Reply With Quote
Who cares?
..."blood libel" critic goes to:
Andrew Cohen, a Murrow Award–winning legal analyst and commentator.
Why Sarah Palin Should Have Just Left the 'Blood Libel' Alone
He even tweeted his disapproval..."Sarah Palin may or may not be the victim of unwarranted criticism in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree in Tucson last Saturday. As far as I'm concerned, that is a non-justiciable "political question"-- as federal judges get to say -- and one that I will gladly leave to the legions of inspired commentators who have been gnawing on that particular bone for the past few days.
But whatever Palin is, or is not, neither she (nor anyone else) is the victim here of a "blood libel," as she claimed Wednesday in responding to the tragedy in Arizona and the way she perceives it was handled by the media."
"If Palin did not know what a "blood libel" means she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. And if she did understand its dark significance she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. Either way, It was inappropriate and insensitive."
"The blood libel is one of the most pernicious and deadly lies in human history. For the sake of the Tucson victims, if not our own, we should all agree to leave it there."
Hmmm....well, just two short years ago, Cohen had this to say about Presidential Candidate John McCain:
McCain Sings Same Old GOP Song On Justices
If Cohen can use the term to refer to nothing more than a politician's characterization of the judiciary, in the heat of an election, who is he to attack Sarah Palin for using it to describe the libelous narrative that says she and the Tea Party caused the deaths of 6 people in Tucson?"In a campaign speech Tuesday outlining his judicial philosophy, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain offered his supporters - and/or the conservative wing of his party - only more of the same tired and empty rhetoric that has come over the past few decades to mark the mindless partisanship over the appointment of federal judges. It was as though he had been given a list of misguided clichés about the judiciary and its role in cons utional theory and dared by his handlers to read them all in a single speech on a single stump.
Did McCain repeat the Shibboleth about “activist judges” and how they are ruining the meaning of the law? You bet he did. Of “activist lawyers and activist judges” McCain said: “They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes and all of that. They don't seek to win debates on the merits of their argument; they seek to shut down debates by order of the court. And even in courtrooms, they apply a double standard. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.”
I wonder if the Arizona senator and his speech writers know that the late, great conservative polestar, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and perhaps the most popular Supreme Court Justice of all time, Republican-nominee Sandra Day O’Connor, both expressed disdain for the threat of the “activist judge” charge. After all, a judge acts anytime he or she does or does not make a ruling, whether the ultimate result is considered “liberal” or “conservative” or something in between. So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat."
I wonder if he reads his own columns. And this guy, unlike Nbadan and clambake, is supposedly smart and all that.
Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award–winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country and is a frequent contributor to the op-ed pages of the nation's leading newspapers and online sites. From 2000-2009, Andrew served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and contributed to the network's coverage of the Supreme Court, the war on terrorism, and every high-profile civil or criminal trial of the decade. He is also an avid horseman, a Standardbred owner and breeder, and the winner of the 2007 John Hervey Award for distinguished commentary about harness horse racing.
Last edited by Yonivore; 01-15-2011 at 12:02 AM.
Who cares?
I know that was rhetorical but it is obvious that Yoni cares. That's why he posted it, presumably.
He's obsessed with venomous liberals few have heard of and even fewer care about. Like this Cohen guy I literally had never heard of before I read this thread.
(Disclosure: I don't read CBS content online. Never have. I'm not sure why I should start.)
What's so great about CBS online (besides 60 Minutes or TV programming online) that I should start paying attention to it at 43 years of age? Anyone?
Dude we've never heard of used it as hyperbole.
Whoever wrote that for Palin didn't.
Perhaps yoni's blog overlords should take note.
Liberals are depraved hypocrites. They wound Yoni's dignity a second time with their hypocrisy, after slandering his tribe.
Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'
Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder.
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.
LOL OWNAGE
proof that these miserable people have nothing more fulfilling in their lives than to attack the lovely hospitable Sarah America's Beauty Palin.
Amen brother. Never in the history of the world has such a wonderful human being has been attack so visciously as this sweetie american pie woman. God bless america and God bless Sarah Palin.These freaks actually want to point fingers/call foul about how political rhetoric help cause the murders a week ago and yet they turn a blind eye to the way every single liberal democrat/themselves treats the entire Palin family. It's hysterical.
I see the bars finally sent you home.
So, again, I'll pose the conundrum for liberals -- well the minority of liberals that continue to push this nonsense -- and ask the obvious question...
If you're using the Tucson massacre to criticize the rhetoric of the Tea Party or Ms. Palin, or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the rhetoric and the shooting that, based on the growing amount of evidence to the contrary, would be a vicious lie - "blood libel;" or, (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points to advance an unrelated agenda -- whether it be gun control, the fairness doctrine, or just unfairly gaining an advantage over a political opponent. That's contemptible.
So, which is it?
its about a guy that went on a killing spree at a democratic rally.......and palin got butthurt about crosshairs and blood libel.
poor stupid sarah palin.
I'm still waiting for the explanation of what the '2nd Amendment remedies' Angle/Tea Party were speaking of.
since you know what everyone is thinking when they make comments, can you explain it to me?
Polls this week show B HUSSEIN O's approval rising, and crushing pitbull electorally.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run pitbull as Repug candidate, or even better as tea bagger 3rd party candidate.
False dichotomy.
The rhetoric didn't cause this shooting, and Palin and most columnists don't know what a blood libel means and just use it to try to sound clever. Palin could have used this moment to transcend the self-victimization and ankle biting yoni loves so much, but she decided to keep playing in the mud.
I am the bar, in a manner of speaking...
lol ankle-biting
The larger picture is that people leveling the charge of hyperbole have been using it. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.
Blood libel has historical reference to the lie that jews sacrifice babies. But there's nothing that says that you can't use it in any cir stance where you demonize people to the point of making them sound contemptible as human beings. You're just as silly and as much of an ankle biter as Yoni.
Infact, you are the last person on this forum who should ever about ankle biting and tic for tac.
There's nothing that says that.
lol hypocrite
lol "tic for tac"
UTSA/basement dweller
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
