Giffords had history with Palin, Tea Party

1. The rally showcased opportunistic politics. We're discussing that in the other thread Marked8 posted this.

2. The use of the term "Blood Libel" is appropriate, though possibly not productive at this moment. It does not trivialize the word at all.

3. And all discussions exploring Obama philosophy within the constructs of National Socialism in German or Italian Fascism has nothing to do with genocide.

Uttering Blood Libel has overshadowed the rest of her message.
What blood was libeled.
It wasn't any kind of american blood she was refering too.
It's a careless use of an incendiary(to some) word as a metaphor for a situation that's at best only unfair to her although actually a test of her mettle and political skills.
The lady does protest too much.
If she can't handle this attack well how will she handle a real crisis when much more is at stake?
 
Wisdom you read, observations of society by current events and personal experiences in ones own life are not theoretical distinctions.

You don't understand what I am saying, apparently. IF you did, you wouldn't make ignorant comments such as this. Unfortunately, I doubt you are capable of understanding what I said, likely due to your ego once again keeping you from putting aside your own preconceived notions.

Observations in your personal life and in day to day news are anecdotal and do not directly speak to the broader patterns in society. Because of the sheer magnitude of social patterns, it takes a lot more then passing observations of current events to even hope to make logical sense of those broad social patterns from which reasonable policy is drawn from.

You clearly do not understand the type of "wisdom of experience" I am talking about even though I have tried numerous times to explain it to you.

The religious right's infiltration of conservativism and reliance on the wisdom of faith instead of experience is what drives my disdain.

To a point I would agree with you. However, the "religious right" is a vague term that simply serves as a bludgeon to demonize the entire conservative movement. The more accurate identification would the extreme elements of the paleo-conservative strain of conservatism.

They start at a very valid premise that it would be foolish to dismiss; that the less virtuous of a society necessitates external limits (laws) on appetites and desires to maintain a civil society.

Where they go to far is in not pointing out the limits to those laws; what are the trade offs and when do they become too great. When you move down the path of trying to make society virtuous, after a point, you end up with the soft tyranny that Alexis De Tocqueville mentioned in the 19th century; something similar to Orwell's 1984.

Fortunately this extreme element is a profound minority. Not all social conservatives are of this stripe and this element has virtually no legislative presence outside of the state level.

Name one piece of Federal legislation (proposed or otherwise) that proposes the type of radical change toward some biblical ideal that would characterize this extreme element.

Attempts to define marriage through law are not "radical change" but simply an (ill advised) attempt to codify the status quo so as to close a legal loop hole used to force radical change on society.

The who focus on slow, considered change as opposed to radical changed is derived from a preference for the wisdom of experience. Creating radical change toward some ill defined biblical order is radical change and goes against the core of conservatism.

It is very different to try and simply stop society's slow decay and encourage a change in course then it is to force a reversal society's decay through regulation.
 
Blood libel from the other side?
That term has overshadowed Palin's otherwise well produced
response and created more controversy.

You expect anything less? The media and the Left were looking for anything they could to delegitimize anything she had to say and they latched onto the "blood libel" claim.

The narrative on what Palin said was already written before she uttered a word. They simply mined what she said for particulars to fill in that narrative.
 
In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:
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.
 
Uttering Blood Libel has overshadowed the rest of her message.
Yes, that's called political misdirection. Those that seek to attack her have tried to change the subject and distort that isolated term.

What blood was libeled.
It wasn't any kind of american blood she was refering too.
Do you even know what the term means?
Do you know how it was used? It would appear that you don't.

It's a careless use of an incendiary(to some)
To who? Opportunistic political hacks?

....word as a metaphor for a situation that's at best only unfair to her although actually a test of her mettle and political skills.
Again, you're myopic vision prevents you from understanding the situation.
It isn't about Sarah Palin, she's just included in it.

The lady does protest too much.
If she can't handle this attack well how will she handle a real crisis when much more is at stake?
We've all figured out that you don't like her.
Her video was fine, possibly unnecessary.

I don't presume to know what her motivation or long term plans are.
I think it's a mistake to presume too much.
 
You expect anything less? The media and the Left were looking for anything they could to delegitimize anything she had to say and they latched onto the "blood libel" claim.

The narrative on what Palin said was already written before she uttered a word. They simply mined what she said for particulars to fill in that narrative.

I don't think that beyond her core base it was helpful to her to use this phrase.
There's a persecution complex amongst her staunchest supporters she likes to feed.
The media actually said her response was polished and more professional looking than anything she had previously done but choosing to use the term blood libel has become the focus instead of the message.
She's the one who decided to use such a loaded baggaged term and bring it to the forefront.
It's like playing with fire but not knowing that it can be hot then getting surprised you got burnt.
Using blood libel was either intentionally inflamatory or ignorantly careless.
What did she expect the media would ignore her throwing out red meat?
If there was anything else attackable that she said it would have been
attacked as well.
This was an unexpected interesting telling response.
 
Barack Obama takes opportunity Sarah Palin missed

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47543_Page2.html

What few Republicans wanted to say for attribution — but what was manifestly clear — was that Palin had made Obama look even bigger than he was.

Her argument for conflict-oriented politics lent itself as the near-ideal foil for his plea for civility. It was a clear contrast and, for Republicans, a dispiriting one.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47543.html#ixzz1AwTwHIEe
 
Palin makes Obama look more presidential :rolleyes:

Possibly because she was placed in a defensive position and Obama had the ability to take what is designed to look like the highroad. Again, it's very clever political craft.

It's dishonest, but no one thinks that the progressive political class is stupid or doesn't understand manipulation.
 
Possibly because she was placed in a defensive position and Obama had the ability to take what is designed to look like the highroad. Again, it's very clever political craft.

It's dishonest, but no one thinks that the progressive political class is stupid or doesn't understand manipulation.

Cal, she didn't have to make the speech that she did - when she did. She invited the comparison. Obama's speech was scheduled before she decided to place her speech on Facebook the same day. She could have easily waited until after his speech. She understands the political game very well - but for some reason it failed her this time.

Whoever is handling her and writing her speeches should be fired. The timing of the speech was horrific, the content of the speech was confusing, and the nod to 'presidential' (the flag in the background, the common 'heads up' president/oval office look) was all wrong.

Professional opinion there... ;)
 
Possibly because she was placed in a defensive position and Obama had the ability to take what is designed to look like the highroad. Again, it's very clever political craft.

It's dishonest, but no one thinks that the progressive political class is stupid or doesn't understand manipulation.

He's better at it and above her intellectual level.
He can talk unscripted answering 5 part pointed questions without a teleprompter
for 3 hrs as we saw during that republican retreat they invited him to.

Why is it dishonest?
This is his job right now to envoke calm and reason.
What would you want the president to do in a situation like this?

He didn't set himself up for this nutjob event by fondling weapons and showing off killing a moose and then saying we have to(figuratively) take out 20 republicans.
She witlessly lashes out after 4 days and carelessly or misguidedly on purpose overshadows her own message and raises more controversy and detractors while he's trying to calm everyone down.
She makes herself the victim instead of our society and the people who were shot.
There's something called the no win scenario that happens and it's up to the public to judge how well she did handling that test.
A politician cannot be an autocrat.(well maybe in a fantasy) :p

content_cartoonbox_slate_coma.gif


content_cartoonbox_slate_com.gif
 
He's better at it and above her intellectual level.

There is a difference between IQ and wisdom, with wisdom being FAR more important. The biggest hindrance to wisdom is ego and Obama's biggest flaw has always been one of hubris.

He can talk unscripted without a teleprompter for 3 hrs as we saw
during that replublican retreat they invited him to.

You really think that was "unscripted"?!

He didn't set himself up for this nutjob event by fondling weapons and showing off killing a moose and then saying we have to(figuratively) take out 20 republicans.

Are you really so myopically focused on finding any excuse to blame Palin?!

Is the possibility that the media may have done everything they can to set her up for this? That this is simply an extension of the false narratives they have perpetuated for decades about non-leftist thought and, in this instance, simply given a face in the form of Palin?

For all your supposed "IQ" you are incapable of seeing the forest through the trees.
 
Do you think Obama gave a good speech as well Shag -

What about Palin's speech did you like?

Palin's statement was good as well.

But you are making a false comparison in trying to draw some equivalence. Both are different venues and address different point.

In the face of a National tragedy such as this, it is the President's job to calm the nation and try to help us move on. In that function, Obama's speech was very effective.

Palin's statement was a different focus, meant to confront the politicization of this.

It only misleads to try and compare the two as you do. Not that honesty has ever been much of a concern for you.
 
There is a difference between IQ and wisdom, with wisdom being FAR more important. The biggest hindrance to wisdom is ego and Obama's biggest flaw has always been one of hubris.



You really think that was "unscripted"?!



Are you really so myopically focused on finding any excuse to blame Palin?!

Is the possibility that the media may have done everything they can to set her up for this? That this is simply an extension of the false narratives they have perpetuated for decades about non-leftist thought and, in this instance, simply given a face in the form of Palin?

For all your supposed "IQ" you are incapable of seeing the forest through the trees.

Well then she lacks IQ and wisdom.
Seems you agree that Obama has more intellectual capacity than Palin but you will never directly acknowledge this.
But somehow she has wisdom?
Do tell me the wisdom(as opposed to being merely sometimes clever and opportunistic) of Sarah Palin. I'm waiting to hear.
Does she have something thoughtful to say or is it just a rehash of the collective conservative politicalspeak you look on so impressedly.
Yes Obama was unscripted. It was a republican retreat and he spoke without notes or a telepromptor.
They're not going to do him any favors.
He went into the lion's den and emerged triumphant.
Now you are engaging in revisionism because you do not want to accept that.
All the blaming has been hurtled already.
There's nothing left to throw unless she provides more inappropriate statements like blood libel.
She set herself up for this.
Her imagery and her gunslinging just happened to best coincide with this event.
60% don't buy it but 35% do.
Blood libel is a scurrilous ridiculous accusation that only a jew hater would believe but 35% of americans think there is a link between hateful rhetoric and extremism.
And I think the phrase is not seeing the trees for the forest not the other way around but I suppose it could work either way.
If she can't handle this better than creating more uneeded controversy and playing a victim then how will she do in a real crisis?
 
Palin's statement was good as well.

But you are making a false comparison in trying to draw some equivalence. Both are different venues and address different point.

In the face of a National tragedy such as this, it is the President's job to calm the nation and try to help us move on. In that function, Obama's speech was very effective.

Palin's statement was a different focus, meant to confront the politicization of this.

It only misleads to try and compare the two as you do. Not that honesty has ever been much of a concern for you.

And shag - you sometimes amaze me...

Palin and Obama both gave speeches - both speeches needed to complete a task. Did the speech do the job it was intended to do? That is what I am looking for - I haven't said anything about comparing them - that is what you are inserting into this, not me Shag.

You thought Obama's was effective in completing its task. His task was pretty much as you stated it - and he click those points off pretty well. Palin's speech had a different task - different points - I sort of know what those points were - but do you? It wasn't only about the politicization of this event.

What did you like about Sarah Palin's speech, why was it 'good'? I have a hard time seeing beyond the 'professional' mistakes that were present in her speech, but, you don't have those types of filters on - like I do. I have a tendency to look at things as a campaign person. I would like to see why you thought it was good.
 
I haven't said anything about comparing them

Of course you didn't SAY anything about comparing them.

You just framed the issue is such a way that comparing them is inevitable. Again this is an attempt to manipulate which I will not humor. If you can't discuss things honestly then you are only contributing to the incivility in discourse.
 
Yes Obama was unscripted. It was a republican retreat and he spoke without notes or a telepromptor.

That doesn't mean it was unscripted.

There's nothing left to throw unless she provides more inappropriate statements like blood libel.

So when people lie and manipulates a tragedy to to smear you personally as well as the worldview you subscribe to that is fine, even if it results in death threats to you and your family. But calling them on it; making an attempt to defend yourself, in any way, is inappropriate?! :rolleyes:

You really have fallen off the deep end.

Talk about your supposed "IQ" all you want, your continued Palin bashing yourself to be a petty, ignorant fool. There is no chance of dialog with your ego and axe grinding getting in the way.
 
Of course you didn't SAY anything about comparing them.

You just framed the issue is such a way that comparing them is inevitable. Again this is an attempt to manipulate which I will not humor. If you can't discuss things honestly then you are only contributing to the incivility in discourse.

The comparison is in how well they did what they needed to accomplish, not head to head.
Palin's base will take a bullet for her so they are impressed with anything she says.
I don't think she reached out far beyond her base and didn't improve her
standing much outside of that.
 
I don't think she reached out far beyond her base and didn't improve her
standing much outside of that.

Yes, but when it comes to Palin, you have made it abundantly clear that you DON'T think but simply react emotionally.
 
Proof by assertion.
Oh come on.
The repubs asked all the questions.
So they scripted it?

Doesn't mean that he did not go in with a political agenda, that he didn't have a good idea of what was going to be talked about and knew his responses beforehand. That is rather typical of politics at this level.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top