Replies

I agree with that. Sarah and other public commentators, and to a lesser degree most of us on the right, have been falsely accused of complicity in murder and violence.

It’s libelous, slanderous accusations. But “blood libel” is not just two words put together, it is a phrase with a very specific meaning. The point is valid, but the use of the term could obscure the valid message. Time will tell.

I agree with that. Sarah and other public commentators, and to a lesser degree most of us on the right, have been falsely accused of complicity in murder and violence. It’s libelous, slanderous accusations. But “blood libel” is not just two words put together, it is a phrase with a very specific meaning. The point is valid, but the use of the term could obscure the valid message. Time will tell.

We commoners out here in fly overville are accustom in speaking in plain and simple terms. AND while the phrase appears to be proprietary to some, the words/phrase means what it means. Sarah, the Tea Party were accused to be the cause/reason for a lunatic to shed innocent blood. IT IS what it is, and those spewing the lies of accusation knew damn well what 'blood libel' literally means.

It’s libelous, slanderous accusations. But “blood libel” is not just two words put together, it is a phrase with a very specific meaning. The point is valid, but the use of the term could obscure the valid message. Time will tell.

For her usage of the phrase, they'll crucify her?

Ooops. I shouldn't have used the word "crucify".

Come on, how silly.