Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

Gardener said:

Somebody should clue in Ms. Palin that the target was Jewish.

Click to expand...

This is a goofy statement based on Politics not reality.

Councilman said:

This is a goofy statement based on Politics not reality.

Click to expand...

Actually, that puts her statement into context more if you think about it. The media, is using the blood of the dead and wounded to attack her with falsehoods.

Think about it for a second.

MrVicchio said:

Actually, that puts her statement into context more if you think about it. The media, is using the blood of the dead and wounded to attack her with falsehoods.

Think about it for a second.

Click to expand...

Her crosshairs as the evidence of evil doing. NOW CALL FORTH THE MOB. /sarcasm on the second part

MrVicchio said:

Actually, that puts her statement into context more if you think about it. The media, is using the blood of the dead and wounded to attack her with falsehoods.

Think about it for a second.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's even less. Blood libel refers to creating false accusations against a religious minority over murder. In this case, the one who was attacked was the religious minority. It really makes no sense, no matter how you spin it.

winston53660 said:

I hear Muslims make it taste gamey. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Throw some bacon in there. That'll take care of the gamey taste.

MrVicchio said:

Actually, that puts her statement into context more if you think about it. The media, is using the blood of the dead and wounded to attack her with falsehoods.

Think about it for a second.

Click to expand...

1-2-3... No, in context it makes no sense. Sorry.

Kelzie said:

Actually, it's even less. Blood libel refers to creating false accusations against a religious minority over murder. In this case, the one who was murdered was the religious minority. It really makes no sense, no matter how you spin it.

Click to expand...

Witch hunt would have been an appropriate term. There are a bunch of far more appropriate terms that she could have used. Blood libel simply doesn't make sense.

pbrauer said:

Using a term that can easily be construed as anti-Semitic is classy?

WOW!!!

Click to expand...

Are you saying what she said was anti-semitic?

When you falsely accuse someone of shedding blood, it's a blood libel...what don't you understand?

And yes, her speech was classy, very classy.

fbi10 said:

Are you saying what she said was anti-semitic?

When you falsely accuse someone of shedding blood, it's a blood libel...what don't you understand?

And yes, her speech was classy, very classy.

Click to expand...

It makes sense if you change the definition. Blood libel refers to something very specific. I don't think it's anti-Semitic, nor do I think it was her intention to be inappropriate. I think she just used an incorrect term. What is the big deal? People make mistakes.

MrVicchio said:

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.

Click to expand...

But somwhow you didn't get around to knowing any Jewish people, did you?

fbi10 said:

Are you saying what she said was anti-semitic?

When you falsely accuse someone of shedding blood, it's a blood libel...what don't you understand?

And yes, her speech was classy, very classy.

Click to expand...

When you falsely accuse a religious minority of murder as an excuse to persecute them, that's blood libel. We do understand. She just made a mistake.

Dr_Patrick said:

It makes sense if you change the definition. Blood libel refers to something very specific. I don't think it's anti-Semitic, nor do I think it was her intention to be inappropriate. I think she just used an incorrect term. What is the big deal? People make mistakes.

Click to expand...

Well...except me.

fbi10 said:

Are you saying what she said was anti-semitic?

When you falsely accuse someone of shedding blood, it's a blood libel...what don't you understand?

And yes, her speech was classy, very classy.

Click to expand...

A Blood libel is an untrue antisemitic attack, yet she stupidly uses the term applied to herself.

I'm not about to read 22 pages of political banter, so my apologies if someone else has already expressed what I'm about to say...

I'm sure those of you on the left are probably counting your lucky stars right now and thinking how fantastic it is, that they have a new phony attack for the media to latch on to, so that everyone would stop focusing on the last phony and utterly despicable attack from last weekend that blew in your faces... But I wouldn't jump for joy to quickly if I were you.

Even though the ADL wasn't too happy about Palin's use of that word, they did manage to make a few key points in their response to her statement:

It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks...

... While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.​

Even the ADL admits that the word has become one that is used to describe "someone being falsely accused", yet there are talking heads on the left that are branding Palin's use of the word as "anti-Semitic" on her part.

My advice to the left is, just walk away from this one while you still can. If you don't back off this one, you are just going to heighten the level of disgust people already feel toward your side for that abhorrent and inappropriate display of partisanship last weekend, and I predict it will only result in driving more of your supporters away if the attacks continue... Attacking the same woman that you falsely attacked just days ago, seems like a pretty stupid move to me... But what do I know.

I'm certain that my words will fall on deaf ears and the attacks will continue, because that's just how the left operates.

Good luck with it... lol


ADL Statement on Sarah Palin's Response to Tucson Tragedy

Kelzie said:

Well...except me.

Click to expand...

Well, of course I was excluding you.

Manc Skipper said:

A Blood libel is an untrue antisemitic attack, yet she stupidly uses the term applied to herself.

Click to expand...

That's not strictly the definition of blood libel. Just like, "lynching", isn't strictly defined as, "hanging a black person".

I was really hoping Palin wouldn't let herself get sucked into this cluster ****, but her use of blood libel isn't used incorrectly: she's being falsely attacked and accused of causing a crime.

Dr_Patrick said:

I'm kind of eagerly waiting for Wikipedia to crash due to all of the people (myself included) visiting the "Blood libel" page because they didn't know what it meant either. :lol:

Click to expand...

In an ironic twist of fate, the nation becomes just a small bit smarter due to something Sarah Palin said.

Dr_Patrick said:

It makes sense if you change the definition. Blood libel refers to something very specific. I don't think it's anti-Semitic, nor do I think it was her intention to be inappropriate. I think she just used an incorrect term. What is the big deal? People make mistakes.

Click to expand...

Well, for one, there is no big deal. She used the term correctly. It has been used for not just in Jewish related conflicts even though that's at its origin. I should ask you why are the leftist bloggers and writers making it a big deal while at the same time, shooting themselves in the foot? I don't believe she used the term incorrectly but the opposite.

I'll give you an example that i just read from law professor, Alan Dershowitz:

"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."

I can give you other examples of when this term was used in a broader base, if you like...

fbi10 said:

Well, for one, there is no big deal. She used the term correctly. It has been used for not just in Jewish related conflicts even though that's at its origin. I should ask you why are the leftist bloggers and writers making it a big deal while at the same time, shooting themselves in the foot? I don't believe she used the term incorrectly but the opposite.

Click to expand...

They are making a big deal out of it because she's an easy target and they don't like her. It's really not that much of a surprise. The partisan rhetoric goes back and forth from both sides. This is certainly nothing new.

I'll give you an example that i just read from law professor, Alan Dershowitz:

"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."

I can give you other examples of when this term was used in a broader base, if you like...

Click to expand...

I don't think people would have made a big deal out of it if it were such a widely used term. Considering that the term has such a specific meaning, it seems unlikely to me that it was used in any sort of metaphorical sense. That's just my opinion, though. There were a bunch of other more appropriate and apt terms that she could have used. I don't think that a big deal should be made out of this. In my opinion she made a mistake, and we should all just move on.

Gardener said:

But somwhow you didn't get around to knowing any Jewish people, did you?

Click to expand...

Dude, don't try that **** with me. If you look back, one of my FAVORITE WEBSITES, and I've posted it here, is JWR. Get out with that bs.

Man oh man....if the GOP doesn't select Sarah Palin as their candidate in 2012, I am going to be greatly dissapointed.

disneydude said:

Man oh man....if the GOP doesn't select Sarah Palin as their candidate in 2012, I am going to be greatly dissapointed.

Click to expand...

i think that ship has sailed.

Kelzie said:

When you falsely accuse a religious minority of murder as an excuse to persecute them, that's blood libel. We do understand. She just made a mistake.

Click to expand...

No, apparently you don't.

Yes, that was used originally when falsely accusing a religious minority but in modern times it's been used in a broader basis. The term wasn't invented to define what happened to the Jews; it’s just that what happened to Jews were "blood libels", and this term fits perfectly to what happened to Governor Palin.

I'll list some examples:

Andrew Cohen of CBS News, May 7, 2008: “So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a BLOOD LIBEL against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat.”

AP, July 28, 2008: “Just before Obama spoke, Newsday editor Les Payne had called “BLOOD LIBEL” the argument that African-American journalists could not objectively cover Obama’s candidacy.”

Alex Beam in the Boston Globe, January 14, 2005, discussing the accusation that an official had used the “n-word” in meetings overseas: “My two anonymous sources were making charges that amounted to ‘BLOOD LIBEL’ against former colleagues; that raised the bar for ethical publication.”

the term is more common then you think...

liblady said:

i think that ship has sailed.

Click to expand...

Plus, she has the option of continuing her show and making a boatload of cash. She could easily take that route and continue to chime in on political issues or even become a pundit at Fox News. She still has a lot of people devoted to her cause. That's what I would do, anyway.

Dr_Patrick said:

They are making a big deal out of it because she's an easy target and they don't like her. It's really not that much of a surprise. The partisan rhetoric goes back and forth from both sides. This is certainly nothing new.



I don't think people would have made a big deal out of it if it were such a widely used term. Considering that the term has such a specific meaning, it seems unlikely to me that it was used in any sort of metaphorical sense. That's just my opinion, though. There were a bunch of other more appropriate and apt terms that she could have used. I don't think that a big deal should be made out of this. In my opinion she made a mistake, and we should all just move on.

Click to expand...

I understand your opinion, that's fine, but the term has been used outside of Jewish conflicts. She could have used another phrase, of course, but it wasn't wrong of her to use it.