• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

They're not mad that she is defending herself, they are mad that she is a CONSERVATIVE defending herself.

and she does it so well and with so much class.

Yesterday, Ed schultz was screaming Where is Sarah Palin! Today he'll be bashing her for trying to get attention, using her facebook, and OMG the bllod libel!
She'll never get credit for her civility in this whole mess.
 
This:



Followed by:

I'm not quite sure what you're intending to say here. I'm not using this even to criticize rhetoric. I can criticize it just fine on my own.
 
and she does it so well and with so much class.

Yesterday, Ed schultz was screaming Where is Sarah Palin! Today he'll be bashing her for trying to get attention, using her facebook, and OMG the bllod libel!
She'll never get credit for her civility in this whole mess.

Only a conservative can call someone civil for accusing the other side of blood libel. I applaud you for your hardcoreness.
 
Having thought about this I agree that the use of this metaphor is a little over the top.

That said, I am amazed that so many people are so up in arms about it. It's a decent metaphor, though hyperbolic.

Other phrases are used and we have no problem with it.. for example: "Witch Hunt". When this is used we don't all start shouting about how there weren't any actual witches involved, or feign concern that real witches might somehow be offended.

I am sure I could come up with a dozen other similar phrases we use as metaphors as opposed to literally.

I am ambivalent about Palin in general... but I think her video is one of the first reasonable things I have heard so far in the aftermath of this tragedy.
 
The article was using the term to describe the way liberals were treating her.
 
The article was using the term to describe the way liberals were treating her.

I read the article, I know how it was used. Essentially the same way she used it. Incorrectly.
 
Words only mean something when liberals are busted by them.


j-mac
 
And this from the comments section of the above article:

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz releases statement defending Palin's use of the term:

“The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”


And this:

It DOES make sense: a "blood libel" is when you falsely assign collective blame for murder to stoke hatred against a group.
 
I don't have a problem with the original use of gun sight imagery and using the term "reload", but I do think the way her and her PR people tried to defend her was bizarre, confusing, and not all that intelligent. As someone who's done team sports, watched sports, and been involved in other competitive activities, the imagery didn't bother me. We commonly refer to "battle", "reloading", "firing the first shot", "revolution", etc. in many competitive situations. Reloading usually means you're keeping up the pressure on the other team, or replacing key team members with new members who are just as capable. And using crosshairs isn't unusual in speech or imagery when you're targeting an individual in competition or directing negative (or critical) attention towards that person in some way. Palin could have been much more direct and plain spoken in the way she responded to the accusations. Instead, Palin and her team decided to first make a panicky nonsensical excuse, then take the offensive with a difficult to understand counter accusation.
 
And this from the comments section of the above article:

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz releases statement defending Palin's use of the term:

“The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”


And this:

It DOES make sense: a "blood libel" is when you falsely assign collective blame for murder to stoke hatred against a group.


But, but, but.....surely those bashing Palin for pages in here for her use of the term must be smarter than silly old Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz?.....


j-mac
 
Other phrases are used and we have no problem with it.. for example: "Witch Hunt". When this is used we don't all start shouting about how there weren't any actual witches involved, or feign concern that real witches might somehow be offended.

Even with real "witch hunts" there weren't any real witches involved. That's pretty much the way the this particular term is used nowadays. It describes situations where accusations of some made-up wrong doing are rendered towards people for any numebr of reasons (sometimes simply because the accuser didn't like the accused).

So, interestingly enough, had Palin chosen the term "witch hunt" instead of "blood libel", it would have been far more appropriate to the context of what she has been dealing with.

Although she's probably shying away from any and all witch refrences since the whole Christine O'Donnell thing. :lol:
 
And this from the comments section of the above article:

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz releases statement defending Palin's use of the term:

“The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”


And this:

It DOES make sense: a "blood libel" is when you falsely assign collective blame for murder to stoke hatred against a group.

Yeah that last quote is from some blogger named dicentra. Can I quote myself for evidence?
 
But, but, but.....surely those bashing Palin for pages in here for her use of the term must be smarter than silly old Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz?.....


j-mac

Yes, as featured on an exclusive interview with biggoverment.com. Color me thoroughly impressed.
 
It makes plenty of sense. Who quotes some random person for evidence? Might as well just quote yourself and count the argument over.

How about I quote the whole thing:

"It seems that she picked the term specifically because of its violent imagery, ignoring the fact that it didn't make sense in the context in which she used it."

It DOES make sense: a "blood libel" is when you falsely assign collective blame for murder to stoke hatred against a group.

It is a political tactic to portray the TEA Party and conservatives in general as violent, dangerous people--right down to the metaphors they use--as evidenced by the fact that every time a random act of violence breaks out, the port-siders IMMEDIATELY shrieks that the perp is a right-wing nutjob. Then after it comes out that the person was just a garden-variety crank (or a left-wing nut job), they insist that right-wing rhetoric pushed them to do it.

They don't say it because it's true but because it's useful. The NARRATIVE must be maintained, because the narrative puts them in power, truth be damned.

The left has been using this particular tactic since the JFK assassination, and especially since OKC. Keep lying until it sticks, I guess.
 
How about I quote the whole thing:

"It seems that she picked the term specifically because of its violent imagery, ignoring the fact that it didn't make sense in the context in which she used it."

It DOES make sense: a "blood libel" is when you falsely assign collective blame for murder to stoke hatred against a group.

It is a political tactic to portray the TEA Party and conservatives in general as violent, dangerous people--right down to the metaphors they use--as evidenced by the fact that every time a random act of violence breaks out, the port-siders IMMEDIATELY shrieks that the perp is a right-wing nutjob. Then after it comes out that the person was just a garden-variety crank (or a left-wing nut job), they insist that right-wing rhetoric pushed them to do it.

They don't say it because it's true but because it's useful. The NARRATIVE must be maintained, because the narrative puts them in power, truth be damned.

The left has been using this particular tactic since the JFK assassination, and especially since OKC. Keep lying until it sticks, I guess.

I've obviously read the whole thing, there's no need to quote it. It certainly doesn't make it any more valid. Who cares what she thinks?
 
So, interestingly enough, had Palin chosen the term "witch hunt" instead of "blood libel", it would have been far more appropriate to the context of what she has been dealing with.

Oh dear. if Palin had called herself a witch, then people would've had even more fun with that one.
 
Last edited:
I've obviously read the whole thing, there's no need to quote it. It certainly doesn't make it any more valid. Who cares what she thinks?

My point is that if it was me I would have quoted the whole thing from the start and I didn't, because I did not write this. But it is very insightful on the tactics the left uses.
 
Yes, as featured on an exclusive interview with biggoverment.com. Color me thoroughly impressed.

Ahhh, so a liberal doesn't tell the truth when giving an interview to right wing media ??

or... maybe you thing big government.com fabricated the interview.

Any other explanation of your bizarre comment would make you look even more partisan.
 
And this from the comments section of the above article:

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz releases statement defending Palin's use of the term:

“The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”


And this:

It DOES make sense: a "blood libel" is when you falsely assign collective blame for murder to stoke hatred against a group.

Cool. we can all be certain that this won't be the last time Dershowitz has been wrong about anything, and it probably won't be the last time you make an appeal to authority.
 
Back
Top Bottom