BigSqwert Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Question. Is accusing members of Congress of wanting to kill disabled children and old people blood libel or spirited debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 It may be wrong to blame Palin and others, but it is definitely not "right" that this could be compared to blood libel. Blood libel is a patently false accusation that is based on myth. The fact that she compared what is being done to blood libel actually suggests that Jews were even remotely connected to killing children. Whether you believe Palin et al had any connection to this crime is a matter of debate, but there is absolutely no debate that Palin has used violent rhetoric. Whether or not there is a connection between violent rhetoric and violent crime is a strained argument at best. BUT, there is an argument. There is absolutely no argument that Jews were killing Christians to bake matzos and therefore deserved to be KILLED by Christians. There is an argument that violent rhetoric may cause violence and perhaps politicians should choose there words more carefully. How she can compare herself to a group of people who were murdered and massacred over lies is in my opinion reprehensible. Its not even libel, its opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Sullivan reacts to Palin's response. Edited January 12, 2011 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Man, could palin use some of those millions to get her ghostwriter an editor? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Man, could palin use some of those millions to get her ghostwriter an editor? Come on. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Finally, some evidence that Palin set this guy off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Link A nasty battle between factions of Legislative District 20 Republicans and fears that it could turn violent in the wake of what happened in Tucson on Saturday prompted District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others to resign. Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety. In an e-mail sent a few hours after Saturday's massacre in Tucson that killed six and injured 13, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Miller told state Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen he was quitting: "Today my wife of 20 yrs ask (sic) me do I think that my PCs (Precinct Committee members) will shoot at our home? So with this being said I am stepping down from LD20GOP Chairman...I will make a full statement on Monday." .... "I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Again not going to excerpt, but if you want every tabloidy detail possible about the family, including the value of their home and Mr. Laughner's employment history, here it is. I will excerpt a relevant part. Mysterious black bag in hand, Jared Loughner ran into the desert, his angry father in futile pursuit of his truck. Hours after Randy Loughner's confrontation with his 22-year-old son Saturday morning, six people were shot dead and more than a dozen others wounded — and Jared Loughner was in custody. ... On the morning of the shooting, a mumbling Jared Loughner fled after his father asked him why he was removing a black bag from the trunk of a family car, said Nanos and Rick Kastigar, chief of the department's investigations bureau. Investigators are still searching for the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) What his "best friend" reports is still hearsay. (Although could be an exclusion to the rules and therefore admissible in court (statement against party interest).) Before I start making any connections between this guy and anything, Im going to wait for the trial (or if he gives an interview.) Even then I dont know what Id believe because its not like I really think this guy is very coherent. So more than likely there is going to be some random answer like reading Catcher in the Rye, than something that has actual meaning to a normally sane person. That being said, do you think violent rhetoric is a good idea? Assuming that this shooter had no connection to violent rhetoric, isnt it still something that we should maybe try and curtail? And that can be applied to both Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party and anyone else. I may disagree with what people believe, what they say, but I would never go so far as to believe that they should be killed for having a different political opinion. So while I may be rationale, one of my followers potentially may not be. So isnt the safest route to just not try and incite open violence against fellow Americans? Im as guilty as anyone when it comes to certain areas, sports being the one that comes to mind. We say kill them, etc, and most of us dont really mean it. But we all have a few friends who actually are rooting for the other guy to be seriously injured. Its those type of people that I worry about hearing the wrong message from political leaders. But making this a political event is more important than self reflection. Edited January 12, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement responding to Governor Palin. It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country. It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences. Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase "blood-libel" in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term "blood-libel" has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement responding to Governor Palin. Perhaps she just had a slip of the tongue when she used that phrase? But then again that's probably unlikely since she read off a teleprompter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20...-of-blood-libel Here is another article. I think the scariest part is the comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 03:24 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20...-of-blood-libel Here is another article. I think the scariest part is the comments. A lot of those were Democratic-leaning groups so I didn't think their response was really noteworthy, since that was obviously how they were going to react. That's why I waited for the ADL. From their statement, they clearly didn't want to get drawn too much into anything partisan...but they felt strongly enough that they did feel the need to release a statement on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 02:24 PM) I think the scariest part is the comments. You could say that about any website that has user comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 02:29 PM) You could say that about any website that has user comments. Yeah, news article comments are where brains go to die. I tell myself a solid minority of them are just trolls, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Even places like techcrunch has stupid commenters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 You could say that about any website that has user comments. Exactly. Those are the people who you fear will take it to far. The people who dont even realize that Eric Cantor (a Republican) is a Jew. These are the people I worry about when politicians say inane violent rhetoric. People who have a very loose grasp on reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) The Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement responding to Governor Palin. Didn't read the whole thing, but the excerpt is solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 03:57 PM) Didn't read the whole thing, but the excerpt is solid. I believe that was the whole statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert says his office is drafting a measure to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the District of Columbia, including in the Capitol and on the House floor. Gohmert says he and his colleagues need to be able to protect themselves, in light of the mass shooting in Arizona. “It’d be a good thing for members of Congress who want to carry a weapon in the District,” he said. “I know friends that walk home from the Capitol. There’s no security for us,” he said, adding that the measure would deter people from attacking members. “There is some protection in having protection.” He said there were times during the health care debate last year that he felt afraid, including when a stranger approached him on the street and started screaming at him. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If someone wants to kill a Congressman, the Congressman being armed isn't going to make much of a difference. They can just walk up and shoot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 05:36 PM) If someone wants to kill a Congressman, the Congressman being armed isn't going to make much of a difference. They can just walk up and shoot them. ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 There is definitely no way that congressman having guns on the House floor would ever turn bad. For fun: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 06:33 PM) Link The good news is that there is also a bill making it back out on the floor to put a bulletproof glass barrier between the gallery and the rest of the House, so the gallery should be safe, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 For those who didn't see Jon Stewart's take...it was good and relates to this thread. The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Arizona Shootings Reaction www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook Also, Obama's speech right now is just the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts