Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: se_ohio_young_conservative; wtc911

wtc911 appears to have reasonable language skills, and could have said “Palin is anti-semitic” if that was the intent. So unless you have ANY evidence to the contrary, you should assume that he said exactly what he meant.

It is far more likely that you simply failed to understand what he was saying, and misrepresented it; I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was through the ignorance of youth, rather than a purposeful attempt to turn someone’s words and twist them for political gain.

Maybe you should try doing some research, and then debate wtc911 on whether the term “blood libel” is anti-semitic or not.


105 posted on 01/12/2011 6:56:44 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

If it were anti semetic, Palin wouldn’t use it. She is a huge supporter of Israel. To say otherwise is pathetic.


112 posted on 01/12/2011 7:00:11 AM PST by se_ohio_young_conservative (Palin or 3rd party... no exceptions !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
“Maybe you should try doing some research, and then debate wtc911 on whether the term “blood libel” is anti-semitic or not.”

And what research could be to the point? There is no shadow of a scintilla of a hint of any reason to think that the term “blood libel” is antisemitic. Debating the point is like arguing over whether the verb “to lynch” is inherently rascist. The question is gobsmackingly stupid.

When you string somebody up without benefit of trial it's a lynching. That's what the word means and using it indicates no disrespect anyone. Similarly, when you accuse a group of complicity in murder for the purpose of discrediting the members of that group you are guilty of a blood libel. That's what the words mean and every competent speaker of the English language knows it. Blood libel is exactly what the media has been spewing for the last several days. As usual Sarah hit the nail squarely on the head.

The left doesn't like it when we tell the truth about them bluntly but we have no choice. Rolling over and playing dead isn't a winning PR strategy. Fighting back will make them mad, but what can they say that's worse than accusing Sarah of being an accomplice to murder?

Sarah wasn't just defending herself in this excellent speech. She was defending all of us. We are all in the media's dock accused of complicity in the Arizona murders. The left is trying to define all conservative ideas as beyond the pale of civilized discourse and we have to fight back. Sarah is leading the charge and it would be nice if there weren't any self-described conservatives taking pot shots at her from behind.

324 posted on 01/12/2011 9:23:59 AM PST by fluffdaddy (Is anyone else missing Fred Thompson about now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson