Palin charges critics with 'blood libel'
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
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".
" 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
"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."
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
Yeah, then they wonder why their audience is disappearing!
Ron says Sarah Palins to blame for that too.
Yeah, well, Ron says a lot of things that only he understands.
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.
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?
Keep talking Sarah. Pleeeeeeeease continue to speak up for the teabaggers.
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.
She also doesn't seem to understand what the blood libel is...not that it matters to her followers, of course.
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...
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.
Is there a list of words that are approved by the left?
We will have to resort to grunts if this goes much further.
Yeah, I think they have something called the Manual of DoubleSpeak. And the leftists are the only ones allowed a copy.
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?
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.
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?
It doesn't, but unfortunately I do enjoy messing with libs because they get so riled up when I do things they do.
It makes absolute perfect sense, if you think like Sarah Palin.
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.
BTW, the only incitement to violence has come from the Tea Party, not the media. THAT is reprehensible!
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.
"That sure proves the point."
"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.
"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.
"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."
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.
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?
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."
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?
Palin's Hometown Church has a new logo.. a black cross surrounded by a unifying circle of love
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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...
Poor Sarah, she has suffered so much because other people were killed.
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.
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.
Fine, then speak up and demand this hate speech be stopped. That is, if you want it stopped.
Finally, some levelheadedness!
It seems ironic that the ones condemning the vitriol are the most vitriolic!
THE WORST OF US ARE THE PEOPLE THAT SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING.
Take a stand!
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I read a comment on another site...can't find it now..., 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.”
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."
"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....
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?
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!
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.
Why then do we (in the UK) have laws banning hate speech?
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.
"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.
" 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. . .
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.
Maybe because she's an idiot with a gun...
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...
I know , I know , its all George Washingtons fault anyway , he cut down the cherry tree didn't he.
Hey , what about , Teddy Rosevelt , you didn't vote for him , isn't there some blame we could put to him!
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
MM, you don't seem to make any sense lately, at least to me. Sad, you certainly used to...
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>
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.
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.
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.
"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?
Thanks for those, MM! Verrrry interrresting...
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
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.
I don't think bashing a ridiculous politician and "media personality" qualifies as a descent into hate.
"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.
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.
It's hard to be civil with the left when they insist on using lies to support their arguments.
But for some, I think the problem is more about their volatile personalities, rather than blaming it on the "actions" of others.
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?
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.
Not to unnecessarily reiterate what Pcunix said, but that's exactly what liberals say about conservatives, too.
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?
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?
I don't know what you mean. It's pretty simple but you didn't answer the first question. Where do we get our rights from?
That's very important, because what is happening with the expansion of government is that they are trying to become the giver of rights, and they are not!
Now I almost always recoil at the term the "greater good"... Who defines what a "good" is? And who rates one good as greater than another? Should that be the task of government or should individuals decide for themselves what a good is and which is greater? This again goes back to my hypothetical, and the answer is clear, the individual must decide.
Now one can argue that war is fought for a greater good. Certainly if a war is to be fought it should be for one or two reasons, 1. to take from the weaker what we need to survive, or 2. self defense. In both cases they should be paid for and I would support a tax for such a purpose.
I was not in favor of the war with Iraq, at least not unless we were going to kill them all and permanently occupy that country and make it and it's resources ours. We got nothing in that deal and we did Iran a favor! Same with Afghanistan. I didn't think we'd put boots on the ground. I figured we just bomb the crap out of the terrorist camps and that would be the end of it. They do have some valuable resources but the cost in lives and treasure wouldn't be worth the bother.
In both instances America should ask for and receive payment for the freedom of Iraq and Afghanistan. American taxpayers should not be stuck with the bill.
Sorry; we get our rights from mutual agreement, expressed through our legislative and judicial system.
And plenty of conservatives argue that the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, and their continued occupations, are expenses that we should collectively pay because they're for our greater good (they argue it's our security, or for humanitarian reasons, or something else; it changes often). I'm curious why you don't spend any time challenging their "stealing" of your money - it really is a lot of money - but you keep adhering to these hypotheticals involving lazy liberals who don't want to work.
"Sorry; we get our rights from mutual agreement, expressed through our legislative and judicial system."
And that is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, and why we MUST defeat liberalism at all costs! You are basically in favor of oppression! "mutual agreement" you mean by a majority, mob rule that's who decides what rights I have? You are a lost cause! You already believe government is the giver of rights!
Who do you believe gives us our rights?
And, I'll ask it again: why do you not spend any energy attacking people who gave us a $2 trillion bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "
We are born with our rights! They are automatically attached by our very existence. No government can give them, in fact the purpose of government is to insure that we keep them, or at least that was the purpose of the American republic as stated in the preamble of the Constitution...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now the left would tell us these documents don't matter, they were written long ago by old white guys that owned slaves, before there were airplanes blah, blah, blah... But these concepts will NEVER, EVER, go out of style and we conservatives will do everything in our power to make sure they don't!
Please explain what you mean by being born with rights. What rights would those be? What are you entitled to by virtue of being born?
Who wrote the Constitution? Why did they write it? Was there any sense of agreement among those who wrote it?
Are the amendments as valid as the original document? Are there are amendments or parts of the Constitution that you'd like to pretend don't exist or don't apply?
What exactly are liberals saying/doing (please be specific) that means they don't respect the Constitution?
Actually I explained it in the post where you asked your question. We all are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are endowed upon us by natural law.
James Madison was the principal author of the constitution. Of course there was debate and disagreement. It is the founding document of the federal government whose purpose was to administer certain tasks which the states had in common.
Yes all the amendments are valid to my knowledge, passed in accordance with the provisions established and in some cases repealed. 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.
Yes, so you agree that the Constitution is a manmade document.
You might argue that we have natural rights, but those could be totally different from those enshrined in the Constitution, much less in the compendium of state and federal laws.
The Constitution is a living document that has been and continues to be edited and reinterpreted over 200 years later, by agreement of our representatives and justices, respectively.
The fact that you'd like to see an amendment removed (I'm sure you're not alone) proves that it's not the unchanging charter you'd like to make it out to be.
Which brings me to another point: why do conservatives battle the rights of same-sex couples to marry, even though barring them from doing so is a violation of the 14th Amendment, and a violation of their natural right to pursue liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
"Which brings me to another point: why do conservatives battle the rights of same-sex couples to marry, even though barring them from doing so is a violation of the 14th Amendment, and a violation of their natural right to pursue liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"
The 14th amendment was not about sexual orientation it was about race.
Unless, you think the civil war was fought over gay rights.
If the authors of that amendment had ever thought two men would want to marry it would have been worded very differently.
As usual, your comment will only make sense to Talebangelicals and Teabaggers.
Actually Judge Scalia has already been quoted affirming Jim's view. The 14th amendment of the constitution DOES not refer to women or gays.
"As usual, your comment will only make sense to Talebangelicals and Teabaggers."
Or anybody who can understand how the 14th amendment came about.
Obviously that isn't you.
One wonders if they meant it specifically about race, why they didn't restrict it to race explicitly.
Conservatives already (half-heartedly) tried to exclude gays in the Constitution; didn't work.
As I said before, your line of thinking only makes sense to Talebangelicals and Teabaggers. No surprise that we can count Scalia among this group.
I spelled it out for you.
If they had ever thought two men would use the equal protection clause as a basis for marrying they would have worded the clause differently.
It is worded the way it is and if the Supreme Court decides men can marry then so be it.
Your attempt at making the 14th amendment about gay rights is laughable, but it will probably turn out in your favor.
Our natural rights are NOT different than those in the constitution. Don't confuse "rights" with government by consent of the people.
The constitution is a living document that can and has been amended, but "reinterpreted"? OMG no! It means what it means! There is no room for reinterpretation, amendments yes, sure, reinterpretation NO!
Personally, I don't care what gay couples do. Marriage though is regulated by state laws and voters even in a liberal state like CA have resoundingly rejected same sex marriage! It's a cultural thing and maybe someday it will be perceived differently, but for now there is nothing that prevents anyone from living with who they want to.
So the majority of people can override people's naturally-endowed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Kind of like the way the South wanted to keep on considering black people as slaves, property of whites?
As for Constitutional reinterpretation: how did we manage to go from Plessy v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education? What would you call that?
In the gay marriage example, California voters overrode gay Californians' right to marriage, which the SCOTUS has already ruled is an essential right. And DOMA and a bunch of state constitution amendments are most certainly preventing millions of gay people from being able to pursue happiness.
No, but the majority of the people can pass laws reguarding marriage.
Yeah it was the democrats of the day that only wanted them counted a 3/5 a person.
Forget those court cases, that's a thread unto itself. I believe there was some constitutional acrobatics that were needed to get that passed.
I don't think so. Nothing stops gay couples from living together in what ever arrangement they chose. We don't allow honor killings here either... I'm sure there's more than a few people that aren't happy about that!
Nothing is stopping gay people from being married...except those state constitutional amendments and DOMA.
Loving v Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. [...] Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
The majority of people can not pass laws that restrict the rights of a minority. That is one of the essential reasons for a Constitution - to prevent certain laws from being passed - and it's enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
Not that you care, right?
Buy your own island! Live by whatever laws you want to on you own island. But, in a society; you pay your fair share to keep the trains running on time. You don't get to decide what laws are followed or what they should be. We choose our government over you.
"Certainly if a war is to be fought it should be for one or two reasons, 1. to take from the weaker what we need to survive, or 2. self defense. In both cases they should be paid for and I would support a tax for such a purpose."
"I was not in favor of the war with Iraq, at least not unless we were going to kill them all and permanently occupy that country and make it and it's resources ours."
LL, I was willing to assume you were a person of goodwill with whom I differed, until reading that last post. But clearly, I was mistaken. Your own words condemn you.
Lousy analogy, what if you are both republicans?
That the best you can do John?
Liberals are such phonies so predictable! When you don't have the answers you distract!
Who said I was a liberal? And who is distracting? I think it a valid point or are we supposed to believe that all republicans are hard working and honest, all liberals dishonest and shiftless?
And why are you revealing your primary tactic-when you don't have the answers,distract.
If two conservatives were dropped on some planet, they would both starve because there would be no labor pool to exploit.
So telling me it's a lousy analogy is a valid point?
Then you bring up republicans? Where was that in the question? Then on top of everything else, after attacking my post, (which wasn't an analogy but a hypothetical) you accuse me of ad-hominem attacks! You do this all while avoiding simple questions, thus the distraction.
Who says you're a liberal...I do!
Yes, it was a valid point, well as valid as many of yours.
Sorry, aren't you a republican?
I can't recall failing to answer any simple questions, I can however remember you failing to. . . sorry, my bad, the right are right and therefore everything they do or say is beyond question.
Go back to my original hypothetical and tell me what rights does each party have and who gives them those rights? You're capable of that aren't you John or is it that you don't like the answers you'll have to make?
Yeah, I asked you that question and you failed to answer.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/64576?p … ost1421836
Why is that you run off when people ask you legitimate questions about what you're saying?
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.
That is a good question, LL!
What I would prolly do:
The first time it happened, I would generously share my food, along with giving my companion a good talking to. The next time, I would prolly give him/her just enough not to starve to death. If it happened again, I'm not really sure what I'd do!
Of course, if my companion was ill, injured, or aged, that would be a different story.
Yes, as livelonger says, how is that any different than how Republicans are viewed? The argument runs both ways.
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.
Any who are interested it the entire article can find it here.
http://www.alternet.org/news/149370/the … 010?page=3
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.
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.
Yes there is, there's surrender by the left an admittance that their philosophy is unnatural and leads to oppression. And yes, I am right!
"And yes, I am right!"
No. You've said that you think it's okay to attack weaker nations, commit genocide against their people, and take their resources by force.
That is the essence of oppression. It is not, and never will be right.
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.
The same way she justifies everything she says. She heard herself say it! And was there ever any doubt as to where she gets her "facts." LOLOLO
The case you are talking about was NOT about being allowed to lie about a news story, it was about the publisher being able to decide what they publish. Conveniently you left out the FACT that EVERY MAJOR NETWORK, including CNN filed friend of the plaintiff briefs in that case. In other words, they ALL sided with Fox News and rightly so!
Who is lying now? Do the research perhaps read something from a site other than the Huffington Post or the horrifically biased NY Times!
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.
Remember, all of these stories came from your Faux News Network last year.
I don't think liars can do anything but shut down when they're required to defend their false statements. Don't waste your time or breath with that one. Unless you do it for the entertainment value.
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!
anyone who thinks that Palin was responsible for that jerk shooting people is an idiot.
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...
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.
If you say "there's a vast right -wing conspiracy out to get me", and then you get got.....
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?
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.
Yea! Me and Bubba...we can move a crowd. Because of the people we love!
Can you say that about Palin and Limbaugh?
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.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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".
Charles, what you advise is much too sensible but I appreciate it all the same.
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."
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.
On the contrary, I take it all the time and have never reported anyone.
Not true for others here.
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.
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.
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.
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."
That'll be the day! Palin is very, very much invested in her imagined victimhood.
Why do you people INSIST on giving the democrats a pass for THEIR target map?
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?
LOL! Do you liberals ever listen to your lame justifications?
Do you know how you sound? It's a joke!
Tellingly, you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of answering questions.
I had a lot of questions about your "natural rights" post, too, which you haven't answered.
The joke is your insistence that archery targets are the same as the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
It's right from the playbook of the partisan scoundrel: If one of your guys does something embarrassing and offensive, point at something vaguely similar that someone on the other side did, and pretend that it's exactly the same or just as bad.
The day a disgruntled citizen shows up at his workplace or school and takes out a dozen people with a longbow, then you can draw an equivalency between archery targets and the crosshairs of a rifle scope.
Look it's a Target, it says right on it "Target" it implies the republicans are "enemies" I can go on and on and you can sit there ans claim it's an archery target, someone else said it's a dart board who knows how such a target might be perceived by a Jared Loughman?
"who knows how such a target might be perceived by a Jared Loughman?"
Hey, you're right; some disturbed person might bring his longbow and a quiver of arrows to the next political rally and start indiscriminately loosing shafts.
Of course, unless the person in question is Legolas, I don't think there's much to worry about.
You're drawing a false equivalency. Are the archery targets bad? Yeah, they are. Are they anywhere close to rifle scope crosshairs in their badness? Nope. If they are, then
longbow = sniper rifle
Swiss army knife = katana
scissors = combine harvester
haircut = decapitation
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.
Is it tragic? yes of course.
Is it ANYONE'S fault BUT the killer? No. Of course not.
Yes, it looks like you, me and 99% of liberals are in agreement, then.
i don't know about that "99% of liberals" statement.
A lot of liberals on these forums are talking about shutting down Beck, Limbaugh, O'reilly, and are trying to blame Palin for this.
A LOT of liberals across the media are doing just the same.
I'd say that maybe you, me, and the majority of the country are in agreement, but not 99%.
Man, are we reading the same thing? I don't remember seeing any liberal say they wanted to "shut down" Beck, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly. Asking for the rhetoric to be toned down is merely encouraging them to do it on their own; no one is proposing that they be forcibly silenced.
Admittedly the 99% figure was made up. But I do believe conservatives tend to put words in our mouths.
As Doug & Pretty Panther have said, liberals are also not trying to ban guns or shut up wingnut commentators. And as much as we think Palin is a drama queen, we don't blame her for the shootings.
I find myself defending myself from conservatives' strawman arguments against us all the time.
"liberals are also not trying to ban guns"
Well, to be fair, there are some people out there who are trying to ban guns. They're in the wrong, and in a tiny minority, but they do exist.
It's just that their opposite numbers, the folks who think we should be able to pick up a bazooka at 7-11 if we want to, love to inflate and exaggerate the few who want to make sure that guns are outlawed entirely.
Perhaps it's part of this mass persecution complex that I've noticed among many conservatives, especially the more reactionary conservatives.
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.
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.
Not really, LL. I've never seen a four color turkey shoot target. Holle said the ones she used were two colors and so were all I've ever seen, and believe me, I have seen thousands. Yes, those on the chart look identical to archery targets.
There is no need for colors on a turkey shoot target because there are no points awarded for second best. The targets are shot with bird shot and each shooter has his/her own individual target to shoot.
The target with the shot nearest the center wins. Colors are not required to decide this, unlike when several people are using the same target or are scoring points for different parts of the target, such as in archery or darts competition.
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.
I guess we had "fancy" shoots in Wayne County. lol. This would have been 1978-1988. I looked at modern turkey shoot targets, and you can get them in different colors now. I think the official NRA targets are black and white or red and white, however.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"You don't believe 9/11 was an inside job...I do."
That would explain quite a bit.
"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.
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?
I agree. And no more "Dumbya" for Bush, either.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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."
Oh my GOD! Cass Sunstein IS Edward Bernaise!!!!!--Professor Glennith Beck
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.
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.
"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?
Can you explain how the commerce clause or "general welfare" provisions concentrate power in the executive branch?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here I did your research for you!
"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.
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...
I agree Mike, all you hear on here is a rehashing of the talking point heard on tv between episodes of American Idol.
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?
"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.
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....
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....
I mean, if violent-laced political speech has rights, why not a planet?
"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...
by cooldad5 years ago
I blame Hilary Clinton for this. Hilary created the benchmark for political female "hotness" or "not-so-hotness". And when Palin crashed the scene, everyone suddenly thought she was a...
by rhamson7 years ago
This past election there was a lot of energy created in the choice by John McCain to have Sarah Palin as his running mate. What do you feel was the reason for this choice and how do you think she was qualified to...
by I am DB Cooper6 years ago
There are rumors floating around today that Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann is considering a 2012 presidential run. Bachmann is seen as a far right conservative and the polar opposite of Senator Al Franken,...
by LBMod6 years ago
The tragedy this past week in Arizona has drummed up all sorts of emotions and fears in the American public as well it should. What happened to the victims of that heinous act of senseless violence is horrifying, some...
by rhamson6 years ago
With all the excitement generated by Sarah Palins new book "Going Rogue" and what some say is an obvious run at the White House, could she be the answer the Rebublican party is looking for?
by Stacie L5 years ago
Alaska set to release thousands of Sarah Palin emails"The messages date from Palin's first days in office in December 2006 through September 2008â��a period that covers most of the presidential election,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.