Pelosi = Mussolini
So that gives you the excuse to lie about what I write? You presume to read my mind and tell me what I am thinking?GMTom wrote:The fact that you continue to harp on this despite your claim it was simply a poor choice of phrase suggests something "more"?
Danvion wrote:So that gives you the excuse to lie about what I write?
The fact that you continue to harp on this despite your claim it was simply a poor choice of phrase suggests something "more"?
How many actual examples of 'blood libel' as an expression do you guys see over there? And how many which are not referencing lies told about Jews in order to demonise them.
…perhaps we Europeans are more sensitive to such things than Americans are.
"Blood Libel" seems to be taken to mean a lie about a group of people who take part in ritual murder. The main targets of this have been the Jews
I personally would object to the widening of the term holocaust to mean something totally different.
Which others though? People trying to calm things down, to take a rational view? Or people pointing fingers at each other and trying to demonise their opposition. Remember, I'm not a liberal, and I've no issue with you pointing out that Liberals do it too (I'll just respond to ask if that makes it OK alone).
He [Dershowitz] is right that Palin didn't mean anti-Semitism.
Organizers made the announcement that Palin would be appearing at the gun-related gathering less than a week after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that badly injured her and left six dead.
rickyp wrote:I don't know what your last rant is about Tom....But be that as it may, Palin is competing in the public forum for the hearts and minds of the public. She chose to focus part of her imporant response of a perceived wrong done to her. She chose to ue part of her time complaining about being a victim.
The recent Poll by the Washington Post/ABC found that 30% of the public like her speech. 78% like Obama's.....Including 70% of republicans.
She's competing with Obama....and in this instance the public has certainly found her wanting.....
Today the phrase "blood libel" can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.
Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.
How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.
[sigh] No, Tommy. I said that she was not being intentionally antisemitic (which is also what you say). I said that it was a poor choice of words (which is also what you say).GMTom wrote:That's just rich!
You claim she did nothing wrong, then go on to point out all the things done wrong.
Well, hey, let's read that line then...What a load of baloney, and please, point to what I lied about you saying, I simply pointed out all of those things you stated that would "Suggest ....Other"
I did no such thing and you have in no way pointed out anything to the contrary, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck! (even if you want to claim it's a chicken)
GMTom, a few posts ago wrote:again liberals harping on an issue and making it something it isn't. A poor choice of phrase is not stupid and it most certainly was in no way antisemetic, why oh why do you continue to insist it was made that way?
Except that cars are designed with the primary function being "to get people and stuff from one place to another". Guns are designed with the primary function being "to propel a bullet at high speed towards an object, with the intent of causing damage". In the case of many hand guns, the intended target is a person, and the intended damage is fatal. The Glock 17 was designed for the Austrian Army, and the successor models, such as the Glock 19 were designed for law enforcement use as well. Soldiers and cops do not carry guns and not know that they are there as a tool for killing people.GMTom wrote:and if these people were run over by a car, would she be insensitive for giving a speech to autoworkers or at Ford? She can turn this into a positive (not that I expect her to do so mind you) by pointing out some of the problems in the system and working together to keep guns from the mentally unstable. With freedom comes some risk, we want the freedom to drive a car yet with that freedom comes the risk of someone running you over. Every freedom has it's associated risk and responsibility, gun ownership is no different.
And here's a straw man. I don't actually say we should make all guns illegal. I agree with you that we need 'better controls', but we are likely to disagree on what those should be.We outlawed alcohol because of the dangers (a lot more problem with alcohol than with guns!) and how did that go? Many drugs are illegal, how well is that going? Making guns illegal is not the answer, getting better controls while not restricting rights and freedoms IS the answer, but whatever the solution, it will never be perfect since we have that associated risk no matter what comes down.