Thread: Please Help Keep This Person Out Of Washington

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Apparently, in an interview today, she also thinks that the First Amendment is there to protect her from being criticized.

Ironically, for all their cries about socialism and communism, they are the ones engaging in class warfare, one of the main tenets of Marx's manifesto.

Can you give us a link to the interview!

How so?

Political Radar: Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

Between this and the duties of the VP, it is obvious she is utterly ignorant of the Constitution or its contents (except the 2nd Amendment...but I doubt she has actually read the entire section)

As far as class warfare, the entire GOP platform has been a repeat of 2000 and 2004 - fear mongering, telling the audience that they are "real" Americans (vs who?), telling them who is to blame for their problems (liberals, Democrats, terrorists, Muslims, anyone who is not a "Gawd-fearin' Amerikin", anyone who is educated), rather than offering solutions. There is no call for national unity on the GOP ticket, unless you agree with them "without preconditions"....which is ironic, given all the claims of "reaching across the aisle". I would be shocked if Palin could define socialsim or communism or could tell anyone who Karl Marx was.

The intellectual members of the GOP have lambasted McCain for choosing Palin. One writer today said McCain needs to address the needs of the Grand Old Party, not the Grand Ole Opry.

You cannot have an intellectual discourse on solving the nation's problems without having an intellect. I don't think the members of the Fed are interested in being winked at like they are in a pick-up bar. I had so much respect for McCain...Dems and GOPers alike could rally behind him on issues....and then he started chugging the Kool-Aid. I think "be President" is on his bucket list.

Again, I am cynical enough to believe that there are no longer sufficient numbers of Americans who actually are willing to vote for the good of the nation, rather than give in to fear-mongering. I hope I am wrong.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Apparently, in an interview today, she also thinks that the First Amendment is there to protect her from being criticized. I wonder if she has actually read the Constitution? She could borrow it from Cheney...he's using it as a coaster. Her comments just highlight the decline in standards in the US...

...being ignorant is ok if you are "folksy" (I think Lincoln would strongly disagree)
...if you do not agree with the far right, then you are un-American (a slap in the face to every veteran, living and dead)
...some parts of America are "real" America
...the list continues...
.

That is not the worst part.
The worst part is that there are enough people who agree with her to have her elected as governor.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Again, I am cynical enough to believe that there are no longer sufficient numbers of Americans who actually are willing to vote for the good of the nation, rather than give in to fear-mongering. I hope I am wrong.

If one was to vote for the good of the nation, who would they vote for and why?

Originally Posted by WireBeard

Political Radar: Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights

Between this and the duties of the VP, it is obvious she is utterly ignorant of the Constitution or its contents (except the 2nd Amendment...but I doubt she has actually read the entire section)

I see nothing wrong with what she said in the interview! If someone calls me bald and ugly, are they being negative? No, they are being factual, and for someone to come out and claim that they are being negative would be untrue, and to further try and stop such factual remarks by condemning them as negative would border on infringing on the right to free speech by anyone and not just the one who is being unfairly condemned!

It's up to each person...as they stand in the booth to vote, are they thinking that the nation is horribly divided at the hands of politicians and the greedy on Wall Street, that there is plenty of blame to go around and we need to resolve issues to fix the nation or are they thinking that they are under threat from "them" and we need to be protected? The irony of a Republic is that the electorate gets the leaders it deserves.

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

-Plato

I wonder how many folks at the NYSE will be voting for Obama?

I will now stop trying to make sense at the expense of your thread now Brad! Thank you for your time and offering me the privilege to to speak on these matters!

Originally Posted by JMS

I see nothing wrong with what she said in the interview! If someone calls me bald and ugly, are they being negative? No, they are being factual, and for someone to come out and claim that they are being negative would be untrue, and to further try and stop such factual remarks by condemning them as negative would border on infringing on the right to free speech by anyone and not just the one who is being unfairly condemned!

You missed the point...She feels that the press criticizing her is infringing on her free speech by calling it negative. If she is saying that the associations are bad, then by definition, it is negative. And how is my condemning what you say infringing on your rights to free speech? But is not the issue, as the First Amendment (the entire Bill of Rights for that matter) is in place to protect the citizens from actions by the government, not citizens from actions by other citizens...that's what the Civil Rights laws and civil criminal courts are for (slander, defamation, etc.). She feels that the press criticizing her is infringing on her free speech by calling it negative. If she is calling out associations and implying that the associations are bad, then by definition, it is negative...it may be factual, but it is also negative. Sadly, I do not think that she can make that distinction...just like McCain's flub in response to the woman calling Obama and Arab: "No, ma'am," he said. "He's a decent, family man...." So I guess Arabs are by definition not decent family men?

The nuances that the First Amendment is related to the relationship between the Government and the citizenry would be completely lost on her...and on many Americans (more's the pity).

For her to spout this drivel indicates that:

She has no knowledge of the Constitution or its purpose
She has no knowledge of the Bill of Rights or it's purpose

No one is saying she can't say these things; however, her reticence makes me think she knows it is all BS...or to quote Shakespeare:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Wirebeard, I think I'm beginning to like you.

Originally Posted by JMS

I see nothing wrong with what she said in the interview! If someone calls me bald and ugly, are they being negative? No, they are being factual, and for someone to come out and claim that they are being negative would be untrue, and to further try and stop such factual remarks by condemning them as negative would border on infringing on the right to free speech by anyone and not just the one who is being unfairly condemned!

But she wasn't even being factual. She claimed that Obama was "palling around with terrorists," which is absurd. She said that there are "American" parts of the country and un-American parts of the country, and that "they" don't "see this country the way I do."

I get very tired of these right-wing extremists -- I won't call them Republicans, because they've essentially highjacked the party of my birth -- slinging mud and worse, and then wrapping themselves in the flag and whining about what victims they are.

j