Re: just checking...

I don't accept your premise that it was insensitive language.  Further the 
analogy is severely flawed - the mosque hasn't been built, but the speech has 
already been given.  It would be one thing if Palin shopped the speech around 
and received a significant amount of *legitimate* feedback saying the term blood 
libel, (sorry, the sacred thing is apparently your personal bugaboo so I'm not 
bothering with that), was insensitive the analogy might work.

The people who claim that they are offended by the blood libel thing are the 
same ones who blame her for inciting the shooter -  why do you find them 
credible?

Mike F.  




________________________________
From: Peter T. Chattaway <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Amos off-topic listserver <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 4:10:07 PM
Subject: [DADL-OT] just checking...

So while we're on the topic of loaded rhetoric and the insensitive use of 
symbolic language etc., I was wondering:  Does everyone who defends Palin's use 
of this language (which struck many as the wrong thing in the wrong place at the 
wrong time) also defend the "Ground Zero mosque" (which struck many as the wrong 
thing in the wrong place at the wrong time)?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/sarah-palin-refudiates-sa_n_808213.html

-- 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