Page 1 of 1

First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:47 am
by SonomaCat
Will somebody please, please, please, please take Palin, Miss Ditz CA, and everybody else who thinks being criticized for your public statements by other Americans is a violation of their First Amendment rights, and give them a Junior High level civics class?

Please?
"The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable," Palin said. She added, "Our Constitution protects us all – not just those who agree with the far left."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... alifornia/
“On April 19, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so,” Prejean said. “This should not happen in America. It undermines the constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for.”
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/ ... -he/?metro

What's stunning is that people can make these kinds of arguments and not even realize how absurd they are ... do they really think it is in conflict with the Constitution for someone to be criticized for their public statements by other Americans? Of course not ... it's just a convenient mindless talking point.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:55 am
by tampa_griz
Did Palin say that their collective First Amendment rights had been violated?

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:58 am
by SonomaCat
tampa_griz wrote:Did Palin say that their collective First Amendment rights had been violated?
She proactively mentioned the Constitution and maintained the talking point that has been flung around, so presumably that's what she was suggesting. Palin has used that same argument in the past in a way that made no sense at all in regards to people criticizing things she said, so either she truly doesn't understand the Constitution at all or she has just found this approach to be a convenient way to confuse the issue.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:02 pm
by tampa_griz
Bay Area Cat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:Did Palin say that their collective First Amendment rights had been violated?
She proactively mentioned the Constitution and maintained the talking point that has been flung around, so presumably that's what she was suggesting. Palin has used that same argument in the past in a way that made no sense at all in regards to people criticizing things she said, so either she truly doesn't understand the Constitution at all or she has just found this approach to be a convenient way to confuse the issue.
Well yeah, except not at all. She said in the link you provided that the Constitution protects us all. Others might disagree but I don't.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:07 pm
by SonomaCat
tampa_griz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:Did Palin say that their collective First Amendment rights had been violated?
She proactively mentioned the Constitution and maintained the talking point that has been flung around, so presumably that's what she was suggesting. Palin has used that same argument in the past in a way that made no sense at all in regards to people criticizing things she said, so either she truly doesn't understand the Constitution at all or she has just found this approach to be a convenient way to confuse the issue.
Well yeah, except not at all. She said in the link you provided that the Constitution protects us all. Others might disagree but I don't.
And what was the point of her saying that in the context of this topic? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (except as a suggestion that Prejean's consitutional rights had been trampled upon). It goes without saying (and there is absolutely no reason to say it) that the First Amendment applies to everyone.

Actually ... the irony of her using that line is that she is contradicting herself. She is proactively bringing up the Constitution (that thing that includes the "equal protection" clause) in a conversation in which she is advocating a law that explicitly discriminates against people.

But, of course, she may not catch that irony.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:09 pm
by AlphaGriz1
Palin can say whatever she wants, because she has nice tits.

I am listening. =P~

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:16 pm
by GrizinWashington
AlphaGriz1 wrote:Palin can say whatever she wants, because she has nice tits.

I am listening. =P~
And, after signing her book deal yesterday, RICH!! :wink:

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:27 pm
by tampa_griz
Bay Area Cat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:Did Palin say that their collective First Amendment rights had been violated?
She proactively mentioned the Constitution and maintained the talking point that has been flung around, so presumably that's what she was suggesting. Palin has used that same argument in the past in a way that made no sense at all in regards to people criticizing things she said, so either she truly doesn't understand the Constitution at all or she has just found this approach to be a convenient way to confuse the issue.
Well yeah, except not at all. She said in the link you provided that the Constitution protects us all. Others might disagree but I don't.
And what was the point of her saying that in the context of this topic? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (except as a suggestion that Prejean's consitutional rights had been trampled upon). It goes without saying (and there is absolutely no reason to say it) that the First Amendment applies to everyone.

Actually ... the irony of her using that line is that she is contradicting herself. She is proactively bringing up the Constitution (that thing that includes the "equal protection" clause) in a conversation in which she is advocating a law that explicitly discriminates against people.

But, of course, she may not catch that irony.
Except, again, not at all. It isn't discriminatory. We are allowed to marry one member of the opposite sex. The rules aren't different for a particular group of people.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:32 pm
by Grizlaw
She doesn't get it. She never will. She's a hockey mom, and I'm sure she's a great person, but she doesn't do nuance.

That's why McCain lost my vote when he chose her.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:33 pm
by SonomaCat
Yes, they are discriminatory (by definition), tampa. Not going to debate that obvious fact again .... The rules are obviously different for different groups of people. Just like the interracial marriage logic that you got yourself twisted up in last time we debated this point.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:38 pm
by tampa_griz
Wrong again sir. It's only discriminatory if the rules apply to particular group of people and not another. That's not the case here. It's the same for everyone (including any laws banning interracial marriage).

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:53 pm
by SonomaCat
tampa_griz wrote:Wrong again sir. It's only discriminatory if the rules apply to particular group of people and not another. That's not the case here. It's the same for everyone (including any laws banning interracial marriage).
If you want to believe that laws banning interracial and gay marriage aren't discriminatory, that's fine. I happen to disagree with your position on that.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:57 pm
by tampa_griz
So does the English language.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:05 pm
by Sportin' Life
AlphaGriz1 wrote:Palin can say whatever she wants, because she has nice tits.

I am listening. =P~
We have a thread with Prejean and Palin and you choose Palin's? #-o

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:06 pm
by GrizinWashington
Sportin' Life wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:Palin can say whatever she wants, because she has nice tits.

I am listening. =P~
We have a thread with Prejean and Palin and you choose Palin's? #-o

:lol:

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:07 pm
by SonomaCat
Grizlaw wrote:That's why McCain lost my vote when he chose her.
Same here.

I really don't want this country to become a one-party government on the federal level, so I am looking with a hopeful eye for some solid GOP candidates that we might see take the reins of the party and move it in the right direction.

If Palin is one of those people, though, I predict the sky is the limit for the Democats ... which is a very bad thing (as it is a bad thing for either party to be so comfortable in power that they are essentially not accountable any longer).

This blurb just struck a particular nerve with me as the whole "Misunderstanding what the First Amendment is all about" thing is one of my bigger pet peeves (especially with our history of being accused of violating people's fargin' rights by moderating our own message board). Then I heard Prejean's moronic take on the First Amendment, and I was quite annoyed (but not enough to post about it). But when I heard Palin parroting that same moronic argument, I just couldn't take it any longer.

Thanks for letting me vent, all.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:01 pm
by AlphaGriz1
Sportin' Life wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:Palin can say whatever she wants, because she has nice tits.

I am listening. =P~
We have a thread with Prejean and Palin and you choose Palin's? #-o

I like em real not fabricated and Miss Silicon Valley isnt that hot and shes blonde so thats 2 strikes against her.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:41 am
by ChiOCat
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
Sportin' Life wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:Palin can say whatever she wants, because she has nice tits.

I am listening. =P~
We have a thread with Prejean and Palin and you choose Palin's? #-o

I like em real not fabricated and Miss Silicon Valley isnt that hot and shes blonde so thats 2 strikes against her.
What about your Swedish Made Penis Enlarger? Oh, that's not your bag baby? :wink:

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:49 am
by AlphaGriz1
I would have ordered one of those but their XL was way to small so I decided to invest my money in Rohypnol and chardonnay.

Re: First Amendment

Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:06 pm
by Hell's Bells
AlphaGriz1 wrote:I would have ordered one of those but their XL was way to small so I decided to invest my money in Rohypnol and chardonnay.
and we have our thread killer...