I agree totally but unfortunately nobody wants to hear it.

Alan Dershowitz (not at all conservative) said WRT Palin and the use of the phrase:
A few examples of use that got virtually zero bad press:
I should add that I agree with you regarding the use of the phrase. Personally, I think it dilutes the real meaning. I feel the same about the misuse of "gulag" by the left during the Bush administration to refer to Gitmo. That said, if the media wants to attack Palin for the misuse, they need to spend the exact same amount of time attacking everyone else that uses it—even their own reporters (reporters and columnists are, after all, professional wordsmiths, if anything, their use of language should be held to an even higher standard).

And Andrew Sullivan, The Washington Post's Eugine Robinson, Peter Deutsch, Andrew Cohen and Frank Rich are wrong for using this term. It is inappropriate and I find it offensive. I disagree with Alan Dershowitz, and if you would like to find any others, I will happily tell you that they are wrong for using it as well.

I edited in that I agree with you—but I've read the press attacking Palin for the use, and they didn't attack anyone else for using it.

Dershowitz at least has the legitimate jewish credentials to have a more valid opinion on it than I do, and he's not a right-wing partisan, either, so it's at least a fair POV.

PS to skybird: you claim Palin has used "vicious" rhetoric in the past. Quote some examples, and I can tell you if they are indeed "vicious" to a native North American English speaker. I'll be surprised if you can find any at all. Vicious is a pretty high bar, so just posting "snarky" won't cut it.

I will tell you that this Palin attack and blood libel issue is the worst misdirection of energies I have seen in a long time. Perhaps on day everyone will realize this 22 year old was nothing but a nut case and nothing more. He was not driven by any one thing but by several things in his life.

Yes, saw your edit too, but I was too late. You are very right about the gulag terminology as well. GITMO, or any of our military prison facilities were nothing like the house of horrors that the real gulags were. That was a fully inappropriate characterization, just as were the words of certain public elected officials, mostly from the left, who impugned our troops as baby killers and rapists.

How do you figure that Sullivan and Rich were wrong in using the term? I think that making the parallel between the "Jews prey on children" meme and the "Homosexuals prey on children" meme was quite valid.

A blood libel is not a simple preying on children. It is systematic and ritualized murder, where the blood of children is used in the making of religious materials and practices. Blood libel is, therefore, a weapon of religious conflict, where the opposite party is charaterized as not only being different, but is overtly described as cannibalistic. There is no comparison that can be made to slander, which is what Sullivan and Rich describe, as it lack the consequences of the blood libel label, meaning life itself.

I see your point, but I'd still argue the similarities (opposition is not only different, but immoral and pedophilic) are there.

But I'd rather not drag this meandering thread even more off topic so I'll bow out here. :salute:

You don't need to bow out. I've always respected and appreciated your views. :up:

You can disagree that people should use the phrase (as I said, I do), but Dershowitz still has a point that it is so-used. We can be purists about it, or be pragmatic and realize it gets used in a broader way in general, even if some of us would never use it that way.

So I think he makes a valid point. My problem is one of consistency. If they press wants to make a mountain out of the use by Palin (as I said, I'm no Palin fan), then they need to be consistent in the future, and they also need to demonstrate that before it was someone they oppose using it, they were similarly arrayed against it in the past—deciding to be purists about its use only after Palin uses it is BS. The reality is that had it not been Palin (or anyone on the right) they'd not have made an issue of it, IMHO.

mmmm warm fuzzie. I feel whole. All together now.........

Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah!
Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah!
Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah.
O Lord, Kum ba yah
Someone's crying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's crying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's crying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
O Lord, Kum ba yah
Someone's singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
O Lord, Kum ba yah
Someone's praying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's praying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's praying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
O Lord, Kum ba yah

Don't start

LOL....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../STWayEden.jpg

This is the absolute path to change the subject, there are many but...:hmmm:

Last warning. Even Neal has told you to cool it. I suggest that you listen.

Can I ask you to stay off my back, or is that an insult? To quote Chelsea Handler, You be crazy.

You're the one looking for a fight. You're the one chasing me. But you aren't getting it today. Post reported.

I reported a post the other day on this very thread which called me evil names. You didn't admonish the poster but only distanced yourself. Nothing was done, so far as I could see. Are you more powerful?

Or do you think political speech on an obviously political thread can be silenced by a threat? I'm not looking for a fight. I'm looking for unconditional surrender.

mookiemookie and bubblehead can see each others view point better due to the opposition of sides.

They are simply weighing what they think and say on their scales of righteousness.

It is not for us to judge, but stop and think aren't you guys better off with having to exercise what you think.

Don't let it get to you just see the blessings in being able to freely express yourselves without offending the unpaid volunteers who monitor the halls here. :know: