Palin charges critics with 'blood libel'

Palin charges critics with ‘blood libel’

Politics • January 2011 • Views: 1,642

Sarah Palin released a video statement Wednesday calling the rush to pin blame on conservatives for the Tucson shooting a “blood libel.”

So much for calmer rhetoric. I guess you could hope that she had no idea how charged that term is.

“Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” - which refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzoh for Passover - touched off an immediate backlash. (see: Full text of Sarah Palin’s statement)

“The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews – the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself… It’s absolutely inappropriate.

Blood Libel.

Recent Pages by avanti:
Right wing militia attack thwarted Obama Zombie Graphic condemned Global warmimg has stopped !! Abortion workers laugh at a botched abortion ? Pamela Geller: confused again

Jump to bottom

106 comments

Eclectic Cyborg Jan 12, 2011 8:15:03am

This is just Sarah “attention whore” Palin doing what she does best. She chose the term because she knew it would be controversial and knew it would put added spotlight on her.

Sadly, this whole episode has probably increased support of Sarah Palin on the right and far right.

Islamo-Masonic Conspirator Jan 12, 2011 8:16:49am

Oh Sarah, Sarah…

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 8:18:09am

I’d like to note that even though one of the victims of this attack was Jewish, the only reference that Palin makes throughout her speech to Judaism is the blood libel— which she claims she and others who propagate violent rhetoric are victims of. Because people criticize them for that rhetoric.

Giffords was one of those people who criticized Palin for the violent rhetoric, saying it would lead to violence.

So Palin is, really, accusing a Jew of participating in the blood libel.

What the fuck.

Islamo-Masonic Conspirator Jan 12, 2011 8:23:07am

Sarah responds: “All I said is that liberals lie about us and now I’ve been subjected to a literal pogrom!”

////

avanti Jan 12, 2011 8:40:52am

The right wing sites are saying the term has “evolved” from its original meaning. I guess it’s sorta like the superbowl is likely to be a Holocaust for the losing team./

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 8:43:14am

re: #5 avanti

Evolved into what? Can they define it?

Of course not.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 8:44:11am

Glen Reynolds said it first.

littlegreenfootballs.com

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 8:46:50am

re: #7 Buck

Wow. Just when I thought Palin couldn’t get any stupider, she’s taking her rhetoric from Glenn Reynolds.

I cannot believe that Giffords, a Jew is lying in the hospital, shot in the head, and Palin is whining about how people who say that her rhetoric is violent and irresponsible— like Giffords, are participating in a blood libel.

It is just insanely fucking foul.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 8:48:15am

How would you describe the sentence They say “wouldn’t it be fun to kill the people we disagree with.”

IF he was talking about jews? If he were talking about the right…..

mediaite.com

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 8:49:52am

re: #9 Buck

Do you know what the blood libel is, Buck?

funky chicken Jan 12, 2011 8:51:11am

Wow. She was in a hole and a shovel wasn’t powerful enough, I guess. Drill baby drill!

Buck Jan 12, 2011 8:53:13am

re: #10 Obdicut

Do you know what the blood libel is, Buck?

You keep asking me that question….Do you know what this or that means…

It is getting insulting. I certainly do.

If someone said that jews think it is fun to kill people they disagree with it would be a form of blood libel.

It does NOT have to ONLY be about passover matzah, or childrens blood…

Islamo-Masonic Conspirator Jan 12, 2011 8:55:55am

re: #9 Buck

How would you describe the sentence They say “wouldn’t it be fun to kill the people we disagree with.”

IF he was talking about jews? If he were talking about the right…

[Link: www.mediaite.com…]

It has nothing to do whatsoever with Palin’s silly pronouncement. It’s a stupid demonization on Maher’s part but I fail to see how this is relevant to this thread. BTW, I’ve written Maher off long ago, after his anti-vaccination nonsense.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 8:56:20am

re: #12 Buck

If someone said that jews think it is fun to kill people they disagree with it would be a form of blood libel.

No, it wouldn’t.

It does NOT have to ONLY be about passover matzah, or childrens blood…

Yes, it really does have to be an accusation that blood is being used in religious ceremonies. That is what it means. You don’t get to redefine a term that has, for centuries, meant a very, very fucking specific accusation against Jews.

zionism-israel.com

aish.com

religioustolerance.org

funky chicken Jan 12, 2011 8:58:45am

While I find her remarks deeply offensive, they are even more deeply stupid. She needed to shut her mouth and let her previous “gunsight” or “bullseye” map and “reload” rhetoric fade away from people’s memory. Instead she just doubled down, which will give her opponents and detractors in the press an excuse to show every bit of her inflammatory web content all together.

wow, stick a fork in her. She’s done.

thank goodness.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 9:03:34am

When the antisemites come out to play and make it seem like the IDF are killing palestinian children for no apparent reason, it is a form of blood libel. When the stories of jews killing arab and muslim children in order to harvest their organs, it is a form of blood libel.

I say again, that it does NOT have to only be about passover matzah in order to be blood libel.

Now, that is my opinion, and I am not alone. You can your opinion and you have stated it. You don’t have to start with the name calling and profanity.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 9:07:29am

re: #16 Buck

When the antisemites come out to play and make it seem like the IDF are killing palestinian children for no apparent reason, it is a form of blood libel.

Nope. That’s just an accusation that the IDF are murderers. A foul and contemptible accusation. but not the Blood Libel.

When the stories of jews killing arab and muslim children in order to harvest their organs, it is a form of blood libel.

Still not the blood libel, since it doesn’t involve a perversion of the Jewish religion, but very close to the blood libel, yes.

I say again, that it does NOT have to only be about passover matzah in order to be blood libel.

Since I never claimed it did, this is irrelevant.

What it can’t be, however, is what you’ve defended here: a claim by Palin that since people are saying she, or others, are bloodthirsty, they’ve been tainted with the blood libel. And moreover, she is saying it about a Jew.

Shame on you for defending this misuse of a term of such historical importance to Jews. Just shame.

Islamo-Masonic Conspirator Jan 12, 2011 9:09:10am

re: #16 Buck

When the antisemites come out to play and make it seem like the IDF are killing palestinian children for no apparent reason, it is a form of blood libel. When the stories of jews killing arab and muslim children in order to harvest their organs, it is a form of blood libel.

I say again, that it does NOT have to only be about passover matzah in order to be blood libel.

Now, that is my opinion, and I am not alone. You can your opinion and you have stated it. You don’t have to start with the name calling and profanity.

Not sure what you’re arguing about. Is that the academic point on whether or not the “blood libel” can be metaphorically transferred to some modern antisemitic pronouncements about current events? If so, granted. Does it somehow follow that Palin’s use of the term was normative? Not even close.

Poiks Jan 12, 2011 9:15:02am

Rumor has it (per a Markos Moulitsas tweet, apparently) that her highness used a teleprompter today, visibly reflected in her eyeglasses. Just sayin’.

Poiks Jan 12, 2011 9:16:05am

re: #18 Sergey Romanov

Do you honestly believe, for a second, that she has any idea what the term means? Or that she wrote those words?

Randall Gross Jan 12, 2011 9:16:29am

re: #1 dragonfire1981

This is just Sarah “attention whore” Palin doing what she does best. She chose the term because she knew it would be controversial and knew it would put added spotlight on her.

Sadly, this whole episode has probably increased support of Sarah Palin on the right and far right.

Like many who are politically inexpert and unelectable, Sarah chums the waters for reporters and attention by tossing in grenades. Eventually enough bottom feeders die from concussion to make the real sharks gather.

SpaceJesus Jan 12, 2011 9:21:16am

even under the broadest possible definition of the term, this has nothing to do with what people are calling out palin for. what a doofus

Flavia Jan 12, 2011 9:24:21am

re: #11 funky chicken

Wow. She was in a hole and a shovel wasn’t powerful enough, I guess. Drill baby drill[empasis mine]!

Absofreaking brilliant, FC!

My thoughts on this are that it was a deliberate attempt to garner sympathy, to wrestle the victimhood away from actual victims. No, not that she was thinking for a minute about how Giffords considers herself Jewish, but rather, knowing that the term is for the persecuted & running with it.

calochortus Jan 12, 2011 9:29:36am

As a gentile in a not particularly anti-semitic area I can’t say that I knew the precise meaning of “blood libel”. It just doesn’t come up much. I wouldn’t be surprised if Palin had no clue as to its meaning and just thought of the “blood” portion as a cool intensifier to the libel part. Even so, it doesn’t work well in that context. It doesn’t make sense.
As for arguing that the meaning has evolved, that’s just silly. Whatever happened to saying “Oops, I used that inappropriately. I’m sorry.” and getting on with your life?

Locker Jan 12, 2011 9:31:54am

Sarah Palin is just doing the same dance the other right wing inflamators are doing. They SCREAM that the liberals are doing X, Y and Z without any proof and then the other moronic media outlets pick up the story and say “liberals are doing X, Y and Z” even though the only reference they use is initial, fabricated wingnut statement.

Michael McBacon Jan 12, 2011 9:38:53am

Palin’s claim that her critics are engaging in “blood libel” is on the same (low) level of race-baiting as the TP’er claim that Obama “lynched” America to win the presidency in ‘08.

Lidane Jan 12, 2011 9:42:36am

As usual, Sarah Palin graces the rest of us with her class and grace.

///

Lidane Jan 12, 2011 9:45:40am

re: #12 Buck

I’m not even Jewish and I know you’re full of shit. You can’t just redefine “blood libel” to mean whatever the fuck Sarah Palin and Glenn Reynolds want it to mean. It doesn’t work that way.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 9:46:18am

re: #24 calochortus

As a gentile in a not particularly anti-semitic area I can’t say that I knew the precise meaning of “blood libel”. It just doesn’t come up much. I wouldn’t be surprised if Palin had no clue as to its meaning and just thought of the “blood” portion as a cool intensifier to the libel part. Even so, it doesn’t work well in that context. It doesn’t make sense.
As for arguing that the meaning has evolved, that’s just silly. Whatever happened to saying “Oops, I used that inappropriately. I’m sorry.” and getting on with your life?

Right and Glen Reynolds doesn’t have a clue either. It is interesting to me that no one thought it so very stupid and horrifying when he said it.

Lidane Jan 12, 2011 9:51:30am

re: #29 Buck

Right and Glen Reynolds doesn’t have a clue either.

You’re right. He doesn’t. He’s just as fucking stupid about this as you and Sarah Palin are. “Blood libel” is a specific term with a specific meaning, and it’s a slander against Jews. You can’t just use that term for any little thing just because you want to be controversial.

It is interesting to me that no one thought it so very stupid and horrifying when he said it.

Stop being so goddamn dense. A lack of response on a Page you link to =/= people not being outraged by this. Maybe they just didn’t see the first Page the last time around.

Locker Jan 12, 2011 10:06:11am

re: #30 Lidane

You’re right. He doesn’t. He’s just as fucking stupid about this as you and Sarah Palin are. “Blood libel” is a specific term with a specific meaning, and it’s a slander against Jews. You can’t just use that term for any little thing just because you want to be controversial.

Stop being so goddamn dense. A lack of response on a Page you link to =/= people not being outraged by this. Maybe they just didn’t see the first Page the last time around.

He does this all the time. Deliberate stupidity, refusal to read or consider any evidence or information to counter the crap that he spews. It’s never a conversation, he’s a one way fog horn of the stupid.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:07:37am

re: #30 Lidane

Stop being so goddamn dense. A lack of response on a Page you link to =/= people not being outraged by this. Maybe they just didn’t see the first Page the last time around.

Really… you think it only appeared on the page I linked to? Now who is being dense?

online.wsj.com

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 10:09:10am

re: #32 Buck

You are missing the point, Buck. That Reynolds AND Palin AND you are all misusing the term Blood Libel doesn’t make that misuse any better.

It’s still shameful.

I don’t think much of you, but I thought you were better than this.

Archangelus Jan 12, 2011 10:09:53am

re: #29 Buck

Right and Glen Reynolds doesn’t have a clue either. It is interesting to me that no one thought it so very stupid and horrifying when he said it.

Here’s a thought: unlike Palin, most folks out there have probably never heard of the man, just as I never did prior to reading this page. And even if they did, how many do you think have seen that very precise page?

I find it every bit as stupid and idiotic - if you’re gonna use a term, find out what it means before you just throw it out there. Every Jew knows what the blood libel is, and there are ZERO other interpretations for it.

It does NOT have to ONLY be about passover matzah, or childrens blood…

That is the ONLY thing it can possibly refer to for most, if not ALL Jews in the world…

re: #28 Lidane

I’m not even Jewish….

I AM Jewish and agree with that sentiment.
I’d recommend you to stop trying to find something to defend here, Buck…

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:10:57am

Yep, calling me stupid….that is really working for you. You think I am stupid, Sarah Palin is stupid, Glen Reynolds is stupid, George Bush is stupid….

Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

Ya, that’s rational…. maybe on your planet.

Locker Jan 12, 2011 10:13:11am

re: #35 Buck

Yep, calling me stupid…that is really working for you. You think I am stupid, Sarah Palin is stupid, Glen Reynolds is stupid, George Bush is stupid…

True.

Locker Jan 12, 2011 10:19:16am

A demonstration of stupidity:

John: 1 + 1 = 3
Mike: That isn’t correct. 1 + 1 = 2 and here are links, talks, diagrams, examples and proofs which demonstrate the proper answer.

John: I don’t care what you say, 1 + 1 = 3
Mike: Then you are stupid

* * * * Alternate example * * * *

Stan: Look, my friend Kyle won’t fly back home to Colorado. All I need you to do is talk to him and tell him, ya know, that the whole talking to dead people isn’t real.
John Edward: Maybe it is for real.
Stan: Right, but it’s not. It’s a trick you do, and I need you to just let my friend Kyle know that so that he can go on with his life.
John Edward: Look. People have the right to be skeptical. I really hear voices in my head.
Stan: Yes. We all hear voices in our heads. It’s called intuition. Get over yourself and tell my friend it’s just for fun.
John Edward: Look. What I do doesn’t hurt anybody. I give people closure and help them cope with life.
Stan: No, you give them false hope and a belief in something that isn’t real.
John Edward: But I’m a psychic.
Stan: No dude, your a douche.
John Edward: I’m not a douche. What if I really believe that dead people talk to me?
Stan: Then you’re a stupid douche.
John Edward: I think that I have had enough of your bullying me. Get out of my house or I’ll run upstairs, lock myself in my panic room, and call the police.
Stan: I’m 9 years old.
John Edward: (screaming) I’m not talking to your friend and I’m not a douche. (runs upstairs) You better get out of my house or I’ll call the police.
Stan: You are so a douche. I’m nominating you for the biggest douche in the universe award. You douche. [edit]

Archangelus Jan 12, 2011 10:20:06am

re: #35 Buck

Yep, calling me stupid…that is really working for you. You think I am stupid, Sarah Palin is stupid, Glen Reynolds is stupid, George Bush is stupid…

If that was in response to my post, I was actually referring to Palin and that Reynolds guy you linked…

Lidane Jan 12, 2011 10:20:10am

re: #32 Buck

Seriously, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

“Blood libel” is a specific term, and is a slander aimed at Jews. It has been that way for centuries. You, Glenn Reynolds, Sarah Palin, and the other intellectual midgets who want to use that phrase this way are being deliberately dense at best, or you’re just fucking stupid if you think it can just be applied to something just because Caribou Barbie got her feelings hurt.

Sorry, but no. It doesn’t work that way.

Interesting Times Jan 12, 2011 10:20:22am

re: #35 Buck

Yep, calling me stupid…that is really working for you.

If you want people to stop calling you stupid, stop posting stupid comments - like this pile of steaming, blithering idiocy, by far one of the Top 10 Dumbest Things ever said on this site.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:25:40am

re: #40 publicityStunted

Clearly we disagree. However I wont debate that here, it is way off topic.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:27:31am

re: #39 Lidane

, or you’re just fucking stupid if you think it can just be applied to something just because Caribou Barbie got her feelings hurt.

Sorry, but no. It doesn’t work that way.

Well, that is your opinion. AND it is not about someone getting their feelings hurt. But thanks for trying to minimize this very serious issue.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:28:13am

re: #37 Locker

Actually a demonstration of a strawman.

Interesting Times Jan 12, 2011 10:32:58am

re: #41 Buck

Clearly we disagree. However I wont debate that here, it is way off topic.

Not when the topic is your remarkable gift for saying stupid, false things :P

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 12, 2011 10:38:12am

re: #42 Buck

By endorsing the misuses of a term of such importance, you are the one minimizing this issue.

Have you not noticed the swathe of Jewish organizations criticizing Palin for the use of the phrase?

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:38:23am

re: #38 Archangelus

If that was in response to my post, I was actually referring to Palin and that Reynolds guy you linked…

Well that Reynolds guy is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He is Instapundit, and many of the the most popular blog sites can be traced back to his inspiration.

You can read about him here.

If after doing so you still think he is stupid, then I can safely say that it is simply because you disagree with him on this issue.

Lidane Jan 12, 2011 10:39:28am

re: #42 Buck

Well, that is your opinion. AND it is not about someone getting their feelings hurt.

Sure it is. Poor widdle Sarah got her feelings hurt, so she makes a video parroting the phrase that Glenn Reynolds used incorrectly. Of course it’s about Caribou Barbie getting her feelings hurt. Everything in Sarah’s world revolves around her. What the hell else do you think it’s about?

Lidane Jan 12, 2011 10:41:35am

re: #46 Buck

Well that Reynolds guy is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He is Instapundit

Logical fallacy - argument from authority. Just because he’s a law professor and a blogger doesn’t mean he’s immune from criticism or that he isn’t flat wrong here.

Try again.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:44:18am

re: #48 Lidane

Logical fallacy - argument from authority. Just because he’s a law professor and a blogger doesn’t mean he’s immune from criticism or that he isn’t flat wrong here.

Try again.

It is perfectly fine to say that he is wrong. However he is not stupid. He just has a different opinion.

I never said that he was immune from criticism did I?

Lidane Jan 12, 2011 10:50:43am

re: #49 Buck

He’s both wrong AND stupid. And he should know better than to use the phrase “blood libel”. And anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together should damn well know better than to agree with him, or Sarah Palin, or anyone else who uses “blood libel” this way.

Using that phrase in that way isn’t “just his opinion”. It’s offensive and wrong. Period.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 10:51:51am

re: #47 Lidane

Sure it is. Poor widdle Sarah got her feelings hurt, so she makes a video parroting the phrase that Glenn Reynolds used incorrectly. Of course it’s about Caribou Barbie getting her feelings hurt. Everything in Sarah’s world revolves around her. What the hell else do you think it’s about?

I think it is about a vicious lie, that was put forth immediately (withing a couple of hours) after the tragedy. A lie that was designed to demonize people who had nothing to do with the shooting.

Some people jumped directly into blame the right, blame the tea party and blame Palin, Beck, O’Reilly, Rush and others on the right.

When the Left uses bullseyes, and hateful rhetoric it is ignored. When the right uses similar language and graphics it is slanderous to say that it in any way can be responsible for the murder of a nine year old girl and five other innocent people.

Interesting Times Jan 12, 2011 10:53:36am

re: #48 Lidane

Logical fallacy - argument from authority. Just because he’s a law professor and a blogger doesn’t mean he’s immune from criticism or that he isn’t flat wrong here.

Or here:

With all of the anti-Muslim hysteria being promoted not just by idiot bloggers like Pamela Geller, but top GOP politicians, Fox News, and every single right wing talk radio host, Glenn Reynolds twists the fabric of space and time itself to find a way to blame it on President Obama. Amazingly pathetic.

LOL Instapundit.

Islamo-Masonic Conspirator Jan 12, 2011 10:54:10am

re: #51 Buck

What vicious lie? That the right is responsible for most hateful and aggressive rhetoric nowadays, including the stars of the movement? It’s not a lie, much less vicious.

Charles Johnson Jan 12, 2011 10:54:26am

Pathetic, Buck. Just pathetic. Seriously, don’t you ever get embarrassed by your own desperate spinning?

jamesfirecat Jan 12, 2011 10:58:36am

re: #54 Charles

Pathetic, Buck. Just pathetic. Seriously, don’t you ever get embarrassed by your own desperate spinning?

If he wasn’t embarrassed to take the word of Tea Party members over an elected representative who had been a part of the civil rights movement on the issue of weather or not he was called the “N word” while walking to his place of business, he’s not gonna start now…

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Jan 12, 2011 1:44:07pm

this thread really is something

Buck Jan 12, 2011 1:53:01pm

Alan Dershowitz (I suppose it is OK to think he is pathetic and stupid for his opinion):

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.

Islamo-Masonic Conspirator Jan 12, 2011 1:55:28pm

re: #57 Buck

Alan Dershowitz (I suppose it is OK to think he is pathetic and stupid for his opinion):

He’s only saying that because he is guilty of the same.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 1:58:27pm

Yid with a lid (who would also be charaterized here as pathetic and stupid):

When it comes to Governor Palin’s use of the term blood libel, it was totally justified. The progressive media created a lie about Palin causing the death of a child, Christina Taylor Greene. Their charge was blood libel just the same way as the media spreading the al Durah myth, or the way the media spread bogus charges of Israeli massacres during the recent war with Hamas in Gaza (or in the case of Reuters falsified pictures).

Buck Jan 12, 2011 2:13:44pm

My point is that there should be room for more than one opinion here. That perhaps educated and reasonable people might feel differently than you on any issue.

Now, with that said I do wish that Palin had not invoked that phrase, but I also see that it has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused of being part of the killing of innocents.

However, if asked, I would have advised against using it here.

I also advise against blaming political opponents (right or left) for the acts of madmen.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 2:14:54pm

re: #58 Sergey Romanov

He’s only saying that because he is guilty of the same.

Can you give me an example of that?

Archangelus Jan 12, 2011 2:21:51pm

Dear Buck - just because a handful of people (who also happen to be rather contested) view things differently, doesn’t make OK. Just because Dershowitz says as he does, does NOT mean that the other 99% are fine with it, to say the least.
A handful of quotes from a handful of individuals does NOT constitute a trend and it has not become part of the English parlance, as you say. You, and they, are throwing around a term to which many Jews are as sensitive to as African-Americans would be towards the N word, albeit for different reasons.

Charles Johnson Jan 12, 2011 3:49:47pm

re: #59 Buck

Yid with a lid (who would also be charaterized here as pathetic and stupid):

No, he’d be characterized here as a supporter of fascist organizations.

Archangelus Jan 12, 2011 4:24:09pm

re: #59 Buck

Yid with a lid

Also, just FYI, thought I’d point out that “Yid” is an offensive slur to many Jews (kinda like the K word)… which really doesn’t help your cause…

Buck Jan 12, 2011 5:30:13pm

re: #64 Archangelus

Also, just FYI, thought I’d point out that “Yid” is an offensive slur to many Jews (kinda like the K word)… which really doesn’t help your cause…

Well he is jewish (and so am I) and we are not offended by that word.

However, I seriously did not know he was also on the restricted list (I even did a search here.)

I for one sure would love to get a list of who is out….

Buck Jan 12, 2011 5:33:37pm

re: #62 Archangelus

Dear Buck - just because a handful of people (who also happen to be rather contested) view things differently, doesn’t make OK. Just because Dershowitz says as he does, does NOT mean that the other 99% are fine with it, to say the least.

No but it might mean that you don’t have to be characterized as stupid and pathetic to think that way. Frankly I am quite happy to be in the company of Dershowitz over say, Obdicut.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 6:15:13pm

I really have no idea how this guy will be received, but Andrew Sullivan using the term “blood-libel”…. should I get a rope?

A couple of obvious thoughts. Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.

Buck Jan 12, 2011 6:21:38pm

Frank Rich is an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times:

“The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.”

(no link as you have to sign in)

Buck Jan 12, 2011 9:37:45pm

I suppose someone wants to call Rabbi Shmuley a pathetic and stupid person.

From twitter:

Rabbi Shmuley

“sarah palin or any person falsely accused of being accessory 2 murder has right to call it ‘blood libel.’ not reserved only 4 accusing jews”

Obdicut… Do you want to question him if he knows what blood libel is?

You really think you are smarter than him on this subject?

Of course you can downding me all you want, but you really should think about YOUR motives here.

Many people have used the expression before and not one word of outrage from you. Many people who should know what Blood Libel means, think that it was a perfect ok use.

BUT of course you will never see the lynching if all you can see is your people in a crowd.

Oh I bet I can’t use the word lynching without offending you…

ClaudeMonet Jan 12, 2011 10:59:13pm

re: #24 calochortus

As for arguing that the meaning has evolved, that’s just silly. Whatever happened to saying “Oops, I used that inappropriately. I’m sorry.” and getting on with your life?

Being Sarah The Great, she is incapable of error and cannot use language inappropriately. With her, a word or phrase means what she says it means, nothing more.

Sarah Palin, the Red Queen.

ClaudeMonet Jan 12, 2011 11:03:48pm

re: #51 Buck

When the Left uses bullseyes, and hateful rhetoric it is ignored. When the right uses similar language and graphics it is slanderous to say that it in any way can be responsible for the murder of a nine year old girl and five other innocent people.

We have a MBF sighting!

ClaudeMonet Jan 12, 2011 11:07:31pm

re: #65 Buck

Well he is jewish (and so am I) and we are not offended by that word.

However, I seriously did not know he was also on the restricted list (I even did a search here.)

I for one sure would love to get a list of who is out…

I don’t believe for a second that you are Jewish.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 2:45:09am

re: #69 Buck

Many people have used the expression before and not one word of outrage from you.

If I had heard about ‘em, I would have criticized them. Kind of obvious. In many cases, it’s not nearly as bad as what Palin is saying because they’re syllogistically similar to a blood libel; what has happened to Palin bears no resemblance, at all, to the blood libel.

Many people who should know what Blood Libel means, think that it was a perfect ok use.

And yet you, weaselly, claim to both think she shouldn’t have used it and are defending the use as perfectly fine. Make up your mind.

And yes, I think I’m right, and Shmuley is wrong. Just as I think when a rabbi says that Israel is suffering because of the sins of her people, that he is wrong, or that a child conceived to a Jewish mother with gentile sperm ‘cannot be 100% normal’ or that Buddhists pray to idols.

I’m not sure why you think that A rabbi is an ultimate authority on this subject. I’m not sure why you’re dismissing other rabbis who are saying that the use of the term is totally inappropriate.

Can you explain?

Locker Jan 13, 2011 9:06:05am

re: #72 ClaudeMonet

I don’t believe for a second that you are Jewish.

Knowing Buck he thinks it’s ok to call himself Jewish because he once ate at a kosher deli.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 9:37:24am

re: #72 ClaudeMonet

I don’t believe for a second that you are Jewish.

Seriously?

I am jewish. Both my parents are jewish, and their parents before them. In fact I a Cohen. So genetically I can trace my roots to the bother of Moses, Aaron. I was Bar Mitzvahed in Winnipeg Manitoba at the Herzlia - Adas Yeshurun. herzlia.org

I lived in Israel for two years (made Aliah), but returned as my father had trouble adapting (language).

I am a pretty well known member of the Jewish Community here. As a teen I was in BBYO.

How can I prove it to you?

Buck Jan 13, 2011 9:38:34am

re: #74 Locker

Knowing Buck he thinks it’s ok to call himself Jewish because he once ate at a kosher deli.

Nice….

So Charles are these really your new friends?

Nice.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 9:45:06am

re: #73 Obdicut

And yet you, weaselly, claim to both think she shouldn’t have used it and are defending the use as perfectly fine. Make up your mind.

It is not weaselly. I think it was an appropriate use, but there are so many assholes like you that would attack her for it. So I would suggest to her, if she asked not to.

And yes, I think I’m right, and Shmuley is wrong. Just as I think when a rabbi says that Israel is suffering because of the sins of her people, that he is wrong, or that a child conceived to a Jewish mother with gentile sperm ‘cannot be 100% normal’ or that Buddhists pray to idols.

Here you go again. Attributing to someone things they never said.

I am clearly giving you examples of people who feel the way I do. These are famous smart people who should NOT be called stupid and pathetic.

Of course there are going to be differences in opinion. There should be. But you act like there can’t be. That there is only the one way to use that term, and that there can’t be any other.

Pathetic, shameful, stupid…. all hateful rhetoric that you SHOULD be against, but that you actually throw out at everyone who might dare disagree with you.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 9:50:42am

re: #74 Locker

Knowing Buck he thinks it’s ok to call himself Jewish because he once ate at a kosher deli.

Oh, and you don’t know me, you only think you do.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 10:21:08am

re: #77 Buck

Ah, buck, you claim civility, and then call me— and numerous other people at LGF— assholes. What a sham.

I am clearly giving you examples of people who feel the way I do. These are famous smart people who should NOT be called stupid and pathetic.

First of all, I didn’t call them stupid and pathetic— yet. I do find it pathetic on Dershowitz’s part, and have lost a lot of respect for him. I don’t find him stupid. In this case, it appears to be a calculated move since he, too, has been stretching the definition of the phrase.

Of course there are going to be differences in opinion. There should be. But you act like there can’t be. That there is only the one way to use that term, and that there can’t be any other.

Yes, there should be only one way to use that term. If it becomes simply an allegation of responsibility for a murder, it loses its historical significance, and another piece of Jewish history is lost. It’s like when people say their apartment fire was the Holocaust.

Furthermore, you are continually dodging the main issue:

Giffords is one of the people who has said that Palin is responsible for irresponsible, dangerous, violent rhetoric. Giffords, the Jew. She is the one who has been shot. She is the victim. Not Palin, for being criticized for using dangerous, irresponsible, violent rhetoric.

You are saying that a Christian accusing a Jew of the blood libel is in the right.

That is shameful.

Pathetic, shameful, stupid… all hateful rhetoric that you SHOULD be against, but that you actually throw out at everyone who might dare disagree with you.

No I don’t, Buck. You keep repeating this lie, but it’s a lie every time. You are one of a very few people on LGF who I ever, while disagreeing, use that language with. It is because I sincerely find you the most contemptible poster here. Sincerely. I disagree with many, many other posters here without in any way deriding them; you’re special. Remember that.

And stop lying.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 10:32:06am

re: #79 Obdicut

And stop lying.

We disagree on so many levels about this, and I think you are the one who is shifting from the issue….I think I have said everything I need to say, and I stand by every word.

I have not lied. That is your slander of me.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 10:40:32am

re: #80 Buck

I have not lied. That is your slander of me.

Then show where I called Dershowitz stupid.

Liar.

Interesting Times Jan 13, 2011 10:41:24am

re: #79 Obdicut

“Giffords is one of the people who has said that Palin is responsible for irresponsible, dangerous, violent rhetoric. Giffords, the Jew. She is the one who has been shot. She is the victim. Not Palin, for being criticized for using dangerous, irresponsible, violent rhetoric.”

Bolded for truth.

It is because I sincerely find you the most contemptible poster here.

You’re far from alone in that view.

And Buck - if you claim to such a defender of Israel, why on earth do you give aid and comfort to her enemies, the Saudi oil ticks, by lying about AGW? Don’t you realize the terrible forest fire in Haifa confirmed climate change predictions? Israeli scientists said so:

Concerning fire risk, Pe’er and Safriel wrote in the 2000 report, “Delayed winter rains will increase the risk of woodland fires…The frequency, intensity and extent of fires will increase due to lower soil moisture, increased evaporation and increased frequency and intensity of heat waves. The increased frequency of fires may offset the high potential of many of Israel’s woodland species for fire resistance and regeneration, and hence woodland ecosystems may be critically damaged.”

So you’re happy to appeal to right-wing “authorities” like Instapundit, but completely ignore evidence from far more scientific and authoritative sources - even from Israel - because it doesn’t confirm your talking points.

Buck, you ignorant slut.

ClaudeMonet Jan 13, 2011 10:44:34am

re: #75 Buck

Seriously?

I am jewish. Both my parents are jewish, and their parents before them. In fact I a Cohen. So genetically I can trace my roots to the bother of Moses, Aaron. I was Bar Mitzvahed in Winnipeg Manitoba at the Herzlia - Adas Yeshurun. [Link: www.herzlia.org…]

I lived in Israel for two years (made Aliah), but returned as my father had trouble adapting (language).

I am a pretty well known member of the Jewish Community here. As a teen I was in BBYO.

How can I prove it to you?

You probably can’t, but you could start by not sounding ignorant of our history at best and like one of Palin’s apologists at worst.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 11:25:00am

re: #81 Obdicut

Then show where I called Dershowitz stupid.

Liar.

Sure I will, just as soon as you show me where I said you called Dershowitz stupid.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 11:25:50am

re: #83 ClaudeMonet

You probably can’t, but you could start by not sounding ignorant of our history at best and like one of Palin’s apologists at worst.

I see, interesting test. Jews have to agree with your world POV, or you can question their race.

Nice.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 11:28:14am

re: #82 publicityStunted

And Buck - if you claim to such a defender of Israel, why on earth do you give aid and comfort to her enemies, the Saudi oil ticks, by lying about AGW?

I see, so now a jew is not a jew (or a Zionist) unless they agree with you on global waarming?

Warped beyond belief…

Interesting Times Jan 13, 2011 11:34:30am

re: #86 Buck

And once again you fail at reading comprehension. Denying global warming doesn’t make you non-Jewish - just a willfully ignorant moron who helps Saudi Arabia continue making money to fund anti-Semitic propaganda - like real blood libel.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 11:41:07am

re: #84 Buck

Sure I will, just as soon as you show me where I said you called Dershowitz stupid.

Ah. You’re right, actually. That wasn’t your lie. You were far too weaselly and passive aggressive to actually make an accusation in the real world— instead, you made accusations based on your psychic abilities:

Alan Dershowitz (I suppose it is OK to think he is pathetic and stupid for his opinion):

Yid with a lid (who would also be charaterized here as pathetic and stupid):

I suppose someone wants to call Rabbi Shmuley a pathetic and stupid person.

I am clearly giving you examples of people who feel the way I do. These are famous smart people who should NOT be called stupid and pathetic.

So, your specific lie was saying that “Yid with a lid” would be called pathetic and stupid here.

My apologies for getting which lie you told wrong.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 11:42:27am

re: #87 publicityStunted

And once again you fail at reading comprehension. Denying global warming doesn’t make you non-Jewish - just a willfully ignorant moron who helps Saudi Arabia continue making money to fund anti-Semitic propaganda - like real blood libel.

NONSENSE.

Absolute nonsense.

I help Canadian oil companies make money. I invest in those companies, and refuse to buy any energy product that comes from anywhere else.

Who is the number one seller of oil to the USA? Saudi Arabia? Nope…. Canada.

Personally, in the same way that dolphin free tuna became popular, I think people should buy ‘terrorist free oil’.

Only oil from Canada the USA, and Mexico….

What about you?

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 11:44:34am

re: #89 Buck

Oil is fungible, Buck. It doesn’t fucking matter where you sell it. You really ought to know that, if you’re in the oil industry.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 11:48:34am

re: #88 Obdicut

Ah. You’re right, actually. That wasn’t your lie. You were far too weaselly and passive aggressive to actually make an accusation in the real world— instead, you made accusations based on your psychic abilities:

So, your specific lie was saying that “Yid with a lid” would be called pathetic and stupid here.

My apologies for getting which lie you told wrong.

Apology NOT accepted because you are still calling me names and saying I lied. I didn’t. HOWEVER, using your standard for lies, YOU are the liar.

You do it above, and before here: littlegreenfootballs.com when you attributed to me (using quotes no less) words that I did not type.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 11:51:53am

re: #91 Buck

Apology NOT accepted because you are still calling me names and saying I lied. I didn’t. HOWEVER, using your standard for lies, YOU are the liar.

You did lie. You said this:

Yid with a lid (who would also be charaterized here as pathetic and stupid):

Was that true, Buck? Was Yid with a Lid characterized here as pathetic and stupid?

How do you endure the hypocrisy of whining about name-calling after calling me, and Charles, and huge numbers of other people here assholes?

And yes, I use quote marks to paraphrase. This isn’t the MLA. I in no way intend to represent what you’re saying verbatim through those quotes.

But thanks for reminding me that you’re a defender of Michelle Malkin, friend and supporter of white supremacists, as well as contributor to white supremacists website VDARE! Your Jewish heritage is obviously really, really important to you.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 12:10:12pm

re: #90 Obdicut

Oil is fungible, Buck. It doesn’t fucking matter where you sell it. You really ought to know that, if you’re in the oil industry.

It doesn’t have to be. Lets say a company says that they will only buy oil energy product like gasoline that is certified to originate from these ‘non-terror’ countries. It is easy for me because I am in Canada…. but I think it would be a very popular idea in the USA. A chain of gas stations with a huge red maple leaf that promises to only sell gasoline from Canada, the USA, and Mexico.

You can buy pesticide free vegetables and fruit…. Why not terror free gas?

I mean I can’t get dolphin in my tuna anymore no matter how hard I try….

re: #92 Obdicut

Was that true, Buck? Was Yid with a Lid characterized here as pathetic and stupid?

That was my opinion. based on how I was being treated for saying almost the same thing. BUT that was not me saying that YOU said that. I could have put it in quotes and asked you if ytou understood that saying it meant that you meant it, and according to you it would only be paraphrasing. Funny huh?

And yes, I use quote marks to paraphrase.

Well, I give my opinion in a general post that was not directed at only one person.
Of course, you can decide the rules as you go. On my planet, the use of quotes is used to quote someone.

AND (according to your standard) you lied when you said that I said you called Alan Dershowitz stupid.

But thanks for reminding me that you’re a defender of Michelle Malkin, friend and supporter of white supremacists, as well as contributor to white supremacists website VDARE! Your Jewish heritage is obviously really, really important to you.

Again, you just make stuff up.

However, I will not be goaded by you to discuss MM, and you know why.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 12:12:54pm

re: #93 Buck

It doesn’t have to be. Lets say a company says that they will only buy oil energy product like gasoline that is certified to originate from these ‘non-terror’ countries.

It doesn’t matter. Because oil is fungible. Global price is related to global supply. That is all.

That was my opinion.

Ah, just your opinion. That’s fine, then. You claimed something that wasn’t true— but it’s fine, it was just your opinion.

AND (according to your standard) you lied when you said that I said you called Alan Dershowitz stupid.

Yes, I did. And I apologize for it. You didn’t lie by claiming I called Dershowitz stupid, though you did weasel around in that area in your typical passive-aggressive style. Still, it was wrong of me to say that you did.

Again, you just make stuff up.

What am I making up, liar?

Buck Jan 13, 2011 12:33:49pm

re: #94 Obdicut

It doesn’t matter. Because oil is fungible. Global price is related to global supply. That is all.

I don’t think that means what you think it means. You keep throwing that word out, but “fungible” doesn’t mean what I propose couldn’t be done.

However, I guess the point that I am supporting “oil tics” (considered a racist term here now, no?) should be put to rest.

Ah, just your opinion. That’s fine, then. You claimed something that wasn’t true— but it’s fine, it was just your opinion.

You are so sure of that? There is NO ONE that would think that? That is YOUR opinion. AND well you often think my opinion is wrong, but it certainly does not rise to the level of a lie.

What am I making up, liar?

A whole bunch of stuff….

When you said:

… you’re a defender of Michelle Malkin, friend and supporter of white supremacists, as well as contributor to white supremacists website VDARE!

You were making up a list of things that you think that I am…. AND I am not those things.

AND as you know I will not discuss MM here.

You just keep calling me a liar, when you have already admitted that it is YOU who lied. How very strange of you.

At this point I have said EVERY think I need to say on this subject, and I have learned over time, that when a discussion falls to this level Charles is known to come in and give everyone still barking a time out.

SO, I am over and out. You can now get the last word. I suggest you don’t tell another lie, or say anything to childish….

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 12:40:18pm

re: #95 Buck

I don’t think that means what you think it means. You keep throwing that word out, but “fungible” doesn’t mean what I propose couldn’t be done.

What you propose would have no effect on the price of oil, and so would reduce the income of the Arab states by nothing. Oil reduction in the use of oil will do that.

You were making up a list of things that you think that I am… AND I am not those things.

You’re not a defender of Michelle Malkin? You’ve said you would defend her, but you’re not allowed to do so here. So how, exactly, are you not a defender of Michelle Malkin?

You just keep calling me a liar, when you have already admitted that it is YOU who lied. How very strange of you.

Yep. I ‘lied’— without realizing it. It’s true. And admitted it. It was stupid of me, and a result of not reading carefully enough. I will do my best not to do so in the future.

Has fuck-all to do with you being a liar.

At this point I have said EVERY think I need to say on this subject, and I have learned over time, that when a discussion falls to this level Charles is known to come in and give everyone still barking a time out.

Dear god, Buck, how thin-skinned are you? What is the worst epithet I’ve put on you in this thread?

SO, I am over and out. You can now get the last word. I suggest you don’t tell another lie, or say anything to childish…

You mean, like passively aggressively saying “you can now get the last word”? That sort of childishness?

I love how you act as though it’s only me who has a problem with you, as though Charles hasn’t called you out for your patheticness, as though hordes of other people in the thread haven’t also called you on your bullshit.

Nope, it’s just me being all crazy.

Interesting Times Jan 13, 2011 12:46:00pm

re: #95 Buck

At this point I have said EVERY think I need to say on this subject, and I have learned over time, that when a discussion falls to this level Charles is known to come in and give everyone still barking a time out.

Er, no. He either gives you the timeout or asks you questions such as this - which, I can’t help but notice, you haven’t the guts to answer.

Buck Jan 13, 2011 1:58:34pm

re: #96 Obdicut

OK obviously I can’t help but try ONCE AGAIN to defend myself against your misinformation.

What you propose would have no effect on the price of oil, and so would reduce the income of the Arab states by nothing. Oil reduction in the use of oil will do that.

It was never my point to reduce the income of the Arab States. I was just showing how I personally don’t support the Sheiks of the Kingdom. I was accused of that, and I defended myself against that charge. I added a method that I thought would allow others to also not personally support anti semitism in that form.

Your answer to me was “Fungible”. I just don’t think that is relevant to my point.

You’re not a defender of Michelle Malkin? You’ve said you would defend her, but you’re not allowed to do so here. So how, exactly, are you not a defender of Michelle Malkin?

AGAIN, I never said that I “would defend her, but (I am) not allowed to do so here.” That is a lie. It is not even a paraphrase. I have corrected you MANY TIMES, so you know it is a lie. Yet you keep attributing it to me.

Let me be even more clear. I will NOT discuss ANYONE who is on the restricted list. I will not step over that line. PERIOD.

Yep. I ‘lied’— without realizing it. It’s true. And admitted it. It was stupid of me, and a result of not reading carefully enough. I will do my best not to do so in the future.

Has fuck-all to do with you being a liar.

Well, if you make stuff up, and pretend that I said it, then I guess you can think that what you made up for me is a lie.

However that is really a strange way to debate someone.

Dear god, Buck, how thin-skinned are you? What is the worst epithet I’ve put on you in this thread?

You mean, like passively aggressively saying “you can now get the last word”? That sort of childishness?

I love how you act as though it’s only me who has a problem with you, as though Charles hasn’t called you out for your patheticness, as though hordes of other people in the thread haven’t also called you on your bullshit.

Nope, it’s just me being all crazy.

AND publicityStunted ? Ya, I don’t talk back to our host in public. He stated his opinion about me, and I didn’t argue with him. IF that is suddenly a crime, then I am certainly guilty of that.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 2:18:19pm

re: #98 Buck

It was never my point to reduce the income of the Arab States. I was just showing how I personally don’t support the Sheiks of the Kingdom.

But you do, by denying AGW, which allows them to keep the oil economy they depend upon going. So yes, you do support the Sheiks of the Kingdom.

AGAIN, I never said that I “would defend her, but (I am) not allowed to do so here.” That is a lie. It is not even a paraphrase. I have corrected you MANY TIMES, so you know it is a lie. Yet you keep attributing it to me.

It is a paraphrase, actually. You linked an article of hers, you said you thought it was good but that you realized defending Michelle Malkin would get you a timeout so you wouldn’t do it.

So you’re lying about me lying. Nifty.

Let me be even more clear. I will NOT discuss ANYONE who is on the restricted list. I will not step over that line. PERIOD.

Discussing Michelle Malkin is not disallowed. People here discuss her with some frequency. Linking to her is disallowed. Do you understand?

Do you understand you’re whining about being called names when you called me an asshole? Do you realize you also called anyone else attacking Palin for using the “Blood Libel” phrase an asshole? Do you realize that includes Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Wiesenthal Center?

In a thread where you’re saying that it’d be impossible to call some random rabbi stupid or pathetic, and how dare I say that i know better than him, you’re calling a Rabbi at one of the most prominent anti-semitic centers in the world an asshole.

Get a fucking grip.

100

Interesting Times Jan 13, 2011 4:14:15pm

re: #98 Buck

AND publicityStunted ? Ya, I don’t talk back to our host in public.

Except when you do:

Nice…So Charles are these really your new friends?

May I suggest a new avatar for you? :)

101

Buck Jan 13, 2011 4:24:01pm

re: #99 Obdicut

But you do, by denying AGW, which allows them to keep the oil economy they depend upon going. So yes, you do support the Sheiks of the Kingdom.

Sooooo you agree with PS that I can’t claim to be a defender of Israel unless I agree with you on AGW?

Seriously. That is so fucked up.

It is a paraphrase, actually. You linked an article of hers, you said you thought it was good but that you realized defending Michelle Malkin would get you a timeout so you wouldn’t do it.

So you’re lying about me lying. Nifty.

Can you find the quote of me that you claim to be paraphrasing?

IN FACT I never said anything like that. I have said that I wont discuss it. Discussing does not equal defending. Not even if you are paraphrasing.

IF anyone were to read your multiple posts, they would think that I did say “defending”. I didn’t. You might have assumed that I did, but I corrected you multiple times. You might have misunderstood me, but I have tried in multiple posts to clear up any misunderstanding you might have. Yet you continued to misstate my position. At some point it was no longer a misunderstanding, and it became a lie on your part.

Never mind that you keep calling me a liar, even though you cannot actually find any time that I lied. This is really getting old. I mean if you could, you would link to it. BUT you can’t. You rely on “paraphrasing”, which I call making stuff up.

NOW let me ask you a question. You have admitted to making a mistake. What would it be like if I kept (over 20 or more posts) making it seem like you have not admitted it?

Well, I said I made a mistake and you have been beating me up for it ever since. You have been pretending that I didn’t admit to the mistake. You know better, but you make a conscience choice to continue, what I can only characterize as bullying behaviour.

102

Buck Jan 13, 2011 4:24:44pm

re: #100 publicityStunted

Except when you do:

That is talking to him, not talking back to him.

103

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 4:46:06pm

re: #101 Buck

Sooo you agree with PS that I can’t claim to be a defender of Israel unless I agree with you on AGW?

No. I’m saying that since you deny science, you are— inadvertently— supporting the Sheiks. The sooner we move away from an oil-based energy economy, the sooner they run out of money.

But thanks for willfully misrepresenting my position!

IN FACT I never said anything like that. I have said that I wont discuss it. Discussing does not equal defending. Not even if you are paraphrasing.

You said this:

I like Michelle Malkin, and I don’t believe the VDARE thing at all.

And then refused to discuss her any more:

I will not discuss MM anymore. I don’t want a time out.

You know damn well that you don’t get a timeout for ‘discussing’ Michelle Malkin. That’s actually rather a lie on it’s own; claiming that Charles gives people timeouts for discussing Michelle Malkin.

Do you think Charles gives people time outs for discussing Michelle Malkin, Buck?

And what on earth did you even mean when you defended her by saying you didn’t believe the VDARE thing? You don’t believe VDARE is a white supremacist website? You don’t believe she regularly cross-posts there? You don’t believe she’s friends with the operator?

Never mind that you keep calling me a liar, even though you cannot actually find any time that I lied.

Except when you lied and said Yid with a Lid would be called something here, when he wasn’t. Remember that? Oh I’m sorry, that’s just your ‘opinion’, so it’s not a lie. Somehow.

You rely on “paraphrasing”, which I call making stuff up.

Paraphrasing is a real thing, Buck. You know that, right?

104

Buck Jan 13, 2011 5:11:47pm

re: #103 Obdicut

There was something that happened between when I thought it was OK to link to MM and when I wouldn’t discuss it anymore. You are quoting me out of context and leaving out important information.

Yes, as I stated clearly I didn’t know about the VDARE thing, and yes, It was hard for me to accept it at first. HOWEVER I admitted my mistake and I wanted to move on. You still want to discuss it. I wont do it. I see no reason why I should be forced by you to do so. I do not want to participate in your HATE filled digital lynching. I don’t like it, and I cannot be forced to participate.

More importantly I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU SAY I DID with regards to MM.

I never said that I would defend her if not for the threat of a time out.

Paraphrasing would mean that anyone reading the paraphrased sentence would have the same understanding as if they had read the original. In this case, as I pointed out, defending is not the same thing as discussing.

I am serious about this. THERE IS NO REASON for me to discuss this with you any further. As soon as this was pointed out to me, I admitted the mistake and have tried to move on. I am through with pointing this out.

I am reporting your bullying to Charles. Perhaps it will not make any difference, but really I cannot think of anything else to do. You simply refuse to move on. You simply refuse to stop this slandering, goading and bullying.

So from this moment forward you are on ignore to me. I will no longer reply to any post you do. You should not mistake that for agreeing with you, or my not having a reply. I simply am not going to read anything you post, ever again. Period. Your poison is unhealthy for me.

105

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 5:15:38pm

re: #104 Buck

More importantly I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU SAY I DID with regards to MM.

I never said that I would defend her if not for the threat of a time out.

You said you liked her, and then said you weren’t going to discuss her since it’d mean a time out. Since obviously simply discussing Michelle Malkin here doesn’t get you a time out, you either were:

A) Lying and saying Charles would give a time out for just discussing Michelle Malkin

B) Saying that you’d be given a time out because you’d be ‘discussing’ Michelle Malkin in a specific way that you believed would get you a time out: i.e. defending her.

I now understand that it’s probably the first lie rather than the second that you were telling. Weirder, but whatever.

I do not want to participate in your HATE filled digital lynching. I don’t like it, and I cannot be forced to participate.

Oh geez.

So from this moment forward you are on ignore to me. I will no longer reply to any post you do. You should not mistake that for agreeing with you, or my not having a reply. I simply am not going to read anything you post, ever again. Period. Your poison is unhealthy for me.

You have said this to me approximately five times.

106

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Jan 13, 2011 5:17:42pm

re: #104 Buck

Oh, and you never actually admitted your ‘mistake’ with regards to Malkin and VDARE. Never.

You said your ‘mistake’ was linking to her. You never admitted that you were mistaken about Malkin and VDARE. Ever.

So yet another lie.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!