Palin throws kerosene on the fire

Bfgrn

Bfgrn

New member
r-SARAH-PALIN-ARIZONA-SHOOTING-STATEMENT-medium260.jpg


The talk in political circles has been that Sarah Palin had a rare opportunity in the wake of the Tucson tragedy to reach out beyond her base and recalibrate her image beyond that of a gun-toting mama grizzly.

After all, the strategists said, there was some sympathy for her—beyond the Palin-haters—for being tied to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, even if she had erred with her “reload” talk and by posting that map with the gun-sight targets last year.

In a nearly eight-minute video, Sarah Palin says “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence.” Howard Kurtz on her un-presidential move.

The talk in political circles has been that Sarah Palin had a rare opportunity in the wake of the Tucson tragedy to reach out beyond her base and recalibrate her image beyond that of a gun-toting mama grizzly.

After all, the strategists said, there was some sympathy for her—beyond the Palin-haters—for being tied to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, even if she had erred with her “reload” talk and by posting that map with the gun-sight targets last year.

Instead, Palin chose to throw kerosene on the embers of a smoldering national controversy.

Whole article


Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed -- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment -- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution -- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" -- but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.
President John F. Kennedy - 27 April 1961
 
As I've said else where. This is a turning point for Palin. Does she want to be a Regan or a Limbaugh. It appears she's chosen the later. More money in it, that's for sure.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Hello pot... this is kettle...

So Kurtz continues the war on Palin...

imagine that....
 
Superfreak said:
Hello pot... this is kettle...

So Kurtz continues the war on Palin...

imagine that....
Click to expand...

Palin needs no help from Kurtz or anyone else...the defining tone from Palin and others is one of self-defense and even victimization -- former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle accused her critics of being "dangerous and ignorant" on Tuesday.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
As I've said else where. This is a turning point for Palin. Does she want to be a Regan or a Limbaugh. It appears she's chosen the later. More money in it, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Blood libel, are you kidding me! She couldn't think of another way to put it, are you kidding me...arggghhhh!
 
Bfgrn said:
Palin needs no help from Kurtz or anyone else...the defining tone from Palin and others is one of self-defense and even victimization -- former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle accused her critics of being "dangerous and ignorant" on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

What do you think she should have done? Should she apologize? If so, for what? Bad taste?

She is a confrontational person. If anyone expected her to try and accept the trial and conviction of a nonexistent crime, you obviously haven't seen how she works.

She did something that hundreds of other politicians have done. The intent was the same as those hundreds of other politicians and political party workers.

But, before there was very a single iota of evidence, she was tried and convicted of being responsible for this murderer's actions.

Funny, when it came out that the guy was just a luntic, none of those blaming Palin seemed ready to apologize. This despite their insistence that "words have consequences".
 
Does she know Gabby Giffords is Jewish? She probably doesn't. I wish she would just stay in her house in Wasilla and leave us normal people alone.
 
'Blood libel,' social sin and Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin released a nearly eight-minute video Wednesday morning that says that those who imply she bears some responsibility for the tragic shootings in Arizona are guilty of "blood libel," a loaded phrase that dates to the Middle Ages and has deep and painful connotations for Jews.

"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," Palin said in the statement.

The term refers to the false claim made by Christians starting in the Middle Ages that Jews murder non-Jews and use their blood for ritual or medicinal purposes. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the words are connected to anti-Semitism and have a long and painful history for Jews:

"The allegation that Jews murder non-Jews to use their blood for ritual or medicinal purposes dates back to the Middle Ages and has spawned many variants over time. Jewish law expressly prohibits the consumption of any blood. Nevertheless it was alleged that Jews drank Christian blood on Passover and mixed it into matzah, the unleavened bread eaten on that holiday. During medieval times two popes expressly declared such claims to have been fabricated. Nevertheless, instances of what has come to be known as the "blood libel" have persisted into modern times. Blood libels have frequently led to mob violence and pogroms, and have occasionally led to the decimation of entire Jewish communities."

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2011/01/blood_libel_social_sin_and_sarah_palin.html
 
Superfreak said:
Hello pot... this is kettle...

So Kurtz continues the war on Palin...

imagine that....
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I don't think Palin has an serious intent to run for high political office. I think she's focused on making money as a culture warrior and I see nothing wrong with that. She was going to have to make that choice sooner or later. I think her choice as a paid pundit like Limbaugh was obvious. I think her political ambitions for high office are quite limited. Her potential to make a lot of money representing the views of the right as a culture warrior are unlimited. If I was in her shoes I'd go for the money too.
 
she didn't throw kerosene on the fire. she make excellent points. it is blood libel. the left used the blood of innocents to libel and slander the right.

the left is just so fucking desperate to move away from their disgusting reaction, that a non violent speech by palin is now to blame for keeping up the heated rhetoric, that was started by the left this weekend.

its disturbing how hateful and delusional so many on the left are.
 
Bfgrn said:
r-SARAH-PALIN-ARIZONA-SHOOTING-STATEMENT-medium260.jpg


The talk in political circles has been that Sarah Palin had a rare opportunity in the wake of the Tucson tragedy to reach out beyond her base and recalibrate her image beyond that of a gun-toting mama grizzly.

After all, the strategists said, there was some sympathy for her—beyond the Palin-haters—for being tied to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, even if she had erred with her “reload” talk and by posting that map with the gun-sight targets last year.

In a nearly eight-minute video, Sarah Palin says “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence.” Howard Kurtz on her un-presidential move.

The talk in political circles has been that Sarah Palin had a rare opportunity in the wake of the Tucson tragedy to reach out beyond her base and recalibrate her image beyond that of a gun-toting mama grizzly.

After all, the strategists said, there was some sympathy for her—beyond the Palin-haters—for being tied to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, even if she had erred with her “reload” talk and by posting that map with the gun-sight targets last year.

Instead, Palin chose to throw kerosene on the embers of a smoldering national controversy.

Whole article


Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed -- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment -- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution -- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" -- but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.
President John F. Kennedy - 27 April 1961
Click to expand...

Blood libel, good grief. And righties wonder why we pick on her.
 
WinterBorn said:
What do you think she should have done? Should she apologize? If so, for what? Bad taste?

She is a confrontational person. If anyone expected her to try and accept the trial and conviction of a nonexistent crime, you obviously haven't seen how she works.

She did something that hundreds of other politicians have done. The intent was the same as those hundreds of other politicians and political party workers.

But, before there was very a single iota of evidence, she was tried and convicted of being responsible for this murderer's actions.

Funny, when it came out that the guy was just a luntic, none of those blaming Palin seemed ready to apologize. This despite their insistence that "words have consequences".
Click to expand...

We still haven't heard from the shooter, what has come out have all been guesses about what made him do it, aren't you jumping to conclusions as well. I don't blame her for the murder, but I blame her for hate talk and creating division for personal gain.

Now this phrase that has a very deep historical meaning and she isn't once again healing but creating more division! She is an idiot. She proves once more that she is in it again for herself and not others. She could have made people feel bad about accusing her, instead, she more or less proves she is in it for herself.
 
WinterBorn said:
What do you think she should have done? Should she apologize? If so, for what? Bad taste?

She is a confrontational person. If anyone expected her to try and accept the trial and conviction of a nonexistent crime, you obviously haven't seen how she works.

She did something that hundreds of other politicians have done. The intent was the same as those hundreds of other politicians and political party workers.

But, before there was very a single iota of evidence, she was tried and convicted of being responsible for this murderer's actions.

Funny, when it came out that the guy was just a luntic, none of those blaming Palin seemed ready to apologize. This despite their insistence that "words have consequences".
Click to expand...

Most of us always thought he was a lunatic but that doesn't mean his illness couldn't be exacerbated by rhetoric. So far he's still not talking.

I remember how quick the right was to call Kaczynski a liberal after he was caught.
 
christiefan915 said:
Blood libel, good grief. And righties wonder why we pick on her.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, I understand full well why you pick on her. She makes it so easy.

But what I have had a problem with is the "Blame Game" that the lefties played before we knew anything about the shooter or his motives.

What you did was give her a genuine reason to play the victim. You added validity to her claim that the left is out to get her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top