• 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"

Do I understand it correctly, Palin is comparing the heated opposition she is facing (which she fueled herself with equally heated rhetorics) with the persecution of Jews by the Nazis?

No, you obviously don't understand it correctly.

You should have waited for a response or done some research before you continued with your post.
 
You know what "blood libel" means, do you?

I think Deershowitz could probably provide it much better then any of us. I have yet to meet a jew (and I am jewish) in the real world that has found the term offensive:

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.

Http://biggovernment.com/publius/20...defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
 
Let the people on the left, who started these attacks against the right, shut their mouths and I’m betting that the issue will fade away.

Palin herself, in person, used the term "blood libel". There is proof for that on video. That's not something the left invented and claimed she said, although she didn't. Right?

I understand you're fond of Palin, nice and fine, that's your right, but can you accept that even your idol has to take responsibility for what she says? It's not that the evil liberals made her say that.
 
Palin herself, in person, used the term "blood libel". There is proof for that on video. That's not something the left invented and claimed she said, although she didn't. Right?

I understand you're fond of Palin, nice and fine, that's your right, but can you accept that even your idol has to take responsibility for what she says? It's not that the evil liberals made her say that.

So what if she did use the term?

So what? Many have used the term and it's in the public domain. There is no one word or phrase that is verboten to repeat.

The great majority of the Jewish people apparently dont mind so why should you? Are you Jewish?
 
The complaints against Sarah Palin from her political opponents will probably be the first time any of them ever came out defending Jews, or being distraught and upset on their behalf.

Funny, and probably very true. The piece that upsets me about the whole thing, is that I am not even a fan of Palin. I would vote for nearly any other republican before her... But all this stupid crap that the left obsesses about, forces me to defend her. It's really one of the last things i want to do.
 
I think Deershowitz could probably provide it much better then any of us. I have yet to meet a jew (and I am jewish) in the real world that has found the term offensive:
Http://biggovernment.com/publius/20...defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/

Whatever some Palin apologists claim or say, in the real universe, you know, the one that actually exists, everybody who hears the term "blood libel" and has basic historical knowledge, associates this term with anti-Semitic accusations against Jews.

I don't buy into all the vocal apologisms that are now being made, with the only purpose to deflect responsibility from Palin for what she said.

It's one of the things that seem increasingly ****ed up about debate culture: Even when a politician says "dark" one day in person on national tv, there are all kinds of hyper-partisan soldiers and hacks vocally explaining he actually meant "light" when the politician is called on it, and asked to take responsibility for it.

Seriously, can't people knee-jerk reactions to blame the opponent for everything bad that happens, and admit mistake, at least once?
 
Do I understand it correctly, Palin is comparing the heated opposition she is facing (which she fueled herself with equally heated rhetorics) with the persecution of Jews by the Nazis?

WTF? Is she even in her right mind? Could it become any more tasteless?

I didn't like Palin before and this certainly doesn't help to change my opinion.

At any rate, I'm glad so many here agree that all sides should tone down their rhetorics. We're all not enemies, but opponents at worst, who respectfully disagree what's best for the country, and politicians run in fair competitions against each other. We shouldn't forget that.



YOu are more upset about her use of the term, than the head of the ADL and a bunch of rabbi's posted above.
 
Whatever some Palin apologists claim or say, in the real universe, you know, the one that actually exists, everybody who hears the term "blood libel" and has basic historical knowledge, associates this term with anti-Semitic accusations against Jews.

I don't buy into all the vocal apologisms that are now being made, with the only purpose to deflect responsibility from Palin for what she said.

It's one of the things that seem increasingly ****ed up about debate culture: Even when a politician says "dark" one day in person on national tv, there are all kinds of hyper-partisan soldiers and hacks vocally explaining he actually meant "light" when the politician is called on it, and asked to take responsibility for it.

Seriously, can't people knee-jerk reactions to blame the opponent for everything bad that happens, and admit mistake, at least once?

Yeah.. Alan Dershowitz is a Palin apologist. You've pretty much lost any semblance of credibility.
 
So what if she did use the term?

So what? Many have used the term and it's in the public domain. There is no one word or phrase that is verboten to repeat.

The great majority of the Jewish people apparently dont mind so why should you? Are you Jewish?

Of course she is legally allowed to use this term. She'd also legally allowed to say she is the "most persecuted person on earth since Jesus Christ", as Berlusconi in Italy once did.

That doesn't mean she has no responsibility for the implications and context of what she said.

Just because you're allowed to say something, doesn't mean you 1) have to stand to its meaning and 2) accept when people call you on it.
 
Funny, and probably very true. The piece that upsets me about the whole thing, is that I am not even a fan of Palin. I would vote for nearly any other republican before her... But all this stupid crap that the left obsesses about, forces me to defend her. It's really one of the last things i want to do.

Then you would be someone interested in the truth of the matter, where a sense of honor is valued, and not among those parroting their insincere indignations about something which, until Sarah Palin used the phrase, held no interest for them.
 
Let's look at the term "Blood Libel", folks. It originated as a false accusation that Jewish people used the blood of Gentile children in various religious ceremonies, and was intended to create the impression that Jewish people were so evil that they would indulge in the intentional murder of children. It was a heinous accusation applied against an entire ethic group utilized to create hatred against that group.

What has occured with Palin, however, is that people are questioning her actual behavior in such a way as to draw a connection between her behavior and whatever contribution such behavior might have played in recent events. Such questioning has revolved around what she HAS done rather than being made up, has NOT accused her of anything so heinous as the intentional murder of children, and has NOT targeted an ethnic group.

Calling criticisms of her behavior a blood libel is really grasping at straws, here, especially since the target was a Jewish woman. Sure, people want the term to mean anything they darn well please, but the only way the term could be expanded beyond its original meaning would be through attaching a particularly diabolical false characteristic to a whole group of people. This has not occurred here.
 
Whatever some Palin apologists claim or say, in the real universe, you know, the one that actually exists, everybody who hears the term "blood libel" and has basic historical knowledge, associates this term with anti-Semitic accusations against Jews.

I don't buy into all the vocal apologisms that are now being made, with the only purpose to deflect responsibility from Palin for what she said.

It's one of the things that seem increasingly ****ed up about debate culture: Even when a politician says "dark" one day in person on national tv, there are all kinds of hyper-partisan soldiers and hacks vocally explaining he actually meant "light" when the politician is called on it, and asked to take responsibility for it.

Seriously, can't people knee-jerk reactions to blame the opponent for everything bad that happens, and admit mistake, at least once?

Are you equally as upset with the dozens of other people that have used the term exactly the same way as Palin did ???
 
Yeah.. Alan Dershowitz is a Palin apologist. You've pretty much lost any semblance of credibility.

You can't pretend she didn't want to evoke associations with the historical persecution of Jews, when she said it, can you?
 
Are you equally as upset with the dozens of other people that have used the term exactly the same way as Palin did ???

I haven't heard it from anyone else recently, but it goes without saying that I'd find it just as inappropriate and tasteless if another politician in a free political system used it to describe opposition to him, no matter if Democrat or Republican, leftist or rightie.
 
I haven't heard it from anyone else recently, but it goes without saying that I'd find it just as inappropriate and tasteless if another politician in a free political system used it to describe opposition to him, no matter if Democrat or Republican, leftist or rightie.



I wonder why that is? Is it because it's offensive, not offensive, or is it because a few "true believers" will use this to crusify her on thier crusade against her....


ADL and Rabbi's have come out and said "Meh, not a big deal".....
 
You can't pretend she didn't want to evoke associations with the historical persecution of Jews, when she said it, can you?

Asks the guy that thinks dershowitz (another Jew) is just a Palin appologist.
 
Of course she is legally allowed to use this term. She'd also legally allowed to say she is the "most persecuted person on earth since Jesus Christ", as Berlusconi in Italy once did.

That doesn't mean she has no responsibility for the implications and context of what she said.

Just because you're allowed to say something, doesn't mean you 1) have to stand to its meaning and 2) accept when people call you on it.

So you are calling her on it in defense of the Jewish people, are you? Defending those Jews the world over who were offended by this phrase?

Are you quite certain they're looking for your assistance?
 
Let's look at the term "Blood Libel", folks. It originated as a false accusation that Jewish people used the blood of Gentile children in various religious ceremonies, and was intended to create the impression that Jewish people were so evil that they would indulge in the intentional murder of children. It was a heinous accusation applied against an entire ethic group utilized to create hatred against that group.

What has occured with Palin, however, is that people are questioning her actual behavior in such a way as to draw a connection between her behavior and whatever contribution such behavior might have played in recent events. Such questioning has revolved around what she HAS done rather than being made up, has NOT accused her of anything so heinous as the intentional murder of children, and has NOT targeted an ethnic group.

Calling criticisms of her behavior a blood libel is really grasping at straws, here, especially since the target was a Jewish woman. Sure, people want the term to mean anything they darn well please, but the only way the term could be expanded beyond its original meaning would be through attaching a particularly diabolical false characteristic to a whole group of people. This has not occurred here.

Well said.

I'd also add that neither Palin nor her supporters are politically or ethnically in a situation comparable to the Jews in Europe and other places, where they were persecuted and slandered with "blood libel". Palin is member of an established and respected mainstream political party, she and her party are neither oppressed nor ostracized, there are no pogromes, persecution or legal discrimination, let alone a Holocaust against Palin, the Tea Party or the Republicans.

Palin likes harsh and heated rhetorics. By using such rhetorics, she has contributed making the debate climate heated in general. And now she complains when similarly heated rhetorics and accusations are returned, even fueling a myth of persecution?

I think of the old saying "who gives punches needs the guts to take some too", or "as you shout into the forest, so will it shout back". Palin likes shrill rhetorics, and you may find that good or bad, but at very least, she should have the guts to accept a similar response. Comparing this response to the horrible persecution of Jews in past Europe is not just inappropriate, but very tasteless.
 
I wonder why that is? Is it because it's offensive, not offensive, or is it because a few "true believers" will use this to crusify her on thier crusade against her....

ADL and Rabbi's have come out and said "Meh, not a big deal".....

It's because it is very bad debate style. And yes, I believe it is disrespectful towards the memory of past Jewish persecution. In a way, it's even a variation of Godwin's Law. A rabbi may disagree, but I am sure there are quite a few people, Jews and non-Jews alike, who feel the same.
 
It's because it is very bad debate style. And yes, I believe it is disrespectful towards the memory of past Jewish persecution. In a way, it's even a variation of Godwin's Law. A rabbi may disagree, but I am sure there are quite a few people, Jews and non-Jews alike, who feel the same.


Actually, the only folks "outraged" over this, are far left folk and certain elements of the media.... Do a search, find me some jewish leaders who are up in arms about this....


I for one found Hillary's comparing loughner to islamic terrorists, infering right wing extremism is a problem like they have in the ME, far more abhorrent.
 
The Left-wing can only spout their inner core of character ..
they are the perpetrators of projection ..
the Left-wing is totally guilty of what they accuse the Right-wing of . . .
I thing they would like to create a platform for violence
( since they can't win at the ballot box or the arena of ideas ) . . . yes,
the verbal violence is now on parade ..
come join me where this issue is a little more defined . . . please click here
yall have a great day ..
dadman



 
Last edited:
I haven't heard it from anyone else recently, but it goes without saying that I'd find it just as inappropriate and tasteless if another politician in a free political system used it to describe opposition to him, no matter if Democrat or Republican, leftist or rightie.

You might want to take time to re-examine your sensitivity threshold, German Guy. Raise the bar a little.

No Jewish people appear bothered by the phrase so you might want to seek out other public phrases where you might be offended. But next time chose one that might get you some credibility.
 
It's because it is very bad debate style. And yes, I believe it is disrespectful towards the memory of past Jewish persecution. In a way, it's even a variation of Godwin's Law. A rabbi may disagree, but I am sure there are quite a few people, Jews and non-Jews alike, who feel the same.

Well if you search diligently enough you might be able to find one or two Jews who were offended. Be sure to check back when you discover who they are.

It's so noble of you to take up this struggle on their behalf.
 
Back
Top Bottom