The term blood libel comes from long before the Nazi party. It’s much more closely related to attacks upon the Jews coming from various Christian churches and groups. The reason it’s called blood libel is because it was alleged that the Jews killed young Christian boys in ritual sacrifices and used their blood to make matzo for Passover.
I disagree with Alan Dershowitz.
I don’t think that Palin should be lynched or anything; I just think that it was a poor choice of words and an attempt to make more of the situation than what really is.
You know, that’s a perfectly valid viewpoint. I tend to side with Dershowitz, as my comments should indicate. I of course mean no disrespect of any kind.
It’s a highly emotional issue, as I’m sure you’ll agree. I think you might also agree with me when I say that had the left not raised the issue in the first place you and I would not be having this discussion.
I guess I just don’t have a problem with her usage. Clearly you do and I respect that.
And I find myself agreeing with him.
Didn't Andrew Sullivan use the term to decribe persecution against gays? Oh, yes, and I remember all the outrage then.
Wait a minute ... I guess I don't.
As a member of the Tea Party, *I* have been accused of MURDERING innocent people in Arizona.
Palin’s “Reaganesque Refudiation” of the attacks against herself and the Tea Party spoke her defense not only for herself, but for millions of people like *me*.