Blood Libel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL. Best verbal weapon since "racism". You GOOOO Girl.

Coward. $20 for you to stand on a street corner spouting this nonsense. I highly doubt you would. You hide behind the anonymity of the internet to spout your hate because you don't have to deal with the repercussions. All you've done is demonstrate your cowardice, ignorance, general stupidity, and lack of moral center. Well played.

. Your use of the word "hate" in this context is another example of your ingrained habit of practicing blood libel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL BLOOD LIBEL. Best verbal weapon since "racism". You GOOOO Girl.

Coward. $20 for you to stand on a street corner spouting this nonsense. I highly doubt you would. You hide behind the anonymity of the internet to spout your hate because you don't have to deal with the repercussions. All you've done is demonstrate your cowardice, ignorance, general stupidity, and lack of moral center. Well played.

I'm lost. Not only can I not tell whether the first post was a parody, I can't tell whether the second is based on the assumption that it was or wasn't. My guess is that it was parody but the reply assumed it was serious. How far off am I?

Regrettably, this poster is not parody, just a douchebag with no sense of propriety or boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BLOOD LIBEL. I love you Sarah. This is the conservative answer to all liberal B.S. Race baiting is now "blood libel" too. We are finally perfecting the ability to fight back!

No you're just stupid here. This is a stupid way to fight back.

[Anonymous]

well I enjoyed trying to point out the hypocrisy of the left and the media with respect to their silly and misguided obsession over Palin, but the poster above who is fixated on Obama's smell is kinda ruining it for me. So I think today I will get some work done for a change ...

[Anonymous]

who's hypocritical now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/rush-limbaugh-jared-loughner-full-support-democrat_n_807543.html

[Anonymous]

do you get worked up over everything Howard Stern says as well? shock jocks. relax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:well I enjoyed trying to point out the hypocrisy of the left and the media with respect to their silly and misguided obsession over Palin, but the poster above who is fixated on Obama's smell is kinda ruining it for me. So I think today I will get some work done for a change ...

Yes, it's like you are having an adult conversation and your toddler doesn't like it, so he flings his bowl of cheerios to get you to pay attention to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who's hypocritical now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/rush-limbaugh-jared-loughner-full-support-democrat_n_807543.html

If anything anyone has said recently comes close to deserving the description "blood libel", Limbaugh's accusation that the Democratic Party supports Loughner is it. The PP who compared Limbaugh to Howard Stern owes Stern an apology. [Note: The last sentence was not meant as a criticism of that PP, just a bit of hyperbole.]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:who's hypocritical now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/rush-limbaugh-jared-loughner-full-support-democrat_n_807543.html

If anything anyone has said recently comes close to deserving the description "blood libel", Limbaugh's accusation that the Democratic Party supports Loughner is it. The PP who compared Limbaugh to Howard Stern owes Stern an apology. [Note: The last sentence was not meant as a criticism of that PP, just a bit of hyperbole.]

None of this "conversation" would ever have begun, and we would not have had to listen to Sarah Palin defend herself or Rush Limbaugh enter the fray, if liberals hadn't tried to associate her with the Arizona killings--a really despiscable association. Ongoing criticism of her and her campaign strategies would have been sufficient. Besides, it's just amazing how fixated liberals are with her; and she just thrives on the attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this "conversation" would ever have begun, and we would not have had to listen to Sarah Palin defend herself or Rush Limbaugh enter the fray, if liberals hadn't tried to associate her with the Arizona killings--a really despiscable association. Ongoing criticism of her and her campaign strategies would have been sufficient. Besides, it's just amazing how fixated liberals are with her; and she just thrives on the attention.

There is a difference between liberals saying that a maniac with a gun makes us even more queasy about gun rhetoric than before, and implying that the rhetoric caused the violence. And it ought to be possible for conservatives to say they never had any intention to foment violence, but will nevertheless try to tone down the gun references if only out of respect for the victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Who cares. It is so perfectly desriptive even a moron an understand it. GENIUS!

To someone who knows what the term really means, it's like she's going around calling black people "coloreds". That's not genius. It shows ignorance. In any other situation, an ordinary person would be embarrassed to find out they have been using a racial slur in conversation.

But somehow, because it's Palin, we are required to "redefine" the term. So now coloreds could just mean "people who don't seem to vote for me". And if I say "hey, do you know coloreds is a slur against black people?" Here is what I have to put up with:

*Did black people copyright it? Is it forever usable in only one situation?
*"Coloreds" is a term that is often used to describe political opponents. I saw it in the Wall Street Journal 2 days ago.
*James Meredith is quoted saying it's OK and he's one of them (I mean one of the "old" them) (bonus if you get the irony)
*It appears she is using the term exactly within its historical meaning, namely that none of those people ever vote for us
*You sound like muslims that don't like the term raghead
*Who cares. Coloreds so perfectly descriptive even a moron can understand it. GENIUS!

And to that I say, it is genius. Because the new meaning of "moron" is Palin supporter.

I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Even if you agree with Alan Dershowitz (and Deborah Tannen made a similar point about the term meaning something beyond false accusations against Jews) the term itself is rather graphic considering the context is a massacre. Why would blood anything end up in a speech about a massacre? It is just a bizarre choice for a speechwriter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this "conversation" would ever have begun, and we would not have had to listen to Sarah Palin defend herself or Rush Limbaugh enter the fray, if liberals hadn't tried to associate her with the Arizona killings--a really despiscable association. Ongoing criticism of her and her campaign strategies would have been sufficient. Besides, it's just amazing how fixated liberals are with her; and she just thrives on the attention.

There is a difference between liberals saying that a maniac with a gun makes us even more queasy about gun rhetoric than before, and implying that the rhetoric caused the violence. And it ought to be possible for conservatives to say they never had any intention to foment violence, but will nevertheless try to tone down the gun references if only out of respect for the victims.

Oh, okay. I'm assuming you don't think liberals need to tone anything down? Just conservatives, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this "conversation" would ever have begun, and we would not have had to listen to Sarah Palin defend herself or Rush Limbaugh enter the fray, if liberals hadn't tried to associate her with the Arizona killings--a really despiscable association. Ongoing criticism of her and her campaign strategies would have been sufficient. Besides, it's just amazing how fixated liberals are with her; and she just thrives on the attention.

There is a difference between liberals saying that a maniac with a gun makes us even more queasy about gun rhetoric than before, and implying that the rhetoric caused the violence. And it ought to be possible for conservatives to say they never had any intention to foment violence, but will nevertheless try to tone down the gun references if only out of respect for the victims.

Unfortunately, that's not all that liberals have said about Sarah Palin. She doesn't appeal to me as a potential leader of this country, but I think she's been unjustly associated with the Arizona shootings. Speaking with soft voices, hushed tones, and polished speech doesn't lessen the wrong of suggesting she was to blame.

[Anonymous]

A Washington Times editiorial defends the term "blood libel" and goes a step further (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/wash_times_criticism_of_palins_blood_libel_part_of.php?ref=fpb):

This is simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers.

Do they know what pogroms were? Is the next step to tell us liberals we're "Christ killers"?

It goes on to say

Columnist Paul Krugman took advantage of the murders to tar conservative icon Rush Limbaugh and Fox News superstar Glenn Beck as "hate-mongers." It's this sort of reflexive and dastardly mudslinging that drowns out reasoned discussion of public-policy alternatives and poisons the well of political debate in America.

In my opinion, that statement by the WT is precisely the "sort of reflexive and dastardly mudslinging that drowns out reasoned discussion of public-policy alternatives and poisons the well of political debate in America." As usual, you can tell exactly what the Rove-trained are doing by looking at what they are accusing their opponents of.