Sarah Palin said
Originally Posted by DodgersFan28
Do you know the origin of the term "blood libel"? Do you have any idea? When I wrote she invites, this is as good an example as anything, since it is in todays news. She posted it.
Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible,” she said.
Let me save you the effort of research. Let me use a source that you might accept as not biased on the left.
National Review Online
So, when someone uses patently anti-semitic language, I would say, that is a flat out invitation for those who are not anti-semitic to demonize that person.
January 12, 2011 8:28 A.M.
By Jonah Goldberg
I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.
As to your "wow", there is your answer.
Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?