Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

Wow, big surprise, another hypocrite.

Not only is she a hypocrite, she probably doesn't even realize the stupidity of her comment on it.

"I'm allowed to say stupid things to belittle my competitor, but you're not allowed to report the facts of it to the nation", like that's a person anyone wants in a position of power.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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...

He may not be citing First amendment, but he is expressing his disdain for reporters that are "just doing their job", perhaps he should just suck it up, and take it like a man. It's the price of his new found fame. And it's obvious he would rather not have them around, let them follow Palin and her kids.
Or he could throw them off his plane, because their "parent newspaper" endorsed a different candidate. That story is here:Reporters tossed off plane



And the parking ticket. That's a reference to selectively digging up the past.
Then blowing it out to the world, shedding a specific light on someone who is otherwise a decent person. I think it keeps some very promising people from ever choosing public service.

My impression of what she means is that. When she mentions things like Ayers and Wright etc. that the media doesn't just report what she is saying but they call her an "attacker". they suggest it is not right that she does this and she shouldn't do it. Then they turn around and go after her and her family and anything else they can get their hands on.
So she is implying that whenever she says this stuff (which she does not view as an "attack")that she in turn is really attacked by the media.



Wouldn't it make sense for the media to actually investigate her claims thoroughly themselves at least as much as they investigated her "abuse of power" thing.

By the way, the first time I heard her mention Ayers. I am sure she started by saying she read an article in the NY Times about the link between Ayers and Obama. If that is true, then how is it considered an "attack" coming from the Mccain campaign.

I think Palin has gotten from the media exactly what she deserves. Her and McCain have both taken this campaign in the direction of negative attacks, while Obama has not. The media is just doing what Obama has refused to do. The worst that Obama has done is liken McCain to Bush, which is a fair comparison, given that McCain represents the same political party and given that McCain has voted with Bush 90%+ of the time.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
He may not be citing First amendment, but he is expressing his disdain for reporters that are "just doing their job", perhaps he should just suck it up, and take it like a man.

Well... perhaps. When I saw that film, my thought was that he'd better get used to it. He better get his daughters used to it, too.

Or he could throw them off his plane, because their "parent newspaper" endorsed a different candidate. That story is here:Reporters tossed off plane

You really should read the thread here about that. Turns out he also kicked out papers who endorsed him. There simply wasn't room. They invited those they kicked out to join Biden on his plane.

So, you can't stand Obama... I get it. But this thread is about Palin and her LACK of UNDERSTANDING of the Constitution, the document she is about to take an oath to defend, should they win. What Obama's daughters trick-or-treating has to do with that, I don't know.



[edit on 1-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Well, that's cool, Biden's plane. The booby prize.
I guess sometimes you have to make a decision like that, and hope the media makes it look good for you.
In the other thread you referenced, I see they let FoxNews stay on the plane.
That was a good move, Fox would have been all over that.

And yes, I have a disdain for Obama's policies. They aren't very liberty oriented, and put too much back into the hands of Government. You rarely get that back.

As for Palin, the topic of this thread. She really has a point.
It's as if the media is in control over how your First amendment rights are expressed.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
As for Palin, the topic of this thread. She really has a point.
It's as if the media is in control over how your First amendment rights are expressed.

That is a total victim position. The media is not in control of what she says. They criticized it, which is their right.

She's free as a bird to go after Obama's associations with Ayers and Wright, AND to say he pals around with terrorists. She's FREE to do that.

The media calls that a negative attack. AND IT IS.

She says that is threatening her First Amendment right.

If Obama went after her dubious associations with her church OR her propensity to hire her friends and fire those who disagree with her, the media is free to call that a negative attack. AND IT IS. Obama just doesn't go there.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Quite true! And, if Sarah wants to know who is a true threat to her and our first ammendment rights (as well as all of them) you need look no further than the current admin and their Dept of Homeland Security. Ms Palin is so in over her head she is becoming a comic figure. Just imagine her as our "Chief Executive" God what a mess.

I have a nagging feeling though that this election is about to be stolen by the neo-cons just like 4 yrs ago and 8 yrs ago. This could result in a riot that would be a ripe excuse to impose the marshall law bit...then the NWO crowd would have their way. Beam me up Scotty!!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes, it is a victim position.
I wouldn't expect her to put a positive spin, on selective criticism.

It's true that Obama doesn't go negative often.
But he has, and does.
Is he taking a moral High ground?
Or is he just avoiding the tossing of Stones within the glass house of his past?

As for Palin, the topic of this thread. She really has a point.
It's as if the media is in control over how your First amendment rights are expressed.

That is total nonsense. No one... I repeat no one is controlling or attempting to control how she expressing herself.... except perhaps the McCain camp and they are failing at that.

If a commentator in the media or a hundred commentators think that she is attacking Obama, so be it, that's their opinion and that is all that is.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by grover]

Originally posted by romanmel
Ms Palin is so in over her head she is becoming a comic figure. Just imagine her as our "Chief Executive" God what a mess.

I see a Sarah Palin comic book coming down the pipeline Something out of her control, yet portrays her accurately.

reply to post by grover



They are not controlling what she says. correct.
It's how they are presenting what she says.

In 2008, are people still able to tell the difference between a commentator, and a reporter? The lines are blurred.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by grover

 

They are not controlling what she says. correct.
It's how they are presenting what she says.

In 2008, are people still able to tell the difference between a commentator, and a reporter? The lines are blurred.

The lines are blurred on both sides of the fence.

the media presents what she says in such a way that everyone thinks shes a total idiot

My Theory is that Palin was picked for this to Destroy her because she stood up to the oil companys in alaska.

Also they want to get rid of mccain because hes been so loud agianst lobbyists and contributions in the past.

Mccain and palin are both just set up for a fall imo.

Dont get me wrong i dont like Obama or Mccain, the right hand and left hand of evil.

I am very disappointed with many ATS members who support Mccain or Obama, because that is an EXTREMELY ignorant position to take.

Good people with good hearts, will never vote for either of them.

Brainwashed people and rascists, will be voting however.

This thread is a perfect example of the Partisan Bias BS that both sides are arguing about.

Neither side of the arguement know anything about freedom. Because they are supporting fascists.

Shame on the lot of you, you have been suckered into this lol.

Could you guys just stop supporting puppets for 1 second and realize that your all being totally distracted from the truth?

Truth = Government is the CAUSE of our problems, NOT the SOLUTION!

reply to post by Monger



Absolutely they are.
And the saddest fact of them all is that the American people have been led to believe that The fence has only two sides. We're a very diverse country, and every election cycle we get "this one, or that one".

reply to post by muzzleflash


McCain wasn't "picked" he won the opportunity to run on the Rep. ticket through the primaries. Now, on the other hand, if Palin was picked by the Rep. party to run w/McCain just to destroy them both, then that speaks VOLUMES about the Rep. party and points out very clearly why they are a failed party that very possibly could be fractured into 2 factions that will lead to the rise of a brand new political party in 2012. This can only benefit the Dem. party.

Of course, I do not believe that either were chosen, just to be destroyed. I believe that after 8 years of Bush, the Reps. are so old school that they thought a Bush prototype was a shoe in. However, when Obama blew up on the scene, they had nowhere to go. It's a fundamentally flawed way of thinking that had been the demise of McCain, Palin and the Rep. party. Conservatism is on the decline and on the way out the door.

Just my 2-cents

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Is he taking a moral High ground?
Or is he just avoiding the tossing of Stones within the glass house of his past?

I can't read his mind and I couldn't hope to speak for him. I don't know if he's taking the moral high ground, trying to avoid tossing stones (although I'm not sure how much further his critics could venture - they could say he eats babies, I suppose), OR of he's not going negative because he figures it would be bad for his campaign (it's clear it has been bad for McCain's).

The fact remains, he rarely goes negative and certainly not against Palin. But she has thrown one spear after another at him and then cries like a baby when her attacks get criticized by the press. If she wasn't so nasty, they wouldn't have that criticism, would they?

reply to post by grover


Promulgating your First and Second Amendment rights at every conceivable opportunity is wholly ignorant. Saying that your right to the freedom of speech is being oppressed simply because you are being criticized for something that you have said is ridiculous. One must admit there is a social consequence to whatever it is one says. If you manage to say something absolutely moronic, and it is clearly evident, you should not feel threatened by the multitude of inevitable criticisms that are coming your way, criticisms that you yourself brought on.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by cognoscente]

So then you lefties are all well and good when Congressmen and women bring up talks about reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but whenever Palin complains that the media is stifling her you get all riled up about it.

Hypocrites. And you complain about the hatred on the GOP side.

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius

 

Attacked her family? If you mean her husband abusing HER powers yes they did. And Joe the Plumber was brought out by McCain. He might as well be a lobbyist or politician and is fair game.

No, I'm obviously talking about her daughter and her boyfriend.