Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
This from the media that attacked Palin's family personally and dug in to "Joe The Plumbers" background and life.


Did you read the post about the big dogs? EVERY ONE of the candidates have been "attacked". Look at how Obama's wife has been attacked. That's his family, right? And McCain put Joe in the spotlight (which he seems to love, by the way).

You're not getting the point here, though. It's not a matter of what's morally right or wrong. It's a matter of the First Amendment and what its purpose is. Sarah Palin thinks (apparently) like you do, that the it protects people from the media.



The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference. Palin is claiming that the media's criticism of her is keeping her from exercising her right (I think)?? It's (to quote a McCain campaign person) a WHACKED interpretation of a very simple idea.

This is not about what's right or wrong or morally good and bad.




posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The media definitely protects Obama and his wife. The difference between Palin's family is that they were out of bounds. They weren't stumping or giving their political views, unlike Mrs. Obama. I'm sure you'll ignore that fact though, like you always do.

I'll lay it out for you, even though I know it wont penetrate. The the MSM (AABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Daily Show, Colbert) report on Obama, its always to downplay a criticisms or to dismiss in entirely. When they report on McCain, its always to confirm a criticism or to attack him as an Obam proxy. Than they get to say Obama doesn't attack negatively, because they always do it for him.

Now, McCain does have Fox news and rush Limbaugh. Thats about it. So, you can sit here and pretend "the media" attack them equally, but the right is extremely outnumbered.

What Palin is saying is that the media lashes out at Palin simply for going after Obama like she should. Why doesn't the same media lash out at Obama for his attacks? Why do they label Palin/McCain racist and hatemongers? Why do they go after private citizens who dare question Obama? They simply do not treat Obama or the democrats the same way. Thats the problem.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You will never convince the the true believers because they relish their supposed underdog status but consider this if the media were so slanted against them they would have never "won" 2000, much less 04.

Besides all of that his assertions have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand which is that Palin seems to think criticism of her equals a violation of her first amendment rights which it patently does not.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Bush won in 2000, because he won. The media has never shut up about it since, so I'm not sure what your point is there.


is that Palin seems to think criticism of her equals a violation of her first amendment rights which it patently does not.


No, that isn't what she thinks. That is what you want her to think, but that isn't the argument shes making.



[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
What Palin is saying is that the media lashes out at Palin simply for going after Obama like she should.


That may or may not be true. But that has nothing to do with the First Amendment! She's trying to bring the Constitution into this as though it's somehow failing to protect her from criticism.

I agree with you. The media is biased. Big deal. That's not what this thread is about.

Palin obviously has NO IDEA what the First Amendment means. THAT'S what this thread is about.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Palin doesn't know what a VP does. She doesn't know what the 1st Amendment is. What does she know?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
does anybody think that palin was picked BECAUSE she is so bad? when somebody like her keeps saying these things...i start to wonder why her own party has not sat her down and explained things. it's almost like they WANT THE TICKET TO LOSE! maybe the republican big-wigs knew they were a long shot this time out, and deliberately let these 2 run because they did not want to put their strongest and brightest on the ticket, which would have ended up damaging the reputations of their best for the 2012 election.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
What Palin is saying is that the media lashes out at Palin simply for going after Obama like she should.
[edit on 1-11-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]


Obviously you didn't read my opening commentary so:



She has every right in the world to say what she wants about Obama, Wright and Ayers... no one is hindering that...

... At the same time those in the media as well as those outside of it have the right to say that those comments are attacks, or for that matter that they are right on the money.

Freedom of speech goes both ways and she obviously does not understand that.


And what Palin said was:



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.


In which she is totally wrong.

The whole premise she is working from is flawed which doesn't surprise me one bit... nor does it surprise me people who don't understand the difference support her as well...

... after years of attempting a sane dialogue with the right... I have come to the enscapable conclusion that you guys are clueless.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You make an interesting point. I am no fan of either the Republicans or the Democrats. I am leaning towards Obama this time around only because he is the lesser of two evils. That being said, when Democrats control the Whitehouse and Congress, they are probably going to screw up just like the Republicans did. The Democratics screw ups are not going to be as monumental as the Republican screw ups, but they might be bad enough to give the Republicans a decent chance in 2012.

Even if the Democrats happen to exercise their power wisely and honestly, there is no way they could do so without stepping on people's toes. They are inheriting a bad economy and a bad war. Whatever the "best" solution is to these problems, it is going to involve making painful choices like: raising taxes (on at least some people), putting regulations in place that might wipe out entire industries, and resolving Iraq in a manner which will make the US lose face and/or create instability in the Middle East.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights





Now, how is "the MEDIA" threatening her 1st Amendment rights exactly?

She can still say what she wants, can't she?

She's not being thrown in jail for saying these things, is she?

How is the MEDIA threatening her 1st Amendment rights when she can still say anything thing she wants, whenever she wants too!

The media calling her speeches "attacks" is not threatening her 1st Amendment rights!

Somebody forgot to tell Palin to "Deny Ignorance", and not embrace it!


[edit on 11/1/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


Thank you that sums it up neatly. A star for you.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I have to wonder if it isn't half time now and the republicans are rethinking the game plan. I do believe there will be no remorse from that side if damage is done in the next months that the Dems to have to clean up with everything else. Nothing like saying that they couldn't do it without acknowledging the fact that it is a near impossible task.

I really hope the politicians are above that but history seems to say otherwise.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Sarah should put on her big girl panties and suck it up. When you campaign you can exect the press to attack and criticize. It goes with the job. She should also get a 5th grade Civics book and learn what she has not learned before. Perhaps she was dropped on her head too many time at cheerleading practice.
I agree with you, JimmyX and have been espousing this opinion on various sites. The fact that Palin is such a complete incompetent and that John selected her on the spur of the moment with no apparent vetting by the GOP says that the GOP doesn't care [or McCain is way to boneheaded to be president] and will let John burn himself out on this last ditch effort. They want to be rid of John and this is his swan song. Sarah just happened along and will go down with him. She is no big loss to the party and can quietly go back to abusing her power in Alaska until her trawler comes in. This race will serve the party well in future races. First it will show prospective candidates what happens when you don't listen. Second, it will show party members why you should not pick "mavericks" to represent the party. Third, it will tend to align and focus party members and weed out dissenters who will then gravitate to fringe politics and stop muddying the waters.
McCain-Palin are sacrifices in an election that they have little chance of winning but their loss will help the GOPers reform a fragmented base. Of course, if they do pull off an upset, expect the GOP to take full credit and claim mandates out the wazoo.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
All Pailin is trying to express is the PROVEN biased media has promoted their OPINION as fact. As it has been said before, Obama gets a free ride from any objective reporting and any valid public concern is explained away as an attack. If I have learned anything in my time on this earth, it is when something seems to good to be true...It usually is. Obama is a great nominee and I actually said he would be the next president back in 2004 when he delivered the DEMs response to the presidential address broadcast on network television. I would have enjoyed voting for him as an underdog(and almost did) but I cannot support someone who chooses to hide his past. You write this post under the pretense that voters do not care about personal associations of potential Presidential nominees. There is "proof" Barry(or whatever name he goes by these days) had these associations with radicals, the voters just want to know what's going on. You are a representative of the people you surround yourself with, as is Barry.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
The media threatens everyone's rights. If you do anything to be put on television and make your face known...you are going to get lots of attention. She's a VP. She's going to take a hit. People like to watch people being put up on a pedestal and then be torn down disgracefully. I can understand her not liking the attacks she has received..i wouldn't like it either..but she should expect it to happen. This is the world we live in. It's chaotic and corrupt. Yet so many of us let our minds fall for the BS that the candidates keep spewing out of their mouths.

I think we are screwed either way...it doesn't matter who wins. Bush is destroying what little respectability we had left with the rest of the world as i type this.

But basically, i don't know how anyone can side with either one of these campaigns anymore. They are both VERY QUESTIONABLE candidates. I don't trust any of them..not one bit. I won't vote for the lesser evil.

Everyone that does the finger pointing...they need to start pointing it to the guy they support...because it's both of them.


Edit:

It doesn't matter who wins....we still all lose.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by David9176]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


"Sit down with a dictionary and read the constitution some time." Sounds like you haven't the notion of where to find the constitution written



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Palin may not understand First amendment rights.

But equally important is that fact that the media doesn't understand the RESPONSIBILITIES of that same right.
It does come with responsibilities.
Right now there is a website in Seattle that is posting the addresses of Homes that are sporting McCain political signs. Are they trying to incite something?

You all need to pay attention to another trend as well.
I'll call it "Blog bleedover". I'll use newspapers as an example.
They used to have reporters, and then columnist/op-ed people.
They were usually separate departments, occasionally a reporter would also write an opinion piece every now and then, but you could always tell which "hat" the writer was wearing.

But now, with the a more mature WWW, reporters are also blogging as much as reporting . Blogging has a more Op/Ed atmosphere to it, and reporters are allowed to express their views, rather than just report the facts. The front pages of Newspaper websites will link to a reporter's blog, or a standard story, and it's often that you have to read a little while to figure out which format you are reading.
It's become a gray area, that will only get grayer.
Not a responsible use of the First amendment.

We let the media decide so many things for us now.
Rather than news, it's a product. And it caters to a demographic.
Ignoring some facts, and presenting others, to keep that particular demographic happy.

Right now there is a Drudge story running about Obama getting pissed off at photographers for following him and his kid around while trick or treating.
Does he not understand First amendment rights?

How many good people are afraid to run for public office because they didn't pay a parking ticket 10 years ago?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Right now there is a Drudge story running about Obama getting pissed off at photographers for following him and his kid around while trick or treating.
Does he not understand First amendment rights?


What do you mean? He's not citing the First Amendment. The media has the right to follow him around and he has the right to get pissed about it and say something.



How many good people are afraid to run for public office because they didn't pay a parking ticket 10 years ago?


I don't get the connection...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


That is why my friend those that refused to deny ignorance is better to be left forgotten.

You know how the site gets when its political times, the baiting just gets worst as the days gets closer to election.


I am just having a great time.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Political figures in this nation have not private life when it comes to the scrutiny of the American voter and the American people.

The politicians in this nation are not Royalty and neither gods and even when our political system is corrupted and dirty all the politicians in this nation are at the mercy of the American public they chose to put themselves their families and everybody aroun them in that position.

That is something that many in this nation in their eagerness and blindness about their political Icons forgets about it.

No even religious figures are exempt from public scrutiny.

So any political figure be Democrat or Republican should know this.

Unless they are plain ignorance and stupid or just the Power trip has making their heads to big.





[edit on 1-11-2008 by marg6043]





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join