Not Democrats (seeing as how many Democrats are anti-gun type folks, references to using guns would be a bit odd, no?), but here are some examples of other folks talking about whacking Bush (something I’m all in favor of, depending on how one uses that phrase).
-XT
People who want to be our leaders and take on that mantle should be held to a higher standard for the words that come out their mouths. You may not know what that term means, and that’s ok. You also probably don’t choose to use it in a highly charged political environment for millions of people to hear. You also probably don’t want people to view you as a future leader of our society.
Well, I’m not trying to “score points,” and I haven’t found the better discussions here to be doing so either. Talking about political implications need not be crass partisanship, and I don’t side consistently with any party or politician anyway.
Pretending the event “isn’t political” is just useless. This was a political matter the moment the first bullet was fired. Decrying “politicizing” just means rejecting all meaningful discussion.
Continuing with Palin’s use of “blood libel,”
… Okay, here it is. Indeed, Glenn Reynolds does throw it out there without explanation or context.
Is it conceivable that not only he, but also the editors of the Wall Street Journal, are all unaware of this term? Or that it is they who are willing to deploy it so easily? I confess I’m a little baffled here.
It does seem quite likely that Palin’s speechwriters simply lifted it from that piece as you say, which makes them less creative than I was previously calculating.
I see another practitioner of contorted apologetics and self-righteous accusations of libel has defended the usage,
Except that, as far as I can see, before this week, the “metaphorical” usages were all applied to criticisms of Jewish people which were (rightly or wrongly) characterized as attacks on them as Jewish people. Even Dershowitz’s own example conforms. So, that’s not very broad.
From the National Review, not noted for partisan attacks on Republicans,
As to general knowledge of the term,
Eh. I’ll give anyone a pass for having missed learning this or that part of world history–there’s a lot of it–but one needn’t be Jewish to know about this, any more than one must be Catholic to have heard of the Penal Laws. Or Father Coughlin.
“Blood libel” appears (and is disavowed by Papal edict) in the Catholic Encyclopedia, by the way, so it’s officially part of the “cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine.”
This entire argument is stupid in my opinion, but just to keep things clear, several red dot sights, including those used by the US military use a reticle that matches both the “targets” used by the Democrats on their maps and the “crosshairs” used by Palin. LINK
Big fucking deal… as you well know, we’re talking about how the morons in society might react to language…aren’t we?
Blood libel has a more common meaning now… according to a famed liberal.
Even Dershowitz’s personal definition still applies to libels against Jews. I could accept broader meanings that would reference factually baseless, sweeping slanders of entire groups of people, but there is no definition which would include Sarah Palin as a victim. She is not metaphorically comparable to a persecuted, medieval Jew.
This is of course the same famed liberal who advocated issuance of ‘torture warrants’ for suspected terrorists. His views on any particular subject are liable to be ideosyncratic.
Alan Dershowitz is “famed”? Since when?
Since he was on that show in 90’s about the football player who mudered his wife. I think it only ran for about 2 seasons, but it was a huge hit. He only had a bit part, though. I think he was a wacky neighbor or something.
It is interesting that, in the Middle Ages, Jews were accused of evil and preposterous things (the baby-blood thing, and poisoning wells to cause the plague) which at any rate were not theoretically impossible for people of a powerless and oppressed minority minority to do. And then, in the 19th Century – an increasingly and consciously scientific age – antisemitic theories completely slipped the moorings of reality and Jews started getting the blame for wars, revolutions, and economic crises.
You mean like these guys or this guy. Just morons reacting to language.
Go on, RWs. Keep trying to turn this around. Keep trying to create false equivalence. You can’t do it.
Tucson tea party founder says Giffords to blame for getting shot
One tea party leader says that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has herself to blame for getting shot in the head Saturday.
The Arizona congresswoman shouldn’t have attended an event “in full view of the public” if she had security concerns, according to Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries.
… “It’s political gamesmanship,” he told the Guardian. “The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?”
“For all the stuff they accuse [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we’re hearing right now.”
“There are people who are genuinely confused, scared, and I understand it. But there are also people who are deliberately manipulating this event and tragedy for political ends,” Humpries added.
And he may be right. Another tea party group in California has been using the tragedy to raise money.
… Trent Humphries says killings fallout is evolving into conspiracy to destroy Tea Party and silence criticism of government
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/tea-party-express-seeks-donations-tucson-shootings-aftermath/
Please don’t tell me that this is anything less than disgusting and repulsive.
:rolleyes: “I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report” ain’t much of a defense; it just goes to show there’s more than one kind of dishonest asshole.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/13/gohmert-fbi-critic/
(Utterly non-political, straight news site with no agenda whatsoever. OK,maybe a little…)
**Gohmert Says FBI ‘Stonewalled’ On Shooter Profile To Avoid ‘Embarrassing’ Obama’s Constituents **
Verily, I shit thee not. He says the FBI knows the shooter was a lefty, but is covering it up.
You win the thread.
I don’t know if Ms. Palin was familiar with the term “blood libel” or not, but either way her brain reached for “libel” and some synapses just enriched that word for her with a handy adjective. Much like refute/repudiate made “refudiate.”
This is another example of her frank spontaneity which is so endearing.
I don’t know exactly how ‘righty’ I am, but I’m pretty sure further right than you so I’ll say this:
Slippery Slope
I’ll add another reasonable reason. If you are going to be supportive of gun ownership and carry laws, then they don’t need to have little caveats attached to them or you’ll end up with a thousand different ones. Can’t carry near schools, can’t carry near ‘political figures’ (as if they are so much more important than us), see where this will eventually lead?
It’s not like that law would have stopped this shooter anyway. It’s kind of silly to think that someone wouuld be willing to commit mass murder, but not willing to break a carry law.
