This is something the media is ignoring or not noticing about Palin's speech... Is it just me or does she not sound argumentative and confrontational? The "blood libel" line is one thing and definitely something that we need to scrutinize and bring to the forefront. But there is more to her speech that I find to be divisive, deplorable, and contradictory to what she wants to represent or present and yet fails to do with her very manner on screen.
After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
There is a time and place. I can understand feeling angry over accusations that you find unfair. But this is not to the time or the place for that. You would think she would take the step back from this position and look only to the victims of this unfortunate event. Unfortunately, she takes it as a time to go on a soap box and claim indignation.
They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
She basically excuses violent rhetoric and imagery that seems to plague our political discourse. Again, this perfectly underscores how out of touch she is with the American public. No one, and I have seen very little people who have associated her with the shooter's motives. I, myself, didn't blame her but leaned towards the Teaparty as a whole. Yet, she seems to forget that this was a political act. I care not what anyone else says. When a politician is targeted, and make no mistake, Giffords was targeted this has been assured by several law enforcement officers from Sheriffs to the FBI---this was politically motivated even if the criminal has yet to have a political lean. To excuse violent political rhetoric is just deplorable on it's face. I think it take a lot of gaul and audacity in order for someone to suggest that violent rhetoric doesn't in some way affect people---especially those who are mentally ill or who have anger issues. There are people who will get a drive from it from any camp.
She is an adult---and fails to take responsibility for her actions, but does not distance herself from the such language. In actuality she enables and encourages such dialogue by stating that such language plays no role and only the responsible parties play a role. I have heard John Stewart make a false equivalent to kids video games to this language. I find that to be disingenuous on it's face. Video games are "make believe"---Parents also play a role in reminding their children of this and keeping their children away from what they consider to be influential violent imagery---additionally these are children. You can't compare impressionable children to crazy adults or adults who live in fear of a Black president, a democratic President, or a Government that forces them to have health care or might take their guns. These are people, as Bill Maher said---are not only scare, but angry and are fully loaded and armed to a tee. These people are dangerous when riled.
John Stewart can stand by his claim and Sarah Palin can also in a round about way support the same claim. I do hold angery rhetoric in the political sphere that is enabled by Media outlets responsible for many destructive things in our nation. This man may not have been influenced directly or even indirectly by Palin. However, there have been shootings---such as the man who killed Dr. Tiller, or the man who went around killing cops---because he heard his things on Fox News. We're seeing a culture that is overtly racist, terrified of change, extremely right wing--being enabled and instigated by people who should know better. Violent imagery can work in satire when you're dealing with an intellectual who would ignore or just laugh it off. However when you're dealing with the unstable in whatever level they may be---from a proper mental illness or fear---you're dealing with something else and this needs to be remembered and respected.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country's future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
This was just not necessary. I have never read such snide language in my life. What does a political win or lose have to do with the situation at hand. Why would that matter? Again, just another affirmation of how removed she is and how inappropriate her language is. This should have been completely omitted from her speech. The tone makes her appear childish and extremely confrontational. I cannot reiterate enough how it has nothing to do with this situation. Win or lose for political parties don't matter. It's about the rhetoric, the demagoguery in speeches and discourse that is the problem. How can someone be so dense in understanding this? It has been said over and over and over again. We are talking about the language used in political debate or the political process. We are not talking about who wins or loses.
But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
The irony of it all. Her use of "bloody libel" is reprehensible. Additionally more confrontational and establishing herself as the victim. <---This idea is then expressed throughout the rest of the verbal vomit that ensues.
Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?
This woman is unbelievable. What have we been freakin' talking about? The use of violent imagery and langauge in public discussion or discourse. And after people were killed by a pistol this woman goes into how politics used to be settled by shootings. Why can't she understand?! Where is the damned media to pick up on this. It's not just "bloody libel" it's her speech in it's entirety. It's a frightening speech. And no one is picking up on this. Exactly what we try to disarm and the media has been rightfully attacking that has come from her camp----she totally reaffirms and it goes completely unnoticed.
Her need to be Presidential seems to always fall on being seen as aggressive, and this sort of Annie Oakley chick-a-dee from the west. No. She's got a fucked up mentality and this is why I don't want to hear her views on politics but seemingly can't run away from since the media gives her the soap box to spout this trash. We are talking about violent language and she just promotes it in a speech that she wants to make to the families who have bit forever changed in Arizona and of course to other Arizonian's and American citizens. Ugh...abhorrent.
But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.
Who is she speaking too here I'd like to know? I haven't heard of this Congressman and secondly I feel as though she's again engaging on word manipulation in order to get a point across that I find offensive. Now she goes into a political rant as though it's her platform. She doesn't know how to stay on point and focus on what the message should be and runs around the topic. If you want to appear Presidential and want to target the national audience---you don't go into Attack-Ad mode. Ugh.
We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy.
The utter hypocrisy. She brings in another politician she implies is trying to "muzzle" the first amendment and how the Pundits did this or that and the media did this or that---but she ten says we "are better tan the mindless finger-pointing".
HER ENTIRE SPEECH IS A PIECE OF SHIT!It is angry, confrontational and I find volatile. I know I come across angry and everything I called her to be. Because she made me this way. We have a 9 year old amongst so many other people dead and we have a congresswoman fighting for her life, a state that is in a disarray and she goes on and on as though she's the damned victim. She's not a victim. I don't feel sorry for her. People are dead, families will never see loved ones, families are devastated (including the criminals family), a state is directly affected and forever wounded, 14 other people were physically injured, and probably hundreds more mentally/emotionally wounded who were there. And she acts like she's a damned victim.
She's not. I'm tired of those in the media stating they feel sorry for her, because her wrongfully tone and rhetoric is called out. I'm tired of the people defending her because they love her. I'm tired of the people who keep on adding a disclaimer to say she's not directly involved but we have to talk about the tenor of violent politics---which she definitely helped to create. What she did is unacceptable and we need to change it. And her speech now is also unacceptable for a range of issues. This sets a tone of anger and I hope to God the families in Arizona never hear her speech. But with this media---ugh. I think the entire speech is awful, not just her usage of "bloody libel"---everyone has a right to be offended by this speech and not just the Jewish community.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
