Active Users:672 Time:22/04/2026 06:02:32 PM
Giffords said Palins crosshairs imagery would have "consequences"; Palin calls the suggestion libel. Joel Send a noteboard - 18/01/2011 08:54:45 PM
Because the victim in a political move claimed Palin using crosshairs was putting her danger, you no unlike the pacifistic bull-eyes the democrats used to target opponents, Palin is blaming the victim? I am sorry but is simply stupid. The fact that Palin had nothing to do with this attack has not stopped the people who are so offended by the political tone from trying to blame her. That is blood libel.

Simple as that, dude. Maybe it's slander (since it was spoken) and maybe not; impossible to say since Loughner won't talk. Yet the FACTS are

1) Giffords made the suggestion,

2) She's since been shot and

3) Palin and others have called the suggestion "blood libel" since the shooting.

That's blaming the victim, plain and simple. Personally, I think the website just one of many examples of the far right inflaming hatred and militance unceasingly since Obamas election. That many on the left have publicly voiced concerns about the effect of the rhetoric makes it almost a given that when it inevitably sends some nut over the edge and onto a shooting spree targeting a liberal, WHOEVER the target is will have voiced concerns about SOME specific far right incitement that the media immediately reports. Hell, a morbid enough mind could've run a pool on it, and being in the vanguard of the rabble rousing would've made Palin the front runner to win.

That's what's really scary here, that some nut finally took all the violent imagery in the service of hatred literally and all the creators of that hatred have to say is "Not our fault, and anyone who says it is libeling us!" So it will continue, more people will be attacked and the far right demogogues will continue to wash their hands of it. Your chosen leaders sure aren't showing much of the moral integrity about which they like to prate.
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.
Reply to message
OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 16/01/2011 12:18:22 PM 2185 Views
Why are they calling it "blood libel"? - 16/01/2011 12:23:47 PM 1057 Views
Because if the facts were as they represent them those words would be applicable. - 16/01/2011 12:49:22 PM 1222 Views
It's not entirely clear to me whether you're aware of this or not, but... - 16/01/2011 01:12:22 PM 1267 Views
That's why I said, "popularized". - 16/01/2011 01:46:52 PM 1240 Views
I think Alan Dershowitz dealt with this nonsense already - 16/01/2011 02:34:10 PM 1609 Views
Interesting. I didn't realize it was so wide-spread. - 16/01/2011 03:10:28 PM 1139 Views
She wasn't even the first to use the term that week either - 16/01/2011 10:10:35 PM 1164 Views
I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 10:18:54 PM 1157 Views
Re: I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 11:30:38 PM 1047 Views
Oh please don't you start to - 17/01/2011 02:34:43 PM 993 Views
I for one hadn't noticed it before. - 17/01/2011 10:25:57 PM 1186 Views
it was used here and nobody commented - 17/01/2011 10:37:07 PM 1067 Views
LOL, I totally forgot that got posted here - 17/01/2011 10:54:26 PM 1102 Views
It's funny you should say that... - 18/01/2011 10:32:59 PM 1153 Views
Re: It's funny you should say that... - 19/01/2011 03:29:52 PM 1141 Views
It was permissible to ignore until it became a rallying cry. - 20/01/2011 04:27:23 PM 1175 Views
A rallying cry is hardly illegal - 20/01/2011 05:32:45 PM 1233 Views
I never said it was. - 20/01/2011 06:59:39 PM 1323 Views
Oh, I noticed that one alright. - 18/01/2011 10:25:23 PM 998 Views
compared to the way similar terms are used? - 19/01/2011 06:58:02 PM 1143 Views
I meant I hadn't seen it used in different contexts before. - 19/01/2011 07:35:00 PM 1111 Views
Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 10:24:09 PM 1199 Views
Re: Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 11:09:21 PM 1248 Views
Again, Giffords specifically made the connection between Palins imagery and an attack on her. - 17/01/2011 12:53:08 AM 1389 Views
That means precisely nothing - 17/01/2011 03:59:07 PM 1086 Views
It means everything. - 18/01/2011 08:34:55 PM 1328 Views
I'm trying to understand your logic - 19/01/2011 12:50:28 AM 932 Views
There are two points: - 19/01/2011 02:47:48 AM 1153 Views
Re: It means everything. - 19/01/2011 05:55:02 PM 972 Views
That's simply illogical. - 20/01/2011 01:08:51 AM 1363 Views
the old step one steal underwear step three profit argument - 19/01/2011 06:01:14 PM 1222 Views
that is some twisted and bizarre logic - 17/01/2011 02:38:41 PM 1177 Views
Giffords said Palins crosshairs imagery would have "consequences"; Palin calls the suggestion libel. - 18/01/2011 08:54:45 PM 1058 Views
yes but the only consequences is liberals using them to slander Palin - 19/01/2011 02:58:35 PM 1143 Views
I read Toms reply; I don't think he exactly vindicated your position, nor meant to do so. - 20/01/2011 01:52:37 AM 1460 Views
It was an example of blaming the victim, a phrase you keep misusing - 20/01/2011 06:28:21 PM 1107 Views
I thought you said only liberals blinded by political bias committed that grave sin. - 20/01/2011 07:47:09 PM 1146 Views
so in other words you again missed the point - 20/01/2011 08:26:49 PM 1076 Views
Well, one of us did. - 20/01/2011 09:24:35 PM 1208 Views
So I am a little confused on something... - 16/01/2011 02:38:59 PM 1214 Views
Palin putting Giffords district in the crosshairs and Giffords implying at the time she feared this - 16/01/2011 11:21:36 PM 1355 Views
If I understand what you are saying correctly... - 17/01/2011 07:07:56 AM 1086 Views
I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 08:33:47 AM 1111 Views
Re: I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 04:24:01 PM 1181 Views
The Secret Service does guard Congressmen, just not all of them automatically. - 18/01/2011 09:13:39 PM 982 Views
No, they don't - 18/01/2011 10:19:34 PM 1181 Views
Really? Cannoli says differently, and I believe he's right on that one. - 18/01/2011 10:50:51 PM 1283 Views
You seem to be reading what you want to from what I said - 19/01/2011 01:27:32 PM 1116 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 1176 Views
