• 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"

j-mac said:
Again with not looking into anything before you type eh...sigh*



The man is mentally disturbed and should have been under supervision. If you ask me, the Sheriff, and liberals defending this Sheriff should be looked at for why after no less than 5 incidents where police were called on this guy he wasn't treated. Yet, if you want to keep posting untruths, that have already made the news go ahead, I'll keep batting them down.

j-mac
Click to expand...

If anything, if he did go after her because she was Jewish, that makes Palin's remarks even more nonsensical. Palin's remarks had nothing to do with the Congresswoman's religion.
 
Paschendale said:
I wasn't aware that anything in this world happened in a vacuum. Yes, the shooter is ultimately responsible for his own actions. But unless you explore what set this person off, you'll never be able to prevent such an event in the future. We are all affected by the world around us. I think that the violence in our discourse certainly changes the perception of real violence is slightly more acceptable. Someone was pushed over the line. This is not to suggest that politics have ever been devoid of violence. Assassination, warfare, torture, coups... Violence has always been a primary method of achieving political goals. However, in this country, we have elections instead. I haven't been able to find a whole lot of information about the particular reasons, as stated by the shooter, for why this attack took place. I think that would be the most telling evidence.
Click to expand...

This is a much more likely cause than anything else. His friends said he changed a few years ago.

Causes of schizophrenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schizophrenia is most commonly first diagnosed during late adolescence or early adulthood, suggesting it is often the end process of childhood and adolescent development.
 
Kelzie said:
If anything, if he did go after her because she was Jewish, that makes Palin's remarks even more nonsensical. Palin's remarks had nothing to do with the Congresswoman's religion.
Click to expand...

It's blood libel Kelzie! BLOOD LIBEL!

anti-semitic+cartoon.jpg


It's a reference so obscure that even Jews are going 'Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?'
 
Barbbtx said:
This is a much more likely cause than anything else. His friends said he changed a few years ago.

Causes of schizophrenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schizophrenia is most commonly first diagnosed during late adolescence or early adulthood, suggesting it is often the end process of childhood and adolescent development.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking something like this is the most likely answer. Guy seemed like a nut job. I place more blame on his parents than I normally do for not getting him help.
 
But the "blood libel" phrase had already been used in the context of the Tucson tragedy. The conservative commentator Glenn Reynolds first raised it in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, asking, "Where is the decency in blood libel?" Others on the right picked up the phrase as well, leading conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg to wonder if this was appropriate.

"Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood -- usually from children -- in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have," he wrote.

But Jim Geraghty, another commentator on National Review, has quickly collected many other examples of commentators and politicians using the phrase "blood libel" out of context. His examples include references to Sen. John Kerry's testimony to the Senate as Vietnam War veteran and the recount battle in Florida after the 2000 election.


Palin's use of 'blood libel' and Reagan comment in statement on Tucson shooting - Fact Checker
 
Hatuey said:
It's blood libel Kelzie! BLOOD LIBEL!

anti-semitic+cartoon.jpg


It's a reference so obscure that even Jews are going 'Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?'
Click to expand...

:lol: Glad I'm not the only one who had to look it up when I read the headlines this morning. Which is what lead to my immediate reaction: "How the hell did she come up with that one?!"
 
Kelzie said:
I'm thinking something like this is the most likely answer. Guy seemed like a nut job. I place more blame on his parents than I normally do for not getting him help.
Click to expand...

From what I hear, his mom is really nice. However, neighbors have claimed that they were scared of the dad and that he was kind of a nutjob.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
What specifically are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Loughner’s friends tell reporters that when the alleged killer met Giffords in 2007, he asked her “How do you know words mean anything?" and that the congresswoman responded with a few phrases in Spanish, presumably thinking he was referring to the bilingualism of the border district, and moved on.


Prosecutors say the incident helped cement a fixation on Giffords, whom Loughner’s associates say he called a “fake.”

The Scary World of Jared Loughner; Dems Target Political Speech - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...

Do you agree?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Do you agree?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Do I agree with his assessment of her? Absolutely not. The guy was a raving lunatic. Just look at his youtube videos for evidence of this.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Its not my fault you don't understand similes.
Click to expand...

I know what a simile is. Palin didn't use like, as or than to describe the relationship, so it's not one. And similes require some sort of similarity. As I've demonstrated, her message compares in no way to the defintion of blood libel.
 
Kelzie said:
Let's look at this section by section:



No false accusations have been made against religious minorities, Jews or otherwise.



No blood of children have been used in religious rituals.



Claims were not used to justify persecution.


Any insistance that she used the right phrase is just really sad grasping at straws. She used the wrong phrase. It happens to all politicians. Trying to stretch the definition of the phrase to make it fit her message reeks of desperation. She's not perfect. Get over it.
Click to expand...

It was in a WSJ article.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Do I agree with his assessment of her? Absolutely not. The guy was a raving lunatic. Just look at his youtube videos for evidence of this.
Click to expand...

Well, her being a 'fake' could have been talking in Jewish terms, seeing that some reports that he is Jewish on his mothers side. Just speculating like everyone else. But, I agree he was a really disturbed individual.

j-mac
 
hazlnut said:
She's not even smart enough to understand the 'blood libel' reference in her own speech.

Apparently it went over the OP's head as well.
Click to expand...




How so? Or are you just coming after me for pointin out.your dishonesty today?
 
The use of the term "blood libel" was in a WSJ article.
 
Kelzie said:
:confused: What was?
Click to expand...

This:

So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

Glenn Reynolds: The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

Followed by:

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom