Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."Blood libel"?!?
Does she even know what that phrase means?? (Even uber conservative Jonah Goldberg has a problem with it.)
And, then there's her idea that when she and other Republicans use violent rhetoric ("crosshairs," "reload," "Second Amendment remedies," "armed and dangerous," "Our nation was founded on violence," "a bloody war," "the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots," "Put anything in my scope and I will shoot it," "And if ballots don’t work, bullets will") that is merely engaging in "spirited public debates," but when anyone dares to criticize the violent rhetoric that is inciting hatred and violence.
Yes, Sarah, you are the true victim in all this and people who object to violent language are the true perpetrators of violence. It all makes so much perfect fucking sense that I need to rush right out and buy your books. You have slain me with your logic. Please, please run for President so that I may vote for you.
In case you missed it, here's poor, little Sarah huddled by the hearth in her hovel in the shetl trying to get her words out before the Cossacks come: