ZimZam Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Because it's only rhetoric and I'm trying to expand political discourse, would it be wrong to post a pic of Sarah w/ a computer generated projectile slamming into he head? I was thinking about an explosive geoduck between the lips. Only cause she needs to be removed. Would I be libel or would it be the mollusks fault? Even in tragedy the stinking bitch can't keep her suck shut. Quote
billcoe Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Because it's only rhetoric and I'm trying to expand political discourse, would it be wrong to post a pic of Sarah w/ a computer generated projectile slamming into he head? I was thinking about an explosive geoduck between the lips. Only cause she needs to be removed. Would I be libel or would it be the mollusks fault? Even in tragedy the stinking bitch can't keep her suck shut. Lighten up dude, isn't there already enough angry rhetoric? Make love not war. Go rent a copy of "Nailin' Palin", a Larry Flynt production and you'll be able to get your happy spank on again. Come back with a full TR and a smile on your face will ya? LOL! Of course, just turning off your TV will usually get you most of the way to happy again.... Quote
Lucky Larry Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Never would have believed that my happy spank would ever take a permanent leave of absence 10 years ago. A friend of mine said it would come right back if a young woman wanted it. Of course you here the stories of guys going overseas for that. Can you imagine the employment and income that this country could generate just from hand jobs? And sustainable green. Thanks for the laugh. edit: Can't believe i said that because just look at all the economy generated by the plane tickets being sold. Edited January 12, 2011 by Lucky Larry Quote
billcoe Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 LOL, you and Zim should share the vid....! He must be responding to her recent speech, full text: "Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy. I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country. Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day. There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman. Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They 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, 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. The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic. Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, 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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible. There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure. As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional. No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults. Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive. It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today. Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate. America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America. - Sarah Palin Quote
Off_White Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 By referring to the "catholic mass" and that spurious hyperbole about "blood libel" Palin is clearly insinuating that she doesn't count Gabrille Giffords, Jewess, as among the "innocent" victims. Cry me a river Sarah, you're so persecuted! Did you hear that the liberal media canceled her reality show! Quote
prole Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Now the Liberal Jewish Establishment is out to get Sarah! Poor thing, she just can't seem to catch a break. So misunderstood... According to her spokesperson she said "Mlood Klibel", an old saying in Alaska meaning survey marker, not "blood libel". Lamestream media!!! Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Palin is clearly insinuating that she doesn't count Gabrille Giffords, Jewess, as among the "innocent" victims. I don't know about that, but it's probably the case for Choada-Boy. Quote
ivan Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Never would have believed that my happy spank would ever take a permanent leave of absence 10 years ago. dood, they make a pill for that these days larry! Quote
j_b Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Lighten up dude, isn't there already enough angry rhetoric? Make love not war. Stop blaming the angry rhetoric when there are plenty justifiable reasons to be angry, like our being permanently at war all over the globe. Quote
ZimZam Posted January 12, 2011 Author Posted January 12, 2011 When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” and when I say take her out I really mean to the back seat of my car for a nice long hucklebuck. :kisss: Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Stop blaming the angry rhetoric when there are plenty justifiable reasons to be angry, like our being permanently at war all over the globe. Translation: j_b likes being angry all the time... and it is righteous, baby! Quote
Lucky Larry Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Interesting, has there ever been a peaceful transition of power? Has anyone heard a meaningful political debate lately? [Citation needed] Edited January 12, 2011 by Lucky Larry Quote
Off_White Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Really, I think Sarah is the unacknowledged 20th victim of the Arizona shooting. Poor thing, I hope she gets well soon. Quote
Choada_Boy Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Palin is clearly insinuating that she doesn't count Gabrille Giffords, Jewess, as among the "innocent" victims. I don't know about that, but it's probably the case for Choada-Boy. If listening to NPR for ~3hrs a day for the last twelve years or so, and making the observation that they have a pro-Jewish/Israeli bias, makes me an Anti-Semite, then you're a fucking moron. But we knew that already. Carry on. Quote
olyclimber Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html'>http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html'>http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html'>http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html Quote
prole Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Sarah does rightly place Reagan's quote squarely at the heart of the conservative deceit in this particular case and many others: the social context (State, civil society, ideology, narrative, culture, etc.) we all live within is totally irrelevant. We're all just bumper cars and billiard balls. Conveniently, this allows them to "stay the course" or "don't retreat, reload" when it comes to backing down from hate speech, addressing gun reform, or funding mental health not to mention the other issues we're facing as a society. Again, how many more "random acts" of violence or people who "just happen to choose" to be poor, undereducated, and unemployed do we need to see before Americans all start to realize that we're in this together? Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) By referring to the "catholic mass" and that spurious hyperbole about "blood libel" Palin is clearly insinuating that she doesn't count Gabrille Giffords, Jewess, as among the "innocent" victims. Cry me a river Sarah, you're so persecuted! What total crap Off. Ms Palin is not even close to doing what you claim. You're simply spewing spurious hyperbole. Here's what Alan(lefty) has to say: 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. Alan Dershowitz here is what they had to say over at Commentary: (Righty) As Sarah Palin has just learned, keeping up with the rules about using phrases that are associated with Jewish history is not as simple as it used to be. I was under the impression that the list of phrases that were considered off limits for general consumption was confined more or less to those associated with the Holocaust. Meaning, for instance, that the use of the word “holocaust” should be confined to discussion of events surrounding the genocide of Jews in Europe between 1933 and 1945. But even that stricture has been hard to enforce. Indeed, when an episode of the TV show The X-Files once referred to the mysterious death of amphibians in a lake as a “frog holocaust,” you knew that the word had become more of a metaphor than a specific historical term. But when it comes to some people, the rules are apparently even more stringent than any of us might have thought. Thus, today Sarah Palin is being widely condemned for using the term “blood libel” when referencing the slanderous suggestions that she is in some way connected to the tragedy in Arizona. According to those who claim that Palin has somehow caused pain to the Jewish people, it is wrong to use that phrase to describe anything other than the false accusation that Jews kidnap and murder Christian children and use their blood to help bake matzoh for Passover. This canard was popularized during the Middle Ages by European Christians and has been revived in recent decades in the Arab world as Jew-hatred has become an unfortunate staple of contemporary Islamic culture. But the idea that this term cannot be used to describe anything else is something new. Granted, most of the uses of this phrase that come quickly to mind have had Jewish associations. For example, the accusation that right-wing Zionists were behind the murder of Haim Arlosoroff, a Labor Zionist official who was killed on a Tel Aviv beach in 1933, has always been called a “blood libel” by those who believed the failed effort to pin the killing on Labor’s Jewish opposition was a political plot to discredit them. In just the past couple of years, the term “blood libel” has been applied by writers here at COMMENTARY to describe the false charges put forward by Human Rights Watch and the UN Goldstone Commission against Israeli forces fighting Hamas terrorists in Gaza, as well as to the malicious falsehoods published by a Swedish newspaper that claimed Israel was murdering Palestinians and then harvesting their organs for medical use. So the claim that Palin has crossed some bright line in the sand and “stolen” a phrase that has always and should always be used to describe only one thing is absurd. Like so much else that has been heard from the left in the wake of the shootings in Arizona, this further charge against Sarah Palin is groundless. The fact is, those who are trying to link her or other conservatives to this crime are, in fact, committing a kind of blood libel. Take issue with her politics or dislike her personality if that is your inclination, but the idea that she has even the most remote connection to this event is outrageous. So, too, is the manufactured controversy over “blood libel.” Edited January 13, 2011 by Peter_Puget Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Stop blaming the angry rhetoric when there are plenty justifiable reasons to be angry, like our being permanently at war all over the globe. Translation: j_b likes being angry all the time... and it is righteous, baby! He is the conscience of cc.com. it's a tough row to hoe but.... Here is a "doodle" self portait from his high school notebook: Quote
prole Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Alan Dershowitz is a "lefty"? Get a clue. Quote
ZimZam Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 I really could care less about her blood libel FB posting. She just can't keep her trap shut. Instead of letting her previous statement (peace and justice) suffice, the Wicked Witch of Wasilla behaves like a teen and gets all defensive and whines they're picking on me. She just needs to keep herself in the news loop. Shameless self promotional media whore that she is. Quote
j_b Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Dershowitz is a pro-torture warmonger and Israel apologist at every turn who is far from being a lefty. Always trust PP to spew as much disinformation as possible. I suspect in fact that PP's post has less to do with Palin than disparaging the UN Goldstone report that condemns Israel for its wanton attacks of Palestinian civilians. I really don't understand the people here who claim that PP is only trolling when he is clearly very far to the right. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Interesting, has there ever been a peaceful transition of power? Has anyone heard a meaningful political debate lately? [Citation needed] All of Eastern Europe. South Africa. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.