100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Poor, Poor Sarah | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Ahhh..the authority on Arizona and our ways and rights..
  The guy that shot everyone in Tucson. He was just crazy! Period! No crazy freaking conspiracy! Check out his stupid mug shot. Seriously... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah. 'Blood libel'... The fradulent use of 'innocents' to label an opponent 'evil' it fits. Doesn't quite fit in her case: Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4] Other groups which have suffered blood libels throughout history include:Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel You have posted the dictionary version. However the LESSON of this part of our (humanity) past is that this is a use of 'innocent' as propaganda against a sub-group that one wishes everyone else would consider 'evil'... She used it right. I posted the definition and the context in which it is used. It doesn't fit for her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What has produced this? Fifty years of right wing political violence and right wing propaganda of hatred and intolerance What produced this deranged man -- lack of mental health care services -- lack of care for the ill among us. Thanks Republicans This is exactly what my previous post was referring to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah. 'Blood libel'... The fradulent use of 'innocents' to label an opponent 'evil' it fits. Doesn't quite fit in her case: Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4] Other groups which have suffered blood libels throughout history include:Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel You have posted the dictionary version. However the LESSON of this part of our (humanity) past is that this is a use of 'innocent' as propaganda against a sub-group that one wishes everyone else would consider 'evil'... She used it right. I posted the definition and the context in which it is used. It doesn't fit for her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah. 'Blood libel'... The fradulent use of 'innocents' to label an opponent 'evil' it fits. Doesn't quite fit in her case: Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4] Other groups which have suffered blood libels throughout history include:Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel You have posted the dictionary version. However the LESSON of this part of our (humanity) past is that this is a use of 'innocent' as propaganda against a sub-group that one wishes everyone else would consider 'evil'... She used it right. I posted the definition and the context in which it is used. It doesn't fit for her. How does it NOT fit? FACT: A child died at the act of bit of human scum. FACT: The blood of that innocent child was laid IMMEDIATELY upon the feet of S. Palin (and a few others). FACT: S.Palin and those that were so accused had not a single bit of ACTUAL responsibllity for the act of said madman. FACT: Blood Libel is used to LIE to attempt to show your opponent as 'evil'... It has been used in the past PRIMARILY to attack religious opponents. FACT: Those of you that are attempting to 'paint' S. Palin are doing so with the rabid, single minded focus of religious zealots... nuff said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah. 'Blood libel'... The fradulent use of 'innocents' to label an opponent 'evil' it fits. Doesn't quite fit in her case: Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4] Other groups which have suffered blood libels throughout history include:Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel You have posted the dictionary version. However the LESSON of this part of our (humanity) past is that this is a use of 'innocent' as propaganda against a sub-group that one wishes everyone else would consider 'evil'... She used it right. I posted the definition and the context in which it is used. It doesn't fit for her. How does it NOT fit? FACT: A child died at the act of bit of human scum. FACT: The blood of that innocent child was laid IMMEDIATELY upon the feet of S. Palin (and a few others). FACT: S.Palin and those that were so accused had not a single bit of ACTUAL responsibllity for the act of said madman. FACT: Blood Libel is used to LIE to attempt to show your opponent as 'evil'... It has been used in the past PRIMARILY to attack religious opponents. FACT: Those of you that are attempting to 'paint' S. Palin are doing so with the rabid, single minded focus of religious zealots... nuff said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah. 'Blood libel'... The fradulent use of 'innocents' to label an opponent 'evil' it fits. Doesn't quite fit in her case: Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4] Other groups which have suffered blood libels throughout history include:Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Roma, Neopagans, Native Americans, atheists, communists, and satanists.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel You have posted the dictionary version. However the LESSON of this part of our (humanity) past is that this is a use of 'innocent' as propaganda against a sub-group that one wishes everyone else would consider 'evil'... She used it right. I posted the definition and the context in which it is used. It doesn't fit for her. How does it NOT fit? FACT: A child died at the act of bit of human scum. FACT: The blood of that innocent child was laid IMMEDIATELY upon the feet of S. Palin (and a few others). FACT: S.Palin and those that were so accused had not a single bit of ACTUAL responsibllity for the act of said madman. FACT: Blood Libel is used to LIE to attempt to show your opponent as 'evil'... It has been used in the past PRIMARILY to attack religious opponents. FACT: Those of you that are attempting to 'paint' S. Palin are doing so with the rabid, single minded focus of religious zealots... nuff said. who is josh marshall? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does Palin get up in the morning and look at herelf in the mirror and not cry in embarrassment and shame? How do her fans? She's not that smart. Besides if she stopped she would be fired from FOX and her Republican Party membership would be revoked. 
|
|
|
|
|
