Active Users:1170 Time:23/11/2024 03:33:45 AM
Indeed, why not; Sarah Palin does. Joel Send a noteboard - 18/01/2011 06:58:01 PM
Not because I'm a liberal, though I am, and not because Loughner's a conservative (his own friends say he was neither right nor left, and Ayn Rand and Mein Kampf are strange favorites for liberals). It's because of one of the best examples of what Ms. Palin and others call "blood libel":
We're in Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action.

Care to take a wild "shot" at the speaker?

US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) ten months before Jared Loughner shot her in the head.
And there is actual evidence that he had a thing for Giffords, IIRC. I think he harassed her or stalked her or something prior to this. If we are going to blame anyone else for inspiring Loughner's actions, why not look at the person we know he actually paid attention to? So far as I know, there is no evidence that he paid any attention to Sarah Palin or knew about her crosshairs map from his own interest. What if it was the object of his attention sniveling about how the mean lady with no actual power was scaring her that got Loughner thinking "If she wants to be afraid, I'll give her something to be scared of!"

She already had something to be scared of; the militia leaders call to tear up peoples offices got her office torn up, and when responding to that she noted that Palins imagery engendered other concerns. If that's blood libel after someone tries to kill her it was blood libel then, yes; I'm glad SOMEONE finally got my point. Maybe when Palin goes to Giffords' hospital bed to make the accusation to her face ya'll can split a cab. :rolleyes:
Why, if I were Sarah Palin I'd fly to that hospital and tell her to watch her mouth! Though she's still unable to speak; maybe the "blood libel" has solved itself: YOU'RE safe now, Sarah! :rolleyes: How tragic that nearly being murdered has blinded Rep. Giffords to the REAL victim: Sarah Palin. :vomits:
So she's just supposed to roll over and accept the blame for something she had absolutely nothing to do with? Not to mention the kind of crap that's been dumped on her all out of proportion to her actual importance or transgressions has probably made lashing back a defensive reflex by now. When thousands of people are accusing of complicity in a mass murder, sensitivity should not be a requirement in your defense.

No, she shouldn't accept all or anywhere near most of the blame, Loughner was a nut who decided to shoot someone and that's his responsibility first and foremost. HOWEVER, it seems absurd to say the climate of militant hatred Palin and others have stirred up since Obamas election doesn't encourage such behavior, or that this guy was so disconnected from the rest of the world that he was unaware of it. That doesn't make Palin or anyone else who provides triggers for this kind of behavior perpetrators of it, but it doesn't leave them blameless either.
It was logical for the media to connect Palins imagery with the attack, since Rep. Gifford did, too,a year before it happened. If someone had been running all over Britain yelling, "Blast Parliament!" in the summer of 1605, most people would probably have thought Guy Fawkes had them in mind that November.
And if Gifford had been VOTED OUT OF OFFICE as Palin was encouraging, then you could assing a share of the "blame" to Palin. Your disingenuous comparison does not change the fact that the and concepts of "target" and "aim" and other shooting imagery are routinely used without the slightest violent intention or connotation.

They are, but to use so many of them so casually is irresponsible and asking for trouble, and if that makes me guilty of blood libel it makes Giffords no less so. Maybe we should wait until she's walking and talking again before we punish her great crime though, eh? And while I don't visit Kos and haven't seen them using bullseyes in the same way, I did notice references by others to the same kind of irresponsible behavior there and condemn it equally (irresponsibile inflammatory language isn't exactly surprising from Kos, but that makes it worse, not better).
It was irresponsible not to wait for all the facts before publicizing those suspicions, true; on the other hand, Ms. Palin is in no position to lecture anyone on careless language. I don't believe for a moment she intended or expected this to happen, but she SHOULD'VE expected that in a nation of 300 million there was a good chance some nut would take her literally, and if she didn't I don't want her running the local quickie mart. Yeah, a lot of liberals were too quick to shout, "J'ACCUSE!" but Palin in particular was far too eager to wash her hands of it, and the only reason she didn't do it quicker is probably because she spent the first couple days making calls to see if she'd gotten six people killed and injured thirteen more. She knows it, I know it and the American people ought to know it.

Sorry, I REALLY didn't want to examine the potential political relevance to this horrible tragedy, and I really don't think the connection with Palin is more than eerie coincidence. We don't know; Loughner's saying nothing. However, it very easily COULD'VE been connected, so easily that the first victim EXPECTED something like this based solely on Palins comments and imagery, and calling that "blood libel" is quite literally blaming the victim. Whatever happened to "personal accountability"? Were those just more words we shouldn't take seriously...? :[
You dare to invoke those words while attempting to foist off ANY of the blame for a single individual's actions on a complete stranger based on images there is no proof he saw? Jodie Foster has more guilt for the shooting of James Brady than Palin (or Beck or Limbaugh or whoever the left's bete noir of the day happens to be) bears for this.

Six people are dead and thirteen others injured but Palin's playing the victim and talking about blood libel; you really wanna talk about who "dares to invoke" what words? You wanna invoke Brady? Brady prompted a law requiring background checks prior to gun purchases so nuts like John Hinckley Jr. couldn't get them two days after leaving the psych ward, but thanks people like Palin and Loughner insisting that law somehow infringed on their rights, it sailed off into the sunset six years ago, so "John Hinckley III" had no trouble getting a gun two weeks ago. He had SOME trouble getting ammo; the first Wal$Mart he visited thought he was too freaky and wouldn't sell it to him--so he went to another and they were happy to sell it to him. So let's be consistent; if we're gonna blame it all on the victims, it's Brady and Giffords' fault and Loughner and Hinckleys hands are as clean as Palins.

When people use inflammatory violent language against their political opponents they shouldn't be shocked if those opponents feel threatened, nor accuse them of libel for stating those fears--especially when literal ensuing violence puts them and a dozen others in the hospital while six people lie dead.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 18/01/2011 at 07:00:38 PM
Reply to message
OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 16/01/2011 12:18:22 PM 1989 Views
Why are they calling it "blood libel"? - 16/01/2011 12:23:47 PM 851 Views
Because if the facts were as they represent them those words would be applicable. - 16/01/2011 12:49:22 PM 1028 Views
It's not entirely clear to me whether you're aware of this or not, but... - 16/01/2011 01:12:22 PM 1074 Views
That's why I said, "popularized". - 16/01/2011 01:46:52 PM 1024 Views
I think Alan Dershowitz dealt with this nonsense already - 16/01/2011 02:34:10 PM 1366 Views
Interesting. I didn't realize it was so wide-spread. - 16/01/2011 03:10:28 PM 925 Views
She wasn't even the first to use the term that week either - 16/01/2011 10:10:35 PM 928 Views
I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 10:18:54 PM 956 Views
Re: I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 11:30:38 PM 853 Views
Oh please don't you start to - 17/01/2011 02:34:43 PM 808 Views
I for one hadn't noticed it before. - 17/01/2011 10:25:57 PM 979 Views
it was used here and nobody commented - 17/01/2011 10:37:07 PM 868 Views
LOL, I totally forgot that got posted here - 17/01/2011 10:54:26 PM 920 Views
It's funny you should say that... - 18/01/2011 10:32:59 PM 952 Views
Re: It's funny you should say that... - 19/01/2011 03:29:52 PM 937 Views
It was permissible to ignore until it became a rallying cry. - 20/01/2011 04:27:23 PM 961 Views
A rallying cry is hardly illegal - 20/01/2011 05:32:45 PM 1013 Views
I never said it was. - 20/01/2011 06:59:39 PM 1145 Views
Oh, I noticed that one alright. - 18/01/2011 10:25:23 PM 792 Views
compared to the way similar terms are used? - 19/01/2011 06:58:02 PM 937 Views
I meant I hadn't seen it used in different contexts before. - 19/01/2011 07:35:00 PM 918 Views
Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 10:24:09 PM 1005 Views
Re: Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 11:09:21 PM 1035 Views
Again, Giffords specifically made the connection between Palins imagery and an attack on her. - 17/01/2011 12:53:08 AM 1172 Views
That means precisely nothing - 17/01/2011 03:59:07 PM 870 Views
It means everything. - 18/01/2011 08:34:55 PM 1139 Views
I'm trying to understand your logic - 19/01/2011 12:50:28 AM 744 Views
There are two points: - 19/01/2011 02:47:48 AM 932 Views
Re: It means everything. - 19/01/2011 05:55:02 PM 771 Views
That's simply illogical. - 20/01/2011 01:08:51 AM 1148 Views
the old step one steal underwear step three profit argument - 19/01/2011 06:01:14 PM 1025 Views
that is some twisted and bizarre logic - 17/01/2011 02:38:41 PM 969 Views
So I am a little confused on something... - 16/01/2011 02:38:59 PM 1026 Views
Palin putting Giffords district in the crosshairs and Giffords implying at the time she feared this - 16/01/2011 11:21:36 PM 1162 Views
If I understand what you are saying correctly... - 17/01/2011 07:07:56 AM 899 Views
I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 08:33:47 AM 908 Views
Re: I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 04:24:01 PM 961 Views
The Secret Service does guard Congressmen, just not all of them automatically. - 18/01/2011 09:13:39 PM 796 Views
No, they don't - 18/01/2011 10:19:34 PM 984 Views
Really? Cannoli says differently, and I believe he's right on that one. - 18/01/2011 10:50:51 PM 1064 Views
You seem to be reading what you want to from what I said - 19/01/2011 01:27:32 PM 913 Views
I read what you said & understood it as you restate here, hence I referenced local police (twice) - 20/01/2011 02:15:17 AM 949 Views
