Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 9:18 am

Pelosi = Mussolini

Image
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 9:45 am

A very strange Axis it will be!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 11:51 am

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"?
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?

If posting a lot on the same theme means 'something "more"', what are we to make of the several posts you've made, then?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 2:11 pm

Danvion wrote:So that gives you the excuse to lie about what I write?


Kinda like you did when you attributed things to me that I hadn't said, Dan? All you lefties look alike to me--hard to fault Tom if he got your nonsense mixed up with someone else's.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 2:49 pm

Yeah, but I did say sorry as soon as I realised my mistake (and that was a joke by the way.

Did Tom check if he'd made an error and say sorry? No, he just continued to 'harp on' about it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 7:58 pm

Let’s see, do I owe you an apology?
What I said was
The fact that you continue to harp on this despite your claim it was simply a poor choice of phrase suggests something "more"?

You claim this is a lie and you have not done so, it was simply her using a poor phrae selection?

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).

Yet it is the liberals who are the ones “demonizing” and if Danivon meant what he stated, that he does not think she meant anything bad, then why so many other statements suggesting ….other?

No, I don’t think I was wrong, I do not see how I mis-spoke in the least. I pretty much nailed it on the head.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:15 am

Tom. Nice selective quotes. How about this, from my first in the thread:
He [Dershowitz] is right that Palin didn't mean anti-Semitism.

Gosh, I said no anti-semitism was intended. Oooh! Perhaps you can twist that into meaning something different, huh?

Yes, I am talking about the use of words, Tom, and their proper meanings and the contexts in which they are used. I know you prefer the Humpty Dumpty method, but I, alas, don't like to see the language rent asunder. So, I was trying to explain from my point of view why 'blood libel' is a poor choice of words.

Yes, I mentioned the use of holocaust. But I never said that Palin used it, and she didn't. I was saying that it has a fairly particular meaning.

Disagree, Tom, that's fine. Lie about what I say (again), and I will object.
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 6:53 am

If only the Constitution was treated the same way as Danivon says.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 10:03 am

So we are discussing Palin's sensitivity to the sensitivities of Jews, and/or those who were shot - or of how her choices reflect on her qualities as a human being and a politician?

How about this: Palin to speak to Convention of Hunters on Jan. 29
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.

Lord knows she's entitled, but does this demonstrate good political judgment? The exhibitors classified as gun/rifle makers:

Accurate Arms
Antonio Zoli Gunmakers
B. Searcy & Company
Bansner's Ultimate Rifle
Beretta USA
Boss & Co Limited
Brockman's Rifles
Brown Precision Inc.
CZ-USA
Champlin Firearms, Inc.
Chapuis Armes
Christensen Arms
Connecticut Shotgun Mfg Co.
D'Arcy Echols & Co.
Dakota Arms, LLC (Remington Arms)
David Miller Co.
Denis Fontana
Dressel Stock Wood and Co.
Evolution USA
Fausti Stefano SRL
Freedom Arms Inc.
Gene Simillion - Gunmaker
Granite Mountain Arms Inc.
GreyBull Precision LLC
Griffin & Howe
Gunwerks
H-S Precision, Inc.
Heym Waffenfabrik AG
Holland & Holland
Holloway & Naughton (Premier English Shotguns)
Ivory Beads, Inc.
James Purdey & Sons Ltd.
Jarrett Rifles, Inc
Johann Fanzoj/Fanzoj Company
Justin Sip Custom Guns, Inc.
K.L. Shelton Custom Kentucky Rifles
Kilimanjaro Rifles
Kimber
Krieghoff International
La Armeria De Madrid-Armas Larm
Lewis Drake & Associates
M.A.G. ITALIA Di Giani & C S.R.L.
MG Arms, Inc.
Mad Dog Guns
Max Ern Gunmakers & Engravers
McMillan Fiearms Manufacturing
Mountain Riflery Inc.
New England Custom Gun Service
Nosler Inc.
P.L. Holehan, Inc.
Peerless Rifle Company
Peter Hofer Jagdwaffen
Piotti Firearms
Reimer Johannsen GMBH & Max Ern
Remington Arms Company Inc
Rifles, Inc.
Rigby (Rigby Ventures, LLC)
Satterlee Arms
Schwandt Classic Arms
Shiloh Rifle Manufacturing Company
Smith & Wesson
Steyr Arms, Inc.
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc
Sturtevant Arms Company
Todd Ramirez-Premium Rifle Builder
Turnbull MFG.
Verney-Carron SA
Weatherby, Inc.
Westley Richards & Co.
Wild West Guns, Inc.
William & Son
William Larkin Moore & Co
Winchester Repeating Arms-Browning
Wineland Walnut Inc.
Wingshooting Adventures
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 10:05 am

That's just rich!
You claim she did nothing wrong, then go on to point out all the things done wrong. 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)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 10:14 am

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. 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.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 10:36 am

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.....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 10:58 am

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.....


You like polls--when they like you. How about the polls on Obamacare? I wonder what the polls will look like when gasoline is $4.50 or higher?

Back to the topic: Ed Koch:

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.


Who knew that Danivon, the devout defender of Israel, was more sensitive?

Her use was clear. Her intent was clear. Palin-haters' intentions are equally clear. Keeping swinging at the wind, boys.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 12:36 pm

GMTom wrote:That's just rich!
You claim she did nothing wrong, then go on to point out all the things done wrong.
[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).

In response to those, such as Mach, who think it's fine and dandy, I was trying to explain why I think the use of 'blood libel' in this context is inappropriate, even if no offence was meant.

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)
Well, hey, let's read that line then...

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?


Now, read that. Does that or does that not imply that the 'liberals' were saying that it was antisemitic? As I was the last person to post before that, the only 'lefty' to post on that page of the thread, and the only to have posted on it within the last 48 hrs, I can only assume you were referring to me. When I asked about it, you replied to me with a reason for thinking so, and did not say anything like "oh, I don't mean you, Danivon, I meant others". So I think we can say that you do include me in that.

Now, I have not said that Palin was being antisemitic. I have said that it was not a good phrase to use, given it's history and connotations, but I do not think she intended to demean the suffering of the Jews. All I think she wanted to do was to highlight how much she had suffered.

So, you said that I was continuing to "insist" that it was made in a way that was antisemitic, and yet I never said it was, and even said at first posting that I thought it was not intended to be. You have the tools and abilities to check what I have written, and yet you accuse me of the opposite of what I've done. I call that lying.

You can think what you want about whether I mean something "more", but I would thank you not to put words into my mouth. Especially when a fair amount of what I had said was pretty close to your own position.

Cheers.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 12:55 pm

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.
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.

The primary function is a very key part of the difference between guns and cars.

Still, cars are very much controlled and licensed, there are loads of rules and regulations on their use, upkeep, training, etc. Your laws can restrict who can own a motor vehicle, it can decide that an ordinary license does not mean you can drive anything, and your car or your licence can be revoked. You need insurance that covers damage that you and your car may cause to third parties, there are public places you are not allowed to drive your car, and others you are not allowed to park it.

If gun laws were as complex as the laws on driving, I imagine that they would be claimed to be massively unconstitutional. And that's for an object that is only designed to move people around, not designed to kill and injure.

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.
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.