jump to last post 1-50 of 55 discussions (273 posts)

Palin charges critics with 'blood libel'

  1. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    Palin charges critics with 'blood libel'
    Politico

       
    Sarah Palin says critics guilty of 'blood libel' AFP/File – Former Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin on Wednesday accused critics of "blood libel" …
    Presidential Transition Video:Obama names Sperling to top economic post AP

    Jennifer Epstein Jennifer Epstein – Wed Jan 12, 7:13 am ET

    Sarah Palin released a video statement Wednesday calling the rush to pin blame on conservatives for the Tucson shooting a “blood libel.”

    “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said. “They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

    In the eight-minute video, Palin says, “…especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/201101 … tico/47477

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I just love the way this woman creates such interest and vitriole with every word that comes out of her mouth.  Some defend her statements with such vigor and purpose you almost have to believe she has such an unparalleled mastery of language only a hundred writers could muster.  When in fact her speach is designed to provoke and create controversy for her own gain.  What is even more peculiar is the news media that follows her every word while acting like she is the "Emporer With No Clothes".

      1. 60
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        " What is even more peculiar is the news media that follows her every word while acting like she is the "Emporer With No Clothes"."

        This is key! Why on earth are they doing this? I suspect the answer is two fold. One, they need a distraction, the only thing society loves more than an underdog is a VILLIAN! She's both, to the TP she's an underdog. To the left a villian. Two, she connects, don't know how she does it, but she does. She has charisma. She's just as polarizing as Hillary, except he has charisma!LOL

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Blood libel refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews."

          from WIkipedia

          Understand what Saint Sarah of Holy Victimhood is suggesting. Like the Jews in old Europe, the Tea Party, like a religion, is being persecuted with false accusations.  First, if you look, you can find some ridiculous accusations from the left.

          But MOSTLY the accusations have been true - that the Tea Party engages in violent, hateful talk and images. Civil discourse and compromise are not in their frame of reference.

          You aren't a victim, Sarah. There are victims in the hospital and the morgue. You got your feeling hurt with the truth. Suck it up and quit pretending you are being persecuted.

        2. brimancandy profile image83
          brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you C.J. Wright. The only reason Sarah Palin is constantly on the news, is because the media will not shut up about her. And, how dare they claim that this tragedy will put the focus on Sarah Palin. I heard this the other day, and I said No. The people will NOT turn their focus to Sarah Palin, what they will do is feel bad about what happened, while YOU, THE MEDIA try to use this tragedy to shove Sara Palin further down america's throat.

          The only reason the media continues to shove Sara Palin down people's throats, is because she is a wide open target. I also agree that all this focus is distracting people from what is really going on with the rest of our lousy government. Notice how there is almost no talk about Joe Biden? Who is our Vice President? What's he doing these days?

          People in the media claim that they have nothing to with public opinion, and the average american's decision making process. I say BULLSHIT! If you want that to be true, stop talking about politics all together for the next 2 years, talk about nobody, with no political ads, and see who gets voted into office. People would be walking around blind, and standing at the voting booths not knowing what to do.

          The only reason people know who Sarah Palin is is because of the Media.
          Unless of course you lived in Alaska before she became a media darling, then you might have saw her looking across her yard while she is seeing russia from her house.

          1. lady_love158 profile image59
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly! And since the media is mainly left wing nut jobs they spend every waking moment looking for something to trash her for! Their agenda is to destroy her no matter what the cost!

            Well she doesn't deserve that at all!

            1. couturepopcafe profile image61
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I thought the reason she was at the center of all this was because she had a picture of the Senator in the crosshairs on her website and this is where the nutjob got the idea to shoot her.

              I thought the reference to blood libel was a reference to Jews who killed Christ meaning the accusation was falsely placed.

  2. 70
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    It's quite ironic that the media makes the comments that it does in regard to the level of vitriol in this country, when they go out of their way to promote it for their own self serving interests!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Noticed that too?

      Strange isn't it?

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, then they wonder why their audience is disappearing!

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ron says Sarah Palins to blame for that too.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image78
            Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, well, Ron says a lot of things that only he understands. lol

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

            2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks.

            3. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, Ron says a lot of things that you and Jim refuse to even think about.  Automatic reactions from the two of you, always predictable and always right in tune with the Right's message.

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Never said such a thing.  You have a rare ability to convince yourself that your lies are true.  I think that's referred to as being pathological; would you look that up for me please?

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sarah Palin made me say it.

              Thats the truth.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                THAT I believe.  Was she dressed as Wonder Woman?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll be in my bunk.

  3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    Keep talking Sarah.  Pleeeeeeeease continue to speak up for the teabaggers.  big_smile

  4. Elena. profile image89
    Elena.posted 5 years ago

    If nothing else (although there's plenty else that I'll save... to save myself some grief) I find it in great distate to use "blood" in that statement, when the actual blood of all victims isn't even dry yet.

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      She also doesn't seem to understand what the blood libel is...not that it matters to her followers, of course.

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'll be honest. It's an old term, and I really don't understand all its nuances. But I did hear a Harvard professor say that Palin used the word correctly and appropriately. I guess the old adage is true: even a blind hog...

        1. livelonger profile image89
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, but it was Dershowitz. His singular obsession is Israel, and he probably knows Palin is a die-hard Israel supporter (albeit for all the wrong reasons).

          I personally don't have as much of a problem with her using the term as much as her incessant portrayal of herself as the eternal victim, and her rank hypocrisy which she reveals almost every time she opens her mouth.

          She and her supporters have a total victim/resentment complex; maybe she needs to see a therapist.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is there a list of words that are approved by the left?

      We will have to resort to grunts if this goes much further.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I think they have something called the Manual of DoubleSpeak. lol And the leftists are the only ones allowed a copy.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Its funny how definitions do not apply to them.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image78
            Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And how the definitions keep changing.

      2. Stump Parrish profile image60
        Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Jim, the list of words you are seeking have all be refudiated. I am assuming that Palin subscribes to the new word or phase of the day in an attempt to increase her vocabulary. Blood libel must have been the phrase of the day and her comprehension of the meaning is about on par with her exhibited level of intelligence.

        Of course if one is incapable of using the english language as it was intended to be used, that person will simply resort to using words that are big. and sound nice. Or do you suppose she was simply trying to show her support of the jewish people in her own special way?

    3. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I say the blood is on the hands of the media who keep trying to stir the pot and keep the hatred and division alive and well.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. Neither is without fault.

        @Flightkeeper: Just wondering, aren't Dummycrats and libtards insults? At least very condescending remarks, I would think. How far does using these terms go to help solve any problems?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Insults?

          I would say descriptive.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As is human habitrail.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I stand in support of your rights to do what you want with your body.

        2. Flightkeeper profile image78
          Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It doesn't, but unfortunately I do enjoy messing with libs because they get so riled up when I do things they do. lol

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You have a gerbil?

  5. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    It makes absolute perfect sense, if you think like Sarah Palin.
    1+2=4
    1.The Left has been accused of using the death of an innocent 9-year-old CHILD for political gain
    2. The "lamestream" media are of course leftist and owned/supported by JEWS

    Blood libel combines innocent children's blood(1) + (2)Jews to = (4) sensational, false accusations.

    In this case, the blood libeler is Palin.
    Got it?

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      2. The "lamestream" media are of course leftist and owned/supported by JEWS

      I thought Rick Sanchez who used to work for CNN said that.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    BTW, the only incitement to violence has come from the Tea Party, not the media. THAT is reprehensible!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Post a link please.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4417451_f248.jpg

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That sure proves the point.

          One guy holding one sign is the cause of all the trouble.

          Or is that a woman?

          How could I have missed that.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "That sure proves the point."
            Thank you.

            "One guy holding one sign is the cause of all the trouble."
            Uh, wait, no. That's not the point. The point is that many folks who attend tea-party demonstrations have been calling for armed uprisings against the government. That's all.

            Is there a causal relationship between these idiots and the idiot who killed six people and wounded 14 last weekend? No. I never said that there was.

            I'm merely pointing out that these boneheads have been calling for exactly the sort of thing that happened last weekend.

            If I'd called for armed insurrection, and then someone shot a government official (along with several bystanders), well, I'd be mortified.

            Of course, I wouldn't call for armed insurrection against the United States anyway, so I wouldn't be in that position. I doubt anyone here would.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "I'm merely pointing out that these boneheads have been calling for exactly the sort of thing that happened last weekend."

              Nobody called for that to happen.

              If you can't prove something don't say it.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Nobody called for that to happen."

                Specifically? Okay, nobody called for anyone to specifically attempt to assassinate Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. That is true.

                But hundreds, perhaps thousands, called for armed insurrection with those signs. Private citizens shooting government officials is exactly what an armed insurrection is.

                "If you can't prove something don't say it."
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4420921_f248.jpg

                I've just proven it.

                Is it okay with you for people to call for armed insurrection against the United States? Or is it only okay because a Democrat is in the White House, and the Democrats still control the Senate? Or is calling for armed insurrection not okay at all? Just trying to get a handle on where you're coming from.

                1. Stump Parrish profile image60
                  Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I do believe he has you there Jim.

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image61
                    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know about the rest of you, but the last Democratic Congress sure pssd me off with their arrogance, passing bills in the middle of the night which they hadn't read, and IMO, the biggest promoter of insider hatred was Nancy Pelosi.

                    If I recall correctly, the Tea Party meetings were not violent until a few infiltrators came in and started physically pushing people around.  Remember?

  7. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Jim, this Tea Party violence is not new to Gabby Gifford,but what does it tell you when FOUR REPLICANS resign for fear of their lives???
    These reports from last spring. I've posted one link and excerpts from a CBS story.
    The pattern is clear.
    Who is inciting these people, do you think?

    http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in- … the-causes

    WASHINGTON (CBS/AP) Political pundits knew health care reform was going to upset critics and the "tea party" contingent, but they probably didn't expect things to get violent.

    The Democratic leadership in Congress is decrying recent "acts of violence" against 10 House Democrats and one Republican, including one report of a cut gas line at the house of the brother of one member of Congress.

    The most recent report came from US Rep. Harry Mitchell, AZ, whose spokesman, Adam Bozzi, said in a statement that the congressman received physical threats, including threats on his life, both before and after a vote on health care reform.

    A brick was thrown through the window of the district office of Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in Niagara Falls, in upstate New York, while Bart Stupak, the conservative Democrat whose deal with the White House on abortion funding curbs provided the crucial last few votes for passage of the bill, reported getting calls from people wishing that he "bleed, get cancer and die."

    Representative James Clyburn, the highest ranking black lawmaker, said he received a fax with an image of a noose.

    Even the families of representatives aren't immune to the backlash, apparently. The Albemarle County Fire Marshal's Office and the FBI have concluded, in a joint statement, that a severed gas line outside of the house of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother was "an act of vandalism." Perriello supported the overhaul measure and an activist involved in the "tea party" movement reportedly posted the brother's address on an internet forum - apparently thinking it was the congressman's - and urged angry opponents to pay him a visit.

    House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, says he knows that people are angry but denounced the disturbing trend, saying, "Threats and violence should not be part of a political debate."

    1. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      MM, are you interested in a joint partnership to produce a new line of Republican Valantines cards. All we need to do is provide a card with a sleeve you insert a picture of your loved one into. On this clear plastic sleeve we will print the cross hairs of a target. Should make a killin at all future tea party events. What do you think?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They're not cross hairs, they're surveyors' marks.  They were taken down anyway, cause surveyor's marks are sometimes used to commit violent acts.

  8. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    Palin's Hometown Church has a new logo.. a black cross surrounded by a unifying circle of love

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/crosshairs-190x191.png

    1. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Greek one, I don't know if this was intentional or not but I noticed something about your target. If you smoke some pot and stare at it, the faces of Democrats begin to appear in it.

      Did you buy those cross hairs from the He Man, Democrat Haters Club that Jim/Spanky belongs to?

      I... (YOUR NAME)... Member in good standing of the He-Man Democrat Haters Club... Do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate Democrats and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to. And especially: never fall in love, and if I do may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours - or until I scream bloody murder.

      1. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        nah, just got it off of her site.. it was just a cut and paste.. very very simple.. just like her mind, politics and rhetoric

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol

  9. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    For the Jims and Flightkeepers amongst us....please point to the "liberal" hate speech... While I can cite numerous acts of instigation from Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and others of the ridiculous ilk, I have yet to find the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow similarities....

    While I have witnessed the fear mongering on Fox schmooze...I have yet to hear anything of this sort from their counterparts....

    The Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert "liberal" ends don't promote any kind of violence, or use any sort of language that would insinuate violence...

    The "liberal media" Los Angeles Times has yet to publish any articles by liberals using any terms comparable to violence either....

    "Lock and load"...."Do not give in...reload".....this type of rhetoric has been the rallying point for the "Obama/liberal" haters.... 

    In at least one of my hubs I share the B.S. chain emails that have been floating through conservative circles over the past two years....and from "Obama is not a citizen" to "Obama the secret Muslim" all of these work to create an atmosphere of violence....the perception that a hidden hand is waging war on Americans and that something has to be done about it....

    The Taitzes of this nation (the idiot behind the birther movement and former California Attorney General candidate) need to be recognized for the severe harm they have caused.....

    For, it does not matter if a direct follower of such wayward minds perpetrated the horrific acts seen in Arizona.....the presence of such rhetoric gives justification to those who are unable to control themselves....

    Does anyone else here on hubpages get these crazy chain emails? 

    My uncle, a conservative in Jersey...can't get enough of them....he continues to believe that Obama is a hidden Muslim/Socialist agent....and these emails call out for revolution of diverse types....  My uncle, though a seemingly learned man of high socio-economic status (and a former Air Force captain) cannot get enough of this trash...and even when the frauds are debunked and shown clearly to him, he refuses to believe...he points to the "liberal" conspiracy that the "universities" put out...

    How blind some have become....

    Orly Taitz and her cohorts are responsible for the distrust, delusions, and horrific acts that we are continuing to see...

    Where is the "liberal" counterparts to Taitz...to Beck, Palin and Limbaugh?

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where is the "liberal" counterparts to Taitz...to Beck, Palin and Limbaugh?

      Their ratings tanked and their network went bankrupt.....sorry about that....

      But I guess you forgot about Randi Rhoades and her use of gunshot sound effects when talking about taking care of President Bush.

  10. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 5 years ago

    Two questions:

    1. If a blood libel is now assigning blame for inciting murder, then is Palin guilty of manufacturing a blood libel against Democrats with her "death panels" claim?

    2. If Palin really believes "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them" then can we assume she now stands behind the construction of the "Ground Zero mosque"?

  11. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    I had never even heard of Randi Rhodes before.  I don't know what the listener rates are to Air America..now or back then, but I doubt it has the impact or reach of FOX.... 

    As for the shows of O'Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh...I don't know how their shows are doing either...

    Concerning these chain emails circling the globe (google search for them perhaps), I don't see anything going in the opposite direction...

    Taitz lost her election...and her federal court cases....but instead of followers and other supporters seeing these defeats as proof of fraud, they instead further retreat into the corner of "this just shows the extent of the corruption and conspiracy" mentality...

    I hate seeing such nonsense....especially within my own family....my uncle's wayward thinking has infected other members....

    The Republican/Teaparty identity cosntruct through its language and imagery has tried to make their own group into "Americans" and everyone else, especially "liberals" and "the left" into threats....

    The word "liberal" becomes a slur.....as Jim demonstrates over and over again.... 

    Let his behavior in these forums, his tones...his way of directing his quips...as verbal violence....

    One side has worked hard to paint itself as "more" American...or as "authentic" American...."traditional" American...."real" American.... 

    As for the "liberals"...there is the distinction between the Americans who profit disproportionately from other Americans.... While I have heard "liberals" talk about bankers and corporate elites with negative connotations, I have yet to perceive the "we are more American than them" idea.... I do hear the "we don't get paid or receive the benefits commisurate to our labors" theme..  But, this is also reality...

    As for "real" American or "traditional" American I see no way to realistically construct such a generalization..... Garbage more like...

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Poor Sarah, she has suffered so much because other people were killed.

  13. thisisoli profile image66
    thisisoliposted 5 years ago

    I have to admit I rather like Sarah Palin, if only because she can have political views like

    "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by treaty," Palin said in her analysis, before being corrected by the show's co-host. "Yeah," Palin continued. "And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes."

    and still have the amount of power she has.

    Either shes 'sucked in' a lot of favors, or she must have been real, real, lucky.

  14. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    I try hard to stay away from the violent and divisive nature of these forums , but I have to inject , I really do understand why all of you have to finger point , This is a fine cool-aid that you drink , none of this is the fault of either party , assasins have been around since the B.C.days. So have mentally challenged zealots , I'm finding more and more that all I have to do to see where such inciteful hatred comes from is to observe the human nature evolving here in some of these forums.
    Remember ; point a finger at someone and there are four more on your hand pointing back at you.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fine, then speak up and demand this hate speech be stopped.  That is, if you want it stopped.

    2. 70
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Finally, some levelheadedness!

      It seems ironic that the ones condemning the vitriol are the most vitriolic!

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How are you supposed to react to evil? Cookies and milk?

    3. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      THE WORST OF US ARE THE PEOPLE THAT SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING.
      Take a stand!

  15. I am DB Cooper profile image67
    I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago

    Her team had 4 days to come up with a statement regarding this tragedy and the finger-pointing, and the best term they can come up with is "blood libel"? When I first read that I thought it must be a misprint. There's no way she's claiming she's a victim of a blood libel following an incident in which a Jewish woman was shot in the head. Surely Mrs. Palin (or at least someone on her team) knows that blood libel refers to the urban legend that Jews murder children and use their blood for secret religious rituals. Surely someone from Team Palin knows that this term is very painful for Jewish people and that it might be slightly inappropriate for a non-Jew to claim to be a victim of it following an incident that left a Jewish woman in critical condition.

    It was absolutely wrong to blame Palin following the shooting, but there were so many better ways she could have expressed how she feels she was wronged by the media. Why use a term with such an ugly history?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Let's face it, many of those on here supported the idiot when she ran with McCain.  There's no way they can gracefully back out of their choices without admitting she was unworthy of the spot.  So they have to make excuses for her.  Simple as that.

    2. DTR0005 profile image85
      DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have never been one for conspiracy theories though they do tend to add spice to the humdrum of ordinary life. But I have to wonder if there isn't someone, some group inside the Palin camp whose motives run clearly counter to the Palin agenda. Palin's response was clear and very eloquent - clearly not from the mind of Sarah Palin herself. And  I have little doubt that  Sarah Palin had no idea what "blood libel" actually meant. But clearly her speech writer(s) did - it is not at all a common term. Again, I am not a conspiracist but there is just too much "smoke" here for there not to be fire...

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting idea. From what I read, Palin has a VERY small group of handpicked loyalists. I don't think deliberate sabotage is likely.  My opinion of SP is that she's a fundamentalist christian. That's what drives her at EVERY level. The fundies have a strange relationship with Israel now - one of blind support. It has to do with their view of Armageddon. She doesn't think the use of 'blood libel' was offensive or inappropriate.

        My point, sorry to take the long way around the barn, the fundies view themselves as the Chosen People, as the Jews were (but in their fundie eyes, the Jews no longer are). And the fundies and teabaggers (which overlap a lot) view themselves as persecuted victims. They believe it!

        From what I read, the video was polished, like a release from a presidential campaign, complete with a flag in the background. The slip of claiming victimhood was not sabotage, it was the honest belief of a loyal, handpicked staff. SP is more than a little paranoid herself, she won't use pros unless they are fundamentalist loyalists. That means that she will often be working with second or third-rate help and you will see feats of unbelievable stupidity.

        1. Stump Parrish profile image60
          Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Considering the expertise in promoting canidates and political parties we witness every election cycle, I find it hard to believe that anything is said by anyone that isn't scripted. There are people in each campaign that are responsible for protecting the canidate from their own ignorance and stupidity. The only way that you could not be worried about stupid remarks is knowing that your supporters are to stupid to realise how stupid their canidate is. This is where Fox News comes in.

          They keep their audience dumber than bricks and hire every rightwing religious brick mason they can find to be a piad political apprentice.  I guess fox figures that eventually enough of the country will be dumb enough to rely solely on The Faux News Network for their knowledge. At this point Fox News will be the reality show contest that selects our elected officials. Survival: Congressional Boot Camp Edition will be a monster hit. Win enough positive ratings and Murdick pays for you to run for office.

          Not everyone in this party can be as stupid as Palin pretends(?) to be.

        2. DTR0005 profile image85
          DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting point yourself.

        3. Ana Louis profile image84
          Ana Louisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not debating.  Just want to correct one statement.  Christians do not believe they are now the chosen.  We still believe that the Jews are God's chosen people.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not debating either. Any Christian is entitled to their own interpretation of the Gospels. However, I was referring to evangelicals which narrows the theology some. If you will allow that Pat Robertson is a legitimate spokesperson for evangelicals, you can find a statement from him, a couple of years back, where he declared that Jews would not go to heaven unless they converted to Christianity.

            It's on that basis, that I suggest evangelicals consider themselves more 'Chosen' than the Jews. I'm not taking any stand, because I don't claim to know what heaven is, much less the mind of the Creator, whoever She may be.

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I read a comment on another site...can't find it  now...sad, but this guy said that the crosshairs on Palin's map are not portrayed the way normal hunting crosshairs are portrayed.....he said the crosshairs on Palins map are exactly what the White Supremacy Groups use. He said to go on Stormfront website if you can stomache it and see. Also said to read the comments...it's scary.

        Added to this is this:
        "Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Tea Party group founded and funded by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, worked with local right-wing financier (and AFP board member) Art Pope to fundamentally change Wake County’s school board":

        They are trying to end the diversity policy at the schools!

        “I don’t want us to go back to racially isolated schools,” said Shila Nordone, who is biracial and has two children in county schools. “But right now, it’s as if the best we can do is dilute these kids out so they don’t cause problems. It sickens me.”

        And this:
        Ken Blackwell Whitewashes Slavery Out Of Original Constitution

        "Last week, when the House of Representatives read the Constitution on the House floor, the body’s new GOP leadership elected to replace the actual Constitution with a censored document that erased many of America’s original sins."

        And this:

        "Palmetto State Armory just released a commemorative, limited edition “you lie” assault rifle, repeating the phrase made popular by Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) during President Obama’s health care speech in 2009." The “you lie” inscription is etched on to the side."

        Get that!!! Like imaginary shooting Obama every time you use it!!!

        NOT to mention, that Boehner was invited to Obama's speech last nite, but declined. He hosted a cocktail party instead.....this is the way to show respect to a president??? There is no respect!

        ***Like I said the other day, these Tea-Baggers are a very familiar group, just in another guise.

        Something to think about....

  16. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    If Sarah Palin really believes acts of monstrous criminality begin and end with the criminals who commit them then why did she take down the crosshairs map? If she did nothing wrong,if there was nothing wrong, if the violence of Tea Party activists against Democrats AND Republicans begins and ends with the individuals and her map has/had no bearing on their actions, then why did she take it down?

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A good question...which she'll never answer. wink

  17. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I'd be careful if I were you, Ron. You don't want any surveyors' associations rising up and accusing you of libel, blood or otherwise! lol

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh crap!  How do you delete a post? yikes

  18. thisisoli profile image66
    thisisoliposted 5 years ago

    I don't see how palin is to blame in the slightest for some idiot with a gun. People are entitled to their political viewpoints, but it is not their fault if some gun weilding maniac takes this as an indication to go out shooting.

    I also have little love for the tea party activists, I actually walked through a group of them who converged on the Austin capitol some time back, and all i'm going to say is the stereotype they have already aquired is if anything too bland.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why then do we (in the UK) have laws banning hate speech?

      1. Stump Parrish profile image60
        Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        John, I would venture to guess it is because you have government officials that don't owe their office to the corporations that not only put them in office, they decide if they get to remain in that office. please dont expect our government officials to be able to accomplish anything they haven't been given permission to accomplish. They have already admitted publically that they are incapable of providing America with affordable healthcare. They know for a fact that Americans can't be trusted to think on their own and work hard to destroy the educational system a little more. Palin is a top contender for a run for the presidency in 2012. This fact alone explains the mentality and brain power of a large portion of this country.  It tickles the crap out of me everytime I hear someone address her as governor Palin. She sold out the state she took an oath to serve for a job at fox news. The majority of her fans dont realize that 1/2 way thru the presidency, Guns and Ammo will attempt to hire her away to hawk subscriptions, she'll go of course, lol.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I could see that happening! (The Guns and Ammo thing.)

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Why then do we (in the UK) have laws banning hate speech?"

        Couldn't tell you. I don't like the idea of laws that ban a certain kind of speech, or laws that make certain crimes worse because of the motives of the criminal.

        To my mind, that's punishing not only the crime, but also the thoughts of the criminal.

        If I beat someone up because I wanted to blow off some steam, it's not somehow less of a crime than if I beat someone up because he's gay, or because he's straight, or because he's Canadian, or because he's a Yankees fan. I still beat someone up, and nothing more or less.

        Use my well-known hatred of Yankees fans in court to establish a motive, sure. But don't punish me for hating Yankees fans. If I'd just sat around hating Yankees fans, nobody would have ever gotten beaten up.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That makes perfect sense, Jeff.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          " If I'd just sat around hating Yankees fans, nobody would have ever gotten beaten up"

          Quite, and no harm done either. Incite others to hate Yankee fans and by extension display that hatred by means of violence. . .

        3. Stump Parrish profile image60
          Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff, I'm not convinced everything you just said is correct, I agree with you about limiting speech based on the fact that some don't like the words. Putting up with people you disagee with is part of the price for maintaining our freedom of speech.

          I disagree that it isn't a worse crime when it is based upon a harbored hatred of a specific part of society that's based upon the outright ignorance of the person beating up or killing another. Blowing of steam is more than likely a spur of the moment decision based upon random events coming together. The hate crime has already been committed over and over in the killers head. They are simply waiting for the right ramdom target to come along.

          Now I feel your dislike of Yankee fans in general and hope that none bite the dust around you any time soon. Someone will try and convict you based upon your previous statement, lol.

          For my southern neighbors reading this, he is talking about the baseball team and not disliking Yankees in general, Please put the shotguns back in the closet. I know how easily ya'll are to get riled up.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe because she's an idiot with a gun...

  19. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    thisisoli,
    NO ONE is claiming that Palin is to blame for some idiot (Loughner) with a gun.
    They ARE claiming that Palin and her crosshairs map are to blame for several other idiots with guns and other weapons of personal and property destruction. This is not the first attack on Gabby Giffords. This is not the first attack on other Democrat elected officials or even Republican officials.
    We had 4 Republican officials resign in fear for their lives.
    NOT from some wacko lone gunman like Jarod Loughner.
    The attacks are from the Tea Party, which just happens to be Sarah Palin's base.
    That violence is not coincidental and Sarah Palin and her irresponsible rhetoric (including now the ridiculous "blood libel"
    accusation) are DIRECTLY responsible.

    If anything positive comes out of all this, perhaps rational, responsible, NON-VIOLENT Democrats and Republicans will become allies against the Tea Party. History is full of strange bedfellows...

  20. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    I know , I know , its all George Washingtons fault anyway , he cut down the cherry tree didn't he.

  21. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Oh and don't forget what Grover Cleveland did.!!!

  22. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Hey , what about , Teddy Rosevelt , you didn't vote for him , isn't there some blame we could put to him!

  23. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    I'm sure there must be some phsycological explanation for those people who must blame everyone one else for anything that they don't understand in life. I just wish there was a medication for it. I'd vote for more health care for some of you.

  24. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Touche, Doug!
    I would only change one 1/2 of one of your sentences.
    She didn't get her feelings hurt (like she has any).
    She got EXPOSED with the truth!
    She's been publicly outed and she just can't handle the truth!

  25. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Oh, and let's not forget. The Tea Party doesn't just engage in violent talk and images! They engage in violent actions against those who disagree with them.
    Actions -- violence.
    The accusations against them are not groundless or "libel." Turning it around like they are the victims is a classic tactic of guilty people.

  26. Friendlyword profile image61
    Friendlywordposted 5 years ago

    INCITE: How to build a child killer

    Sarah Palin released a video statement Wednesday calling the rush to pin blame on conservatives for the Tucson shooting a “blood libel.”

    “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said. “They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”

    In the eight-minute video, Palin says, “…especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

    INCITE:

    To move to action

    To stir up

    To spur on

    To scrape the gutters of this Country looking for the sickest tools you can find to do your dirty work

    To crawl under every rock and drag out the most deranged members of our society so you can goad them on and aid and abet them in any way you can-including money!

    To instigate crimes of passion by the mean and hateful and evil.

    To aid and abet a child killer

    To instigate the murder of a doctor-IN A CHURCH!

    To forment anger and hate with the most underhanded and evil intentions

    To provoke the killing of political opponents you could never face head on.

    I could go on forever. But, I'll wait until the next time you decide to say some words, when you have no idea of their meaning.

  27. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Well, she's done it again, hasn't she? Managed to turn the whole situation around and focused attention on HERSELF, while inciting emotional reactions on both sides.
    I agree with you, Doug. She must truly believe she is a victim. There is no other logical explanation for why she does or says what she does and says. In point of fact, she is a victimIZER, a user, an exploiter and a divisive force. 

    And now she's managed to piss of the Jewish community, too. Nice work,Sarah!

    Having just watched the very moving memorial service in Tucson, the idea that she is using this situation for HER political gain (as she and other righties have incorrectly accused the left of doing) is ... what was the word she used? Reprehensible.

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      MM, you don't seem to make any sense lately, at least to me. Sad, you certainly used to...

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Misha, of late, you seem to only be able to understand those you agree with.

        I haven't seen this comment directed at those conservatives who make a deliberate science of incoherence.

  28. sligobay profile image75
    sligobayposted 5 years ago

    There seems to be a rift in civility permeating the country, the world and Hubpages. There seems to be no restraint in pen and tongue in the forums, hub comments, the media or anywhere. We are all guilty and responsible for the breakdown in civility. I confess my own bias and frustrations and judgments.  Journalism was once somewhat factual and objective. Opinions were confined to the editorial page. Now sensationalism has become the rule rather than the exception.
    My recent Hub tried to focus upon "incitement" to violence as being a problem in need of curtailment. My bias came in not offering bipartisan examples of provocation to violence. Nothing stands alone. Everything is connected. <URL snipped - please do not promote your Hubs in the Forums>

    1. sligobay profile image75
      sligobayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry about the URL to my Arizona Shooting Hub but relevance to a discussion didn't seem promotional as I wrote. I get it, now.

  29. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    I am appalled by Sarah Palin.  Until now, I've simply found her to be stupid and reckless.  After today's "blood libel" comment, given on the day of the memorial, I find her vile and repugnant.

    How anyone can ever listen to another word she utters with any seriousness is beyond me.

  30. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Below are various reactions on all sides to the use of the term "blood libel."
    I didn't count the number of "cons" vs. "pros" but there are some notable "pros" in here.
    With all due respect to Mr. Dershowitz and his accomplishments, he has represented (among others) Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker, Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, and eas the appellate adviser for the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995.
    So he does have something of a history of backing the "questionable" horses...


    Posted at 11:33 AM ET, 01/12/2011
    'Blood libel': Reaction to Sarah Palin
    By Rachel Weiner

    Sarah Palin's video message Wednesday morning, meant to combat accusations that she shared in the blame for the tragic shootings in Tucson last weekend, only sparked new outrage over her assertion that her critics were manufacturing a "blood libel" against her. (The phrase "blood libel" refers to age-old anti-Semitic falsehoods claiming Jews use the blood of Christian children for ritualistic purposes).

    J Street, a liberal Jewish organization:

        J Street is saddened by Governor Palin's use of the term "blood libel."

        The country's attention is rightfully focused on the memorial service for the victims of Saturday's shooting. Our prayers continue to be with those who are still fighting to recover and the families of the victims. The last thing the country needs now is for the rhetoric in the wake of this tragedy to return to where it was before.

        We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term "blood libel" brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.

    Jonah Goldberg, National Review:

        I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn't ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood -- usually from children -- in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.

    Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.)

        She is an attractive person, she is articulate, but i think intellectually she seems not to understand what is going on here.

    Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

        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.

    Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice:

        Sarah Palin did not shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Only the perpetrator can be found guilty for this act of terrorism. But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin's map showing her district in the crosshairs. "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize that there are consequences to that action." According to Ms. Palin's logic, Rep. Giffords' statement was a blood libel against the Fox News host. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish and Ms. Palin is Christian makes the accusation even more grotesque.

    Noam Neusner, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and the son of a famed Talmudic scholar.

        I would have advised against using it -- the term is historically unique and refers specifically to false charges of ritual murder. While Ms. Palin has a legitimate gripe against her liberal critics, who were wrong to associate the Tucson shooter with her politics, she is using a term that simply does not apply. She could have simply used the word 'libel' and she would have been fine.

    The Anti-Defamation League:

        It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

        It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

        Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase "blood-libel" in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term "blood-libel" has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

    Conservative pundit Glenn Reynolds, who used the phrase in a WSJ o-ed:

        ...I don't necessarily know that Palin picked up the phrase from me -- I think a lot of people in the blogosphere were using that description. I didn't see it, but I got email saying that on Morning Joe somebody was complaining about her use of that term this morning. I am of course aware -- and I imagine the very pro-Israel Palin is, too -- of *The* Blood Libel from medieval times, but one sees false associations with murder called *a* blood libel without reference to that. I seem to recall Tony Blankley calling the Haditha allegations (by John Murtha?) a blood libel against American troops, for example.

    Hank Sheinkopf, Democratic consultant:

        The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews -- the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable. This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she's already dug for herself. ... It's absolutely inappropriate.

    David A. Harris President and CEO, National Jewish Democratic Council :

        Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a "blood libel" against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries -- and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.

    Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer:

        I liked much of what she said, but it would have been even better if she simply rose above the accusations about her map and focused entirely on the bigger message of loss, tragedy and the greatness of our country and the strength of our people.

    Howard Kurtz, The Daily Beast:

        Had Palin scoured a thesaurus, she could not have come up with a more inflammatory phrase. ... I would say that sounds like the response of someone who wants to stoke her base and further her lucrative career as a culture warrior--not someone who is plotting to run for president.

    Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic:

        Sarah Palin is such an important political and cultural figure that her use of the term "blood libel" should introduce this very important historical phenomenon to a wide audience, and the ensuing discussion -- about how Fox News is not actually Mendel Beilis -- will serve to enlighten and inform. It is a moral necessity, I think, for Christians to understand the blood libel (Muslims, too -- see the Damascus Blood Libel of 1840), not only because it is part of their history, but because the blood libel still has modern ramifications -- Israel, after all, was founded as a reaction to Christian hatred, of which the blood libel was an obvious and murderous manifestation.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Alan Dershowitz is a defense attorney.  The most reprehensible among us deserves good council.  It is not backing a bad horse to provide a citizen his best possible defense.  Would you deny a citizen a good defense?  Why not simply decide them guilty and shoot them in the street? I heard Greg Garrison, the man who prosecuted Mike Tyson, rip into someone who criticized a defense of criminals as immoral.  It cannot be immoral to give a citizen, therefore a sovereign in this country, the best available legal representation.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "The most reprehensible among us deserves good council.  It is not backing a bad horse to provide a citizen his best possible defense.  Would you deny a citizen a good defense?"

        UCV, I couldn't have said it better. Before they are convicted, a suspect is only that: a suspect. Granted, a lot of people saw this particular guy do the crime, so it looks pretty open-and-shut, but even so, due process must be observed.

        If not, what good are our laws, or our Constitution?

      2. DTR0005 profile image85
        DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Here here! Totally agree.

    2. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for those, MM! Verrrry interrresting...

  31. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Misha,
    If my comments are not making sense to you perhaps I should let the points I have been trying to make be made by others who feel the same way as I do. There are quite a few eloquent hubbers who fit that description. MM

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I just leave it here MM, I probably should not have started this at all, it just sickened me so much to see you descending the way of hate. Sorry about all that, I won't bother you again.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think Palin is a "hater"?

      2. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think bashing a ridiculous politician and "media personality" qualifies as a descent into hate.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "I don't think bashing a ridiculous politician and "media personality" qualifies as a descent into hate."

          No, but it stops it from happening doesn't it? Very subtle and sneaky form of stifling speech. Just like anytime you criticize Israel, you are automatically labeled an anti-semite.
          It's subtle, but just as poisonous as if you came right out and said STFU.

      3. sligobay profile image75
        sligobayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This thread seems to evidence some civility and response to writers on a personal level. If more of us seek to be considerate of the concerns of others in our communications, and exercise some measure of restraint, we may someday arrive at a civil conversation. Ranting and raving from an emotional place rather than balanced reasoning from an intellectual source will only 'incite' an equally emotional and unreasoned response.

        1. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's hard to be civil with the left when they insist on using lies to support their arguments.

          1. Daniel Carter profile image90
            Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But for some, I think the problem is more about their volatile personalities, rather than blaming it on the "actions" of others.

          2. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And every single person on the left makes exactly the same charge against the right.

            So, why don't we try assuming that people can make mistakes or that they may be interpreting things differently? Rather than assuming evil intent, why not question what you think is a lie with the assumption that there must be a reasonable explanation somewhere.

            Let's start here. is there anything in this thread that you think is a lie?  If so, let's find out why you think so and why the other side does not. Perhaps we can come to some better point through this?

            1. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oh I think most liberals are well intentioned and actually believe the lies they spread are truths. They have no idea that their leaders are using them, manipulating them. They are naive and trusting of their leaders and the organizations that support them. I think for the most part they're good people, just misguided.

              1. livelonger profile image89
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not to unnecessarily reiterate what Pcunix said, but that's exactly what liberals say about conservatives, too.

                1. lady_love158 profile image59
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh no, liberals never talk that nicely about the right! LOL

                  So how do we reconcile our differences?

                  I'll try with this question. Suppose you and I are dropped from the sky on this planet and we are the only people there. On that planet is everything we need to survive but of course it takes our own effort to get what we need. Now suppose I work harder and longer than you storing up supplies in case I need them and you work only hard enough to get by that day. Now suppose the weather turns bad and food becomes scarce, but luckily for me I stored plenty to last me for a while.

                  Where do our rights come from? What gives you the right to take my food? Do I have the right to protect my stash?

                  1. livelonger profile image89
                    livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lady: You are assuming that this simple hypothetical is what distinguishes conservatives from liberals. The vast majority of liberals will agree that you're entitled to what you earn. No one is seriously challenging property rights in this country.

                    It's a fiction, though, that conservatives don't want taxes collected for what they consider is the greater good. How do trillion-dollar wars get funded? Who generally supports these wars?

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lousy analogy, what if you are both republicans?

                  3. Pcunix profile image89
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I have an answer for this, but I just got home from poker and I am tired. I have to go out to a customer early tomorrow, so I may not get back here until Saturday.

                    I just don't want anyone to think I'm ignoring this. It is a fair question and deserves a fair answer, though probably by Sat it will be long forgotten as the thread moves on to something else.

              2. Daniel Carter profile image90
                Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, as livelonger says, how is that any different than how Republicans are viewed? The argument runs both ways.

              3. Stump Parrish profile image60
                Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                LL, I am willing to consider that what I see as the truth is in fact a lie. Show me the error of my ways but please, don't quote from the bible or Fox news. Neither of these sources have been verified as being any more truthful than your typical Republican.

                I have to say that I don't consider myself to be all that naive. I seek to verify any news I read thru at least one other reputable source. I must admit that this usually requires that I go outside of this country for the facts. When I started hearing about how universal healthcare was going to destroy this country, I went to the countries that offer this to their citizens. I found out that most of these countries do have some problems with their healthcare, it doesn't come close to what the Republicans were predicting. There were and are no death squads lining up to kill my grandmother. You can also look at the tax cuts for the rich that your party fought for. These job creating tax cuts have been in effect for over 8 years and I have to ask you, where are the jobs? You dont suppose that it was a misguided attempt to cover up who the republicans are actually working for do you? Let's look at the threat that was offered up about Obama and private ownership of guns. Even though Obama had said nothing about going after the guns, this was a threat that was broadcast across this country and it worked, the unnaive and properly guided Republican voters believed it, spread it, and voted for those spreading the lie. Take a close look at the efforts of some Republicans to legalize killing your child. Over 30 states now have a law on the books that allows citizens to kill their children based on religious beliefs that actually think prayer is a more effective cure than medicine. I am starting to respect the intelligence of these un-naive and properly guided _____(insert respectful word of your chioce). 

                Here are the six biggest lies that have been has spread this year. Feel free to discredit them and show them as truthful if you can.

                our first Big Lie, refer to the 2010 passage of health-care reform legislation as "a government takeover of health care." The non-partisan PolitiFact.com named this assertion the lie of the year -- an award that will likely have no impact on the issue's framing, since media figures generally fail to challenge the assertion when it's made.

                An attempt to lay just one such Big Lie to rest finds Neil Abercrombie, the newly elected Democratic governor of Hawaii, seeking to release data on the birth of President Barack Obama in his state 49 years ago in an effort to appease birthers. Abercrombie needn't bother: the Tea Partiers who doubt the president's birthright will never be satisfied with any level of proof. They're far too invested in the lie.

                Andrew Breitbart, the right-wing Web site impresario, author of our second Big Lie of the year, thought he could get away with targeting an unknown U.S. Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, through the creative editing of a video taken of Sherrod's remarks to a local NAACP gathering.

                Brietbart was ripping mad when the NAACP passed a resolution at its national convention that called on Tea Party leaders to repudiate racism within its ranks. The clip was edited to convey the opposite message of Sherrod's remarks, which addressed how she overcame her own prejudice against a white farmer she assisted in the course of her job duties

                Glenn Beck, of course, is the master of the Big Lie. That each lie Beck tells is more outrageous than the next does nothing to impede his success: in fact, his outrageousness fuels his success. Just last month, marking Big Lie number three for our purposes, Beck falsely accused the liberal financier George Soros of being a Nazi collaborator during World War II, when in fact, the Jewish Soros is a Holocaust survivor. In a three-part series on Soros, Beck framed his attack in language drawn from Hitler's Mein Kampf, calling his series "The Puppet Master," and referring to Soros as a "bloodsucker." While this caused great consternation in the progressive media world, protests in the world of mainstream media were not sustained enough to force Beck from his perch at Fox News, where he serves as community organizer for Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation, Fox's parent company.

                Having made health-care reform his signature issue, Obama was ripe for this kind of attack from the likes of David Koch, the billionaire who founded Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which have actively promoted the Lie that Obama's insurance-company-friendly reform actually amounts to a government takeover of the health-care system. Like Murdoch, who is also a billionaire, Koch opposes government regulation of any kind -- be it of the health-care industry, the energy industry or the financial sector. Koch also happens to be a top executive at Koch Industries, the company founded by his father, a founder of the John Birch Society, that is rooted in the oil and gas sectors.

                Big Lie number four: the assertion by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, that Obama's recent trip to India was costing American taxpayers $200 million per day. Media dutifully quoted Bachmann's lie, some even noting that there was no evidence to support it.

                Or take, for instance, the right-wing trope -- Big Lie number four -- that Obama cannot speak without a teleprompter, that he uses the teleprompter far more often than his predecessor, the verbally challenged George W. Bush.

                Tea Partiers remain convinced that the black president is too stupid to speak without a machine scrolling text presumably written by white staffers.

                And, coming in just under the wire for 2010 after having been an ongoing 2009 theme, thanks to Sarah Palin, is Big Lie number six: the notion that voluntary counseling for end-of-life care that is reimbursed by Medicare amounts to a government "death panel" designed to "pull the plug on Grandma."

                The success of the whole Big Lie scheme, it seems, works here on something of a paradox. The rise of right-wing media, which is always the amplifier -- if not the creator -- of such claims, came to pass because of the distrust of mainstream media by a sizable chunk of the American public. However much that distrust existed throughout the history of the republic, it really picked up steam once network news was removed from its role, in the 1970s and '80s, as a public service provided by media entities that use public resources -- the airwaves -- as the vehicle for reaping profits, and news programs were made into profit centers by the corporations that owned the networks.

                So there you have it, I am looking forwad to finding out how it is I that  have been mislead by any of these lies.

                1. Stump Parrish profile image60
                  Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Any who are interested it the entire article can find it here.

                  http://www.alternet.org/news/149370/the … 010?page=3

                2. lady_love158 profile image59
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I stopped reading after you trashed Fox News as a source. If you won't consider sources other than ones YOU deem to be reliable, then right off the bat you confirmed my claims about liberals. You have made up your mind so there's nothing to discuss.

                  1. Daniel Carter profile image90
                    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think that's the same situation with you, is it not, LL. You've made up your mind, so there's nothing to discuss. At least it seems that way.

                  2. Stump Parrish profile image60
                    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That anyone considers fox news to be an actual source for news, never ceases to amaze me. How do you justify all the lies they have been caught in? How do you justify their lawyers standing up in court and stating that they knew they were fabricating news stories but felt they were entitled to lie to their viewers based on the right to freedom of speech? The court in Fla. agreed with them. Have you ever tried to fact check any of their claims? Have you ever visited any of the countries they lie about overseas? Take the healthcare propaganda story they spread during the debate. Palin and her deathsquads, Months long waits for minor surgery. It's all a load of crap. Sure they have some problems but they dont allow their insurance companies to kill your grandmother in the name of profits.

                  3. Stump Parrish profile image60
                    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lady, I asked you to prove one of the 6 lies were actually the truth and rather than attempt it you quit reading. This of course must prove to a lot of people that I am lying here. If you refuse to read it so it must be true. That is about the tightest circular logic I've ever seen. How can you prove something wrong with out reading it? Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that the Faux News Network is just that? Is your house of cards that unstable? Or could it be that you have no interest in the truth? You know what looks to be the correct answer dont you? Prove me one of the lies to be true and I'll write a personal apology to you in a hub. If you take me up on this and lose you have to apologize to me the same way, lol.

            2. 60
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              When I saw you posted to this thread. I came in to see what funny and witty comments you might have left. More than likely I would have disagreed at least in part. However I would have enjoyed your wit and style. You have totaly let me down by making absolute sense!

              1. Stump Parrish profile image60
                Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I let me down all the time C.J. I know how you feel. I'll try harder next time and thanks for the compliments. A laugh a day keeps the assasins away

  32. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    anyone who thinks that Palin was responsible for that jerk shooting people is an idiot.

    1. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      From one Idiot to two; read a dictionary like I did. Along with the hype; I found pretty convincing evidence that right wing teabagger nuts hang on every word of their teabag leader. All together now, spell it out and try to pronounce it! INCITE...

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So, the crusades ARE Jesus' fault!

        Thanks for clearing that up!
        --

        If you write "I hate Bill Clinton", and then I read it and shoot Bill Clinton... you should go to jail! YOU "incited" me! I was the poor victim of your incitement.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If you say "there's a vast right -wing conspiracy out to get me", and then you get got.....

          Hmmmmm.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If I drop my fork, and all the lights go out, then me dropping my fork must have caused all the lights to go out?

            No.

            I dropped my fork. Then the lights went out. That's a sequence, not a causal relationship. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ? what?

        2. Friendlyword profile image61
          Friendlywordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yea! Me and Bubba...we can move a crowd. Because of the people we love!
          Can you say that about Palin and Limbaugh?

  33. Friendlyword profile image61
    Friendlywordposted 5 years ago

    In an appeal for national unity and soul-searching after the Tucson shootings, President Barack Obama on Wednesday night urged Americans to "expand our moral imaginations" and "sharpen our instincts for empathy" — even with those who are political adversaries.

    I am so proud to call this man Mr President. We are so lucky to have such a good man leading our Country. He has to extend his hand in the name of diplomacy.

    The rest of us have to speak up when we see really really bad people that are inciting baby killers. We have to take a stand against the right wing leaders that are influencing murderers and theives and other bad people who take advantage of the weak minded.

  34. Jeff Berndt profile image91
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    This "blood libel" comment is a symptom of a penchant that many conservative Christians seem to have for painting themselves as some kind of persecuted minority. Perhaps they want to be blessed, in accordance with scripture?

    "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11

    Just a guess.

    As for the appropriateness of the comment, writer John Scalzi captured it very well here.

    1. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This link is brilliant, Jeff.

      Above and beyond all other things, Palin is an opportunist. Her ego truly believes she can lead this country to peace and prosperity, but the sad writing on the wall is that she doesn't have the intellectual capacity to keep her one-trick-pony show on the air, let alone speak without making big errors and political blunders. And note that for all the political insight she is supposed to have, that her show isn't about anything political, but speaks volumes about her own singular, very small culture. Not that there is anything wrong with that culture. It's probably a very good thing to know, to understand, and to educate ourselves, but please again note that the show has nothing to do with her crusade in politics. Therefore, her ego and insecurity that drive her need for the limelight is, unfortunately, what is driving her vehicle, not wisdom, vision, and insight about the remarkable and varied facets of the ENTIRE American culture.

    2. sligobay profile image75
      sligobayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Though I do not understand how a hyperlink is allowed in forums and a link to my own relevant Hub is self-promotional and 'snipped' I read the link. John Scalzi indicated that he would block all comments supporting Palin. Jeff, I confessed my own bias in not presenting both sides evenhandedly in my Hub " Arizona Shooting...".  I had no examples of 'liberal' bating and incitement when I published.
      In psychotherapy, there is a description of behavior known as "victim stancing", I don't know the technical name.  It is common behavior of those unable to accept responsibility for their own behaviors who are locked in a pattern of focusing blame upon others and situations.
      "Though doth protest too much, Sarah, me thinkst'.  My Hub has a video of an Arizona Congressional candidate firing automatic weapons. Is it RIGHT to INCITE???

      1. Pcunix profile image89
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think we have to be careful to distinguish free speech rights from what should be acceptable in our politicians.

        I would not want to think about a country where Sarah could NOT deploy that gun site ad.On the other hand, I would also like to think that voters would be outraged and not vote for anyone who used such advertising.

        We have the first, but not the second.

  35. 0
    surlyoldcatposted 5 years ago

    I'm not sure if thise has even been touched upon yet, but what about that 9-year-old little girl. She wasn't a dem or rep. She was a 9-year-old kid who probably wanted to be a princess when she grew up. It breaks my heart knowing that this kid, and the millions likehere are never going to know the joys that were denied them like their first view of the mountains or the ocean, their first kiss, or falling in love.
    The dirtbag who committed this atrocity is porbably going to wind up spending a few years in jail, after which he will be parolled and making money off of his book and movie deals.
    He wouldnt't be if the voting public would not vote for people like Palin or Obama and vote for people who can prove how to fix things.
    Until then...garbage in, garbage out I suppose.

  36. Charles James profile image85
    Charles Jamesposted 5 years ago

    Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

    Some weeks ago I posted on forum a concern about the violence of language in American political discourse. I was concerned it encouraged an atnosphere of violence.

    If that was obvious to me so far away in England, it was also obvious to many Americans. I understand that before the shooting Representative Gifford was uncomfortable about being portrayed in a gun sight.

    Can I suggest to the liberals that you do not use the word "teabaggers" as it is intentionally offensive, and raises the temperature. Maybe then your opponents will stop using gun imagery in their political discourse.

    And advice to Ms Palin "When you are in a hole, stop digging".

    1. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Charles, what you advise is much too sensible but I appreciate it all the same.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I personally am very careful not to use the term "teabaggers" and agree that it doesn't promote positive and productive discussions.  However, it is a term they themselves used until they discovered it had another meaning.  That said, I don't think it equates to using gun imagery in political discourse, but that's just my opinion and I can see how you might view it differently.

      FK, I laughed out loud when I saw your reply, since you frequently use the terms "Dummycrats" and "libtards."

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It just goes to show that libs can dish it out but they can't take it.

        Somehow I knew that would be your response.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          On the contrary, I take it all the time and have never reported anyone. 

          Not true for others here.

          Carry on.

          1. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not true for me.

            I report, and will do so at every occurrence.

            Nor do I feel any reason not to. No, not for silly stuff like "libtard", but it doesn't take much more.

            Anyway, as far as this goes, I agree that dear Sarah is not "responsible".  She's still a harmful force in American politics and I wish she were smart enough to learn from this rather than reacting as she has. If she were smart, she would have expressed extreme regret and then said that while she realizes that deranged people can certainly act without any influence, perhaps it would be wise for all of us (meaning the right and the left) to calm down and look harder for opportunities to have meaningful discussions rather than seeing each other as mortal enemies.

            In other words, her reaction should have been much more like Obama's speech.

            But she's not smart, and I hope at least some of her weaker supporters now realize that she has no future as a national leader.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              By the way, my reasoning on this is that it is just like HubHopping. My reporting doesn't necessarily cause a ban, it simply alerts the admins to something I think violates forum rules. If I'm wrong, there is no harm done. If the admins don't like what they read, they take action.

            2. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I completely agree.  I was shocked at Sarah Palin's reaction.  I thought even she would have more decency and intelligence than that, but then I'm an eternal optimist.

              1. DTR0005 profile image85
                DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have very serious doubts as to whether Sarah Palin understood a word she read. And I am dead serious.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  She's scary, but the people who defend her are even scarier.

            3. habee profile image90
              habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I agree, PQ. I don't think Palin meant for or wanted people to actually go out and shoot opposing politicians. But she should have gone on TV and aplogized. Something like:

              "I am so sorry if my rhetoric or map in any way influenced violence. That was not my intention. I meant it to be symbolic. In retrospect, I have made some poor choices. Please forgive me."

              1. livelonger profile image89
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol That'll be the day! Palin is very, very much invested in her imagined victimhood.

                1. habee profile image90
                  habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I know, but I can wish, right?

                  1. livelonger profile image89
                    livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    smile I'll join you!

              2. lady_love158 profile image59
                lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why do you people INSIST on giving the democrats a pass for THEIR target map?

                http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

                1. livelonger profile image89
                  livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Are liberals right-to-bear-darts advocates like conservatives are right-to-bear-firearms advocates?

                  How many political leaders have been assassinated by darts in our country's history?

                  1. lady_love158 profile image59
                    lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL! Do you liberals ever listen to your lame justifications?

                    Do you know how you sound? It's a joke!

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    no offense, but if "drawing a few rifle targets on a map" leads to murder...

                    ...

                    ... then I'm REALLY overestimating humanity's chances of survival.

                    --------
                    The simple fact remains: an idiot picked up a weapon and killed someone.

                    That's it.

                    Is it tragic? yes of course.
                    Is it ANYONE'S fault BUT the killer? No. Of course not.

                2. habee profile image90
                  habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't. I said that earlier. But the Dem's map is an old one, and Palin's was recent. Also, wasn't Giffords mentioned on Palin's map?

                  And for those of you who say that the Dem's targets are just archery targets, WRONG! Ever been to a turkey shoot? I've competed in many of them, and targets exactly like those were used and shot at with a GUN - only the ones I used were green and red instead of blue and red. Both maps are unacceptable, IMO.

                  1. livelonger profile image89
                    livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I've never been to a turkey shoot. I have no idea what they are; had to Google it.

                    To most of us outside the South, I guess, those targets are associated with either darts or archery.

                    Maybe both parties will use stars from now on. wink

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree they are both unnecessary.

                    All of the turkey shoots I have attended used white targets with black lines.  I used to have to change them when I was a kid.  Of course, they hadn't invented color ink yet back then.

                3. Stump Parrish profile image60
                  Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No I would agree that Dems don't get a pass for this. I hadn't seen this before and even without knowing who did it, it's wrong. I have to say this type of defense reminds me of kindergarden, Ya but he did it first defense was dismissed as valid in the courts long ago.

                  The fact that one did it before should not be used as an excuse to do the same. At least not by adults in either party.

                  1. Stump Parrish profile image60
                    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    that should read as invalid oops

    3. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Point taken on the teabag thing....just remember though, that term was coined by THEM, and used against Democrats in Congress....they sent Democrats tea-bags as a reference to the Boston Tea Party. As in, WE are going to have a tea-party against YOU. OK?

      Now, can they stop with Handsome Shining, or The Messiah, or Hussein? or Odumbo?  or Obongo?

      Can't only go one way here.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Can't only go one way here."

        Yes. Yes, we can. We can choose to use words that respect our opponents as people even while disagreeing with their ideas.

        We can choose not to sink to the level of hateful rhetoric and veiled threats of violence.

        We can refer to our opponents as "Tea Partiers" instead of "Tea-Baggers."

        We can choose to assume that our opponents are people of goodwill who want to use different means to make America a nice place to live, rather than assuming that they're villains who want to turn America into a dystopia.

        We can do that. Nobody can stop us but us.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "We can choose to assume that our opponents are people of goodwill who want to use different means to make America a nice place to live, rather than assuming that they're villains who want to turn America into a dystopia."

          I'm assuming nothing. I've seen it first hand.
          I consider them villians.

          YOU can choose whatever you like.....who is telling you how to feel?

          You don't believe they were out to get Clinton...I do.
          You don't believe 9/11 was an inside job...I do.

          I have not told you how to think, feel and act....I would appreciate you doing the same.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "You don't believe 9/11 was an inside job...I do."

            That would explain quite a bit.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "You don't believe they were out to get Clinton...I do."
            Well, actually, the whole Clinton special prosecutor thing looked pretty witch-hunty to me, too...

            "You don't believe 9/11 was an inside job...I do."
            On what evidence? I mean, actual evidence, not "Oh, it's obvious that Bushco was behind it." Show me real evidence and you might convince me, but until you do, I'm assuming incompetence rather than malice.

            "I have not told you how to think, feel and act....I would appreciate you doing the same."
            Then start appreciating, 'cos I haven't told you how to think. I merely pointed out that it was within your power to hold yourself to a higher standard than your opponents hold themselves to. You don't have to, and clearly, you've chosen not to.

            Don't be surprised, however, if I call you on it when you say something distasteful.

        2. sligobay profile image75
          sligobayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff Berndt's voice of moderation and conciliation seems to fall on deaf ears.
          How very sad that our forums reflect the self-delusion of self-righteousness that has become epidemic in our great nation. One hundred and fifty years ago, our Nation resorted to arms to settle an irreconcilable political debate.
          Human Rights versus Economic Prosperity of the south were at odds then. What exactly are we all fighting about?

      2. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. And no more "Dumbya" for Bush, either.

        1. DTR0005 profile image85
          DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We could shorten it to "dumb."

  37. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    I have to admit , these forums are very entertaining , you who would blame Palin have had your fill of the cool-aid for sure and for certain. I agree with Sligo Bay , a man of wisdom. The general rhetoric here in this forum is immature and destined to show the complete lack of maturity that will! One day be the ending of mankind. You here , that blame others in you're panic to understand the idiotic mentality of the deranged are so desparate for answers , that just anything works. And looking at this from a point of reason, You make me ashamed to be American.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      After reading your posts for some time, I'm pleased to find a single point of agreement. I too am ashamed you are an American.

  38. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Same with the "Hate" label.
    That is very harsh to keep using against people, yet they don't use it on the ones spewing the hate.
    They use it on those who hate the hate!!!
    Can we have some fairness there too?

    I'm fairly skeptical that anything will change on that side.

  39. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, what gives you the right to take the food? The planet has rights too, you know. And do does the food! Why should you take it just because you can?

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you HEAR yourself? LOL!

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Usually I'd say that if lady_love thinks you're wrong, that's a pretty good indicator that you're right, but dang if I don't agree with her on this one.

        Thanks, lmc, you've given me and LL some common ground. hmm

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, and you've given me something to respect the Right on....only one of them told me to shut up, whereas quite a few of you liberals did!

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. This conversation has left the crazy station. For anyone to deny the fact that hateful, violent, gun-laden talk and imagery had nothing to so with this recent killling spree is nuts, IMO. It has become a crazy discussion, bereft of any semblance of reality.

        In other words, Righty-Land.

  40. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "The right of Free Planets to be secure in their beings, and effects, against unreasonable
    searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the products or things to be seized."

  41. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Oh my GOD! Cass Sunstein IS Edward Bernaise!!!!!--Professor Glennith Beck

  42. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Interesting to watch this forum morph into the usual us versus them mentality , The usual lack of insight and civility  , and in turn the very reason mankind cannot better itself.

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You could try leading by example.

  43. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Insight IS civility!!!--professor lovemychrisith

    1. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Huh?

