[goMac]

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...lin/index.html

What gives anyone the idea that this lady should be in charge of anything?

[RAILhead]

Maybe the idea that Nobama has been trying to "shut down" dissenting opinions via Law Enforcement, Truth Squads, the Fairness Doctrine, by removing unsympathetic media from conferences, tours, etcetera, etcetera...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Maybe the idea that Nobama has been trying to "shut down" dissenting opinions via Law Enforcement, Truth Squads, the Fairness Doctrine, by removing unsympathetic media from conferences, tours, etcetera, etcetera...

Which is baseless in addition to being completely off topic... Palin was specifically talking about the media.

I mean, are the media now allowed to not double check anything Palin says? Is she really that nutty?

[RAILhead]

I don't see it as being off topic -- but let's also pick on Dowd, too, since she said the same thing regarding McCain.

[goMac]

Well, let's first get straight what you are advocating.

You/Palin are advocating regulation of the media because they cannot be trusted to properly report things, or report things as the political process sees fit. That's something Chavez does. That's state controlled media. That's Fascism.

Sarah Palin is basically subtly endorsing Facism in order to force media stations to "respect her first amendment rights."

You can claim whatever you want about Obama but to have a politician openly endorse that sort of policy is on a level of it's own.

[ironknee]

I want her to talk more- that is freedom of speech

how we think she sounds is our freedom of speech don't cha know

[RAILhead]

No, I'm saying there should NOT be any limitations -- it's Nobama that's trying to shut down people.

[design219]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Nobama

Very mature and constructive.

[RAILhead]

Just like your sig?

[besson3c]

Your face is a sig.

[RAILhead]

Mature and constructive?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Holy crap. That'd almost be funny if it wasn't sad. Well actually, it's both sad and amusing.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I don't see it as being off topic -- but let's also pick on Dowd, too, since she said the same thing regarding McCain.

If she did, then she's an idiot... but last I checked she wasn't running for VP.

[OldManMac]

She is totally clueless. It's actually embarrassing to show the rest of the world that this is the best we can do for a person that has the possibility of becoming president. Sad.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

She is totally clueless. It's actually embarrassing to show the rest of the world that this is the best we can do for a person that has the possibility of becoming president. Sad.

We have been embarrassing ourselves for 8 years since we elected Bush twice!

What's sad is that Palin is now the judgement for ignorance in the US. She set the bar with this comment.

I didn't think it could get worse than Bush, but then the GOP/Religious Right amazes me everyday.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Maybe the idea that Nobama has been trying to "shut down" dissenting opinions via Law Enforcement, Truth Squads, the Fairness Doctrine, by removing unsympathetic media from conferences, tours, etcetera, etcetera...

And your links to your charges are where?

If you can't cite your cuckoo theory then you can't play.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

No, I'm saying there should NOT be any limitations -- it's Nobama that's trying to shut down people.

If you're talking about anything other than trying to shut her down using his freedom of speech, that's not the topic of this thread. Palin's assertion is that saying bad things about her violates her First Amendment rights, which is positively perverse.

To be honest, with her talk of "pro-America parts of America" and the idea that the First Amendment protects her right to attack Obama but not the media's right to attack her, she kind of does sound like a fascist. I mean that in the technical sense, not in the empty buzzword sense in which it's often used.

[subego]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Truth Squads

You might want to keep this under your hat, but McCain has "Truth Squads" too.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

We have been embarrassing ourselves for 8 years since we elected Bush twice!

Don't worry - we were laughing long before that. For example, "teh most powerful man in the world" having to get it on with fat chicks.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't worry - we were laughing long before that. For example, "teh most powerful man in the world" having to get it on with fat chicks.

It's very well known that high level European politicians have affairs, and that it's not considered to be the public's business, except when it's convenient for you to play pot, kettle.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're talking about anything other than trying to shut her down using his freedom of speech, that's not the topic of this thread. Palin's assertion is that saying bad things about her violates her First Amendment rights, which is positively perverse.

Not only is that perverse, but the notion that saying negative things about her opponent is not negative campaigning is a bit off as well.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Maybe the idea that Nobama has been trying to "shut down" dissenting opinions via Law Enforcement, Truth Squads, the Fairness Doctrine, by removing unsympathetic media from conferences, tours, etcetera, etcetera...

Do you agree with Palin that the "mainstream media" is violating her First Amendment rights by questioning the questions she's asking about Obama?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Which is baseless in addition to being completely off topic... Palin was specifically talking about the media.

I mean, are the media now allowed to not double check anything Palin says? Is she really that nutty?

Should they be able to use government resources to dredge up anything distasteful about a common citizen who questions their preferred candidate? Off topic indeed. Out of context leftist shilling and off anything resembling a sound topic out of the gate.

They've gone well beyond double-checking what Palin says. I thought I'd seen it all if not for the unprecedented number of articles using "unnamed sources", statements pulled out of context, and entirely fabricated controversies.

This, from one who no doubt supports a candidate who has invoked the justice department to silence critics, kicked media off his "victory tour", and boycotts broadcasters.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Should they be able to use government resources to dredge up anything distasteful about a common citizen who questions their preferred candidate? Off topic indeed. Out of context leftist shilling and off anything resembling a sound topic out of the gate.

They've gone well beyond double-checking what Palin says. I thought I'd seen it all if not for the unprecedented number of articles using "unnamed sources", statements pulled out of context, and entirely fabricated controversies.

This, from one who no doubt supports a candidate who has invoked the justice department to silence critics, kicked media off his "victory tour", and boycotts broadcasters.

Perhaps, but, is "mainstream media" is violating her First Amendment rights by questioning the questions she's asking about Obama?

[andi*pandi]

as someone once said to hillary, time to put on your big girl panties. Palin, stop crying that the media is misrepresenting you or god forbid criticizing you, and just move on. Perhaps rethink your borderline slander tactics. Perhaps try to find a positive message for your own campaign.

If no one is locking her up for her words, her first amendment is doing just fine.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's very well known that high level European politicians have affairs, and that it's not considered to be the public's business, except when it's convenient for you to play pot, kettle.

Don't worry, we laugh at them too.

Even Prescott didn't have to shag a fat chick though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps, but, is "mainstream media" is violating her First Amendment rights by questioning the questions she's asking about Obama?

No, but the reference is unmistakeable. By framing Palin's statements as "an attack" or as "negative campaigning" when they are nothing other than genuine questions regarding the questionable past of a candidate for the highest office in the world, it reminds listeners of a ticket that is rather hostile to dissenting opinion.

A ticket that has "reconsidered" many things including public financing and what "rich" is may in fact "reconsider" the fairness doctrine. A ticket whose supporters can and have framed any such dissenting banter as hate speech. This concern has sound precedent and her motive in wording it the way she did was actually quite politically shrewd. It is to remind people of the lack of tolerance Obama has had regarding commentary unfavorable to him and to challenge whether or not this mentality aligns with populace opinion on dissent. The "mainstream media" is viewed even by Democrats as favorable to Obama. In this, the media has become a third arm to the Obama campaign. They've stopped at nothing to slander anyone that gets in their way and hold back no resources in so-doing. They will do this to a political candidate and worse, a private citizen. This is the attack she's reminding listeners of.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, but the reference is unmistakeable. By framing Palin's statements as "an attack" or as "negative campaigning" when they are nothing other than genuine questions regarding the questionable past of a candidate for the highest office in the world, it reminds listeners of a ticket that is rather hostile to dissenting opinion.

A ticket that has "reconsidered" many things including public financing and what "rich" is may in fact "reconsider" the fairness doctrine. A ticket whose supporters can and have framed any such dissenting banter as hate speech. This concern has sound precedent and her motive in wording it the way she did was actually quite politically shrewd. It is to remind people of the lack of tolerance Obama has had regarding commentary unfavorable to him and to challenge whether or not this mentality aligns with populace opinion on dissent.

Perhaps so, but it also suggests that she may be ignorant of what the First Amendment actual is.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps so, but it also suggests that she may be ignorant of what the First Amendment actual is.

Is there no free speech provision in the First Amendment? Using government resources to slander a private citizen for dissenting speech is of;

A) no concern
B) little concern
C) great concern

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is there no free speech provision in the First Amendment? Using government resources to slander a private citizen for dissenting speech is of;

A) no concern
B) little concern
C) great concern

Certainly the use of government resources to slander a private citizen for dissenting speech is of concern, but that has nothing to do with Palin's claim that "mainstream media" is violating her First Amendment rights when they question her questions about Obama, except perhaps to avoid dealing with the issue of her apparent misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Certainly the use of government resources to slander a private citizen for dissenting speech is of concern, but that has nothing to do with Palin's claim that "mainstream media" is violating her First Amendment rights when they question her questions about Obama, except perhaps to avoid dealing with the issue of her apparent misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

I'll grant you that she is speaking in "code" to the faithful right, but I don't think it is ignorance of the First Amendment as much as simply being politically shrewd. Palin seemed to have made a blanket appeal regarding how "Obama dissent" is addressed by a segment of the population who'd rather you remain silent and would spare no expense nor constitutional principle in so-doing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll grant you that she is speaking in "code" to the faithful right, but I don't think it is ignorance of the First Amendment as much as simply being politically shrewd. Palin seemed to have made a blanket appeal regarding how "Obama dissent" is addressed by a segment of the population who'd rather you remain silent and would spare no expense nor constitutional principle in so-doing.

Perhaps, but the problem is that you're forced to interpret her meaning, which means you can make it mean whatever you want.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll grant you that she is speaking in "code" to the faithful right, but I don't think it is ignorance of the First Amendment as much as simply being politically shrewd.

Or maybe she really is that ignorant.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Perhaps, but the problem is that you're forced to interpret her meaning, which means you can make it mean whatever you want.

Perhaps, but that's the problem of politics for ya. You can let opponents define a person or you can define a person. The definition will almost invariably employ a filter of some sort or another.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Or maybe she really is that ignorant.

I think "politically shrewd" defines Palin much more effectively. We likely disagree.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll grant you that she is speaking in "code" to the faithful right, but I don't think it is ignorance of the First Amendment as much as simply being politically shrewd.

She's speaking in "code"? That isn't REALLY FREAKING CREEPY at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

She's speaking in "code"? That isn't REALLY FREAKING CREEPY at all.

It's not. You might just be a little soft.

[Chuckit]

Is "soft" code for doesn't belong to a cult? Normal folk don't "speak in code to the faithful." 'Cause it's creepy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

invoked the justice department to silence critics

Just so I'm sure, if the critic was doing something illegal, like say dodging campaign finance law and abusing their tax exempt status, Would you have a problem with the Justice Department getting involved?

[subego]

Bonus points if anyone can guess whose campaign finance reform act the Obama camp felt was being violated.

Hint: half of it rhymes with Russ Feingold.

Where will we find a Republican who can stop these kinds of Democratic shenanigans?

[Hugi]

HAHAHAHAHA, this is just brilliant. Aaaah, just imagine, McCain actually had a chance of winning - the guy isn't all bad. But as an Obma supporter, I just I love how Ms. Palin has managed to singlehandedly destruct the entire campaign, it's quite delicious to watch. Ms. Palin is like a walking, talking train wreck.

(although, in the unlikey event that they win, it won't be so funny - insane christian nuts in power have shown themselves to be bad for the world)

[lpkmckenna]

This just in: Palin is even more stupid than Dubya.

In other news: snow in Hell!

[goMac]

Shhhh quiet guys. You're all violating Palin's 1st amendment rights, you're got to be careful....

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll grant you that she is speaking in "code" to the faithful right, but I don't think it is ignorance of the First Amendment as much as simply being politically shrewd.

Palin shrewd?

Ah.


Ah. Ha.


Ah. Hahaha.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Thank you. Thank you so much. *wipes tear from eye*

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

palin shrewd?

Ah.


Ah. Ha.


Ah. Hahaha.


Bahahahahahahahahahah!!!

Thank you. Thank you so much. *wipes tear from eye*

+1000