Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

reply to post by marg6043


Not sure. I just know that since Joe the Plumber went on tour to support McCain, he fielded a question that asked if Barack Obama's election would be the end of Israel.

Joe said yes. When asked about it, Joe told reporters that they should research and find out why he said yes.

That's right, he wants us to go find out why he has an opinion. I'm pretty sure people on this site use that tactic a lot. Maybe Joe the Plumber is a member.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


Sorry to sound uninformed, but I have not been keeping up with what is going on between the Republican camp and the Democrats, the first time I heard about Joe the plummer was here in ATS.

I have to admit I don't know anything about this issue at all.

Not hearing about it is probably a good thing.

I can't wait until this is all over. My head feels like it is going to explode.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
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".

Yes - This is the saddest part - which is why I strongly believe there WILL be an uprising of sorts - people know they have been duped by this system - and it has been increasingly detrimental to follow those who cannot lead.

We listen to some of them speak and can't help but think - " how can I possibly vote for a leader who responds in that way?" And even if they speak well - we know that it remains a broken and corrupt system - and based on "who" you know. And... they all know the same people.

We watched Bush and his friends spend 8 years trying to form an honest sentence and we are tired of the "pretending". The "pretending" has become painful and seriously disruptive to our existence. We as a species are smarter and more peaceful than this circus. The integrity is lost - and without that -
SO ARE WE.



[edit on 1-11-2008 by spinkyboo]

reply to post by spinkyboo


America's politics are nothing but a mockery to the citizens of this nation.

Our politicians are nothing more than actors and clowns performing for the entertainment of the masses during the elections.

After that they just give a finger to the voters.

wow, some operating below a 5th grade level aren't comprehending Palin's point

ie: why should the media be at all critical of Palin (government) because she criticized Obama (government) - - umm, that's what campigns do?

the 1rst ammendment is ALL about critisizing government and it doesn't exclusively grant that right to the media

her observation was ... the media is critical of Palin (government) because she criticized Obama ("the chosen one")

anyway, the mainstream media are merely positioning/competing for who will be chosen to operate the official "state network" when they all are nationalized.

our 1rst & 2nd ammendments can't exist in socialist nations

our democracy will be modeled after China's
"all in favor - say yes" - - - "all opposed - go stand in front of the tanks & soldiers"

talk radio will broadcast from "pirate stations" in international waters or on foreign soil much like "radio free Europe" did during the cold war & our kids will huddle around an illegal radio in a dark basement.

Here let's take an intelligent view on this lets look at what the first amendment says first:

www.usconstitution.net...

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.

Okay so I see a word there "abridging" lets take a look at what means.

dictionary.reference.com...

Abridging
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

After looking at this and seeing how she has a degree in journalism I would say she has one up on a lot of people here.


[edit on 2-11-2008 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Not sure what you are getting at. Can you cite an example of Palin's freedom of speech being infringed upon?

By that, I mean this part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Where did that happen?

Not sure we are on the same page.

reply to post by Sublime620


It is all in this piece right here...

...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

That is what I'm getting at abridging which is why I included the definition of abridging which states

to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority

So has the media done their job of vetting Obama and including the whole scope of what she was saying about his connection to these radicals?

No, they haven't. They have continued to take what she has saying out of context and not have given the whole scope of the matter.

Now comes the question is the Media acting independently? Nope you can see right here that, Microsoft and Time Warner have donated to the Obama campaign. (also up in the right hand corner you can switch to see McCain's contributors.)

www.opensecrets.org...

Time Warner Owns CNN, and Microsoft owns shares in MSNBC.

So no they are violating the first amendment. CNN and MSNBC are not acting independently. They are also abridging the states Palin is giving by not showing what she is relating it too.

Granted all the media does it, but it should really wake people up to what the media is actually doing.


Now, granted as far as abridging information

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


No, the key piece is Congress. There is no mention in the Constitution that the people of the country need to be fair to one another. The whole point of that amendment was to disallow any laws to be created that do such things.

No, they haven't. They have continued to take what she has saying out of context and not have given the whole scope of the matter.

Are you kidding? It's been everywhere. That topic has been beaten to death, and it's really a useless topic. I assume we are discussing Ayers here, correct? Have you ever turned on the radio? It's all over the place. Even the birth certificate garbage made it to the MSM.

Obama takes plenty of heat. Palin can cry all she wants, but every politician in the limelight has had their quotes taken out of context.

Hell, people still say Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. That was a mudslinging attack against Gore that was completely UNTRUE, and people still believe it.

Palin wants to whine because the media is getting tired of her using the same old dribble? The media doesn't owe Palin ANYTHING. The media does not answer to politicians.

The media answers to us, and they have failed us ever so badly this election.

reply to post by Sublime620


Is the press acting independently? No, CNN and MSNBC are not. Those two news organizations are not acting independently. Time Warner and Microsoft have given to Obama's campaign.

Now, as far as Ayers, Wright, Khailid. They take her statements out of context, or through omission. Then they attempt to take these out of context sound bites and demonize her for it.

It is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

There is a difference between being fair and out and out lying. What a lot of the news media is doing is lying. It shows the complete lack of journalistic integrity in the Media.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


It is not a violation of the first amendment. They did not create a law that stopped her from saying anything. You haven't even cited an example of when they took something out of context.

She continuously says Obama "pals with terrorists" and she says she doesn't regret it. What is out of context about that?

As far as "acting independently", the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdock, is not free of donations himself. He has donated to republicans foundations and McCain also.

Are you not furious about that? Would you not say Fox has taken Obama's statements out of context? Lipstick on a pig anyone?

Donations to McCain

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


That is the point, the media is covering up for Obama. Ayers is a terrorist, they worked on two boards together, in this video that LA Times is holding back it just might show the evidence that Obama and Ayers are a lot closer than what Obama wants us to believe. So is that statement out of context? No, but are they, through the process of omission, leaving out information that proves her statement to be true? Yes they are.

Yes, I am furious with the whole thing. The media sits here and shoves this crap down our throats as lies when it is the truth. I mean Obama launched his first state senate campaign from Ayers house? So how is Palin's comment of 'paling around with terrorist' not a true statement?

Exactly, like I said, just about every media outlet does it. I don't care if they try to demonize her because that is their right to do so. But trying to demonize her and leaving out pertinent information is 'abridging' or omission.

Let me repeat it is the same with every media outlet and you should be just as furious because not only are they violating her first amendment right, they are violating every bodies first amendment right.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Well, there is obviously no arguing with you. You are furious that these companies apparently made donations to Obama (haven't seen a source yet), but you won't even comment that the same is being done by Fox.

As far as Ayers, I can't really do anything about it. If you want to believe that they get together and plot to blow up the White House after Obama gets in it... whatever. What can I say?

There is no point in continuing this conversation.

reply to post by Sublime620


I've posted the link, Here I'll post it again for you. www.opensecrets.org...

Also I've said now three times that most of the media outlets do it. All the mainstream media outlets do it.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Oh, nice. I appreciate the link.

reply to post by Sublime620


No problem.

It just really gets under my skin that the media is pretty much making decisions for the weak minded. For once a Presidential candidate actually mentions the constitution and the media try to make it seem that she is stupid.

I can see why though, if more people caught on to what they are actually doing they would be out of business.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Sublime620

 

No problem.

It just really gets under my skin that the media is pretty much making decisions for the weak minded. For once a Presidential candidate actually mentions the constitution and the media try to make it seem that she is stupid.

I can see why though, if more people caught on to what they are actually doing they would be out of business.

Although I agree with you about the media. she looks stupid just fine with nothing but a mic and camera.

Political correctness is gotten out of hand.

Let's face it, our current Commander in Chief can't formulate a cogent thought and his vocabulary is abysmal. But we're not supposed to be embarrassed that an aging frat boy who can't write his own term paper is leading out country. . . into doom. The Decider is stratergerizing, y'all.

Then we have the Republicans offering the oldest geezer on the planet who thinks he's being crafty and appearing all modern by choosing a woman. He's a "Maverick" everyone! If they tell you that enough, maybe it will stick. But instead of choosing the best running mate, someone progressive in their thinking, he picks what the GOP views as what women SHOULD BE.

The GOP idea of a woman is a hot looking chic who drives the kids to practice and doesn't know too much to make them look bad. It's like they went looking for a stereotype, a paper doll version of Susie Wants to be President.

Palin has set the feminist movement back two decades. My God, she was a beauty pagent winner, not a young Republican organizer. Women should not be hard hitting, decisive, intelligent, well-educated and certainly not well-read. . . if they are conservative.

Is this the best the GOP has to offer? This is the best minority candidate they could find?

If Palin was a man, she would be compared to Dan Quayle (and I'm not sure who is more stupid of the two), and the ticket would have never been taken seriously. This election would have been over a long time ago. But the fact that she's a woman means that everyone excuses her shortcomings, like it's really okay she a complete dolt because she's a woman. I'm surprised we don't see McCain patting her on the head when she doesn't say something too embarrassing.

I truly believe that the GOP thought they would pick up the Hillary supporters by naming her, as if women are so stupid and shallow that they would vote for any idiot that had breasts. It didn't matter who, quality wasn't an issue, so we might as well get the hot chick.

Is it any wonder this is coming from the infamous womanizer John McCain?

What the GOP doesn't get, and which they have so aptly demonstrated, is that women really DO care who runs the country, we really do think for ourselves, and we're going to vote for whomever we feel is going to do the best job.

It certainly isn't going to be the bubblehead who admits she doesn't read the newspaper.

I seriously wonder how any self-respecting conservative can actually defend this woman and John McCain for choosing her.

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

Watch both the Gibson and Couric interviews in their entirety.
No one had to make her look clueless the poor woman does that all on her own.

That or she is extremely nervous and just babbles, or repeats the same answer over and over. Sometimes she answers questions she asks instead of what the interviewer asks.

It's an old political trick to do that last bit I mentioned but she is way too obvious when she does it.

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

Well I think McCain wants to win, even if he doesn't...he is not destroyed nor is she.
He picked her to clean up on the allegedly "disenfranchised" Hillary voters I believe.

I don't think it is working out for him though.

She is playing the victim card here with this 1st amendment claim, since no one is stopping her from talking. It's also a chance to appear as an underdog and scare those with fears of losing their rights under an Obama administration.

I don't think the media is censoring her. Quite the opposite.
The more she talks, the further McCain get from the oval office imho.

- Lee