The problem here is your ignoring normal policing powers to concoct an absurdity - 20/01/2011 04:20:25 PM 1253 Views
More absurd than the notion such incitement warrants no notice? - 20/01/2011 05:42:47 PM 1234 Views
really because people post that kind of crap daily and nothing happens - 20/01/2011 05:57:52 PM 1061 Views
Your shifting your original premise, *again* - 20/01/2011 08:24:18 PM 1080 Views
No, you're simply missing the point of it. - 20/01/2011 11:09:57 PM 1095 Views
There is no point - 21/01/2011 12:22:30 AM 1131 Views
If I had no point I wouldn't bother, but fair enough. - 21/01/2011 01:20:32 AM 1380 Views
Uh...Last I checked conservatives didn't list the Communist Manifesto as a favourite book. - 16/01/2011 03:05:07 PM 1395 Views
You're awesome at missing points, aren't you? - 16/01/2011 07:26:30 PM 1144 Views
where is the accountability for those committing slander? - 17/01/2011 02:52:40 PM 1058 Views
Libs hate Mein Kampf and We the Living; conservatives hate the Communist Manifesto: He's neither. - 16/01/2011 10:06:02 PM 1077 Views
conseartives hate Mein Kampf and liberals stil read the Communist Manifesto - 17/01/2011 02:57:22 PM 1069 Views
That first line is says it all. - 18/01/2011 09:34:06 PM 1157 Views
Nazis had more in common with communist then capitalist - 19/01/2011 04:10:09 PM 1260 Views
The founder of fascism called it "the merger of corporate and national power". - 20/01/2011 02:51:09 AM 1150 Views
and that is supposed to mean something? - 20/01/2011 06:06:18 PM 1159 Views
YOU are cherry picking. - 20/01/2011 07:50:21 PM 1100 Views
It is to be expected that this site would be libtard central... - 16/01/2011 05:23:53 PM 1381 Views
See my reply to Dragonsoul above. - 16/01/2011 07:30:40 PM 1199 Views
Yeah, your first was better - 16/01/2011 09:48:58 PM 1021 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 1098 Views
Pretty much. - 16/01/2011 11:44:35 PM 1159 Views
Did they ever catch the person(s) that vandalized Gifford's office? *NM* - 17/01/2011 03:30:36 AM 534 Views
politcal offices are vandalized on a regular basis *NM* - 17/01/2011 02:41:29 PM 500 Views
She only asked if they caught the guy, she didn't accuse anyone, Sarah. - 18/01/2011 11:27:18 PM 1057 Views
OK Olberman when did I imply otherwise? *NM* - 19/01/2011 02:48:41 PM 542 Views
"Political offices are vandalized on a regular basis". - 20/01/2011 03:16:39 AM 1244 Views
Took you this long, huh? - 17/01/2011 01:53:31 PM 991 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 1024 Views
I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:23:47 PM 987 Views
Re: I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:28:04 PM 1135 Views
I always said I'd do that after Bush was re-elected. - 18/01/2011 11:52:45 PM 1009 Views
like I said a matter of faith - 17/01/2011 04:27:51 PM 995 Views
I find it interesting... - 17/01/2011 05:31:54 PM 1149 Views
I mention her looks solely because... - 20/01/2011 02:30:42 PM 1036 Views
If slander, not mine, Giffords' (at least you don't err like Palin and say, "libel" ). - 18/01/2011 11:14:23 PM 1208 Views
mark you calendar today is the day Joel offically went around the bend into insanity - 19/01/2011 05:28:06 PM 1055 Views
A mirror will show me who's to blame? On whom have I put a crosshairs? - 20/01/2011 03:23:43 AM 1080 Views
so it is all a matter of faith for you - 20/01/2011 05:48:44 AM 1014 Views
No, it's fairly straight forward logic. - 20/01/2011 03:25:56 PM 1123 Views
sorry Joel but you haven't - 20/01/2011 03:29:49 PM 914 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 1016 Views
only in your does the connection exisit - 20/01/2011 06:39:35 PM 1060 Views
No. - 20/01/2011 07:35:09 PM 1137 Views
dude wake up - 20/01/2011 08:54:33 PM 1260 Views
So in your opinion... - 17/01/2011 05:27:58 PM 1008 Views
How 'bout simply color coding them? - 18/01/2011 11:21:03 PM 1064 Views
Why not just blame Giffords? - 17/01/2011 06:07:14 PM 1361 Views
Indeed, why not; Sarah Palin does. - 18/01/2011 06:58:01 PM 1183 Views
The irony of this thread is not lost on me. - 19/01/2011 04:09:01 PM 1180 Views
Exactly. *NM* - 19/01/2011 04:51:40 PM 584 Views
Bizarre thread for that Soapbox - 19/01/2011 05:17:58 PM 925 Views
You missed the point, obviously. - 19/01/2011 06:04:23 PM 1038 Views
so you are saying it is the same old RAFO - 19/01/2011 06:47:24 PM 1120 Views
The thread has admittedly degenerated - 19/01/2011 07:02:12 PM 956 Views
Check your NB. Noted you a response. *NM* - 19/01/2011 07:04:58 PM 567 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 1197 Views
Hey, now. I have to step in. - 20/01/2011 04:44:49 PM 1226 Views
I'm just saying a significant link can be demonstrated. - 20/01/2011 07:07:27 PM 1265 Views
Re: OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 22/01/2011 05:49:44 PM 1217 Views

Reply to Message