It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
No, I'm obviously talking about her daughter and her boyfriend.

They didn't attack her. Show where they attacked her. They covered that she was raped repeatedly(she is under 18, therefor a minor while the boyfriend isn't) and is now pregnant with a rapists baby. Ok, they didn't call it rape why I can't tell since she is under 18 and he isn't. It doesn't matter if they were together, dated, a minor is a minor and an adult is an adult.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:05 AM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I really feel sorry for you if you honestly feel that way.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by GamerGal

Before you start shouting RAPE, you might want to know what the laws are:

The Alaska age of consent laws are unique. The age of consent in Alaska is 16. This is the age at which an individual may consent to have sex with someone over 18, legally, in Alaska. It applies both to heterosexual and homosexual acts.

And before you start screaming statutory rape:

In Alaska, as in many other states, the laws on statutory rape depend, in part, on the age difference between the two partners. The law recognizes statutory rape only in cases involving an age difference of more than 3 years. A 20 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old girl, in Alaska, is guilty of statutory rape. A 17 year old male who has consensual sex with a 15 year old girl is not guilty of statutory rape, under Alaska law.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
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.

I would not. Nor do you, if you think that. You left out the "Congress shall make no law" part as regards Sarah Palin's free speech. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Where is Congress making a law in your scenario?

If anything, Sarah Palin's statement (since she is government and may become VP) could be seen as threatening to abridge the freedom of speech of the press. In other words, the first amendment protects the right of the media to criticize Sarah Palin.

I can't believe how twisted this thread got. How many subjects can people deflect to to avoid talking about the danger of Sarah Palin's ignorance of the Constitution, the document she's set to defend??

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:21 AM
Sarah: "This is what I find wrong about Barack Obama..."

MSM: "Shut up Sarah, you're threatening to let the truth out and undo all the work we did promoting this guy!"

Note that the MSM doesn't defend Obama's record with facts. They just want to silence those who talk about the facts.

I have no problem seeing the difference.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:40 AM
jsobecky - That's a total fantasy. READ THE OP. Here's what happened:

Palin: "Obama pals around with terrorists! He's a Socialist! Americans don't know the real Barack Obama."

Media: That's a negative attack.

Palin: No it's not! Don't say that! You're threatening my First Amendment right!

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:49 AM
reply to post by lee anoma

I just wanted to say:

Exactly. It wasn't a sound byte or a clip that made Palin look stupid, it was the whole thing. It was the whole interview in its entirety that made her look foolish.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:35 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Media: That's a negative attack.

It may be a negative attack, but it is true. That's what the MSM doesn't want you to hear.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:45 AM
The irony, as Palin pointed out, is that liberal media sniping has only succeeded in uniting Republicans behind her

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by jsobecky

That he "palls around with terrorists"? You're claiming that's true? You do notice the current tense don't you?

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by jsobecky
It may be a negative attack, but it is true.

It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Deflecting again. :shk:

The media said it was NEGATIVE - and it was.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by jsobecky

Yeah, no. It's all BS. One of those "terrorists" was given HALF A MILLION DOLLARS BY MCCAIN! McCain palled around with him before Obama knew he existed. So either Obama pals around with terrorists after McCain gives them hundreds of thousands of dollars or he's not a terrorist and neither one did anything wrong. And THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS TOO PROTECT US FROM THE GOVERNMENT, NOT TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT FROM US!

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
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...

...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.

Don't be an artificial, list inflating phoney.

First of all, you tacked on two comedy shows as media. So everything else is listed as media as a whole, except two comedy shows, which apparently are such powerful titans that they each deserve their own mention. The truth is, they're not, and to even include two COMEDY CENTRAL shows proves how out of touch you are and even makes me think that your presense in this thread is to be devils advocate guy.

You also listed a newspaper as a leftist media source, and yet neglected the NY Post and the Wall Street Journal on the right, to say nothing of actually centered papers like the Washington Post.

Now let's look at the big three. The claim that CNN is liberal annoys me. They're the only fair cable news network. If a balanced opinion and fair reporting don't agree with you, then instead of claiming that they're biased perhaps you should look inward and realize that YOU are biased. It's okay. As for MSNBC and FOX NEWS, we know. Moving on.

You included ABC, NBC, and CBS, and that confuses me. These are your average nonsense networks that are available everywhere on regular TV. You also didn't include FOX on the right in here. The news programs on these networks don't have the time to editorialize on politics, and the local nature of each individual news program consumes most of their time. Many entertainment shows, like Boston Legal, may make a political statement, but these statements are pandering to an audience and based on ratings.

Also, considering I know nothin of the politics of PBS, I'm going to assume you're right. I do know that in terms of entertainment PBS is the hippy professor channel, and I'm sure that translates to bed wetting liberal news.

Now in neglecting radio you played a very disingenuous card. You know damn well that a busy person is often only left to the radio for news, while commuting. You also know that the radio is completely dominated by the right, and the ratings for these shows outstrip NPR, Air America (does that even exist), Howard Stern, and the immortal Opie and Anthony...

So why do you claim liberal bias?

I know why.

It bugs you. Even the centrist post of view, when it disagrees with you, bugs you. So this is all you can focus on, and it seems like the dominant voice. Everyone believes that the "other side" is getting too much attention, but it takes a disiplined mind to step back and see things objectively.

You racka disiprine.

Edit to add the bottom line. Oopsie.

The bottom line is that if most media outlets are saything something, it's not because of a bias, it's because it's true.

[edit on 11/2/2008 by Sunsetspawn]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:45 PM
MSNBC is not liberal. Pat Buchanon and Joe Scarwhatever are both republicans. Pat is on every show. Joe has a three hour show. Olbermann... Has a one hour show five nights a week. And the best part? He has higher ratings than Bill. So obviously people would rather see a liberal then a conservative. But short of Keith, MSNBC is balanced with lots of conservatives on. They also had RON PAUL ON! You have to give Olbermann props for having Ron Paul on. Fox? CNN? No Ron Paul. MSNBC? Ron Paul was on their, during primaries. They were the only ones to have him. As for PBS, they have news? I know they have Joy of Painting, Lamb Chops, Antique Road Show, but news? Meh, no one probably watches it so it could be an hour of "Vooooote democrat, you are feeling the urge to voooote democrat" and no one would be affected.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
It may be a negative attack, but it is true.

It doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

Not to some, but to critical thinkers it does.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jsobecky

That he "palls around with terrorists"? You're claiming that's true? You do notice the current tense don't you?

I don't think I said "palls". Let me check...

Nope. I said "pals".

And yes I used the current tense, or rather, agreed with BH. Even BH said that it doesn't matter whether it was true (it is; which I will take as a concession from BH). BH's only problem was that Palin shouldn't be saying anything nasty about poor little Barry! How unkind, even if it is true!

Before you ask your next question, let me just say: Rashid Khalidi.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:12 PM
The myth of a liberal media drowning out conservative voices is just that a myth.

I watch both CNN and MSNBC and by my best count conservative talking heads out number liberal ones 2 to 1... its not always the case but generally they always allow the conservative voice the last say in just about any discussion.

I actually had a young man tell me in 04 that he had no idea what liberals and Democrats stood for because he had never been exposed to their ideas.

Of course its in their best interest to whine about being drowned out but no one with any decernment knows otherwise.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by jsobecky

Meh, you're basically useless when it comes to politics. I don't even think you've ever even considered real political issues.

I can just see you at the Philadelphia Conventions with the Founding Fathers. I can see Franklin working out the details and trying to come to compromise over real issues, and jsobecky in the background yelling, "OMG, I saw John Hancock with a loyalist. He's not patriot! He doesn't even wear a lapel!"

So, forgetting the flaw of calling Ayers a terrorist in the present tense... so what? What do you think it means? Is Obama a terrorist? Is he going to support their cause?

What actually frightens you about this? You do realize that the fear you present is all a facade, correct?

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

Now that's funny.

A star for you for just making me laugh.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:35 PM
All things considered, Palin has turned out to be about the worst possible pick McCain could have made!

I mean, even one of McCain's advisers realizes this!

Top McCain Adviser Blasts Palin: 'Of Course' She's Not Ready

Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush and whose endorsement is often trumpeted by McCain, said on Thursday that the Alaska governor is not only unprepared to take over the job on a moment's notice but, even after some time in office, would only amount to an "adequate" commander in chief.

"And I devoutly hope that [she] would never be tested," he added for good measure -- referring both to Palin's policy dexterity and the idea of McCain not making it through his time in office.

It just seems like she lives in her own little fantasy world!

Abortion clinic bombers not terrorists: Palin

She's been accused of abusing her powers as governor in Alaska and says that she would be willing to "expand" the Vice Presidents powers.

Palin Wants To Expand The Power Of VP

There's this thread, where she doesn't like the media's critique of her speeches so she says the media "threatens" her 1st Amendment rights.

And then there's this newest one!

Palin Suggests U.S. is at War With Iran

In her interview with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren last night, Gov. Sarah Palin appeared to claim that the U.S. needs to “win” the non-existent war with Iran:

We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we’re confident that we’re going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?

It just seems like every week she says something totally "off the wall" or just plain old completely wrong!

No wonder they try to keep her from being interviewed!

[edit on 11/2/2008 by Keyhole]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in