• 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"

ReverendHellh0und said:
Do a search, find me some jewish leaders who are up in arms about this....
Click to expand...

ask and ye shall receive

Palin slammed for using ‘blood libel’ term | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

Palin slammed for using ‘blood libel’ term
January 12, 2011
(JTA) -- Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" to decry blaming conservatives for the Arizona shooting has raised the ire of some in the Jewish community.

In a video statement released Wednesday when she said that “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them. Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

The blood libel refers to accusations that began in the Middle Ages that Jews used the blood of murdered Christian children to make matzah for Passover.

Palin has been criticized since the shooting for using images of a gun crosshair to identify vulnerable districts in the November elections, including that of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was shot in the head and seriously injured in the Jan. 8 attack at a Tucson shopping mall that left six dead and at least a dozen injured.

Jewish Funds for Justice President Simon Greer was among the Jewish figures who said Palin erred in using the "blood label" term. He pointed out in a statement that the term is not a synonym for false accusation but rather refers to a specific false accusation, adding that Palin's usage is "totally out of line."

"Sarah Palin did not shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Only the perpetrator can be found guilty for this act of terrorism," Greer said. "But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin’s map showing her district in the crosshairs. Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator."

Hank Sheinkopf, a Jewish New York-based Democratic political consultant told Politico that "The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews -- the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable. This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.”

Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin, however, said the politician was justified in using the term.

"Sarah Palin got it right, and we Jews, of all people, should know a blood libel when we see one," said Benyamin Korn, the group' s director. "Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is a blood libel, whether it's medieval Christians accusing Jews of baking blood in Passover matzahs, or contemporary Muslim extremists accusing Israel of slaughtering Arabs to harvest their organs, or political partisans blaming conservative political figures and talk show hosts for the Tucson massacre."

Among others who criticized Palin's use of blood libel included J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami and David Harris, the president and CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

"When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words," Ben-Ami said.

Harris said that "All we had asked following this weekend's tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin's invocation of a 'blood libel' charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction."
Click to expand...

You are welcome.
 
German guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
German guy said:
You can't pretend she didn't want to evoke associations with the historical persecution of Jews, when she said it, can you?
Click to expand...

Geez... Give it a rest.

She meant it in the modern way it's used in American English. Even the Anti Defamation League acknowledged that.
 
everybody who hears the term "blood libel" and has basic historical knowledge, associates this term with anti-Semitic accusations against Jews.
Click to expand...

I’m betting that you had never heard of “Blood Liable” before and that 70% of our population had heard the tem before last week.

inappropriate and tasteless if another politician in a free political system used it to describe opposition to him,
Click to expand...

She didn’t use the term to describe opposition to her – as to say that she was suffering a “Blood Liable” - but to correctly imply that the liberal horde is accusing her of being liable for the blood shed.

[/quote]Defending those Jews the world over who were offended by this phrase?[/quote]

I have yet to see a Jew on TV complaining about this statement.

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.
Click to expand...

Do any of you media and left wing dog apologists have one comment from Palin that you think is valid to question as to whether or not that statement had anything to do with the AZ shootings????????????
 
German guy said:
You can't pretend she didn't want to evoke associations with the historical persecution of Jews, when she said it, can you?
Click to expand...

I am sure she knew damn well what it meant in all contexts. Using it was brilliant because once again she got under the left's skin, and they once again revealed how dim THEY are.

The left really does fear Palin, not because she's stupid, but because she very clearly reveals what direction she would take the country. If she were a SCOTUS justice, she'd be an originalist. That freaks the left out, just as Reagan had.

.
 
zimmer said:
I am sure she knew damn well what it meant in all contexts. Using it was brilliant because once again she got under the left's skin, and they once again revealed how dim THEY are.

The left really does fear Palin, not because she's stupid, but because she very clearly reveals what direction she would take the country. If she were a SCOTUS justice, she'd be an originalist. That freaks the left out, just as Reagan had.

.
Click to expand...

By "originalist" do you mean she can't think of any decisions she disagrees with outside of Roe v Wade? :rofl
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
By "originalist" do you mean she can't think of any decisions she disagrees with outside of Roe v Wade? :rofl
Click to expand...


here you go IT, Just for you....


Eight Reasons to be an Originalist
1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.

2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court.

3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.

4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision).

5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations.

6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.

7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt. [Can the same be said for a court 100 or 200 years from now?]

8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them.


Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
Click to expand...


Bet you disagree with all of them don't you?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
here you go IT, Just for you....





Bet you disagree with all of them don't you?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Interesting page. I like it.

Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist
1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.
2. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.
3. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine. Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side. In such cases, why not produce the result that will best promote the public good? It's better than flipping a coin.
4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)
5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.
6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly).
7. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that.
8. Nazi Germany: Originalist German judges did not exercise the power they might have to prevent or slow down inhumane programs.

Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
here you go IT, Just for you....





Bet you disagree with all of them don't you?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Personally, I agree with most of those, but there are some issues with 3 and 8.

For 3, the fact that there was a lot of disagreement even back in the late 1700's regarding what the intent of the caluses were. There were essentialy two camps on it, even back then.

Do Jefferson, Madison, and their side get pimacy in these deliberations of intent, or do Hamilton, Adams, and their side get primacy? (This is post-ratification. Hamilton's stances shifted to a more loose interpretation-friendly position compared to the ones he supported in the Federalist papers).

Do they mix and match? If so, then it ends up being the same situation we have now, IMO.

As far as 8 goes, I don't think that there will be any impetus to reconsider and/or repeal/ammend bad laws which are popular. The ultimate belief that one should have while supporting an originalist philosophy is that state and local law-makers will defintiely pass laws that one, personally, abhors. If it is a state or locality different form tehir own, they are left with two viable options: deal with it or support an ammendment disallowing those sorts of laws.


My problem is that I have rarely encountered people who are truly originalist. Most people today who support this kind of approach are far more willing to allow for loose interpretations when the interpretations are in keeping with their own personal values on an issue, instead of taking the originalist philosophy even when it acts as a hindrance for some issue that they support.

From what I've seen, Palin falls firmly into this inconsistent category.
 
Tucker Case said:
Personally, I agree with most of those, but there are some issues with 3 and 8.

For 3, the fact that there was a lot of disagreement even back in the late 1700's regarding what the intent of the caluses were. There were essentialy two camps on it, even back then.

Do Jefferson, Madison, and their side get pimacy in these deliberations of intent, or do Hamilton, Adams, and their side get primacy? (This is post-ratification. Hamilton's stances shifted to a more loose interpretation-friendly position compared to the ones he supported in the Federalist papers).

Do they mix and match? If so, then it ends up being the same situation we have now, IMO.

As far as 8 goes, I don't think that there will be any impetus to reconsider and/or repeal/ammend bad laws which are popular. The ultimate belief that one should have while supporting an originalist philosophy is that state and local law-makers will defintiely pass laws that one, personally, abhors. If it is a state or locality different form tehir own, they are left with two viable options: deal with it or support an ammendment disallowing those sorts of laws.


My problem is that I have rarely encountered people who are truly originalist. Most people today who support this kind of approach are far more willing to allow for loose interpretations when the interpretations are in keeping with their own personal values on an issue, instead of taking the originalist philosophy even when it acts as a hindrance for some issue that they support.

From what I've seen, Palin falls firmly into this inconsistent category.
Click to expand...


Your own cynicism aside, are you saying that you are in favor of unelected judges making law?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Your own cynicism aside, are you saying that you are in favor of unelected judges making law?


j-mac
Click to expand...

It's not cynicism that leads me to those conclusions about those two reasons, but my knowledge of history and modern politics.

And no, I'm not in favor of unelected judges making law.

Unfortunately, some of the "originalists" listed on that link you provided support it themselvees when it occurs regarding issues they support.

My problem is that very very few people are really originalists. There are always some issues that they support which are a product of legislating from the bench.

I'd be in favor of true originalism.
 
zimmer said:
I am sure she knew damn well what it meant in all contexts. Using it was brilliant because once again she got under the left's skin, and they once again revealed how dim THEY are.

The left really does fear Palin, not because she's stupid, but because she very clearly reveals what direction she would take the country. If she were a SCOTUS justice, she'd be an originalist. That freaks the left out, just as Reagan had.

.
Click to expand...

You are correct, we on the left do not fear her because she is stupid (I thought she was merely ignorant, until she made this You Tube video, which removed all doubt on her intellectual capacity), we fear her only because its beyond belief that people actually take her seriously.
 
Last edited:
Sarah Palin isn't a politician, she's a media stunt, and that's exactly what she wants to be. She revealed exactly how much she cares about politics and what direction she wants to take when she QUIT her job as governor and got into reality TV. She's just another Snooki, except instead of being Italian and from Jersey she's a white good ol' girl from Alaska.
 
upsideguy said:
You are correct, we on the left do not fear her because she is stupid (I thought she was merely ignorant, until she made this You Tube video, which removed all doubt on her intellectual capacity), we fear her only because its beyond belief that people actually take her seriously.
Click to expand...

Johnny Centrist said:
Sarah Palin isn't a politician, she's a media stunt, and that's exactly what she wants to be. She revealed exactly how much she cares about politics and what direction she wants to take when she QUIT her job as governor and got into reality TV. She's just another Snooki, except instead of being Italian and from Jersey she's a white good ol' girl from Alaska.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

We have both a median stunt, an incompetent, and economic illiterate, but a pretty good slim shady in the White House right now. Whether it is the Cambridge Cops incident, the idiocy of talks with enemies without preconditions, stating the world will look at us differently when HE is elected, mismanaging our economy, pissing on The Constitution by forcing socialist ObamaKare through by ignoring the people and using buy-offs... going back on a whole raft of promises... this guy is a wrecking ball.

Unlike Obama, what Palin stands for is pretty clear, doesn't require slim shady campaigning. She actually would follow The Constitution and believes in limited, not unlimited government. Unlike Obama, she did not have to sprint from her past, unlike Obama she hasn't had to thrown anyone under the bus. Unlike Obama, Palin embraces Liberty.

Palin has been masterful at playing the left, and Obama's journOlists have tried hard to bring her down. Death Panels... where the government is The Decider and is always the decider when it takes over HealthKare was spot on, now this bit about blood libel after the idiot left tried so transparently to indict her for one deranged clown's behavior. You folks try your best, but she keeps turning around, sloughing the flees off, and then grinding you into the pavement. Not too bad for a supposed dimwit.

There are fundamantal differences between Obama and Palin. Palin actually believes in the pillars that make this country work. Obama wants them changed.

As Palin so aptly put it... how's that Hopey, Changey thing working for ya?

Yes WE Can get rid of Obama was the message of the last election... this was Part 1... a historic and decisive ass kicking of the left at all levels of government across the country... hugely because Obama was not a Uniter, but came in and then revealed he actualy is an Alinsky trained, ACORN organizing, Wright poisoned, Ayers chumming... Marxist Ideologue.

And being the idiot ideologue he is... he chastizes SCOTUS justices for making a decision that goes against his hard left ideology. Now you want to talk about petty and stupid? Obama is your man. By comparison, Palin is a brain surgeon.

.
 
Last edited:
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
Eminem campaigned for Obama?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of, but when Eminem's Slim Shady is play'in... Obama stands up because he and everyone knows HE's the real Slim Shady.

Then he bows.

.
 
German guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deutsche Dude,

What was offensive was Sher'f Dumb**** and the journOlists attempting to smear Palin, Limbaugh and The Tea Party with the blood of the victims, and damn near before the bodies were cold.

Palin once again gutted the Left and exposed the pathetic, disgusting attempts at defamation, and turned the focus on THEM.

If you look at her response in an intellectual manner, she once again exhibited brilliance. She took the focus of the inane, transparent attempts of the Left to isolate and defang their opponents, and turned it against them, changing the focus of the discussion. In relation to martial arts, it is as if she was attacked by a 10 million pound beast and with a deft, almost invisible maneuver, turned their move against the 10 million pound disgusting Democrat(s) in a fatal manner.

And she's the stupid one? :roll:

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Deutsche Dude,

What was offensive was Sher'f Dumb**** and the journOlists attempting to smear Palin, Limbaugh and The Tea Party with the blood of the victims, and damn near before the bodies were cold.

Palin once again gutted the Left and exposed the pathetic, disgusting attempts at defamation, and turned the focus on THEM.

If you look at her response in an intellectual manner, she once again exhibited brilliance. She took the focus of the inane, transparent attempts of the Left to isolate and defang their opponents, and turned it against them, changing the focus of the discussion. In relation to martial arts, it is as if she was attacked by a 10 million pound beast and with a deft, almost invisible maneuver, turned their move against the 10 million pound disgusting Democrat(s) in a fatal manner.

And she's the stupid one? :roll:

.
Click to expand...

I agree. I now support her for President in 2012. She didn't let this crisis go to waste.
 
zimmer said:
If you look at her response in an intellectual manner, she once again exhibited brilliance. She took the focus of the inane, transparent attempts of the Left to isolate and defang their opponents, and turned it against them, changing the focus of the discussion. In relation to martial arts, it is as if she was attacked by a 10 million pound beast and with a deft, almost invisible maneuver, turned their move against the 10 million pound disgusting Democrat(s) in a fatal manner.

And she's the stupid one? :roll:

.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct Zim....the GOP Should absolutely let Palin lead the party with the same leadership that she showed in this tragic event. With Sarah at the helm, she will take the GOP exactly where it should be!!!

Sarah Palin 2012!!!!
 
disneydude said:
You are absolutely correct Zim....the GOP Should absolutely let Palin lead the party with the same leadership that she showed in this tragic event. With Sarah at the helm, she will take the GOP exactly where it should be!!!

Sarah Palin 2012!!!!
Click to expand...



wait you mean by responding to the lies and smear of your ilk on the woman, this citizen defended herself, and we are comparing her "leadership" (who does she lead?) with the presidents.


You funny.
 
we fear her only because its beyond belief that people actually take her seriously.
Click to expand...

But you don’t fear the liberal horde that supports Nancy Pelosi??

She didn't let this crisis go to waste.
Click to expand...


So, you think that Palin, some how, tricked the idiot sheriff and the liberal horde into attack her??
 
I do NOT think anyone has polled the nation as to how they feel about the good Sheriff of Tuscon, but CNN has just announced their latest poll on Ms. Palin taken over the last two weeks. It seems that she is falling fast and falling like a stone. Her negatives are up - her positives are down. In fact, a clear majoirty of the public - 56% indicate that they have an UNFAVORABLE opinion of her. Those claiming a FAVORABLE opinion number only at 38%. That is a swing of seven points in the negative direction since the same poll asked the same question back in October just before the Republican election wins.

I was hoping that this would not happen until the day after the GOP convention in the summer of 2012 when she was the official party choice for the White House.

Of course, 38% would probably be enough to win some early GOP presidential primaries in a crowded field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom