• 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"

Grim17 said:
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
Click to expand...

exactly. you can't exactly accuse someone of "playing the victim" when all they are doing is responding to someone attacking them.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

She might. I wouldn't be at all shocked. Of course, in this situation I think it's much more likely that her speech writer reads the WSJ.

You must have had a lot of history classes. It's not like it's an intuitive meaning.
 
cpwill said:
exactly. you can't exactly accuse someone of "playing the victim" when all they are doing is responding to someone attacking them.
Click to expand...

They are playing the victim when their own actions at least partially lead to the "attacks" against them.

The fact of the matter is that she has been using violent rhetoric. The criticism she is facing for her rhetoric is warranted. The only thing that's unfair is the context in which she is facing it.

But that doesn't change the fact that she is still partially responsible for the criticism.
 
:shrug: my undergrad was in history, but i don'y recall studying much antisemitism outside of the middle east. the basic common-usage that i've heard seems both fairly intuitive and applicable; false testimony about murder.

as for palins' speechwriter; it was a facebook post. her speeches are given off of scribbled words on her palm, remember? :)
 
Tucker Case said:
They are playing the victim when their own actions at least partially lead to the "attacks" against them.
Click to expand...

what utter and complete bull****. there is precisely zero connection between sarah palins speeches and that nutjob deciding that his congresswoman was part of the secret plot to have the US sieze control of grammar.
 
Grim17 said:
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
Click to expand...
The victims are the one's who were shot in Tucson... Pal. Who accused Sarah Palin of being an accessory to the crime? Not even Paul Krugman did that. You obviously didn't like what he wrote, but it was true what he said.

Assassination Attempt In Arizona - NYTimes.com

A Democratic Congresswoman has been shot in the head; another dozen were also shot.
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

...
Click to expand...
 
I for one found it most humorous that her rhetoric was to blame.
 
i, for another, found it depressing that there were people idiotic enough to believe that.
 
Kelzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never stated that it "changed" (Palin used it correctly) from it's original meaning but clearly pointed out that,the term has been used to describe events outside of a jewish conflict, like a metaphor of sorts. Also, to pin the term ONLY to Judaism isn't accurate because other religious minority groups have been "targeted" by this term...

It's funny, but where was the "outrage" from the left when the wall street journal used the term a few days ago??

"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 HARLAN REYNOLDS
 
j-mac said:
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
Click to expand...

Why let facts get in the way of a good diatribe!!!
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: my undergrad was in history, but i don'y recall studying much antisemitism outside of the middle east. the basic common-usage that i've heard seems both fairly intuitive and applicable; false testimony about murder.

as for palins' speechwriter; it was a facebook post. her speeches are given off of scribbled words on her palm, remember? :)
Click to expand...

It was a eight minute professionally produced speech from what I've read. I'm sure someone wrote it.

How could "blood libel" be fairly intuitive? It doesn't mention murder at all in the phrase. Or Jews or persecution for that matter.
 
fbi10 said:
I never stated that it "changed" (Palin used it correctly) from it's original meaning but clearly pointed out that,the term has been used to describe events outside of a jewish conflict, like a metaphor of sorts. Also, to pin the term ONLY to Judaism isn't accurate because other religious minority groups have been "targeted" by this term...
Click to expand...

Of course, the definition would have to change in order for her usage to be correct. Most defintitions that I've seen include religious minorities as possible targets.

You keep pointing out that other people have used it. I'm aware. Palin certainly doesn't have a monopoly on misusing words and phrases.

fbi10 said:
It's funny, but where was the "outrage" from the left when the wall street journal used the term a few days ago??

"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 HARLAN REYNOLDS
Click to expand...

You mean like this?

I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. 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.
Click to expand...

“Blood Libel” - By Jonah Goldberg - The Corner - National Review Online

I think the only ones outraged are some Jewish groups. They can be outraged as far as I'm concerned. I just think she misspoke.
 
Kelzie said:
It was a eight minute professionally produced speech from what I've read. I'm sure someone wrote it.

How could "blood libel" be fairly intuitive? It doesn't mention murder at all in the phrase. Or Jews or persecution for that matter.
Click to expand...

Did you see what those anti-Semitic bastards at the Anti Defamation League had to say about the modern definition of blood-libel?

ADL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I bet they deny the Holocaust too.
 
Grim17 said:
Did you see what those anti-Semitic bastards at the Anti Defamation League had to say about the modern definition of blood-libel?

I bet they deny the Holocaust too.
Click to expand...

Who's calling her an anti-Semite?
 
Kelzie said:
Who's calling her an anti-Semite?
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't... That was called "sarcasm".

But if you are really interested in hearing someone call what she said "anti-Semetic", well here you go... Take a guess what side of the political fence this Washington Post writer is on? Fast forward to the 1:15 mark to save some time:

 
Did you see what those anti-Semitic bastards at the Anti Defamation League had to say about the modern definition of blood-libel?

Quote Originally Posted by ADL
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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that mean they are NOT anti-Semite? I think you have it bass ackwards.
 
Erod said:
No, that would be the sheriff, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, CNN, ABC, CBS, and your party's elected officials.

People like me are what keep Castro from eventually taking over.
Click to expand...

You are my hero.

*swoon*
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
She is right, absolutely on the money but with her criticism but a "blood libel"? …
Click to expand...

Mark your calendars: January 12, 2011, the day Sarah Palin disqualified herself from any further consideration as a candidate for President of the United States.
 
Chappy said:
Mark your calendars: January 12, 2011, the day Sarah Palin disqualified herself from any further consideration as a candidate for President of the United States.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think that happened quite awhile ago.
 
Chappy said:
Mark your calendars: January 12, 2011, the day Sarah Palin disqualified herself from any further consideration as a candidate for President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think it's quite that bad. At the very worst, she just chose the wrong word. Certainly politicians have done worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom