Blood Libel

[Anonymous]

I know Sarah Palin did not mean this, but are her people aware that Blood Libel is a term that refers to the myth that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake the matzohs for Passover.

Couldn't they have at least googled it? How did they even come up with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know Sarah Palin did not mean this, but are her people aware that Blood Libel is a term that refers to the myth that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake the matzohs for Passover.

Couldn't they have at least googled it? How did they even come up with it?

I can't believe you liberals are exploiting on this situation to call Palin anti-semitic. You'll politicize anything!

[Joking!!!]

[Anonymous]

I've never heard of that expression and I'm guessing Palin hasn't either. Hopefully that isn't true that jews do that, or did that in the middle ages. Probably not, and just the result of a lack of communication back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of that expression and I'm guessing Palin hasn't either. Hopefully that isn't true that jews do that, or did that in the middle ages. Probably not, and just the result of a lack of communication back then.

Holy shit are you for real? "Probably not????" And what are you going to say next, "Maaaaybe they don't have horns?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of that expression and I'm guessing Palin hasn't either. Hopefully that isn't true that jews do that, or did that in the middle ages. Probably not, and just the result of a lack of communication back then.

Wow. I dearly hope this is just ineffective sarcasm. Otherwise it is by far the most ignorant thing I've ever read on DCUM, and the bar is pretty high for that.

[Anonymous]

It's a term that is often used these days to mean false accusations.
A WSJ writer used it 2 days ago. If you google it you'll find numerous uses of the term to refer to false accusations.

[Anonymous]

Yes, as someone else has already noted, what's scarier, that she knows what it means or that she doesn't?

Sarah Palin. She has suffered from persecution just as much as the Jews!! Must have been hard to keep the family together through all those pogroms!

[Anonymous]

You always know what Rove's followers are doing -- just watch what they accuse the opposition of. If they want to make a political attack on liberals, they do it by calling whatever liberals are saying a political attack on them. If they want to libel liberals and restrict our speech, they do it by claiming that our plea for less use of gun images is a blood libel and a limitation of their freedom of speech.

Please show me where a liberal in any public position, political or journalistic, claimed that Palin, or even Angle, actually intended that someone be assassinated.

In Angle's case, I admit that it's hard to believe she was not at least trying to scare us with the possibility of "Second Amendment remedies", but I still don't think she actually wanted it to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You always know what Rove's followers are doing -- just watch what they accuse the opposition of. If they want to make a political attack on liberals, they do it by calling whatever liberals are saying a political attack on them. If they want to libel liberals and restrict our speech, they do it by claiming that our plea for less use of gun images is a blood libel and a limitation of their freedom of speech.

Please show me where a liberal in any public position, political or journalistic, claimed that Palin, or even Angle, actually intended that someone be assassinated.

In Angle's case, I admit that it's hard to believe she was not at least trying to scare us with the possibility of "Second Amendment remedies", but I still don't think she actually wanted it to happen.

so I'm guessing you haven't been watching tv or reading the newspapers the last few days? The NY Times editorial, the outrage on MSNBC, the "Mission Accomplished" from Daily Kos, etc etc etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You always know what Rove's followers are doing -- just watch what they accuse the opposition of. If they want to make a political attack on liberals, they do it by calling whatever liberals are saying a political attack on them. If they want to libel liberals and restrict our speech, they do it by claiming that our plea for less use of gun images is a blood libel and a limitation of their freedom of speech.

Please show me where a liberal in any public position, political or journalistic, claimed that Palin, or even Angle, actually intended that someone be assassinated.

In Angle's case, I admit that it's hard to believe she was not at least trying to scare us with the possibility of "Second Amendment remedies", but I still don't think she actually wanted it to happen.

so I'm guessing you haven't been watching tv or reading the newspapers the last few days? The NY Times editorial, the outrage on MSNBC, the "Mission Accomplished" from Daily Kos, etc etc etc

I've read a fair amount of it. I saw criticism of the tone of political discourse, and pleas to decrease the gun references, but I asked specifically for accusations that anyone was intentionally encouraging assassins. Please note the distinction, because the accusation of blood libel clearly implies accusation of intent.

[Anonymous]

many on the left were saying Palin had blood on her hands.

turns out, this whack-job never even watched the news, had zero interest in politics, played violent video games all day, and was just basically batshit crazy.

the debate REALLY should be about what to do with the mentally ill - not a silly debate about political rhetoric. 50 years ago they all would be locked up in horrible institutions, but they at least were off the streets. Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of that expression and I'm guessing Palin hasn't either. Hopefully that isn't true that jews do that, or did that in the middle ages. Probably not, and just the result of a lack of communication back then.

DIng ding ding ding ding. WTF. And this is the calliber of thinkers who follow Palin. They do not think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a term that is often used these days to mean false accusations.
A WSJ writer used it 2 days ago. If you google it you'll find numerous uses of the term to refer to false accusations.

How is it "often used"? I did a google news search for the years 2000-12/31/2010. I could not find a single reference that did not have to do with Jews or Israel.

I am quite sure that conservative columnists and politicians have decided this is the term they will use in this situation. But can you show me uses of this word, other than slurs on Jews, that predate January of 2011 and this horrible event?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of that expression and I'm guessing Palin hasn't either. Hopefully that isn't true that jews do that, or did that in the middle ages. Probably not, and just the result of a lack of communication back then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/12/blood-libel-sarah-palin-arizona

Read up. Been used for almost 2,000 years by some justify attacks on Jews.

[jsteele]

Best snark of the day from Washington City Paper's Michael Schaffer: David Frum blamed pot for the Tucson shooting. It's bud libel.

http://www.frumforum.com/did-pot-trigger-giffords-shooting