Re: Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

I didn’t say that.

Peter commented that people are arguing over her words.

I am just pointing out that as point of interest it is unremarkable give their
history of attacking anything she does.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of pcg
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:25 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

> > You can't tell me that people *aren't* arguing over Palin's words.
> > [...]
>
> **sorry, that is pointless.  People were making accusations on things
> she said months ago.
> Then they were arguing over her saying nothing.
> Then when she did, they said she was a coward hiding behind her
> facebook.  So she comes out and directly refutes it and she is a bitch
> for being confrontational.  The fact is pretty obvious that her haters
> will find any reason they can.

I'm trying to root out the logic behind this argument. It would
*appear* you're saying that because some groups will attack Palin regardless of
what she does, any legitimate criticism of her is invalid. I can't imagine you'd
cop to that explanation, so could you please explain what you're getting at with
this line of reasoning?

--
-pcg
 [email protected]

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot