Palin accuses Democrats and the media of "blood libel"

[kalm]

Seems applicable to this thread so looking at Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire is a good reference.

Ugh. This is Stewart at his smarmy worst. He's a funny guy when he's not trying to be an *******.

Carlson: "I still say you're a lot more funny on your own show"

Stewart: "And I still say you're a dick on yours".



Stewart is indeed smarmy, but certain situations call for it and he can be one hell of a media critic:

[youtube][/youtube]

[89Hen]

and he can be one hell of a media critic:

Is that what you think that video shows?

[BDKJMU]

Look at the partisans here parroting Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox News by trying to personally assail other posters who have criticized her for her actions and choice of words leading up to this.

Yeah, no shit Shirlock, since Limbaugh's, Beck's, Palin's, etc actions and choice of words had ZERO to do with this tragedy.

[Wedgebuster]

Look at the partisans here parroting Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox News by trying to personally assail other posters who have criticized her for her actions and choice of words leading up to this.

Yeah, no shit Shirlock, since Limbaugh's, Beck's, Palin's, etc actions and choice of words had ZERO to do with this tragedy.

You don't think Palin put a contract out on that little girl, even by proxy??

[BDKJMU]

That's the problem, Hen. Nobody in the MSM is holding their own accountable.

That's our fault as a collective. They wouldn't be perpetrating this on us if we weren't giving them the ratings they are looking for but we seem to enjoy the vapid nature of it all.

Our immunity to rational discussions is very strong and I know that a message board is not a good example but just look at the roles we all play on here. There are hundreds of finger pointing sessions in the threads on here but you couldn't find 5 or 6 rational discussions on anything political.

The old MSM (the Big 3 networks, many big papers led by the NYT) don't get near the ratings they did 30, even 20 years ago because most conservatives, and many moderates, aren't watching them anymore (not talking local news but national) Same with CNN in the 90s. Conservatives used to have little options for news that didn't include a leftward slant. Now they have numerous- FNC, talk radio, more conservative papers, blogs, etc.

Most libs get their news from left leaning to lib sources and will only get worked out about something someone on the right said or did because they hear about it through their left leaning to liberal news source.

Conversely most conservatives get their news from right leaning to conservative sources and will only get worked out about something someone on the left said or did because they hear about it through their right leaning to conservative news source.

What makes the advent of talk radio, FNC, and the internet so great. The left no longer has what was close to a starnglehold on the media, and we conservatives can now get news from other than left leaning to liberal outlets, and liberals still have plenty of outlets to get their news from.

Basically everyone can get their news and info from the type of sources they want. And then we can come on here and debate it.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Seems applicable to this thread so looking at Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire is a good reference.

Ugh. This is Stewart at his smarmy worst. He's a funny guy when he's not trying to be an asshole.

Well some humor is always gonna be in his style but on that show he took a more serious approach to be sure. I didn't think he was any more smarmy than the hosts or any other guests. I like his style I guess so it didn't come off that bad to me maybe.

Now Bill Maher is a preachy fucking douchebag that I just can't take and he epitomizes smarmy to me.

[kalm]

Ugh. This is Stewart at his smarmy worst. He's a funny guy when he's not trying to be an *******.

Well some humor is always gonna be in his style but on that show he took a more serious approach to be sure. I didn't think he was any more smarmy than the hosts or any other guests. I like his style I guess so it didn't come off that bad to me maybe.

Now Bill Maher is a preachy **** douchebag that I just can't take and he epitomizes smarmy to me.

Maybe liberals don't do smarmy well. Conversely, my favorite conk pundits are all the smarmy ones - Buchanon, Buckley, and Scarborough come to mind. They wear the smarm like a well fitted suit.

[YoUDeeMan]

When there is just discussion and a little give & take it always provides the stage for good conversation. That doesn't happen on boards though because there is not a lot of digesting the other teams point.

BURP!



Indi........gestion.

[Grizalltheway]

and he can be one hell of a media critic:

Is that what you think that video shows?

Wait, this is you trying to be an asshole, right? Man, it's almost like it's effortless!

[AppMan]

Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee and a longtime blogger Glenn Reynolds had a piece Monday on the op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal with "blood libel" in the headline. Seems nobody noticed because not one word has been uttered about it. No one is out there on the national news shows calling Reynolds anti-Semitic or condemning him for using the term. Sarah Palin uses it in an 8 minute facebook video and all hell breaks loose. The unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin goes on, the vitriol unchecked and uncommented on. ABC News even reported the death threats against Palin have reached "unprecedented levels." Where are all the pleas for civility? The very thing the president is asking people to tone down is being taken to new levels by left wing radical bloggers and columnists. Yet those on the right are the hate mongers. Go figure.

[kalm]

Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee and a longtime blogger Glenn Reynolds had a piece Monday on the op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal with "blood libel" in the headline. Seems nobody noticed because not one word has been uttered about it. No one is out there on the national news shows calling Reynolds anti-Semitic or condemning him for using the term. Sarah Palin uses it in an 8 minute facebook video and all hell breaks loose. The unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin goes on, the vitriol unchecked and uncommented on. ABC News even reported the death threats against Palin have reached "unprecedented levels." Where are all the pleas for civility? The very thing the president is asking people to tone down is being taken to new levels by left wing radical bloggers and columnists. Yet those on the right are the hate mongers. Go figure.

That all could be true, and perhaps things are changing, but let's not pretend that the left has been on equal footing with the right when it comes to armament, threats of violence, or acts of violence. It's not even close.

[native]

Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee and a longtime blogger Glenn Reynolds had a piece Monday on the op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal with "blood libel" in the headline. Seems nobody noticed because not one word has been uttered about it. No one is out there on the national news shows calling Reynolds anti-Semitic or condemning him for using the term. Sarah Palin uses it in an 8 minute facebook video and all hell breaks loose. The unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin goes on, the vitriol unchecked and uncommented on. ABC News even reported the death threats against Palin have reached "unprecedented levels." Where are all the pleas for civility? The very thing the president is asking people to tone down is being taken to new levels by left wing radical bloggers and columnists. Yet those on the right are the hate mongers. Go figure.

That all could be true, and perhaps things are changing, but let's not pretend that the left has been on equal footing with the right when it comes to armament, threats of violence, or acts of violence. It's not even close.

The right may possess more armaments, but is hopelessly behind the left in terms of threats and acts of violence. You are right, kalm. It's not even close.

[kalm]

That all could be true, and perhaps things are changing, but let's not pretend that the left has been on equal footing with the right when it comes to armament, threats of violence, or acts of violence. It's not even close.

The right may possess more armaments, but is hopelessly behind the left in terms of threats and acts of violence. You are right, kalm. It's not even close.

Hippy commune or the Freemen Compound?

Earthfirst or neo-nazi's?

Black Panthers or the KKK?

Moveon or Focus on the Family?

[native]

The right may possess more armaments, but is hopelessly behind the left in terms of threats and acts of violence. You are right, kalm. It's not even close.

Hippy commune or the Freemen Compound?

Earthfirst or neo-nazi's?

Black Panthers or the KKK?

Moveon or Focus on the Family?

How is it that you imagine the Freemen, neo-nazis and KKK to be part of the conservative movement? They are just jackasses, same as Jared Loughener, Ted Kazynski or d1b.

Earthfirst, on the other hand, enjoys widespread donk support, and the Black Panthers benefit from the official support and protection of Eric Holder's Department of "Justice."

Focus on the Family may offend your heathen sensibilities, but "violent?" ... All you get from them is a stern and well deserved lecture from James Dobson...

[blueballs]

The right may possess more armaments, but is hopelessly behind the left in terms of threats and acts of violence. You are right, kalm. It's not even close.

Hippy commune or the Freemen Compound?

Earthfirst or neo-nazi's?

Black Panthers or the KKK?

Moveon or Focus on the Family?

Weather Underground???

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

When there is just discussion and a little give & take it always provides the stage for good conversation. That doesn't happen on boards though because there is not a lot of digesting the other teams point.

BURP!



Indi........gestion.

Sorry to hear about the weak stomach Cluck. I get it though, there are some things I just can't eat on here either. I should have made a case for preparing a better dish as well digestion.

[AppMan]

Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee and a longtime blogger Glenn Reynolds had a piece Monday on the op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal with "blood libel" in the headline. Seems nobody noticed because not one word has been uttered about it. No one is out there on the national news shows calling Reynolds anti-Semitic or condemning him for using the term. Sarah Palin uses it in an 8 minute facebook video and all hell breaks loose. The unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin goes on, the vitriol unchecked and uncommented on. ABC News even reported the death threats against Palin have reached "unprecedented levels." Where are all the pleas for civility? The very thing the president is asking people to tone down is being taken to new levels by left wing radical bloggers and columnists. Yet those on the right are the hate mongers. Go figure.

That all could be true, and perhaps things are changing, but let's not pretend that the left has been on equal footing with the right when it comes to armament, threats of violence, or acts of violence. It's not even close.

Wasn't it Obama's friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change? SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008. What about those sweathearts at Code Pink. Wasn't it a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on Obamacare? How about the self proclaimed Obama-lover Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers. Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto. What about those liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle and burned down Hummer dealerships? How about the progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind. Democrats seem to think they have a monopoly on having their offices vandalized, yet it's doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters. Wasn't it a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008? A liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC. It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley. I seriously doubt the two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were right-wingers. Lastly, every time the G20 gets together, it's not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos, it's those harmless little fuzzball liberals.

[kalm]

That all could be true, and perhaps things are changing, but let's not pretend that the left has been on equal footing with the right when it comes to armament, threats of violence, or acts of violence. It's not even close.

Wasn't it Obama's friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change? SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008. What about those sweathearts at Code Pink. Wasn't it a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on Obamacare? How about the self proclaimed Obama-lover Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers. Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto. What about those liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle and burned down Hummer dealerships? How about the progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind. Democrats seem to think they have a monopoly on having their offices vandalized, yet it's doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters. Wasn't it a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008? A liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC. It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley. I seriously doubt the two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were right-wingers. Lastly, every time the G20 gets together, it's not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos, it's those harmless little fuzzball liberals.

Some of those are good examples but some are a serious stretch like code pink and the storming of the CATO institute. That one reminds me of the hostile takeover bit in "The Meaning of Life".

We won't change each other's mind on this so let's agree that dangerous assholes exist in both camps.

[native]

Wasn't it Obama's friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change? SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008. What about those sweathearts at Code Pink. Wasn't it a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on Obamacare? How about the self proclaimed Obama-lover Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers. Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto. What about those liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle and burned down Hummer dealerships? How about the progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind. Democrats seem to think they have a monopoly on having their offices vandalized, yet it's doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters. Wasn't it a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008? A liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC. It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley. I seriously doubt the two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were right-wingers. Lastly, every time the G20 gets together, it's not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos, it's those harmless little fuzzball liberals.

Some of those are good examples but some are a serious stretch like code pink and the storming of the CATO institute. That one reminds me of the hostile takeover bit in "The Meaning of Life".

We won't change each other's mind on this so let's agree that dangerous ******* exist in both camps.

It is sad that otherwise intellient people are unwilling to consider factual evidence.

"We're all the same" = a Big Lie.

[kalm]

Some of those are good examples but some are a serious stretch like code pink and the storming of the CATO institute. That one reminds me of the hostile takeover bit in "The Meaning of Life".

We won't change each other's mind on this so let's agree that dangerous ******* exist in both camps.

It is sad that otherwise intellient people are unwilling to consider factual evidence.
"We're all the same" = a Big Lie.

Gee Nate, thanks for accepting my olive branch.

Conks, zero introspection, zero compromise, zero accountability.

[native]

It is sad that otherwise intellient people are unwilling to consider factual evidence.

"We're all the same" = a Big Lie.

Gee Nate, thanks for accepting my olive branch.

Conks, zero introspection, zero compromise, zero accountability.

I love ya, brotha, but mush is no more of an olive branch than is your return to hyperbole. Agreeing to disagree is one thing. Ignoring facts is another.

Your statement "...let's agree that dangerous ******* exist in both camps..." contains a big lie. It assumes conclusions for which there is no basis in fact. Who is in your camp? Who is in my camp? How many in each? How do we decide who is a "dangerous ******* " What can be measured?

Saying "we're all the same" is like saying that both the Packers and the Falcons made mistakes last night. While there is an element of truth in the statement, the reality is that the Dirty Birds were penalized for twice the number of yards last night as were the Pack.

You say that conks have "zero introspection... compromise ... accountability" ??? Boy' you've really opened yourself up to a verbal mugging for that one...

[kalm]

Gee Nate, thanks for accepting my olive branch.

Conks, zero introspection, zero compromise, zero accountability.

I love ya, brotha, but mush is no more of an olive branch than is your return to hyperbole. Agreeing to disagree is one thing. Ignoring facts is another.

Your statement "...let's agree that dangerous ******* exist in both camps..." contains a big lie. It assumes conclusions for which there is no basis in fact. Who is in your camp? Who is in my camp? How many in each? How do we decide who is a "dangerous ******* " What can be measured?

Kinda like comparing Texas roads and schools to California eh?

[native]

I love ya, brotha, but mush is no more of an olive branch than is your return to hyperbole. Agreeing to disagree is one thing. Ignoring facts is another.

Your statement "...let's agree that dangerous ******* exist in both camps..." contains a big lie. It assumes conclusions for which there is no basis in fact. Who is in your camp? Who is in my camp? How many in each? How do we decide who is a "dangerous ******* " What can be measured?

Kinda like comparing Texas roads and schools to California eh?

No. Are you serious? Why do you say that?

All comparisons fail at some point, but the comparison exercise can be instructive. In the case of California and Texas, both states are geographically large, blessed with natural resources (more so in the case of California), diverse economies, a large illegal alien population...

[YoUDeeMan]

BURP!



Indi........gestion.

Sorry to hear about the weak stomach Cluck. I get it though, there are some things I just can't eat on here either. I should have made a case for preparing a better dish as well digestion.

Me gots stomach, if not abs, of steel...Cluck eat good! Yum-yum!

But most people on here just stick to regurgitating their favorite meals. Sad, really.

[YoUDeeMan]

Gee Nate, thanks for accepting my olive branch.

Conks, zero introspection, zero compromise, zero accountability.

No retreat. No surrender. Pass the beer nuts.