RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

cotts135

· Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 · (Edited)
Speaking yesterday in Washington D.C. on a A.M. radio station Gov Sarah Palin gave her views on what the First amendment is.
"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."
Now I don't know about the rest of you but the First amendment to me is not that complicated. What it does is bars the Government from abridging free speech. It has nothing to do with political officials being criticized for saying something. She has this backwards What the First amendment does guarantee is a free press
In her world It would be ok for the most powerful government officials to say whatever they want without being criticized in the press. This shows a profound ignorance on what the Constitution is and is just another reminder of why she is unqualified as a vice president.
 
Obviously, if you want to hate Gov. Palin, you'll construct reasons if no factual ones exist. Your definition may be your own, but it doesn't wash with the facts.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

These freedoms are not the exclussive property of the press, but rather are afforded all of us. But you keep swilling the Kool Aid intravenously, anyway. Enjoy the new "changed" America. After all, we've never really been a truly communist country before, comrade.

Evan
 
Discussion starter · #4 ·
Evan
First I don't hate Gov Palin. Second please tell what doesn't wash with the facts. My point in that post is that the Gov is free to say anything she wants however she is not free from criticism for what she says. Saying she is and is protected by the Costitution for doing so is not true. That my friend is fact.
 
Obviously, if you want to hate Gov. Palin, you'll construct reasons if no factual ones exist. Your definition may be your own, but it doesn't wash with the facts.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

These freedoms are not the exclussive property of the press, but rather are afforded all of us. But you keep swilling the Kool Aid intravenously, anyway. Enjoy the new "changed" America. After all, we've never really been a truly communist country before, comrade.

Evan
Hey, Evan...

How, exactly, does one swill something intravenously? Isn't that about impossible? ;-)

Subcutaneous Regards,

Joe S.
 
Her point is that the mainstream drive by media is in the tank for Comrade Obama. The press is free to say what it wishes, but what they say in their news should be truth not opinion. There used to be a saying in the USSR; There is no Izvestia in Pravda and no Pravda in Izvestia( the two papers that were permitted, Izvestia means News and Pravda means Truth) Anyone read about Comrade Obama tossing reporters off his plane who worked for papers that endorsed Sen McCain?
 
What the First amendment does guarantee is a free press.
The fact I'm pointing out is that each individual has protection under this ammendment, not just the press. That appears to be her inferrence, as well.
In her world It would be ok for the most powerful government officials to say whatever they want without being criticized in the press. This shows a profound ignorance on what the Constitution is and is just another reminder of why she is unqualified as a vice president.
In no way did she say that. As a conservative, that would be the last thing she would promote.

But surpressing her free speech is the obvious intent of a left-leaning press. The actual discourse does not show any misconstruction of our Constitution, but rather simply illuminates the frequent abuse of constitutional license by the media.

"ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"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."
However she feels about the way her story has been told in the press, Palin told WMAL she is not discouraged.
"It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington," Palin said."

This is not a lecture on the consitution. Revealing historical facts regarding a political opponent's past associations does not equal an attack. If it is indeed negative to state such facts, then it is because the facts themselves are negatives - not merely the statement. This is done by every candidate in every election, and it's part of providing a factual basis for voter's decision making. Why does the media insist on surpressing her right to do so through distorting it as an "attack"?

EvanG
 
Bush has already burned a good portion of it!!!
No, not burned, ignored. I am hopeful that the next President of the United States, whomever it may be, will return to the rule of law.

Under the Unitary Executive theory that this President follows, the laws of the United States of America do not apply to him or anyone directly following his orders.

That is why he can stand up in front of the American People and say, with a straight face, the United States of America does not use torture. He authorized waterboarding so its use is therefore legal. If it is legal, it can't be torture because it's against the law to torture someone into providing a confession and then use that confession against them in a legal proceeding. After all, we wouldn't do that, people like the former ruler of Iraq do things like that...

Just Clearing It Up Regards,

Joe S.
 
Hey, Evan...

How, exactly, does one swill something intravenously? Isn't that about impossible? ;-)

Subcutaneous Regards,

Joe S.
Physiologically, yes. Apparently, it's done psychologically all the time!
Image


You're a good man,

Evan
 
There is a big difference from reporting news,, and EDITORIALISING.

News SHOULD be Fact, no bias, or opinion.

Editorial,, is just the opposite.

Seems to me We have much more editorials disguised as NEWS!

Gooser
 
Speaking yesterday in Washington D.C. on a A.M. radio station Gov Sarah Palin gave her views on what the First amendment is.
"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."
Now I don't know about the rest of you but the First amendment to me is not that complicated. What it does is bars the Government from abridging free speech. It has nothing to do with political officials being criticized for saying something. She has this backwards What the First amendment does guarantee is a free press
In her world It would be ok for the most powerful government officials to say whatever they want without being criticized in the press. This shows a profound ignorance on what the Constitution is and is just another reminder of why she is unqualified as a vice president. UNQUOTE



Wow thats mixed up
Liberal politicians and the almost exclusively liberal media do it day in and day out.
And here you judge this womans right to ask ovious questions about a man who has had many associations with our adversaries and has pulled in millions and millions of dollars for his campaine from foreigh investors,,,something which they say is illegal.
That just aint right

Pete
 
She is talking about the intimidation factor of the liberal media in by claiming that anything NOT POSITIVE towards subjects/other candidates is either racist, hate mongering, a personal attack, etc.

Even if it's just the FACTS.

For the individual that claims Bush has already burned a bunch of the constitution.....either present the facts or back to your kool-aid.
 
....either present the facts or back to your kool-aid.
But you can just drink it the regular way like the rest of the left. No IV access necessary.

Just clarifying regards...

Evan
 
The left always wants free speech until it disagrees with their philosophy, then they will try and suppress it. Examples of this are plentiful i.e. college students shouting down conservative commentators, the left's support for the "fairness doctrine".

Look how Obama kicked the reporters off of his airplane that endorsed McCain. Just another example of the left stifling free speech that does not agree with them.

If Obama wins just wait to see how the media is controlled and manipulated.

Hugo Chavez has done the same thing and so have all socialists through out history.

I like the fact that it was made public that Obama's aunt is an Illegal. Its time to start the deportation proceedings. Oh wait she was already ordered but refused to go and now lives in public housing in Boston.

With how the press looked into Palin's family they at least could have found this out months ago about Obama's family.
 
This shows a profound ignorance on what the Constitution is and is just another reminder of why she is unqualified as a vice president.
How does this compare with Obama's profound ignorance of the Constitution regarding the 2nd amendment? I agree that what she said is not the most astute Constitutional analysis, but has she actively voted to eliminate the 1st Amendment like Obama has actively voted to eliminate the 2nd Amendment? This is just another reminder why BHO is extremely unqualified to be President.

COX: Obama and guns
Words matter and the record doesn't match
Chris W. Cox
Thursday, October 30, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama speaks at a rally in Lancaster, Pa., on Sept. 4. He strongly denied that he had any intention of taking away anyone's shotguns, rifles or handguns. (Associated Press)

OP-ED:

In speech after speech, Barack Obama has claimed he would "uphold the Second Amendment." Mr. Obama, of course, is a polished speaker who says "words matter." But records matter more. And while Mr. Obama is short on experience on most issues, he's long on anti-gun votes and even longer on rhetoric. Now's a good time to review both.

One of Mr. Obama's first statements on the issue really said it all. During his first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said on a candidate questionnaire that he supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." When challenged about the questionnaire earlier this year, Mr. Obama blamed others, saying his campaign staff had filled out the questionnaire incorrectly. (Unfortunately for that story, a version of the questionnaire later appeared bearing Mr. Obama's own handwriting.)

Questionnaires aside, Mr. Obama has supported handgun bans even when they trap people who defend themselves. In a 2003 case, a resident of Wilmette, Ill., used a handgun to defend himself from a burglar with a drug habit and a long criminal record, breaking into his home for the second day in a row. Though authorities found the shooting justified, the armed citizen was charged with possessing a handgun in violation of Wilmette's handgun ban.

Illinois lawmakers proposed legislation that would make self-defense an "affirmative defense" against prosecution for handgun possession in towns like Wilmette. Mr. Obama voted four times against the measure, which passed over his opposition, and over a veto by Illinois' anti-gun governor, Rod Blagojevich, a long-time Obama ally.

Self-defense at home or outside the home - it's all just as bad to Mr. Obama.

In 2004, he said he was "consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," and that he'd back "federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement." Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders - such as domestic violence victims - to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama's world, "authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I'm glad it failed," he said.

Mr. Obama also claims he's no threat to hunters.

But in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as "armor piercing ammunition," prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama's first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama's proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers.

Also, while Mr. Obama promises hunters, "I will not take your shotgun away," his votes tell a different story.

In 2003, while serving on the Illinois state Senate's Judiciary Committee, Mr. Obama voted for a bill that would have banned (as so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons") most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. If the bill had passed, any Illinois resident who possessed one of these guns 90 days after legislation went into effect, would have faced felony charges. What was that about not taking shotguns away?

As if voting for anti-gun plans wasn't bad enough, Mr. Obama also helped pay for them. He was a board member from 1994 to 2001 of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of funding for radical anti-gun groups in the country. On Mr. Obama's watch, Joyce donated $18.6 million to approximately 80 anti-gun efforts, including $1.5 million to the Violence Policy Center, the nation's most aggressive gun-prohibitionist group. Many of the Joyce Foundation's projects were aimed at editing the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.

But an Obama Supreme Court could do that more directly. Mr. Obama has said he would not have nominated Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. It was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller, which declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that D.C.'s handgun ban is unconstitutional. Justice Thomas joined in that opinion. As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama also voted against confirming Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom joined Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. That means four of the five pro-freedom votes on the Supreme Court would not have been there under an Obama presidency.

This is the real Barack Obama. This record matches the attitude Mr. Obama revealed when he said rural Pennsylvanians are "bitter" and "cling to guns." This record matches what you would expect to emerge from a Chicago political machine where an unrepentant terrorist is "respectable" and "mainstream."

Finally, with no way to run from his record, Mr. Obama resorts to the ultimate political dodge. Does he support gun registration? "I don't think that we can get that done." Banning guns? "I couldn't get it done. I don't have the votes in Congress."

These efforts to ease gun owners' fears should make any gun owner ask, "Wait … why is he counting all these votes already?" Instead of this not-so-reassuring rhetoric, gun owners deserve the truth. And the truth is clear: Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in history - bar none.

Chris W. Cox is executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
 
IMO, the best Democrat wasn't Clinton or Obama. They were the media darlings before the race even started a few years ago. The media's agenda, once again, decided for the pluralistic ignorant lemmings.
 
BHO considers the constitution subject to revision, not ammendment, but revision.

Bush has used the constitution, but so far the challenges to his use of his office have not been upheld by the courts.

Waterboarding isn't torture.
 
Discussion starter · #20 ·
BHO considers the constitution subject to revision, not ammendment, but revision.

Bush has used the constitution, but so far the challenges to his use of his office have not been upheld by the courts.

Waterboarding isn't torture.
I think if you take a look at Bush's record with the court regarding elements of the Iraq war you will find he is not doing so well. As for waterboarding well i guess it depends who is doing the waterboarding. I can assure you if our troops,god forbid, were being waterboarded it would be torture.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts