• 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"

fbi10 said:
Yea, another 4 years of a failure like Obama...huh?? Oh man, what a nightmare....yuck
Click to expand...

Should try something new in case the next president lies just to get into office. Like manditory monthly impeachments where the president must prove they deserve their job next month. (even during marshall law) With auto-summons anytime if enough people protest specifying they wish to invoke this.
 
Last edited:
I just can't believe the media is now lynching Palin for using the term "blood libel". I for one feel gypped. They are on a witch hunt, and acting completely hysterically. I mean, seriously... can't these cretins in the media think of someone else to pick on? One minute they ask for us to tone down the rhetoric, the next the start it all back up again. Indian-givers!

Really I think if you are obsessed with PC garbage you should try a different hobby.
 
Last edited:
Alan Dershowitz defending Sarah Palin's use of blood libel? I'm shocked.
 
fbi10 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Wow. Three, now four times in the last five years. Clearly a hot phrase.
 
Kelzie said:
Wow. Three, now four times in the last five years. Clearly a hot phrase.
Click to expand...

It's slang Kelzie. Don't you use it all the time? I do! Specially around the time I have to hang out with fishmonger and scalawags. People start throwing accusations of blood libel at me.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
I just can't believe the media is now lynching Palin for using the term "blood libel". I for one feel gypped. They are on a witch hunt, and acting completely hysterically. I mean, seriously... can't these cretins in the media think of someone else to pick on? One minute they ask for us to tone down the rhetoric, the next the start it all back up again. Indian-givers!

Really I think if you are obsessed with PC garbage you should try a different hobby.
Click to expand...

News flash:

Our news is just one giant smokescreen that will rip your focus away from the most important thing your taxes go to. The War. Have fun getting a glimpse of some celebs panties once a year.

"If Hollywood wrestlers shout at each other before a match, instinct makes willing people think they are trying to kill each other." -dirtpoorchris
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
Wow. Three, now four times in the last five years. Clearly a hot phrase.
Click to expand...


Stop, just stop....It wouldn't matter if we showed you a thousand uses for the phrase, you'd still stubbornly stick to your attack against Palin, because you harbor hatred in your heart for her. That much is clear. So just accept your defeat and move on.


j-mac
 
dirtpoorchris said:
News flash:

Our news is just one giant smokescreen that will rip your focus away from the most important thing your taxes go to. The War. Have fun getting a glimpse of some celebs panties once a year.
Click to expand...

Either you have no sense of humor, or I am bad at jokes. I imagine its the second. :(
 
j-mac said:
Stop, just stop....It wouldn't matter if we showed you a thousand uses for the phrase, you'd still stubbornly stick to your attack against Palin, because you harbor hatred in your heart for her. That much is clear. So just accept your defeat and move on.

j-mac
Click to expand...

The mindless rhetoric continues!
 
Grim17 said:
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
Click to expand...
Sarah Palin made a fool of herself (again) today, so you are giving the left advice. :lamo Putting the Blood libel comment aside, the mistake she made was playing the role of a victim. I don't care how you spin it, leaders don't portray themselves as victims - they just don't.

What she should have done was to swallow her pride and say the target map was wrong even though she didn't believe it herself. The mere fact that she took the map down means she knew it was wrong or was seen that way.

Today, Sarah Palin has taken herself out of the 2012 race for POTUS
 
smartin said:
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.
Click to expand...

You sound more like a "meme-herder" with every post. Intern or paid PR professional?
 
j-mac said:
Stop, just stop....It wouldn't matter if we showed you a thousand uses for the phrase, you'd still stubbornly stick to your attack against Palin, because you harbor hatred in your heart for her. That much is clear. So just accept your defeat and move on.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Please. The definition has been posted multiple times and how she meant it comes no where close to the actual definition of the phrase. Just because a handful of other people have used it doesn't make it anymore correct.
 
fbi10 said:
Yes of course, that's exactly what i was saying...duh dur...
Click to expand...

It's a fairly obscure phrase.

The term "blood libel" is not well known, but it is highly charged — a direct reference to a time when many European Christians blamed Jews for kidnapping and murdering Christian children to obtain their blood. Jews were tortured and executed for crimes they did not commit, emblematic of anti-Semitism so virulent that some scholars recoiled Wednesday at Palin's use of the term.
Click to expand...

Palin's words reach back to sordid history - Yahoo! News
 
pbrauer said:
Sarah Palin made a fool of herself (again) today, so you are giving the left advice. :lamo Putting the Blood libel comment aside, the mistake she made was playing the role of a victim. I don't care how you spin it, leaders don't portray themselves as victims - they just don't.

What she should have done was to swallow her pride and say the target map was wrong even though she didn't believe it herself. The mere fact that she took the map down means she knew it was wrong or was seen that way.


Today, Sarah Palin has taken herself out of the 2012 race for POTUS
Click to expand...

Yes because making a "fool out of yourself" is using a term correctly...right.

Playing victim? Yes of course, being falsely accused by people on the left before even the facts came out is HER fault...

The fact she took the map down says that she knew that at this time, it isn't appropriate to have up. However, if you want to see the map so bad, please go to her facebook page, it's still there

when was Palin IN the race for POTUS?
 
Last edited:
I hope she runs in 2012. That will be the best show EVER!!!
 
Kelzie said:
It's a fairly obscure phrase.



Palin's words reach back to sordid history - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

The phrase, like i already stated, in modern times isn't used JUST for jewish conflicts anymore. I never stated that the phrase wasn't originally used to false accuse jews.

from your article as well:

"And the term has been used before, in other situations far removed from its original meaning. In 1982, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin said charges that his country stood by while Lebanese Phalangists slaughtered Palestinian refugees "constitute a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere."

good read though :)
 
pbrauer said:
Sarah Palin made a fool of herself (again) today, so you are giving the left advice. :lamo Putting the Blood libel comment aside, the mistake she made was playing the role of a victim. I don't care how you spin it, leaders don't portray themselves as victims - they just don't.
Click to expand...

She was the victim pal... The victim of the baseless and incendiary attacks by the left that falsely accused her of being an accessory to murder.

END OF DISCUSSION
 
fbi10 said:
The phrase, like i already stated, in modern times isn't used JUST for jewish conflicts anymore. I never stated that the phrase wasn't originally used to false accuse jews.

from your article as well:

"And the term has been used before, in other situations far removed from its original meaning. In 1982, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin said charges that his country stood by while Lebanese Phalangists slaughtered Palestinian refugees "constitute a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere."

good read though :)
Click to expand...

The article points out that she isn't alone in misusing it. And other than a few people claiming it means something different, I haven't seen any actual evidence that the definition has changed in these "modern" times.
 
Kelzie said:
It's a fairly obscure phrase.
Click to expand...


really? seems i read it and pretty instantly knew what it meant.



could be the phrase was in her mind because there was a wall street journal article that used the exact same description. its the title of a thread on this forum.


;) course that would require you to admit she reads the wall street journal.
 
Grim17 said:
She was the victim pal...
Click to expand...

Interesting that she is so offeneded when she herself has made a carreer in lies and exaggerations of the truth. Maybe she is EMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom