• 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"


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


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 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:


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


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

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.
 

Her stupid Tea Party rhetoric is/was believed to have caused the killing.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…