"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." A Liberal-supporting, environmentalist blog. We blog according to our opinions, not those of the party or government. Free speech must win and that's why we have this blog. The views of two Montrealers and a Libertarian.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Palin numbers go down!
A new poll shows taht Palin would do the worst if it came to an election. The poll has palin at 30% against Obma 56% with 14% undeciced. Now this lead if Palin does run will narrow for sure, the poll before it had Palin at 40% 52% Obama. The poll was taken in the middle of the tuscon shooting,so Palin has no were to go, but up and I suspect her approval rating and poll numbers are going to go back up. I don't know why they even really went down I don't blaim her for the shooting at all. Her comments about "blood libel" I truly find no offence with her using that term. She used it and that's it! It's an english pharse (meaning Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice) There is nothing truly offesive. I say leave Palin alone she did nothing wrong and no way can you blame her being a part of any of this. It's time the U.S stops blaiming the figures,celebreties and tv shows for these violent acts, but rather the problem is that guns are way to easy to get a hold of in the U.S. Although I am happy Palin polling numbers went down I don't like why and the reason for it.
Labels:
2012 election,
Politics,
Poll,
US
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(meaning Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice)
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------
How old are you?
Blood Libel is not a generic term, it's specifically aimed at Jews.
And that's not offensive? Considering the congresswoman is a Jew, it's particularly offensive.
Hard to believe your blog is considered progressive since you really don't have a clue.
palin at 30% - I'm surprised it's that high, not that I'm doubting you, just that I didn't realize there were that many gullible people.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness, how can you write a blog that trivializes the use of the an anti-semitic phrase. And if you don't believe that it is, look here:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
You'll see that its part of a series about anti-semitism. Perhaps you're anti-semitic yourself, though that seems somewhat unlikely; but you certainly are clueless.
And your comments about Sarah Palin show you're clueless for sure when it comes to politics. Her tasteless politics is now out of style, though it should have been for a while. Other than a bump here or there, her political career is o-v-e-r! And thank goodness for that.
I find it rather arrogant for you to pronounce that there is nothing truly offensive about the phrase blood libel. Who the hell are you to make that decision?!
ReplyDeleteThankyou for a most lucid post. Fairness is hard to defend, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteWhat I appreciate is your honesty and you're not afraid to say it.
The previous comments were attacks on your character by Mr. A*******, with one exception.
I fully support your post.
You can oppose someone without vilifying them.
It's kinda hard not to vilify someone who supports anti-semitic remarks.
ReplyDeleteI don't support anti semitism, it's not like she said the f- wrod on television she was not trying to make offense she was telling people that the media was blaming her for something that was not her fault with a word that has history, but can still be used in the context of someone being accused of killing someone else which is how she used it.
ReplyDeleteVanillaman, the statement you made is acceptable. However, that's not what is in this post. This post states about this phrase that, "There is nothing truly offesive (sic)". That is simply not true. There indeed can be something truly offensive about this phrase. One may argue that Palin did not mean to use it in that way - fine. But to say there is nothing truly offensive about this phrase trivializes a matter that Jews were actually killed because of. There can indeed be something offensive about this phrase! By the way, are we dealing with a 15 year old here; because if we are then I actually understand. But if this is an adult, well you should know better.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the word can be take in offense, but the context in which Palin said it was not intended to be offensive nor is there any offense to be taken she used the term in the context that she was being blaimed for something that she was falsly blaimed for. the wordd may have a history, but she was not using the word in the context of it's history.
ReplyDeleteExcept that it is only in that kind of context that it is offensive. Using the term "blood libel" to characterise her troubles trivialises what the Jews had to go through: being burnt at the stake. What people are accusing her of doing is not near the scale of the real blood libels.
ReplyDeleteIt's YOUR context that I'm questioning. You claim its just an english phrase and, "There is nothing truly offesive (sic)". You reached waaay to far with that; it is incorrect to say there is nothing truly offensive about it because there can indeed be something truly, truly offensive about this statement.
ReplyDelete