Posted on 01/12/2011 5:42:46 AM PST by reaganaut1
Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, on Wednesday issued a forceful denunciation of her critics in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “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 that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with crosshairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Gabrielle Giffords, had increasingly become the symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In and interview with The Caucus on Monday, potential 2012 rival Tim Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.
But in the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, casting it as a broader indictment of the basic political rights of free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.
She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona “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,” she added. “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I didn’t libel him or try to get him banned.
Save the accusations for people who’ve done something.
I’m so sick of the faux outrage that the left is putting into her words.
Democrats and the media need to be called out on the shameful political opportunism and baseless accusations.
It needs to be pointed out how they’re so morally bankrupt that they would take advantage of the pain and suffering of the victims of this tradgedy.
I randomly pinged only a few interested parties that questioned wtc911. Only a few libeled him. Only one wanted him banned. I just wanted to remind people that it’s possible to disagree with someone but still respect him,
I tend to agree. It would have turned into a shouting match between her and the media. jmo
It looks like the “liberal” Jew, Deshowits and the “conservative” Jew, Mark Levin strongly disagree with wtc911 and melas and Palin’s use of “blood libel”.
If wtc911 and melas don’t like Palin, so be it. It’s a free country, but they SHOULD NOT use democratic/MSM talking points to support their positions here on Free Republic. It’s disgusting. It’s offensive.
I do not claim to know more than the Jewish groups you list, because they say the same thing I have said.
“Blood libel” is the activity Muslims and Nazis and many other anti-Semites engage in.
THEY do not call it that. Because to call something libel is to call it false.
Do you understand that?
This is not a phrase used by anti-Semites, it is a phrase, used often by Jews, to describe the bizarre accusations of anti-Semites.
Listing and re-listing what blood libel is, and how bizarre the accusation is, doesn't change that Anti-semites do not and WOULD NOT call it “libel”.
Do you understand that simple point, or do I have to break it down into a more simple formulation for you?
When I say that Reasonable people (and Jewish groups) describe the bizarre accusations of anti-semites as being “the blood libel”, YOU providing quotes from Jewish sources describing the blood libel doesn't prove that anti-Semites use that phrase.
That should be obvious, even to you.
Now please explain to me why an anti-Semite would call it “the blood libel”, instead of “what the Jews do with the blood of Christian babies” or whatever?
Do you know what “libel” means?
It’s a bold choice of words, with enough historical accuracy for me.
Great speech, the speech of a LEADER. Note how she puts the focus on the country and not on herself!
Seriously, I haven't seen a grown-up posit something this petulant and stupid since the AIDS groupies tried to convince the public they would get the disease for not caring enough about the people who already had it.
This thread proves otherwise.
If you don't understand this, you don't understand the term.
Good luck.
And they are far more thoughtful and rational and informed than most of the people here.It sure does.This thread proves otherwise.
I see all of you have been put on a hit list of an anti-freeper.
Don't worry, his support of posters here is a kiss of death.
He has supported numerous banned posters who, incidentally, were all trying to get me banned years ago.
It'a a badge of honor to be pointed out by ES with a false accusation.
The accusation, broad brushed to a long list:
Libeling them and trying to get them banned is seriously sick.Libel? Pretty harsh charge. Most people that get banned, they do it to themselves.
BTW, wtc911 is one of the finest people on this board, as is La Enchilidita.
BWAHAHAHAHahahahahaha *gasp* hahah *thud* *gasp*BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahhah hhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahaha
Good one!
(OOps, you were serious. Really? Sorry.)
To expect 100% agreement is loony.
People who would turn this forum into an echo chamber that forbids all discussion except their own talking points are neither conservatives nor Americans.
The folks you named are far better representatives of conservatism and Americanism than most of the people here.
shirley you jest.
how much perception do we need to understand the use & application of the phrase ??
questioning Sarah's use of it is very baffling.
1) Negative Event Occurs.
2) Immediately blame Sarah Palin.
3) Events unfold showing Sarah Palin not at fault, or even involved.
4) Blame Sarah Palin harder.
5) IF SARAH PALIN DOES NOT RESPOND: Declare her out-of-touch and non-Presidential.
6) IF SARAH PALIN DEFENDS HERSELF: Declare it's all about her because she inserted herself into the conversation.
CHRONOLOGY OF ANY EVENT:
1) Negative Event Occurs.
2) Immediately blame Sarah Palin.
3) Events unfold showing Sarah Palin not at fault, or even involved.
4) Blame Sarah Palin harder.
5) IF SARAH PALIN DOES NOT RESPOND: Declare her out-of-touch and non-Presidential.
6) IF SARAH PALIN RESPONDS MILDLY: Declare her wishy-washy and incapable of leadership.
7) IF SARAH PALIN RESPONDS FORCEFULLY: Declare her too provocative and incendiary.
Thank you very much, Evening Star. You have my esteem as well, as does wtc911. I think it is very interesting when we can discuss our disagreements and differing points of view.
WTC911 and melas were wrong as per one liberal Jew and one conservative Jew.
Period.
Both used democratic/MSM talking points against Palin. I believe both admitted to disliking Palin. That is their choice. It is a free country. But, forgive me for repeating myself, their usage of democratic/msm talking points against a fellow conservative is disgusting and offensive. Whether they are “better” representatives of conservatives than others is your opinion and you have a right to your opinion. You did make a good point about echo chambers. Free Republic does NOT need fellow FRiends to echo the democratic/msm talking points to attack conservative leadership. It's poor strategy. Maybe WTC911 and Melas should follow Reagan's example, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.