  44. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Turkey shoot targets can be bi-colored, tri-colored, round, square, star-shaped, or in the shape of a turkey. I won a lot of turkey shoots with my Wingmaster because of the pattern it shot. I've never seen one with four colors, either.

  45. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    "Yes there are a number of amendments I'd like to see changed the 17th for one and I wouldn't mind seeing the 16th repealed. I'd also like to see limits applied to the commerce clause and general welfare provisions which I believe have been abused mainly by liberals to concentrate power in the executive at the expense of the people."


    So, what would you like the 17th Amendment changed into?

    Shall we go back to state legislatures selecting Senators?

    Ridiculous...

    Can you explain how the commerce clause or "general welfare" provisions concentrate power in the executive branch?

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're entitled to your view but electing the senators actually served to remove power from the states and further away from the people. Before senators had to answer to the governors and could be recalled, now, they don't have to answer to anyone except the voters who only gets a chance to be heard once every 6 years.

      You can look up the abuse of the commerce clause, it's allowed the federal government to regulate just about everything!

      1. Stump Parrish profile image60
        Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just a friendly reminder of your opportunity to prove me wrong about fox news is still waiting for your attention. If you cant back up your claims, why make them in the first place?

        1. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I answered you! Maybe it was in another thread. Google the case, it's all there. All the major media outlets filed a brief siding with Fox and the courts ruled rightly in their favor.

          The question I have for you is, why did the liberal media leave out that important fact? Why didn't they want their readers to know that? Things that make you go Hmmmm.

          1. Stump Parrish profile image60
            Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            to be completely honest, no media service reported that they had won the right to lie to it's veiwers, correct? I dont dispute that more news services in this country are more concerned with rating than journalism anymore I can assume by your addition of the word liberal before media means that the conservative news services all stood right up and aired the fact that they had gone to court to win the right to lie.. More to the point is that I was refering to the list of six the six biggest and most blatant lies Fox reported as fact last year. If you can prove any one of these to be the truth I said I would appologize personally to you in a hub.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              NPR reported that Giffords had died the other day and in return most every news outlet took their lead and reported the same thing.

              I'll say this, I have no idea what six lies you refer to but when MSNBC reports untruth every lib here says "awww, they were just wrong."

              FOX news, if they reported an untruth, Awwwwwwwwww, they were just wrong.

            2. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You mischaracterized the whole case when you say the media went to court to win the right to lie to their readers/viewers. Go read the link I posted.

              Beyond that I won't spend any more energy on this. You're wasting my time. One news agency is as good as another. It's run by humans and humans are fallible and they have opinions and their conclusions are colored by them no matter what they say. You don't like Fox, that's fine but the sources you chose to get your information from are not without sin.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You should quit trying to reason with libs.

                Just attack their baseless allegations with vigor.

                They usually start trying to amend their statements (See Ralph's example) or they just run away.

        2. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Here I did your research for you!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wilson_(reporter)

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "electing the senators actually served to remove power from the states and further away from the people."

        Wait, what? You're only half right. It did remove power from the states (that is, the states' governments), but it put power more directly into the hands of the people. Eliminating the Electoral College would likewise take power from the states and put it more directly in the hands of the people.

        You've fallen victim to the false belief that if something empowers the states, then it also necessarily empowers the people. That ain't so.

        Also, depending on the constitution of the state in question, a senator may be able to be recalled before the end of his/her term by a vote of the people.

        If a new governor could remove senators from office, how would that empower "the people?" Answer? It wouldn't. It would empower the state.

  46. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    The "Federal Government" is much different from the "Executive Branch."

    I think you need to brush up on your Constitutional law...

    I do not see, Lady, how giving the direct vote of Senators to the people of each state removes power from the people of the state...

    Can you clarify this point for me?


    However, I can see how giving the ability to vote for senators to the people of the state, and not holding it in the hands of the governor and state legislature, makes our system better....

    I want my vote to count...and I don't want a government to tell me who is going to represent me.....

    I, somehow, don't think you would like that either...

    For being against the reach of government, as your posts, Lady, definitely transmit, why would you want to put such power (selecting senators) back in the government's hands?

    Quite a contradiction I am thinking...

    I am worried, at this point, about how many people who write about the Constitution actually know what it says and what it does.....

    Very troubling this is...

    1. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree Mike, all you hear on here is a rehashing of the talking point heard on tv between episodes of American Idol.

    2. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You want your vote to count? Do you also want your Senators to act in the interest of your state, or do you want them to act in the interest of the voters?

      Acting in the interest of the voters may be acting against the interests of the state and of the governor! In fact once the senators are elected they may act in the interests of their party and not in the interest of the state or the voters, which I believe was the case when health care was voted on in my state. You see, when the governor has the power to replace the senator, then the senator must do what the governor, and hence the people, want. Do you see how this gives more power to the state and consequently to the people?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "You see, when the governor has the power to replace the senator, then the senator must do what the governor, and hence the people, want."

        I see how that if a senator serves at the pleasure of a governor, it means he must do as the governor wishes. I do not see how it follows that this gives more power to the people. It doesn't. It gives more power to the governor.

  47. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Homosexuality is a natural phenomena....this is beyond argument..

    If one has the inalienable right to life and liberty, just as ethnic background, sexuality cannot be abridged....

    But, this nation is not honest with itself, and it forgets that it took the Commerce Clause to bring about Civil Rights reform for African Americans....and it was piggy-backed on their success that Mexican-Americans and other "undesireables" gained rights and protections...

    What about the illegal deportation of American citizens of Mexican descent back in the 1930's?  How many of these American citizens were forcibly or coerced to leave behind their national birthrights (for themselves and their posterity)?

    All right in front of the American people....but, back in the 30's only one type of American really counted...  The "liberal"...oh wait...the conservative crony media worked diligently to misguide and divide Americans against each other, so forced deportation of American citizens became deportation of Mexicans...  And using the already traditional negative, bigoted ideations of the "Mexican"...it wasn't hard to get the consensus, silent or otherwise, needed to enact unconstitutional terror....

    If that was the familial legacy of Jim, or Lady...I wonder what they would have to say...

    It was not until the 1950's that Mexican-Americans could exercise the right to sit on a jury..and truly live up to the Bill of Rights concept of having a jury of one's peers or community....  This was only gained based on the legal precedent set by African-Americans, who had, many years earlier, also taken their case to the Supreme Court and won..


    It is only a sad thing that we have to write rules down in order to make the change that is obvious to see....

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Gee, wasn't it in the 50's that Operation Wetback went into effect rounding up millions of illegals and deporting them?

      Ah, the good old days!

  48. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    You want your vote to count? Do you also want your Senators to act in the interest of your state, or do you want them to act in the interest of the voters?" <----Lady

    I want Senators that do both.....and, as of yet, I am happy with the two senators that California has provided. If I didn't, I would have voted against them.

    If the people of California didn't want them, they would have been voted out... 

    So, what point are you trying to make?  Are you going to retreat into fantasy land when questioned about reality? When asked to explain your views of the Constitution..and your fallacies about the "executive branch power hold through the 16th and 17th amendments" you will descend into diatribe?

    Tripe more like...

    "Acting in the interest of the voters may be acting against the interests of the state and of the governor! In fact once the senators are elected they may act in the interests of their party and not in the interest of the state or the voters, which I believe was the case when health care was voted on in my state. You see, when the governor has the power to replace the senator, then the senator must do what the governor, and hence the people, want. Do you see how this gives more power to the state and consequently to the people?"<---Lady


    So, because the governor wants something, this means that it must be what the people of that state want?

    Governors don't work via party lines?

    What nonsense is this?

    You are wary of the Federal executive branch, but are willing to place such supreme powers in your state executive branch?

    I think you need far more than just lessons on constitutional government, but on political science altogether.... 

    I want to voice my choice for senator, and I have firm confidence in the ability of the people of a state to vote for their representatives....

    "No taxation without representation"....

    While the federal system is indirect representation...being that the Congress is the body given the power to assign taxes...I want my direct vote to go to the indirect representative...

    To then have the indirect governor select the indirect representative would undermine the very statement that so many "conservatives" use to back their claims against government abuses...

    With every post, Lady, your credibility shreds more....

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We need a "wrap it up button" when you post.

      Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus you go on and on.

      Would you for the love of God say something quickly?

      I got another gray hair reading that.

  49. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I mean, if violent-laced political speech has rights, why not a planet?

    1. DTR0005 profile image85
      DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good point

  50. mikelong profile image84
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    "Gee, wasn't it in the 50's that Operation Wetback went into effect rounding up millions of illegals and deporting them?

    Ah, the good old days." <---Lady

    Very good...I write 1930's you read 1950's....how this is done I don't know...

    You have heard of Operation Wetback?  It would make sense that you would remember that name...

    But, perhaps there is another more important one that you should look into...Bracero...

    Why don't you find out where the foundation of this American national posterity is based....and on what principles...

 
working