Arizona Congresswoman Shot; Federal Judge and 9-Year-Old Killed

Malganis wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Meanwhile, someone over on Sarah Palin's Facebook page has decided the concept of "too soon" doesn't apply to them.

Oh, silly Spotts! It's all just harmless words that certainly no nutcase would take as confirming his/her warped world view or anything.

I just love how all those hateful idiots are posting under their real names. Oh well, at least they're honest about what fucking douchebags they truly are.

Also, I am shocked that Palin's FB doesn't have some sort of moderation queue for comments... these are making her look really, really, really bad. Or maybe making her fanbase look really, really, really bad. Or both at the same time. I have no idea if Facebook has some sort of mod thing like many blogs do, seeing as how I don't have a FB.

Pailin's FB does have a moderation team, and they're damn quick... But they're also idiots

WD40 wrote:

Pailin's FB does have a moderation team, and they're damn quick... But they're also idiots

Huh, interesting link. Apparently the Tina King comment was a 'joke'. She must not have remembered that sarcasm can be hard to detect over the Internet.

Also, maybe she shouldn't say such things in connection with her real name.

Anybody see this? It's the only sane commentary I've seen about this so far.

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Anybody see this? It's the only sane commentary I've seen about this so far.

Quote :

This video is not available in your country

T.T

I hate this website so much. I used to love it but then it disallowed showing eps outside of the US. I hate it like I hate Crunchyroll, because it's good but denies me of goodness because I was born in the wrong country.

But they do allow watching individual bits and Jon's reaction is currently on the main page. And it is awesome and sane.

WD40 wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Anybody see this? It's the only sane commentary I've seen about this so far.

Quote :

This video is not available in your country

T.T

If it helps, it's a clip from last night's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

WD40 wrote:

I_Lam_Edhellen wrote:

Anybody see this? It's the only sane commentary I've seen about this so far.

Quote :

This video is not available in your country

T.T

If it helps, it's a clip from last night's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

>Jon Stewart.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I liked Colbert. Something like "After a tragedy like this is never the time to pin blame on each other. *Video clips of people blaming each other* ...............Am I wrong? *To producer* Have we picked someone to blame? No? Well get on it!"

President-in-her-own-head Pailin addresses the nation.

Ugh... I could barely sit through this.

The flag-backgrounded, fireplace-ed set-up and over-rehearsed speech, rife with "Wow, ain't we awesome" rhetoric is near sickening. But what is more sickening is this phrase:

Quote :

[While a tragedy is unfolding] journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they proport to condemn.

Do you know what a blood libel is? It refers to the cry of the jewish tormentors of Christ who willingly accepted blame for Christ's death ("His blood be on us and on our children") following a Roman governor 'washing his hands'. Find it in Matthew 27:25.

In short, it's the line in the bible that some hate-filled idiots use to justify hatred of Jews. Deeming that hatred to be God-sanctioned punishment for their actions.

Why am I bringing all this guff up again? Because Pailin is overtly Christian, and Giffords was Jewish.

I dunno. Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Chances are Pailin's writers were to ignorant to understand what they were saying.

There's other things to pick up and pick apart in Pailin's statement, like this:

Quote :

[As I said in Arizona earlier] We know violence isn't the answer, when we take up arms, we are talking about our vote.

In which case, you aught to explain to your Republican friends what a metaphor is:

Giffords Opponent, Jesse Kelly, Held June Event to “Shoot a Fully Automatic M16″ to “Get on Target” and “Remove Gabrielle Giffords”


Aside: Palin mentions something about a proposed law that would 'criminalise speech that he found offensive'. I'm under the impression that offensive speech is somewhat criminalised already, when presented in the extreme anyway, but Pailin gives no details to this proposal, and her description comes accross as deliberately misunderstood and/or misleading.

Part of me thinks she might be refering to this, a petition to remove overt and implied appeals to violence in political debate, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, if you can sit through the whole 10-min speech, you have my respect and my sympathy.

I sat through it, but damned if I really got what she was after, other than trying to portray the political atmosphere as being made of sunshine and rainbows. And that the shooter was looney tunes, which I think has become the general consensus anyway.

A few things I noted from watching the video:
1. Palin is really crap at reading the autocue. Her emphasis is all wrong.
2. Some textbook "othering" of the shooter, there. Apparently he's different from EVERY OTHER PERSON EVER.
3. The expression on her face as she utters the words "blood libel" suggest even she thinks it's kind of inappropriate.
4. I don't know, it kind of seems a bit shitty trying to blame everyone else when surely the message should just be the first minute (i.e. "This was a tragedy, sympathy, etc")
5. "Condemn violence"? Does the right hand know what the left hand's doing here?
6. Particularly silly as literally the next sentence she says "when we take up arms". What the fuck is taking up arms meant to do? Spray peace everywhere?
7. The Constitution is "sacred"? Really? I thought it was non-religious.
8. 9/11! It's fast becoming the new Godwin's law.
9. Fucking hell. She genuinely is acting like using the "mindless finger pointing" is the worst thing about the situation.
10. "respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner"?!?!?!?! This coming from Sarah Palin?

Yeah, I watched the whole thing. I think I need a stiff drink now.

ETA: Oh dear. Her "blood libel" comment hasn't made her very popular with the Jewish community.

ETA again: Oh look. We have another right wingnut likening criticism to gang rape

Andrew Breitbart wrote:

I used 'blood libel' because I thought using analogy of lefties at pinball machine in Jodie Foster film 'The Accused' was too obscure.

Good god, Palin, why don't you just get yourself strapped to a rocket and get shot into the center of the sun. No, you know what, just shut your yammering trap and dig yourself under a rock for all eternity, that's a great non-violent alternative that still assures we won't have to deal with your shit anymore.

I think she just killed any chance she still had for 2012, guys. This is the only positive thing about this horrible tragedy.

Snake Bandage wrote:

I think she just killed any chance she still had for 2012, guys. This is the only positive thing about this horrible tragedy.

Actually maybe not so positive. If she actually ran in 2012, there'd be about a snowball's chance in hell she'd actually win. With Palin out of the picture, they may manage to find a more respectable-looking candidate—one who might actually win, and then we'd be back to 'balancing the budget' by lowering taxes on the wealthiest people and raising them on the poorest, all the while allowing the defense budget to spiral evermore out of control.

ZoZo wrote:

ETA again: Oh look. We have another right wingnut likening criticism to gang rape

Andrew Breitbart wrote:

I used 'blood libel' because I thought using analogy of lefties at pinball machine in Jodie Foster film 'The Accused' was too obscure.

I just saw this mentioned on Tiger Beatdown and was on my way here to post a link. Now this, folks, this right here? This is trivialising rape.

I apologize in advance. I'm tired, stressed, and full of under-expressed venom, and the political posturing and attitudes ricocheting all over of late are a perfect place upon which to vent my spleen.

ZoZo wrote:

7. The Constitution is "sacred"? Really? I thought it was non-religious.

It is, to my knowledge, but it's also messy when you get into civil religion, and Palin et al are fantastic at equating a general civil religion with fairly conservative Christianity.

She's not the only one; I'm listening to the memorial service as I write this, and Secretary Napolitano has just finished her speech at the memorial--the bulk of the latter part being a recitation from Isaiah. Attorney General Holder is reading from Corinthians; it was pretty much the entirety of his speech.

I'm Christian, but I kind of get on edge when public secular officials do readings like that at public events. Yes, the US is ~80%+ Christian, but is this kind of presentation appropriate when you are representing the entire nation? How about working off of secular speeches/lectures/etc that actually include "all Americans," a phrase I've heard I don't know how many times in the last half hour?

Quote :

ETA: Oh dear. Her "blood libel" comment hasn't made her very popular with the Jewish community.

Fuck. I hadn't heard/seen that comment of hers yet. What is the matter with her? Is it that fucking hard to open a history book or check with an expert if this is the phrase she really means? Or is she just so entrenched in her "I'm the victim here and have always been persecuted because I'm in the right" mentality that she uses that phrase in all sincerity? What the fuck is the matter with her, and why won't she just drop off the damn radar already?

This is what happens when someone poorly versed in cultural sensitivity hires scriptwriters of a similar background. Hiring smart writers is a good thing to do. Or, hey, how about taking a class or two, cracking a book open, or visiting some places that aren't Wasilla?

Cyberwulf wrote:

I just saw this mentioned on Tiger Beatdown and was on my way here to post a link. Now this, folks, this right here? This is trivialising rape.

Absolutely. I doubt you'll get any argument on that one (although I might be wrong).


I think that's it for the moment. I should go work on tomorrow's lesson plans (but I think I need to cool off a little first).

I will give the esteemed former Governor of Alaska the benefit of the doubt and assume she had no clue what exactly the term "blood libel" means, or how given the circumstances is at the very least an incredibly tone-deaf thing to say.

However, by this point someone should have pointed out just how deep the hole is she's dug for herself. I expect a retraction and a "sorry if you were offended" apology sometime within the next 48 hours. If not, she owns it and it was serve as a very handy sound-bite come 2012.

I also find it extremely funny that Mrs. Palin can first say that people are responsible for their own actions and cannot be influenced by words, and then in the next breath accuse the media of whipping up violence against her. It's like her synapses run in parallel instead of in series - it's the only way she can manage to voice two contradictory thoughts at the same time.

As for Andrew Breitbart? He can pound sand for all I care. The fact that anyone takes that sorry excuse for a journalist seriously is proof positive that the media in this country is too involved in "sizzle" and not "steak".

Cyberwulf wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

ETA again: Oh look. We have another right wingnut likening criticism to gang rape

Andrew Breitbart wrote:

I used 'blood libel' because I thought using analogy of lefties at pinball machine in Jodie Foster film 'The Accused' was too obscure.

I just saw this mentioned on Tiger Beatdown and was on my way here to post a link. Now this, folks, this right here? This is trivialising rape.

Heeeey we read the same blog
Internet high-five, Cyberwulf!
I really don't have anything to say on this matter that Sady Doyle, WD40, and lemmingwriter haven't already said, which is why this post is devoid of content.
I am glad, however, to see that the reaction to just about everything Palin has soured so thoroughly. It's heartening.

Tiger Beatdown is amazing.

Back OT, more Jewish groups respond to the "blood libel" comment. Palin has really put her foot in it.

WD40 wrote:

President-in-her-own-head Pailin addresses the nation.

Ugh... I could barely sit through this.

The flag-backgrounded, fireplace-ed set-up and over-rehearsed speech, rife with "Wow, ain't we awesome" rhetoric is near sickening. But what is more sickening is this phrase:

Quote :

[While a tragedy is unfolding] journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they proport to condemn.

Do you know what a blood libel is? It refers to the cry of the jewish tormentors of Christ who willingly accepted blame for Christ's death ("His blood be on us and on our children") following a Roman governor 'washing his hands'. Find it in Matthew 27:25.

In short, it's the line in the bible that some hate-filled idiots use to justify hatred of Jews. Deeming that hatred to be God-sanctioned punishment for their actions.

Why am I bringing all this guff up again? Because Pailin is overtly Christian, and Giffords was Jewish.

It's "Palin", but yeah, that is a... very strange thing to say.

Actually, I've heard that "blood libel" refers to the notion that sprung up amongst Christians in the Middle Ages that Jews used the blood of Christian children in their Passover bread, or something like that. Basically, that Jews ate and drank the blood of abducted children. This went over about as well as you'd expect, leading to pogroms, expulsions of Jews from predominately Christian areas, and other acts of general horribleness.

Whaddya know, Pat Buchanan thinks it was an excellent phrase to use, however.

Quote :

Pat Buchanan said Wednesday that Sarah Palin has been a victim of the media in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), and she was right to use the phrase "blood libel" in defending herself from charges that her language had anything to do with the mass shooting.

"Frankly I thought it was an excellent statement with regard to the phrase 'blood libel'," Buchanan said. "That of course refers to the libel that was used in the Middle Ages, charges against Jews that were utterly unsupportable slanders and I think she's using it in that context."

... Are people accusing her of kidnapping and eating children? Is she being threatened with horrible death or expulsion from America over accusations of kidnapping and eating children -- and not only her but her entire family? No?

Then shut the fuck up, then.

Quote :

Don't expect that explanation to fly with the Anti-Defamation League, which issued a statement on Wednesday in which they wished Palin "had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

No shit. And frankly, that's quite a mild response compared to what they could have said.

Speaking of people defending Palin:

Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) wrote:

"If every person in the world was like Sarah Palin, there probably wouldn’t even be need for government because no one would be in danger of any kind. If every person were like Sarah Palin, this world would be a peaceful, beautiful world to live in,"

Wow!

Really? Judging from her calculating behavior I'd have to assume otherwise. That woman is out for blood and power and there really isn't much beautiful and peaceful as that. What separates her from all the other politicians out for blood and power is her way using other people's stupidity and ignorance to further her goal. That, and her own ignorance.

Trent Franks, sir, are you high? Do you live in La La Land? Seriously, no sane person would come to that conclusion.

FUCKING LOOK at what the Washington Times is saying now:

Quote :

Typical of blood libel, the attack against Mrs. Palin is a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda. They have made these claims boldly without evidence and without censure or consequence.

This is simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers.

Think the conservatives could well do with a few pogroms their way, but maybe that's why I'm not in government, heh. They're not going to stop this shit until the left fights fire with fire.

Cyberwulf wrote:

FUCKING LOOK at what the Washington Times is saying now:

Quote :

Typical of blood libel, the attack against Mrs. Palin is a false charge intended to generate anger made by people with a political agenda. They have made these claims boldly without evidence and without censure or consequence.

This is simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers.

Okay, this is just plain disgusting. Pogrom? Really? Last I checked, saying something about a group of people, whether it be truth, obfuscation or outright lie =/= mass murder. LEARN YOUR HISTORY YOU FUCKWITTED EDITORIAL WRITER!

Furthermore, I find it quite interesting that the lovely shitstain, whoever they may be, chose to omit their name. My dear sir-madam-or-other, have a little hint: Playing the victim card doesn't work so well when you engage in your theatrical flailing
1. considering one of the people who was severely injured in this tragedy was part of the very group you try to say is ZOMG OPPRESSING YOU!!!11
2. utilizing completely inappropriate imagery - "ZOMG THOSE MEANIES SAY BAD THINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE ABOUT US" is not at all comparable to one of the events precipitating the goddamn fucking HOLOCAUST IN WHICH SIX MILLION PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIFE DUE TO THEIR ETHNICITY. By the way, dear writer, you Godwin'd. Argument over, you fucking LOST.

How is it possible that people using this kind of utterly braindead and thoroughly offensive rhetoric are taken at all seriously? I. Don't. Get. It.

Saleha wrote:

How is it possible that people using this kind of utterly braindead and thoroughly offensive rhetoric are taken at all seriously? I. Don't. Get. It.

To be fair, very few people take the "Moonie" Times seriously (their daily circulation is less than 1/10 of the Washington Post, and they are regarded at the same journalistic level as a poor college newspaper).

Not to imply that what they do say doesn't prove they are either the biggest bunch of bunco artists or sociopaths around. They just benefit from being the second "pet paper" of the wingnut fringe as their drivel gets magnified far beyond reason.