Quote Originally Posted by DodgersFan28 View Post
Wow. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone ought be demonized, especially for their ideology. Disagreements, discussions, whatever are all well & good. What good does it do to demonize anyone? Whatever happened to tolerance, and the free exchange of ideas?
Sarah Palin said

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.
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.

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
“Blood Libel”
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.
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.

As to your "wow", there is your answer.