New York Times Continues To Dig The Left Hole Deeper

6 Responses to New York Times Continues To Dig The Left Hole Deeper

1. suyts says:

   January 13, 2011 at 5:00 am

   “Ms. Palin awakened a new controversy by invoking a phrase fraught with religious symbolism about the false accusation used by anti-Semites of Jews murdering Christian children.”

   Well, I consider myself a bit of a history buff, and I’m not aware of the “religious symbolism”, either. What phrase are they talking about and in what context was it used?

   And then they bag on her because she responds? WTF? They’ve been libeling her for over half a week!

   “…..who said it was in poor taste for Ms. Palin to deliver her statement on a day that was devoted to remembering victims of last weekend’s shooting…………said that the tone of Ms. Palin’s message was not appropriate for the moment of national grief and that she had missed an opportunity to be seen as a leader. “

   WTF? So, because the pres. says pretty words, she’s not suppose to respond to the whackjobs that blame her for mass murder? It was perfectly fine to bag on her and the rest of the conservatives in this country moments, hours, and days on end after the shooting, but just not on the fourth day after the shooting? They write that garbage and then have the gall to say what she said was inappropriate? What? Were they waiting for a cue for someone to tell them when they were suppose to start acting as if they were mourning? That now is supposedly time for reconciliation? And then they attack her again. There have probably been thousands of statements and writings regarding the shootings today, but today, it was only inappropriate for Palin to discuss it. And they wont even understand why people see through the hypocritical invectives.

   Astounding.

   Reply
2. BioBob says:

   January 13, 2011 at 7:28 am

   “It is unclear why the left can’t figure out that being really creepy doesn’t win over a lot of converts. ”

   It’s irrational exurberance – I just go with it – and after all, they don’t call it PDS for nothing. It has about the effect one would expect, showing off the lefties as a bunch of foaming at the mouth rabid curs, LOL

   Reply
3. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

   January 13, 2011 at 3:44 pm

   I thought the speech was dull.

   Reply
4. Russell C says:

   January 13, 2011 at 6:35 pm

   “It is unclear why the left can’t figure out that being really creepy doesn’t win over a lot of converts.”

   First, exploding climate skeptics in last October’s 1010global.org video, now the Giffords shooting. Both showcase the far-left’s attempts to marginalize and silence their critics. When you can’t win in the arena of ideas, this is what you must do.

   More: “The Far-left ‘Jumps the Shark’ over Tucson Tragedy” http://biggovernment.com/rcook/2011/01/12/the-far-left-jumps-the-shark-over-tucson-tragedy/

   Reply
5. PhilJourdan says:

   January 13, 2011 at 7:15 pm

   I thought she created the term blood libel. I suspect they are upset that more people did not realize it was attached to some other group.

   But she used it accurately and well. She could have said “rose libel” and they would bemoan it.

   Reply
6. rw says:

   January 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm

   “blood libel” is an excellent analogy.

   Reply