Palin: Blood Libel Claim

other links

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47477.html

Video...down right now

http://vimeo.com/18698532

I think it has also been applied to Christians, not that that excuses her though. Yet again she goes for the jugular.

Doesn't the term 'blood libel' refer to a slanderous allegation that a person or group has blood on their hands because of a particular action?

Looking at it from Palin's POV, wouldn't she be absolutely correct in applying such terminology?

Going for the jugular. Such RHETORIC! I'm sure someone somewhere will be be murdered today and this language contributed to it!

The blood and blame should obviously be on your hands!

People are seeking to exploit this by claiming she is responsible for a psychotic murder spree and that is just fine. Her response is the only thing inappropriate or going "for the jugular."

This is profoundly hypocritical. You justify murder on one hand with words, and on the other hand condemn words as a response to a climate created by other words.

The word holocaust is used in many historical contexts.

I think it's very clear what Palin is saying, that she is being unfairly accused of being culpable for murder.

There you go blurring the lines again.

I take it your "you justify murder", was a Rush influence. I see your with him on that one.

Please Trumpt let's try and keep this grounded in reality. I don't think anyone thinks Palin drove this killer to kill, she certainly wasn't in the driving seat. There's some debate whether she was, so to speak, a back seat driver, as there should be given Giffords concerns especially.

So let's look at this without putting words, false words into our opponents mouths. That pollutes the dialogue and makes it harder to prevent this kind of violence.

I read a page that said this term was used against numerous groups in history, was that inaccurate info I read? Clearly though, me being completely ignorant of the term before now doesn't mean it doesn't hold definitive meaning. If you (and everyone else) believe correctly that this means what you say, then it's surely an attempt to provoke more discussion that she perceives will benefit her in some way. That, I have no words for.

This is you being ironic right?


Since I don't listen to the man I don't know what you are talking about. However this really would be a prime example of "putting words, false words into our opponents mouths. That pollutes the dialogue" if ever there were one.


Can any discussion be grounded in reality when you ignore what is said declaring it must come from another source?


This claim is completely bogus and baseless. There is no link between the two whatsoever. The guy didn't cite Palin, write the Palin, claim Palin, nothing Palin. There isn't even a claim to a similar ideology for goodness sakes.

This is pretty much like trying to blame Jodie Foster for the attemped murder of President Ronald Reagan by John Hinkley.


Please take your own advice.

The term I used "back seat driver" I think was a bit strong and I regret posting it. I think that that's unfair to Palin and she doesn't deserve it in this instance. So a genuine apology from me to all who read that. What I was trying to say is that when people are exposed to what may be perceived wrongly violent symbols or rhetoric, that can influence people in ways that could be dangerous. I think there's evidence of this too so it's not a baseless claim.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Analyzing Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Accusation

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

The Giffords Blood Libel Will Fail
The Term Blood Libel: More Common Than You Might Think

WBC has decided not to picket her service. Our thoughts should go our to her and the other victims. Sad such innocence of potential lost so early in her life.

I'm going to declare that the Washington Post has let their political bias get in the way of the facts with regard to writing headlines.

Wishing she used a different word while not declaring what she did to be wrong. As the story notes, it doesn't demand an apology, demand she retract it, or anything else. It simply notes that they wish she had used a different word.

Condemn has an actual meaning. This doesn't meet it. It in no form declares her to be wrong, reprehensible, guilty, or anything else. So the W.P. can spin with their headline, but it doesn't change the facts.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

what don't blame HIM for the shooting,
does he play video games, violent video games, did he read the book about "how to assasinate gw bush, maybe his music pushed him, those aguments never work the artists are "protected"

but what about the many people seeing his problem did nothing, sin of omission
how thick is his file for local law enforcement, they did nothing, no intervention

Given Gifford is Jewish it should have been obvious to Palin the term "blood libel" was very inappropriate therefore I lean heavily towards her using the term deliberately to benefit herself in some nefarious way.

Reasoning understood:

Those who shot Gifford in the head are excused because they were merely unstable and under the influence of violent rhetoric. The rhetoric didn't come from movies, or videogames but from Sarah Palin. The proof of this is unicorns whispering it to us.

Those who made the claim that Sarah Palin had blood on her hands are excused because they want a nice calm climate and if a few baseless claims get tossed out and break a few eggs, that is just fine because the ends justify the means.

Sarah Palin is wrong because she put a graphic on a map. We aren't sure if anyone acted on that graphic and can't show how her rhetoric is really different than anyone else but we have this map and are upset about it. Likewise Giffords is Jewish and we don't like the term she used to defend herself against the baseless and libel claims.

In summary, everyone else right. Sarah Palin wrong in both existing and defending herself against claims.

In a logical world, this statement would end the nonsense being thrown about here. Knowing PO, I won't hold my breath.

Palin's use of the term 'blood libel' demonstrates that she is, at the very least, profoundly undiplomatic... that is if she is aware of the term, its meaning, and the lie that it represents.

If she is not aware of the meaning of the term, then she demonstrates profound ignorance, and shouldn't have used it.

Perhaps she is a closet Jew hater, and inadvertently let the truth out in an unguarded moment.

No matter what, her words have demonstrated that she is profoundly unsuitable for any political office, let alone presidential candidate for the Republican party.

Perhaps, as in Bill O'Reilly's terminology, she should STFU. For good.

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."

-- Thomas Paine

I'm going to put you on ignore for a while and I'm quite sure you know why.

Personally, I have never heard of the term "blood libel" before today. My childhood has some striking similarities to Sarah Palin's (moved to small pacific coast village at age 10, she did at age 8, both have ties to Idaho), and it does not surprise or concern me that she didn't know the history of the term either.

She would make a horrible president for entirely other reasons than this.

I understand. When people are proven so profoundly wrong and caught in such a bad spot, they need to go ignore the cause for a bit and lick their wounds.

In the future try not to rush in and accuse people of being complicit with mass murder okay? Thanks.

How interesting that so many of the lefties are on the ignore list of you righties

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

~Noam Chomsky

{\\\\||//}______-Noam is still alive and kicking therefore your name is misleading_____{\\\\||//}

Freedom of expression should be equally applied to all and I think your mistaken if you think anyone here wouldn't agree with that. Someone who clearly doesn't agree with that is Palin. She's allowed to put crosshairs on people, but the press can't talk about it because then THEY are inciting violence according to her. Oh, but then again, they are blood libeling her... got it Sarah.

She is an idiot which just rants on and on.She stirs up shit to begin with and now this is another provoking she is doing once again.Personally speaking maybe she is a Jew hater who really knows?

How many people are on my ignore list Marc? Please tell me since you apparently claim the power to know who has duplicate accounts and now who is ignoring who?

It must be nice to claim information you don't have. However with no pretense of being honest, it is an easy tactic to engage in I suppose.


I've heard it but like so many things in the realm of those who make their living or derive power from being aggrieved, they become offended if they perceive you are trying to muscle in on their mental turf.

It's sort of like noting that slavery existed all over the world and that the U.S. was at the forefront of stopping it. Sorry, that doesn't work in the African-American mental grievance model so it's insensitive.

Likewise when discussing Native American "Genocide" due to disease, if you note the same germs wiped out a fifth of the worlds population and killed tens of millions in Europe, sorry, insensitive because that historical grievance is supposed to be for Native Americans alone.

Your view of history is insensitive any time you claim multiple groups have suffered any miscarriage of universal justice when one particular group has built their victimization on that one particular area.


Obviously you've not seen the "memorabilia" associated with the Obama speech yesterday.



Also I'm not quite sure how declaring someone's blood isn't on your hands is a sales pitch. Could you please elaborate on that? Could you please perhaps explain how Giffords blood isn't on your hands for example?


Well as the resident issuer of death threats and wishes, we will have to take your word on matters of hate.


Perhaps she's just idiotic enough not to spend an extra trillion and a half dollars more than we have yearly. Maybe she's dumb enough to do the job rather than thinking she can just talk her way out of everything and outsmart all the people she is stealing money from to hand to her friends and political interests.

If she were that dumb, that would still make her at least twice as smart as President Obama.

Well you might have a point if all this carping attempting to connect her to these murders weren't on her facebook page. I'll just add it to the list of offenses though.


Well most folks are of the view that anything is better at this point. That could be a problem as that is what led the to vote for President Obama in the first place trying to rid themselves of $400 billion dollar a year deficits.

The Tucson shooting is actually being branded. It's no surprise though, that the particular branding looks very familiar.

With a nonpartisan message of unity...HOW AWFUL!

Funny, because what I find obscene is insinuating or even openly stating that mainstream conservatives like Sarah Palin are in some way responsible for the recent tragedy. I am both amazed and disgusted at the immediate media narrative of "extreme rhetoric" and some Democrats willingness to use this heinous act to push their agenda.

"Blood libel" is an entirely appropriate term for what was done to Palin and others.

Blood libel, media, blood libel, media, blood libel, media, blood libel, media, blood libel ,media, blood libel, media, blood libel, media, blood libel, media, blood libel, media...are Palin's words sinking in yet?