[b]lood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. In this case, that's exactly what was going on[.]What's great about this is not one word of her defense of her misuse of language is true and its lack of truth and accuracy arise from abject ignorance of history which ignorance then serves as evidence for the misuse of language. She, in other words, doesn't know enough to know that she doesn't know enough and because of this deep and abiding ignorance she concludes that she must be right because the words "blood libel" mean neither more or less than what she, in her deep and abiding ignorance, thinks they mean.
And just think, she could have been the vice president of these United States, long may she wave.
No comments:
Post a Comment