• 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:
If what you post isn't full of fallacies then I would. Source bashing is really a non intellectual way of obfuscating from the fact that you have lost the argument.

j-mac
Click to expand...

One guy's opinion in no way influences a debate. Unless he's god. And I haven't heard from him in a while.
 
Kelzie said:
One guy's opinion in no way influences a debate. Unless he's god. And I haven't heard from him in a while.
Click to expand...

Hey, Kelzie. Long time, no see!
 
I've never really heard the term before, but if it has indeed come to mean simply a false accusation of murder, I don't see what the big deal is. In fact, even if the more generic usage is not commonplace, I don't think her choice of word is as outrageous and some would make it seem.
 
??? said:
I've never really heard the term before, but if it has indeed come to mean simply a false accusation of murder, I don't see what the big deal is. In fact, even if the more generic usage is not commonplace, I don't think her choice of word is as outrageous and some would make it seem.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's outrageous, I just think it's a mistake.
 
And yes, mindless, "government-help-me" types fall for the Lenins, Trotskys, Chavezes, Castros, and Hitlers of the world. They vote for community organizers with one-sentence resumes, too.[/QUOTE]


Don't forget the Ayn Rand. I bet that's what pushed him over the edge. Funny you don't mention her.
 
fbi10 said:
This speech is just another reason as to why Sarah Palin is just awesome and classy...
Click to expand...
Using a term that can easily be construed as anti-Semitic is classy?

WOW!!!
 
cAPSLOCK said:
Then why were we talking about her and her possible influence over the shooter from the day this happened?
Click to expand...

Because journalists speculate when they don't have answers.

Because the good that may come from this tragedy is a national conversation about the current tone of political discourse.

And Palin, like it or not, will be part of that conversation. She's pushed the boundaries with her ignorant hate-filled rants, and her map targeting representatives... now her 'blood lust' comment will be analyzed and I'm sure she'll have to release another statement explaining that.
 
:hammer:
fbi10 said:
This speech is just another reason as to why Sarah Palin is just awesome and classy...
Click to expand...

Awesome in what sense...??

She is too stupid to understand the biblical reference in her own speech...
 
hazlnut said:
:hammer:

Awesome in what sense...??

She is too stupid to understand the biblical reference in her own speech...
Click to expand...

i honestly don't know what she was thinking using that term. it's puzzling, really.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I swear, what the hell is going on? Liberals started the fight...why are they mad when they get countered? Sarah Palin had every right to correct the left wing bull sh*t that people like Krugman or whatever the f*ck his name is and the nut jobs on here are pertpetuating. If you are mad about her defending herself, then you are the problem.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am angry about professionally manufactured messages. "Blood libel"was used by a columnist over the weekend, and the whole "duel" argument was used on Chris Matthews yesterday. We don't have a rhetoric problem. We have a propaganda problem. A cognitive neuroscience problem. The hamhanded "crisis management" responses being used by the conservative media machine to deal with the Tea Party debacle may very well have had something to do with the recent shootings. Both sides are too dependant on these techniques to discuss them openly. Fortunately, simply talking about them reduces their effectiveness.
 
liblady said:
i honestly don't know what she was thinking using that term. it's puzzling, really.
Click to expand...

I know what she meant, so do you guys. She was using it in the sense of making a false accusation against someone for gain. Which really, is what the Blood Libel has always been. The EXACT terminology I know refers to the "Jews baking blood" stuff. However, I have heard this phrase used as she has in the past. Isn't what I would have said, mostly because it allowed for this sort of stupid thread to be made.

Everyone is focused on one phrase instead of her speech, and what she had to say. Sad really, many of the folks here vomiting across the pages of this thread are also many of the same screaming about the "rhetoric of discourse" out there.

It's quite amusing.
 
Before this issue I had no clue that "blood libel" was a phrase, that it had a definition, or that it was remotely related to Jewish anything.

New to me - all around.

I thought she meant it like "libel" and then "blood-money" - you know, mixing these two: "blood libel" - as in "people are just using this situation to get to me and ruin my career"
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Before this issue I had no clue that "blood libel" was a phrase, that it had a definition, or that it was remotely related to Jewish anything.

New to me - all around.

I thought she meant it like "libel" and then "blood-money" - you know, mixing these two: "blood libel" - as in "people are just using this situation to get to me and ruin my career"
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I doubt Palin knew what it meant either before it created such a stink. :mrgreen:
 
MrVicchio said:
I know what she meant, so do you guys. She was using it in the sense of making a false accusation against someone for gain. Which really, is what the Blood Libel has always been. The EXACT terminology I know refers to the "Jews baking blood" stuff. However, I have heard this phrase used as she has in the past. Isn't what I would have said, mostly because it allowed for this sort of stupid thread to be made.

