Can any Palin supporter defend this idiocy? Dixie? Anyone?

Dixie, you idiot.

"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."

It is ALL about government. Your boss can fire you for your political free speech, and you know something? You can't win a law suit against him for violating your first amendment rights. Thats because the amendment specifically speaks to congress passing a law. The government may not do a thing to keep you from speaking, but private entities aren't obligated to carry your message or even keep you on the payroll.

This was all discussed four years ago when a woman was fired from her job at a meat packing plant for coming out as pro-Kerry. She couldn't do a damn thing to her boss who fired her because of it because he wasn't breaking any law or violating her rights.

You, sir, are totally retarded.
 
Lol Dixie owned herself again. It is almost sad at this point.

Congress cannot make any laws...etc. This is the govt. dumbfuck. I can say that Palin is a retard neanderthal and it is not violating her free speech. The fact that she thinks it is is disgusting but also hilarious. The fact that you agree with her and think she should run the country is also hilarious.
 
"The Media" is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. ("The Government") By allowing these media outlets to violate her free speech rights, they are violating the Constitution. They have established law which permits these media outlets to violate her right to speak freely. The First Amendment does not simply apply to Government, it applies to any 'entity' government may endorse or regulate, including "The Media."
 
Dixie said:
"The Media" is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. ("The Government") By allowing these media outlets to violate her free speech rights, they are violating the Constitution. They have established law which permits these media outlets to violate her right to speak freely. The First Amendment does not simply apply to Government, it applies to any 'entity' government may endorse or regulate, including "The Media."
Click to expand...

So you are saying that by not regulating media outlets to remove criticism of Sarah Palin and John McCain the government is violating the constitution? This is fucking rich.

This is my new sig BTW.

The government does not have a law that "permits media outlets to criticize Sarah Palin".

They have absolutely no law on the subject.








This is the new 1/3. Dixie is unintentional comedy gold.
 
Criticism is fair, outright lying about something for political motivations, shouldn't be allowed by a federally regulated entity. What Palin did was legitimately question some of Obama's past connections, that is not "negative campaigning" as stated by the FCC-regulated mainstream media. Is Obama's continued rhetoric associating McCain with Bush, also termed "negative campaigning" by the media? I think not!
 
Dixie said:
Criticism is fair, outright lying about something for political motivations, shouldn't be allowed by a federally regulated entity. What Palin did was legitimately question some of Obama's past connections, that is not "negative campaigning" as stated by the FCC-regulated mainstream media. Is Obama's continued rhetoric associating McCain with Bush, also termed "negative campaigning" by the media? I think not!
Click to expand...

But McCain runs 100% negative campaign ads and Obama runs 33% negative.

They are regulated by the FCC in that they can't say baddy words. Their actual content is unregulated. The FCC has no requirement stating "X number of bad things must be said about Palin this quarter". If you think otherwise, point me to the regulation that states so, and I will agree with you. In fact, I'll forward that to my Charles Gibson, because it would be a pretty huge scandal and they'd want to report that.
 
webbway said:
Do not question Obama or be accused of racism.

The reporter from Florida that dared ask Biden some tough questions, banished. The newspaper reporters whose papers were not supporting Obama, banished. The LA Times is holding a tape that could possibly embarrass the one, but they are sitting on it. You explain that to me. Must be nice to know you have the MSM in your pocket.

The media has given him a free pass
Click to expand...

you must watch different media than i do - they do not give anyone a free pass (larry king and anderson cooper 360) try them sometime and see what a free pass they give - larry king did an interview of mc while bo was giving his 1/2 hour 'infomertial' that the childish news network did not carry

also, our local news station does not give either side a free pass although they do tend to lean towards mc - our local newspaper is also a right wing publication - the santa barbara news press - sort of like fox news

they do admit that the reps provide more instances of humor though
 
Watermark said:
But McCain runs 100% negative campaign ads and Obama runs 33% negative.

They are regulated by the FCC in that they can't say baddy words. Their actual content is unregulated. The FCC has no requirement stating "X number of bad things must be said about Palin this quarter". If you think otherwise, point me to the regulation that states so, and I will agree with you. In fact, I'll forward that to my Charles Gibson, because it would be a pretty huge scandal and they'd want to report that.
Click to expand...

That's not the argument here, nor is it what Palin said, Waterhead. You are inventing red herrings again, because you are too pathetically stupid to argue a real point. No one has suggested the FCC regulate content, or require any number of "bad" things per quarter. Although, interestingly enough, this "Fairness Doctrine" your side is pushing, may do exactly that.

The point, which seems to have flown comfortably over your head, is the problem with the news media, lying about what Palin has said about Obama, characterizing it as "negative campaigning" when it's not. If the integrity of the news media has sunk to the point of outright slander, where have free speech rights gone? Should Palin check with MSNBC to insure what she has to say, is not "negative campaigning?" Is that where we are? If so, we are quickly sliding down a slippery slope of losing our First Amendment rights... that's all Palin said, and I agree. If you disagree, that's fine too. No need to make up bullshit and create red herrings here.
 
would not the election be better without the mud - with the candidates sticking to the issues and/or policies that want to enact
i have given up watching political commercials (not just national, but also state and local) my wife and i have done due diligence and selected the candidates/propositions to support - not that we always agree...
 
DonQuixote said:
would not the election be better without the mud - with the candidates sticking to the issues and/or policies that want to enact
i have given up watching political commercials (not just national, but also state and local) my wife and i have done due diligence and selected the candidates/propositions to support - not that we always agree...
Click to expand...

Well, you see... here is a good example of the problem. The mainstream media has determined that Palin's perfectly legitimate questions and concerns about who Obama has been associated with, is "mud" and they said as much to the American people. So who is going to determine what is mud, and what is a legitimate issue? The Government? Welcome to 1984!

Also, the thing about 'policies they want to enact' is, most of it is utter bullshit. Whether it's a republican or democrat, whether it's a mayor, senator, or president. We don't elect dictators or kings, so whoever it is, will likely be having to work with a group of others to forge legislation. Chances are, if it's not something that's already being done, not everyone in that group is going to agree with what the candidate 'promised' in his campaign.

So basically, when you take out the question of character and ethics, past associations, what the media deems is "mud", you are left with who is the biggest bullshitter. Should this be the criteria for electing our leaders?
 
Watermark said:
The media talked for month and months and months about Obama's "connections" before they realized something: nobody cares. It's trivial.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you are wrong. If things like that didn't matter, and we were only concerned with the bullshit the candidates are promising us, Obama would be far ahead of McCain at this point. The polls show a statistical dead heat. Granted, character and ethics don't matter to koolaid-drenched liberals, they would vote for Hannibal Lecter over any republican. The problem is, you continue to assume the whole nation views things the same as you do, and that is simply not the case.
 
So Dixie, you retract the statement that the first amendment doesn't have anything to do with government?
 
ib1yysguy said:
So Dixie, you retract the statement that the first amendment doesn't have anything to do with government?
Click to expand...

No, because it really doesn't. It says Congress can't make a law, but it says nothing about what the Federal Government can do. The Government is given very limited powers in the Constitution. Congress may be a part of our government, but it's not the "Federal Government" by any means. The Supreme Court is part of our Federal Government, so is The President, but they are not "The Federal Government" and they do not retain the power of the government individually. Did you ever take a Government class?
 
Dixie said:
No, because it really doesn't. It says Congress can't make a law, but it says nothing about what the Federal Government can do. The Government is given very limited powers in the Constitution. Congress may be a part of our government, but it's not the "Federal Government" by any means. The Supreme Court is part of our Federal Government, so is The President, but they are not "The Federal Government" and they do not retain the power of the government individually. Did you ever take a Government class?
Click to expand...

But the executive branch can only act on anything if congress tells it to, and the judiciary has no real power except to block. So if congress can't pass a law that restricts free speech, then it would be unconstitutional for any part of the government to restrict free speech (being that that doing so would also violate the constitution because it wouldn't have been authorized by congress, and because congress is unable to authorize it even if it wanted to).

This, of course, ignoring the fact that your original argument that it was "uncosntitutional" for any entity to 'block free speech".
 
Watermark said:
But the executive branch can only act on anything if congress tells it to, and the judiciary has no real power except to block. So if congress can't pass a law that restricts free speech, then it would be unconstitutional for any part of the government to restrict free speech (being that that doing so would also violate the constitution because it wouldn't have been authorized by congress, and because congress is unable to authorize it even if it wanted to).

This, of course, ignoring the fact that your original argument that it was "uncosntitutional" for any entity to 'block free speech".
Click to expand...

It is indeed unconstitutional for an entity regulated by the government to restrict free speech, and the 'media' is indeed in that category. Of course, the 'media' did not restrict Palin's right to speak, that was never the argument from me, or from Palin. It was conjectured that we may be on the road to erosion of the First Amendment, if the 'media' is allowed to intimidate political speakers by deliberate misrepresentation.

What is really frightening to me, is how cavalierly you morons seem to take freedom of speech. It seems you want to make an argument that as long as Congress doesn't pass a law against speaking freely, there is nothing unconstitutional about denying a person the right to speak freely. That is not the case at all, and never has been. I certainly hope your Socialist president doesn't share your views, we may have to have another 'revolution' to secure our endowed freedoms. I would really hate for it to come to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top