Sarah Palin

Canceled2

Banned
Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, 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.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

- Sarah Palin

.
 
Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, 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.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

- Sarah Palin

.

You seem unaware of the fact that she did not write a word of that and she read it entirely from an autocue.
Now, who was it, not long ago, who was criticising your president for his autocue use?
Not much consistency in the asylum.
 
Heated Rhetoric

87871_600.jpg
 
So you liked it then. :)

She is an unfortunate looking middle aged woman with scarcely a brain and a smile that curdles milk. No, I did not like it. Were she to heed sensible advice, I'm sure she would go back to being a rather unpleasant gossip in some suburban street.
 
She lives in Alaska, in the middle of nowhere... she either wrote it or her husband, Todd wrote it... unless they've taught the moose how to write!

Do you think Sarah Palin keeps a professional speech writer on staff, at her beckon call?

Of course there is a speech writer. Alaska has nothing to do with it, moose or no moose. The speech writer may not be employed by her directly but obviously the organisation she represents has access. They would be very silly if they didnt.
Now if you would like to spend a little while looking at her vocab use, her sentence structure, etc I'm sure you, and all other doubters would agree. The woman did NOT write the speech herself.
 
Of course there is a speech writer. Alaska has nothing to do with it, moose or no moose. The speech writer may not be employed by her directly but obviously the organisation she represents has access. They would be very silly if they didnt.
Now if you would like to spend a little while looking at her vocab use, her sentence structure, etc I'm sure you, and all other doubters would agree. The woman did NOT write the speech herself.

Well if you have some foolproof way we can determine it, I would love to place a bet on it. I don't think Palin has a speech writer, I think what she says, comes from her. What organization does she represent? Fox News? TLC? She isn't governor of Alaska anymore, so it's not them or the RNC... She is often said to be "the leader" of the TEA Party movement, but they are not a centralized organization with speechwriters. Who the fuck are you talking about here?
 
Well if you have some foolproof way we can determine it, I would love to place a bet on it. I don't think Palin has a speech writer, I think what she says, comes from her. What organization does she represent? Fox News? TLC? She isn't governor of Alaska anymore, so it's not them or the RNC... She is often said to be "the leader" of the TEA Party movement, but they are not a centralized organization with speechwriters. Who the fuck are you talking about here?

You are trying, unsuccessfully it must be said, to play with words. She represents the Tea Party, a political group allied to right wing republicans and financed by private industry.
Speech writers are ten a penny, I have done my fair share in the past (not particularly well perhaps).
I do not have the time to educate you, you are not THAT stupid. If you spend a little time with your hands at the keyboard and not down your keks I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion as mine.
 
I cannot believe she used the term "Blood Libel". She clearly did not know what it means, thus she did not write the speech. Or if she did know what it means, shame on her. Either way, not a vindicating moment for her.
 
I cannot believe she used the term "Blood Libel". She clearly did not know what it means, thus she did not write the speech. Or if she did know what it means, shame on her. Either way, not a vindicating moment for her.

What do you think it means?
 
You are trying, unsuccessfully it must be said, to play with words. She represents the Tea Party, a political group allied to right wing republicans and financed by private industry.
Speech writers are ten a penny, I have done my fair share in the past (not particularly well perhaps).
I do not have the time to educate you, you are not THAT stupid. If you spend a little time with your hands at the keyboard and not down your keks I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion as mine.

Well you can be as condescending as you wish, it doesn't support your claim any better, it's still baseless and without merit. Sarah Palin has no speech writer, and you have no proof that she does. That's the bottom line on the FACTS here, and you haven't refuted them. Now, you can puff yourself up and make out like you are smarter than me, and have more education, but you can't alter the facts. My conclusion is, you are an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about... I'll bet I am spot on with that one!
 
I cannot believe she used the term "Blood Libel". She clearly did not know what it means, thus she did not write the speech. Or if she did know what it means, shame on her. Either way, not a vindicating moment for her.

Come on BITCH, answer ID's question! What do you think it means???
 
sarah palin misspeaks with blood libel comment

she managed to alienate jews in general - please see the following

Blood libel
(also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew"]Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Jews2.png" class="image"><img alt="Jews2.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Jews2.png/244px-Jews2.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/34/Jews2.png/244px-Jews2.png[/ame]–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]


The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzo"]Matzo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame].


In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Loew_ben_Bezalel"]Judah Loew ben Bezalel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Rabbi_L%C3%B6w_Saloun.JPG" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Rabbi_L%C3%B6w_Saloun.JPG/275px-Rabbi_L%C3%B6w_Saloun.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5e/Rabbi_L%C3%B6w_Saloun.JPG/275px-Rabbi_L%C3%B6w_Saloun.JPG[/ame]. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it.[7] These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time.


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel"]Blood libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Judenstern_JMW.jpg" class="image" title="Judenstern"><img alt="Judenstern" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Judenstern_JMW.jpg/100px-Judenstern_JMW.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/c/c9/Judenstern_JMW.jpg/100px-Judenstern_JMW.jpg[/ame]
 
she managed to alienate jews in general - please see the following

Blood libel
(also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]


The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of Matzo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it.[7] These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time.


Blood libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, but what does the term "Blood libel" mean in context of how Palin used it? Isn't that an accurate portrayal of what the MSM is doing, when they make the false claims that the shooting in AZ was somehow related to the TEA Party?

Palin wasn't talking about Jews, or something out of the Middle Ages, she was talking about the mainstream media and how they have handled the shootings in AZ. You have to take her words completely out of context, in order to find something derogatory toward Jews. Of course, context never stops a liberal, does it?
 
Back
Top