Everyone is focused on one phrase instead of her speech, and what she had to say. Sad really, many of the folks here vomiting across the pages of this thread are also many of the same screaming about the "rhetoric of discourse" out there.

It's quite amusing.
Click to expand...

Well, I honestly don't think that she meant to outrage anyone by using the term. I think that she either didn't know what it meant, or it was just a very misguided decision. There are plenty of other terms out there that she could have used to clearly get her point across. It doesn't seem to me that the term's metaphorical use is all that common. Perhaps I'm wrong. Even if she knew full well what she was talking about, it's kind of an absurd example. People were criticizing her ad which was deemed inappropriate due to the circumstances. She obviously agreed because she took it down. As for the people who were trying to tie her ad directly to the shooting, it's really nothing new. People play absurd partisan politics and keep amping it up more and more. The rhetoric is really getting out of hand.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Well, I honestly don't think that she meant to outrage anyone by using the term. I think that she either didn't know what it meant, or it was just a very misguided decision. There are plenty of other terms out there that she could have used to clearly get her point across. It doesn't seem to me that the term's metaphorical use is all that common. Perhaps I'm wrong. Even if she knew full well what she was talking about, it's kind of an absurd example. People were criticizing her ad which was deemed inappropriate due to the circumstances. She obviously agreed because she took it down. As for the people who were trying to tie her ad directly to the shooting, it's really nothing new. People play absurd partisan politics and keep amping it up more and more. The rhetoric is really getting out of hand.
Click to expand...

I moved around, a LOT as a kid and an adult, if there is one thing I've learned is that in one place, a phrase might mean X, and in another it doesn't really mean the same thing or isn't used. I've gotten stared at for using phrases before. It didn't even register as being something to cause an issue... silly me.

Reminds me of an old joke, here it is modified for modern times.


Sarah Palin and the Pope were on a boat fishing, following their boat was a boat full of reporters. A sudden wind whipped up and blew the Pope's hat off. None of the crew on the Pope's boat could quite reach it. The reporters put down their cameras to assist, but the hat just stayed far enough away to keep from being nabbed. All feared the hat would be lost forever. Mrs. Palin calmly climbed over the side, walked across the water, picked up the hat, knocked the water off it and returned it to a stunned but grateful Pope. The reporters, cameras rolling immediately started filing their stories! This sort of story had to get out immediately! MSNBC was first to report, with a big banner splashed across their screen for BREAKING NEWS!!! The headline read: "SARAH PALIN: Outdoors woman and fitness fanatic CANNOT SWIM!"
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Well, I honestly don't think that she meant to outrage anyone by using the term. I think that she either didn't know what it meant, or it was just a very misguided decision. There are plenty of other terms out there that she could have used to clearly get her point across. It doesn't seem to me that the term's metaphorical use is all that common. Perhaps I'm wrong. Even if she knew full well what she was talking about, it's kind of an absurd example. People were criticizing her ad which was deemed inappropriate due to the circumstances. She obviously agreed because she took it down. As for the people who were trying to tie her ad directly to the shooting, it's really nothing new. People play absurd partisan politics and keep amping it up more and more. The rhetoric is really getting out of hand.
Click to expand...

Yeah - if I didn't know what it meant then surely SHE couldn't have known what it meant!
I love to hate her but give her a pass on this.

But this is her ONE - everyone gets ONE and this is her ONE.
 
Kelzie said:
Don't worry, I doubt Palin knew what it meant either before it created such a stink. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

i wouldn't post or say something unless i knew the meaning of my words. good lord.
 
What if...? said:
Actually, I am angry about professionally manufactured messages. "Blood libel"was used by a columnist over the weekend, and the whole "duel" argument was used on Chris Matthews yesterday. We don't have a rhetoric problem. We have a propaganda problem. A cognitive neuroscience problem. The hamhanded "crisis management" responses being used by the conservative media machine to deal with the Tea Party debacle may very well have had something to do with the recent shootings. Both sides are too dependant on these techniques to discuss them openly. Fortunately, simply talking about them reduces their effectiveness.
Click to expand...

I like how every American magically knows what 'Vitriol" is now.

Acid Attack Hoaxer Bethany Storro Wanted to Die - ABC News

Copycat Acid Attack? - The Early Show - CBS News

Who would throw acid in someones face? Thats extreme :(
I bet these people know where the word stems from.
 
What if...? said:
Actually, I am angry about professionally manufactured messages. "Blood libel"was used by a columnist over the weekend, and the whole "duel" argument was used on Chris Matthews yesterday. We don't have a rhetoric problem. We have a propaganda problem. A cognitive neuroscience problem. The hamhanded "crisis management" responses being used by the conservative media machine to deal with the Tea Party debacle may very well have had something to do with the recent shootings. Both sides are too dependant on these techniques to discuss them openly. Fortunately, simply talking about them reduces their effectiveness.
Click to expand...





Yep no rhetoric problem....


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom