Sorry I was wrong. If you can be a political hack and make political points without any evidence and get away with it then you are the exact opposite of an idiot.
I understand that he is against enforcing immigration laws too…some sherriff! I hope he’s targeted for defeat in the next election.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it anti-Semitic, merely somewhat insensitive to historical antisemitism. Assuming that one does know what the Blood Libel was, using it in this context would be sort of like calling your opponents Hitler or Stalin – a hyperbolic device that does an injustice to the real victims of those monsters.
It wasn’t blatantly antisemitic. It was, however, as someone already noted, a really tone-deaf appropriation of a specific cultural ordeal. “Blood libel” means something. It’s not just some generic synomym for “false accusation”. Unless Palin is claiming that her critics have accused her of killing Christian children for their blood so she can bake it into matzohs, she wasn’t a victim of blood libel. Using that term, which was the proximate cause of innumerable murders of Jews over the last 1000-odd years, especially when the actual targeted victim of Saturday’s shooting is a Jewish woman, was either incredibly stupid and tone-deaf or deliberately provocative.
“Direct relationship”? Please explain or admit you are wrong…I’ll do the same.
I am really shocked by this. I believe you – I just find it really amazing because to me that is basic grade-A classic antisemitism. It’s like someone saying they were an educated English-speaking first worlder who had never heard the term “concentration camp” or knew what its connotations are.
I don’t know if it’s a Jewish/non-Jewish thing, or a European/non-European thing, or what.
In Arizona, I don’t doubt it. Maybe that disgusting slug Arpaio can just add Pima County to his little empire.
It’s already been politicized. Aren’t those who started it at least a little worse? Just a little maybe?
No.
They probably thought that if it was good enough for the Wall Street Journal they could use it as well. I don’t know if any of them actualy read the op-ed piece ( I know I haven’t).
You want him to admit that he’s wrong that Palin supporters want incontrovertible evidence or a link between Palin’s rhetoric and the shooting? ISTM that that’s what they demand, rather than accept that violent rhetoric has been demonstrated in other cases to abet violence.
I have heard the term before, and I still think the “anti-Semitic dog whistle” claim is conspiracy-minded nonsense. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes an accusation that you are unfairly implying an innocent person has responsiblity for someone’s death is just an accusation that you are unfairly implying an innocent person has responsiblity for someone’s death.
Say what? Jews don’t go around saying ‘blood libel’ to each other. The claim is not that only Jews can use the phrase. The claim is that the term has a specific historical meaning, which it does, and that she used the term in a way that was absurdly inappropriate and (to be charitable) very ignorant. “Blood libel” is not a stronger way of saying “libel.” It’s a medieval slur that says Jews would abduct Christian babies so they could slaughter them and use their blood in matzah on Passover. (I see that’s only the popular version; the libel started life earlier and then mutated out of an equally false but belief that was not specific to Passover. Perhaps it was a projection of Inquisition-related guilt.) Jews were periodically murdered because of this belief. I don’t think it’s antisemitic, but to go from ‘people are misinterpreting things I really did say and falsely saying I share some blame in this murder’ to ‘blood libel!’ is bad rhetoric and distorting history.
And once again we’re talking about this know-nothing instead of discussing anything of consequence. This is by design, and I think the words were chosen to make that happen. I’ve had enough. She’s trolling the public. I hereby coin the acronym “DNFTP.”
Sen Frank Lautenberg and Rep Carolyn McCarthy for not letting this tragedy go to waste before they released their plans to introduce legislation to ban high capacity magazines.
Without an outright ban combined with confiscation, this is nothing but worthless political grandstanding.
Similarly educated (MBA instead of JD) Midwestern guy here, never heard of the term before. FYI.
Even if it was combined with such measures, it’s still worthless political grandstanding. Anyone who thinks it is physically possible to enforce a ban on small metal boxes with springs in them is an idiot.
I’m feeling violent towards this guy simply because he is exhibiting a lack of personal balls and want his “big brother” the government to protect him.
Agree completely. McCarthy dusts off the same gun control legislation every year, or for every tragedy. Modifies it a touch, and then schedules a presser to get her 5 minutes.
My vote for most despicable goes to Rush Limbaugh for his statement that the entire Democratic party would stand behind the shooter in his defense; the reasons he gave are not worthy of repeating. In fact, in any situation involving the word “despicable” Rush Limbaugh has to be a top contender.
My vote is for everyone, collectively, who is trying to score political points from this tragedy…including the folks on this board. It’s pretty freaking sickening, to be honest.
-XT
I think it is a Jewish/Non-Jewish thing. Believe it or not, those of us who didn’t grow up in areas with high Jewish populations don’t know much about Jewish terms. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but believe me, as a Roman Catholic who went to 8 years of Catholic grade school, I have never heard the term before and was certainly never taught that “Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various “medicinal” purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions”, to use the definition of blood libel from here.