The problem here is your ignoring normal policing powers to concoct an absurdity - 20/01/2011 04:20:25 PM 997 Views
More absurd than the notion such incitement warrants no notice? - 20/01/2011 05:42:47 PM 1059 Views
Your shifting your original premise, *again* - 20/01/2011 08:24:18 PM 883 Views
No, you're simply missing the point of it. - 20/01/2011 11:09:57 PM 881 Views
There is no point - 21/01/2011 12:22:30 AM 928 Views
If I had no point I wouldn't bother, but fair enough. - 21/01/2011 01:20:32 AM 1177 Views
Uh...Last I checked conservatives didn't list the Communist Manifesto as a favourite book. - 16/01/2011 03:05:07 PM 1199 Views
You're awesome at missing points, aren't you? - 16/01/2011 07:26:30 PM 942 Views
where is the accountability for those committing slander? - 17/01/2011 02:52:40 PM 852 Views
Libs hate Mein Kampf and We the Living; conservatives hate the Communist Manifesto: He's neither. - 16/01/2011 10:06:02 PM 899 Views
conseartives hate Mein Kampf and liberals stil read the Communist Manifesto - 17/01/2011 02:57:22 PM 877 Views
That first line is says it all. - 18/01/2011 09:34:06 PM 960 Views
Nazis had more in common with communist then capitalist - 19/01/2011 04:10:09 PM 1067 Views
The founder of fascism called it "the merger of corporate and national power". - 20/01/2011 02:51:09 AM 950 Views
and that is supposed to mean something? - 20/01/2011 06:06:18 PM 989 Views
YOU are cherry picking. - 20/01/2011 07:50:21 PM 895 Views
It is to be expected that this site would be libtard central... - 16/01/2011 05:23:53 PM 1155 Views
See my reply to Dragonsoul above. - 16/01/2011 07:30:40 PM 1003 Views
Yeah, your first was better - 16/01/2011 09:48:58 PM 815 Views
Palin didn't really have anything to do with this, but it makes sense she's blamed. - 16/01/2011 10:19:51 PM 878 Views
Pretty much. - 16/01/2011 11:44:35 PM 962 Views
Did they ever catch the person(s) that vandalized Gifford's office? *NM* - 17/01/2011 03:30:36 AM 448 Views
politcal offices are vandalized on a regular basis *NM* - 17/01/2011 02:41:29 PM 408 Views
She only asked if they caught the guy, she didn't accuse anyone, Sarah. - 18/01/2011 11:27:18 PM 845 Views
OK Olberman when did I imply otherwise? *NM* - 19/01/2011 02:48:41 PM 459 Views
"Political offices are vandalized on a regular basis". - 20/01/2011 03:16:39 AM 1039 Views
Took you this long, huh? - 17/01/2011 01:53:31 PM 798 Views
I am sick of the desperate attempts of liberals to find a way to use a tragedy - 17/01/2011 02:31:18 PM 813 Views
I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:23:47 PM 789 Views
Re: I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:28:04 PM 932 Views
I always said I'd do that after Bush was re-elected. - 18/01/2011 11:52:45 PM 813 Views
like I said a matter of faith - 17/01/2011 04:27:51 PM 804 Views
I find it interesting... - 17/01/2011 05:31:54 PM 952 Views
I mention her looks solely because... - 20/01/2011 02:30:42 PM 822 Views
If slander, not mine, Giffords' (at least you don't err like Palin and say, "libel" ). - 18/01/2011 11:14:23 PM 1007 Views
mark you calendar today is the day Joel offically went around the bend into insanity - 19/01/2011 05:28:06 PM 813 Views
A mirror will show me who's to blame? On whom have I put a crosshairs? - 20/01/2011 03:23:43 AM 867 Views
so it is all a matter of faith for you - 20/01/2011 05:48:44 AM 817 Views
No, it's fairly straight forward logic. - 20/01/2011 03:25:56 PM 922 Views
sorry Joel but you haven't - 20/01/2011 03:29:49 PM 727 Views
It's there; in this thread alone people from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that. - 20/01/2011 05:51:21 PM 820 Views
only in your does the connection exisit - 20/01/2011 06:39:35 PM 853 Views
No. - 20/01/2011 07:35:09 PM 932 Views
dude wake up - 20/01/2011 08:54:33 PM 1074 Views
So in your opinion... - 17/01/2011 05:27:58 PM 803 Views
How 'bout simply color coding them? - 18/01/2011 11:21:03 PM 851 Views
Why not just blame Giffords? - 17/01/2011 06:07:14 PM 1149 Views
Indeed, why not; Sarah Palin does. - 18/01/2011 06:58:01 PM 969 Views
The irony of this thread is not lost on me. - 19/01/2011 04:09:01 PM 991 Views
Exactly. *NM* - 19/01/2011 04:51:40 PM 497 Views
Bizarre thread for that Soapbox - 19/01/2011 05:17:58 PM 740 Views
You missed the point, obviously. - 19/01/2011 06:04:23 PM 848 Views
so you are saying it is the same old RAFO - 19/01/2011 06:47:24 PM 907 Views
The thread has admittedly degenerated - 19/01/2011 07:02:12 PM 766 Views
Check your NB. Noted you a response. *NM* - 19/01/2011 07:04:58 PM 478 Views
That I knew it would go this way is why I avoided looking closely for so long. - 19/01/2011 11:20:44 PM 996 Views
Hey, now. I have to step in. - 20/01/2011 04:44:49 PM 1018 Views
I'm just saying a significant link can be demonstrated. - 20/01/2011 07:07:27 PM 1072 Views
Re: OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 22/01/2011 05:49:44 PM 1004 Views

Reply to Message