hold and when he wouldn’t comply with their directions to stand up, they tasered him.
Much of the debate centered around the police’s thin justification and how the man had the right to offer such sentiments as “I’ll shoot myself,” without the police infringing his liberty.
So it’s not just funding. If a given person says to himself, “I believe I am fucked up in the head and need mental health assistance,” then I’d agree that lack of funding would be one of the key relevant issues. But most fucked-up people, by virtue of their very fucked-upedness, don’t agree that they need mental health help, and that’s an issue that the left shares some blame for.
If that’s truly a random sample, then around 50% of it would stumble around in the sunlight upon hearing Rush Limbaugh declare that day is night. Also, many Americans are of the opinion that God is real and evolution is not. Also, many Americans are of the opinion that the world’s climatologists are pulling a huge scam that only they know about. So you’ll understand if I don’t look to American opinion of the effects constant hate-speech and thinly veiled threats of violence such as that contained in right-wing propaganda may have.
Re: 2…I just don’t have much else to add to it. Happy Lendervedder said it very well.
Would I be interested in thread on it, provided it didn’t devolve into another thread about the shootings just like this one? Yes, I would. I’m just not sure what I could add to the conversation, other than, “yes, the situation sucks,” or maybe “Here’s a few more ways the situation sucks.” I don’t have a single solution to offer.
But, hey, I’ve been known to participate in lots of threads where I didn’t have anything substantial to say. 
Happy, why don’t you start an OP and see what happens?
What’s to debate? “I agree” isn’t much debate material.
What? The? FUCK? The Left “shares blame” for the mentally ill not thinking they need help? How on G-d’s green earth is that even possible? We’re capable of mind control now? 