It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Very tricky, Sarah, but I've got you pegged, honey.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
..she pulled the video
Originally posted by gemstone
What we witnessed yesterday was:
1. Sara Palin taking the low road of ignorance and self serving arrogance... To release her YouTube video the very same day of the memorial..
Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.
I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.
Palin's Statement
How facts backfire
In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?
Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I love how people pick out the stuff she says that they hate (and use it to trash her) yet ignore the truth she also says.
What else did she say?
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” she said. “They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”
.............
“In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.”
SOURCE
Please...someone debate that and tell me she is wrong. Please.
edit on January 12th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by loam
And yet, everything you say is most likely wrong.
The phrase could have easily been chosen by someone not familiar with its historical usage.
Also not true. It is still available in its original form via her facebook link.
Though the video became temporarily unavailable on Vimeo midafternoon -- the version embedded here at The Atlantic stopped working and gave instead the warning, "The creator of this video has not given you permission to embed it on this domain. This is a Vimeo Plus feature" -- it turned out to just be a tech glitch on the user end.
...
"The temporary disabling of the Sara Palin video was done by the video creator.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most likely wrong? What kind of inside connections do you have that would give you the information to say that I'm "most likely wrong"? I could be right or wrong.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And wouldn't Sarah have said, "Blood Libel? What's that mean"? Or maybe she just didn't care what it meant. As I explained, I don't personally think she's dumb enough to say something to the WORLD that may come back to bite her... Unless that's what she wanted.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It was reported on network news yesterday that her video had been pulled. I checked it at that time and it wasn't working. Turns out it was just a temporary glitch.
Originally posted by loam
I love how you always get lost in semantics.
Or maybe she assumed she knew what it meant-- very much like I did the first time I heard of the term. I would have never thought to question the phrase in the context of that speech.
Does that mean I don't care either what it meant?
Does that now diminish to some extent your argument?
Originally posted by 19rn50
If Shara is on the ticket for president.
...
I give, Shara credit, not smart, but takes a lot of crap.
Originally posted by mishigas
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Cocasinpry
Is the video gone? I just sat down to watch the whole thing. Doesn't her camp do this a lot? remove all traces?
Ummm..a lucid mind should have been able to realize that the video was made by someone other than Palin. Like, maybe, Matt Damon?
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by mishigas
I was referring to the video of her speech in the post that I replied to. It was there earlier today.
P.S. Lucidity is a goal. Aim for it.edit on 1/13/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mishigas
Nah...you were referring to his recent post. Accept it and don't tapdance....
Originally posted by Monkeygod333
reply to post by RUFFREADY
I think Palin is sexy and can say all the Stupid things she wants.
Sarah, go "Grrr.."
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
She lashed out at every opportunity at Obama, the left, the media... whomever she perceived to be her adversary. And now, when they lash out at her, she makes herself the victim.
Bottom line, Sarah Palin can dish it out in spades, but can't take it.
Originally posted by nunya13
Either way, poor Sarah playing the victim yet again