• 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"

Jesus with a jumprope.

Seriously. That is as paranoid as anything Beck ever froths on about.

Really seriously. I didn't have to look up the phrase because I know it. Both in it's historical context and the modern usage which encompasses the idea of wrongful accusation and persecution.

I would be willing to bet whoever wrote the script for that video liked the imagery of the WSJ article and decided to borrow the phrase.

Period.

It is really as uninspired and dull as that.

There is no giant conspiracy. No intentional secret neo-religious message. No racist insensitivity. No hidden meaning at all.

Who said there was a conspiracy or neo-religious message? It's pretty out in the open to most people. Protestant tradition in America has sought to portray itself as new Jews sent to Americas to create a new promised land for Christians. Look at Mormon tradition, which Beck is a proud spokesperson for. Joseph Smith sought to create a new Zion in Missouri. Various baptist churches in the South have at different points in time sought to create new societies to escape the Babylon that is American culture. Then you have the more mainstream Protestant groups who actively support Israel because they think that by doing so they are pushing through a confrontation with Muslims which will in turn bring about the end of days. Seriously, to call this a 'conspiracy' is quite a stretch. It's just the religious being... well.... religious.

The evidence speaks for itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

The Church of Christ grew steadily, but from the beginning in 1830, its members were persecuted by non-Mormons. To avoid persecution from New York residents, some of whom claimed Smith worked as a treasure seeker, the Latter Day Saints moved to Kirtland, Ohio and hoped to establish a permanent New Jerusalem in Jackson County, Missouri. However, the Saints were expelled from Jackson County in 1833 forced to flee Kirtland in early 1838. In Missouri, the Mormon War of 1838 resulted in the "Mormon Extermination Order," resulting in the expulsion of Latter Day Saints from Missouri, and they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois. In 1844, Smith was killed by members of the Illinois militia, precipitating a succession crisis. The largest group of Saints accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet/leader and emigrated to what became the Utah Territory, where they incorporated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church began to openly practice plural marriage, a form of polygamy that Smith had instituted in Nauvoo. Plural marriage became the faith's most sensational characteristic during the 19th century, but vigorous opposition by the United States Congress threatened the church's existence as a legal institution. In his 1890 Manifesto, church president Wilford Woodruff announced the official end of plural marriage, though the practice continued unofficially until the early 20th century.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I've never even heard the phrased be used outside of history books. So I'm not really convinced it's as common as your opinion says it is. Sorry!
 
Last edited:
As far as the rest of your post goes, I've never even heard the phrased be used outside of history books. So I'm not really convinced it's as common as your opinion says it is. Sorry!

Well, I have heard of it used in more casual contexts than the historical blood libel context. I am not the only one aware of this case of semantic bleaching... and here
 
Well, I have heard of it used in more casual contexts than the historical blood libel context. I am not the only one aware of this case of semantic bleaching... and here

Semantic bleaching encyclopedia topics | Reference.com

semantic bleaching - no reference results
Official Symantec Website
PC Magazine Top Rated Software. Stronger than ever.
Buy Now!
Sponsored Results
Symantec - AntiVirus, Anti-Spyware, Endpoint Security, Backup, Storage Solutions
No results found for semantic bleaching
Please try spelling the word differently, searching another resource, or typing a new word.

Semantic bleaching seems to be another term Palin and you are making up definitions for.

The best part is that in the other link you gave EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE FOR BLOOD LIBEL INVOLVES JEWS:

France 1171

In 1171, Blois was the site of a blood libel accusation against its Jewish community that led to 31 Jews (by some accounts 40) being burned to death .[8]

England 1255

The case of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln is mentioned by Chaucer, and thus has become well known. A child of eight years, named Hugh, son of a woman named Beatrice, disappeared at Lincoln on the 31st of July. His body was discovered on the 29th of August, covered with filth, in a pit or well belonging to a Jewish man named Copin or Koppin.
On being promised by John of Lexington, a judge, who happened to be present, that his life should be spared, Copin is said to have confessed that the boy had been crucified by the Jews, who had assembled at Lincoln for that purpose. King Henry III, on reaching Lincoln some five weeks afterward, at the beginning of October, refused to carry out the promise of John of Lexington, and had Copin executed and ninety-one of the Jews of Lincoln seized and sent up to London, where eighteen of them were executed. The rest were pardoned at the intercession of the Franciscans.[9]

Spain 1491

Christopher of Toledo, also known as Christopher of La Guardia or "the Holy Child of La Guardia," was a four-year-old Christian boy supposedly murdered by two Jews and three Conversos (converts to Christianity). In total, eight men were executed. It is now believed that this case was constructed by the Spanish Inquisition to facilitate the expulsion of Jews from Spain.[10] He was canonized by Pope Pius VII in 1805. Christopher has since been removed from the canon, though once again, a handful of individuals still claim the validity of this case.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1690

The only child-saint in the Russian Orthodox Church is the six year old boy Gavriil Belostoksky from the village Zverki. According to the legend supported by the church, the boy was kidnapped from his home during the holiday of Passover while his parents were away. Shutko, a Jew from Białystok, was accused in bringing the boy to Białystok, poking him with sharp objects and draining his blood for nine days, then bringing the body back to Zverki and dumping at a local field. A cult developed, and the boy was canonized in 1820. His relics are still the object of pilgrimage.

Tiszaeszlár, Hungary 1882

On April 1, 1882, Eszter Solymosi, a 14-year-old Christian peasant girl who was a servant in the home of András Huri in Tiszaeszlár, a Hungarian village situated on the Tisza river, was sent on an errand from which she did not return. After a fruitless search, a rumor was circulated that the girl had become a victim of Jewish religious fanaticism. Hungarian agitators, whose leaders, Géza Ónody, representative of Tiszaeszlár in the Hungarian Parliament, and Győző Istóczy, MP, who later founded the Antisemitic Party, had proposed the expulsion of the Jews in the House of Deputies, excited the public against the local Jews, resulting in a number of violent acts and pogroms. They spread the charge that the Jews had killed the girl in order to use her blood at the approaching Passover (April 4). On May 4 her mother accused the Jews before the local judge of having murdered her daughter. A corrupt investigation followed, in which Jews were coerced and threatened into admitting guilt, which set off a wave of anti-semitism in Hungary for decades.

Atlanta, Georgia, United States 1913

In a similar case, Leo Frank, a Jewish manager at a local pencil factory was accused of raping and killing 12-year-old Mary Phagan. Though he was never accused of using her blood in any kind of ritual, there was a consistent yellow journalism campaign to portray Frank as a pervert and a sadist. After he was pardoned by the governor in 1915 Frank was lynched by a group calling themselves the Knights of Mary Phagan, which would become the kernel of a revived Ku Klux Klan. The Leo Frank lynching was also related to racist tensions and policies in Georgia, as many other people had been lynched there.[11]

Kielce, Poland 1946

The Kielce pogrom against Holocaust survivors in Poland was sparked by an accusation of blood libel. The fundamental motivation for the Kielce pogrom, however, was that Jewish survivors of the Holocaust had returned to reclaim their land and property, which their Polish neighbors had stolen. The Poles would not relinquish their stolen goods and instead murdered the Jews.

Did you read your own link? Or are you trying to prove me correctly?
 
Last edited:
so THAT's why matthews, krugman, olbermann, et al, accused palin of inspiring this salvia using, anti bush, anti fox news, flag burning psychopath who was so burned out over job woes and rejection by women of mass murder before the echo of the gunshots returned off the walls of safeway?

pathetic
 
I'm quite sure Jews can claim the words 'blood libel'.

my people get to "claim" words?

the words belong to the chosen?

are there any other words my relatives get to "claim?"

the haters are losin it, folks
 
yes, as a born jew, the chosen are indeed my people

you have a problem with that, too?
 
yes, as a born jew, the chosen are indeed my people

you have a problem with that, too?

Yes.

I hate Sarah Palin, Jews, virgins, fat dogs and socially awkward children.

I want to do nothing more than put them all inside a room and blast Ramstein until they beg for non-koscher chicken wings.

In other words:

You're an idiot.
 
so much hate from the lovers-of-humanity crowd

are there any other mass murders mrs alaska is responsible for, directly or indirectly?
 
NationalJournal.com - Obama: 'Our Hopes and Dreams Are Bound Together' - Wednesday, January 12, 2011

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

are you listening, mr krugman, mr matthews...
 
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?

You have to understand who you're exchanging posts with here.
 
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.

No, there isn't. But that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that she is at least partialy responsible for the "attacks" against her. The attacks against her aren't really that she was an accesory to murder or anything like that. They are about the possible effects of her rhetoric.

The context which the criticism is being give is unfair, but the criticism itself is deserved. Thus, she ain't a victim.
 
Well, as the Prof has pointed out in a recent post on this thread, the media certainly gave her a lot of coverage before she even spoke out.

Why do you suppose that is? Why was the media, in this case the left wing media, giving her so much coverage following the murders in Tucson?

Her stupid Tea Party rhetoric is/was believed to have caused the killing.
 
No, there isn't. But that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that she is at least partialy responsible for the "attacks" against her. The attacks against her aren't really that she was an accesory to murder or anything like that. They are about the possible effects of her rhetoric.

The context which the criticism is being give is unfair, but the criticism itself is deserved. Thus, she ain't a victim.

Well said, Tucker. I couldn't agree any more.
 
Her stupid Tea Party rhetoric is/was believed to have caused the killing.
Lol, after probably like a dozen threads on the shooting, discussing it from every angle, this is the conclusion Solace draws.
 
No, there isn't. But that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that she is at least partialy responsible for the "attacks" against her. The attacks against her aren't really that she was an accesory to murder or anything like that. They are about the possible effects of her rhetoric.

The context which the criticism is being give is unfair, but the criticism itself is deserved. Thus, she ain't a victim.
So unfairness becomes fair? How does that even make sense?
 
Lol, after probably like a dozen threads on the shooting, discussing it from every angle, this is the conclusion Solace draws.

I didn't say that's what I believe, but clearly some people believe that.
 
I didn't say that's what I believe, but clearly some people believe that.
Sorry, when you prefaced TEA party rhetoric with "stupid", I thought that meant you believed it too.
 
Think of it this way, if Conservatives and undeclared Conservatives pretending to be Independents can claim the word 'marriage' as being defined by "traditional" usage of the word, I'm quite sure Jews can claim the words 'blood libel'.

The word "marriage" can be used by anyone, and no one group has claim to the word. If they do we'll certainly argue the case.
 
Well said, Tucker. I couldn't agree any more.

At the same time, though, it's important to be even-handed in the criticism. The people who are treating her like an accessory deserve just as much criticim for their rhetoric.

And as far as the "blood libel" comment by Palin goes, big deal. I don't think it was the most appropraite term, and I think she is one of the worst offenders for using victimization rhetoric out there (which is something I've been criticising her for from well-before this shooting occurred), but it it's pretty much a "big deal" situation for me. Something to make a few jokes about, perhaps explan why it isn't the most appropraiate term (as compared to witch hunt) and continue talking about her penchant for victimization-mentality nonses (which, as I've said, I've been doing for quite some time no), but it isn't something to get all riled up about.

Right now, I think the person most deserving of being attacked for his rhetoric is the sheriff who turned this whole thing into a political debate. If not for him, this discussion about rhetoric could have been had in a more appropraite venue, but now it's going to end up becoming exactly what it should be trying to fix.
 
At the same time, though, it's important to be even-handed in the criticism. The people who are treating her like an accessory deserve just as much criticim for their rhetoric.

And as far as the "blood libel" comment by Palin goes, big deal. I don't think it was the most appropraite term, and I think she is one of the worst offenders for using victimization rhetoric out there (which is something I've been criticising her for from well-before this shooting occurred), but it it's pretty much a "big deal" situation for me. Something to make a few jokes about, perhaps explan why it isn't the most appropraiate term (as compared to witch hunt) and continue talking about her penchant for victimization-mentality nonses (which, as I've said, I've been doing for quite some time no), but it isn't something to get all riled up about.

Right now, I think the person most deserving of being attacked for his rhetoric is the sheriff who turned this whole thing into a political debate. If not for him, this discussion about rhetoric could have been had in a more appropraite venue, but now it's going to end up becoming exactly what it should be trying to fix.
Now I am confused, I though you said Palin deserves whatever she gets, whether fair or not.
 
So unfairness becomes fair? How does that even make sense?

Who said that unfairness becomes fair?

I'm saying that unfairness doesn't automatically make someone a victim. Ultimately, the timing is unfair, but she could have prevented it altogether by not engaging in the tactics that she has over the past few years.
 
Now I am confused, I though you said Palin deserves whatever she gets, whether fair or not.

Sorry. I haven't been very clear. My brain is failing this week.

I'm saying she deserves criticism for her rhetoric. She doesn't deserve to be associated with the shootings.
 
Back
Top Bottom