Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts
Find a Conversation
Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts
| Fri, 10-31-2008 - 9:15pm |
Friday Oct. 31, 2008 13:38 EDT
Sarah Palin speaks on the First Amendment
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/
Somehow, in Sarah Palin's brain, it's a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama.


Pages
"Slavery isn't a "flaw" in society."
If slavery isn't a flaw, what is it ? A virtue ? Do you want it re-instituted ?
>>> You have obviously NEVER read the text of the Maryland Toleration act
Sorry, not on my hit list. LOL! But to be fair, you said "Act of Toleration" not "Maryland Toleration Act."
>>> This sort of "tolerance" only extended to a select few, sort of like Sara Palin idea of free speech only applies to republican politicians and their supporters.
LOL! Kind of like so many wacko-libs who attack Palin for bringing up legitimate "Obama issues" while congratulating him for running a "nice campaign" filled with slurs, lies and distortions.
>>> To compare religiously based torture and death to a fine for not getting you pet or car registered is ridicuolous.
Hmmm...you seem to be the expert...how many people were tortured or killed for violating this "Act?"
>>> But you are proud of the all the persecution done by Christians, you say so even in your post.
Only if you read my posts through kool-aid goggles. LOL!
>>> Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle
Lots of interesting guests at your place. ; )
>>> You commented on the Maryland act of Toleration, and it was OBVIOUS that you had never read it, or even heard about it.
Actually, I commented on the Act of Toleration. You failed to specify the "Maryland" bit. LOL!
>>> Wow, so criticising Palin for running a negative add is intimidating to her.
I'm sorry, I should have typed slower. I didn't say Palin was intimidated, I said that when intimidation is the intent of the criticism then it could be perceived as an attack on the First Amendment.
>>> If she feels intimidated by criticism , then she shouldn't run for office.
That has been suggested many times in regard to Barry...who's delicate constitution seems to get quite upset whenever anyone doesn't genuflect in his presence and heap praise upon his majesty. LOL!
>>> If slavery isn't a flaw, what is it ? A virtue ?
I guess that would depend on who you asked, and when. Obviously it wasn't considered a "flaw" for many thousands of years.
>>> Do you want it re-instituted ?
No, not me personally. I don't believe that our world-view can sustain an institution like that any longer.
That would be Here:
~ SW
"LOL! Kind of like so many wacko-libs who attack Palin for bringing up legitimate "Obama issues" while congratulating him for running a "nice campaign" filled with slurs, lies and distortions."
How is the comparable to the so called Maryland Toleration Act ? Has anyone called for the death of Palin ?
I don't know what kool aid goggles are , but you said saving heathens was something to be proud of, and this was in a conversation about the heavy handed tactics that were used to enforce Christianity in the early founding days of our country.
Apparently you are proud of the witch burnings, the FORCED removal of Indian children from thier families for their forced converstion to Christianity, fines, whippings, and the death penalty as outlined in the Maryland act of Toleration.
< I always love to hear the ramblings of "Constitutional scholars" like yourself. Say, wouldja mind showing us where it says "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?
>>> That would be Here: First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ." -- (This clearly prevents the Congress from enacting laws that effectively 'establish' primacy of any one religious belief over any others - or from 'prohibiting' the exercise of any 'religion'. This quite effectively 'separates' the US government from exercising any authority in support of or restricting the practice of religion )
ROFL! Say, aren’t you the Constitutional scholar who said…
” Let me see if I've got this right. It is not the actual wording or the interpretation by the Courts of the US Constitution that matters -- it is the belief of what it means to the average 'man on the street' that actually defines it's meaning.
And then you try to hand me “this clearly prevents…blah, blah, blah” kind of crap? Where are the “ACTUAL WORDS” that say “separation of church and state?” Surely you can’t honestly be trying to pass off this hypocritical “interpretational” BS as the “actual words,” are you? LOL! SHOW ME THE WORDS!
>>> Or that you have the right to own a guy?
That would be here, in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3 : "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." -- (God bless 'em, the Founders didn't want to actually use the word 'slave' in the Constitution, but the Southern states demanded the 3/5 Compromise to increase their representation in the House of Representatives as a condition of signing the Constitution. Please closely note that they counted 'bonded' White Folks as a 'whole' person, but for puposes of Representation in the House, each 'other Person' - SLAVE - only counted as 3/5 of an 'actual' person. This is a DIRECT admission in the Constitution that involuntary servitude was acceptable under 'State Laws')
LOL! Too funny! Too see you running amok over a typo. But hey, I did just chastise you for “interpreting” so two points for you! You’re wrong, but you still get to keep them two points. The 3/5ths had to do with representation and taxation, as the text demonstrates. And a legal document that doesn’t not specifically condemn a perceived social “wrong” does not implicitly endorse it. Try again.
>>> BTW - Anyone who teaches Constitutional Law at a Law School (like Barack Obama did at the University of Chicago Law School) pretty much qualifies by default as a 'Constitutional Scholar' - whether you like them or not.
LOL! Just how much “studying” does it take to become a “scholar?” Obama spend most of his “academic career” stoned on coke and pot…can you become a “Constitutional scholar” if you’re stoned on coke and pot? Well, if you’re a liberal, I guess so…and that probably explains Obama’s interpretation of the Constitution. LOL!
>>> Now, it is neither my job nor my intention to any further instruct you in our Constitution.
Thank God. I think you’ve proven that, even though you’re a “Constitutional scholar” like Obama, neither one of you has a clue.
>>> I highly suggest you read it, with both the Right and the Left halves of your brain before you embarrass yourself again by feigning knowledge and understanding of the document that you obviously lack.
LOL! Like going strictly by the “actual words” except when a failed argument requires you to plunge the depths of hypocrisy and offer ill-informed “interpretations” manufactured to suit that failed argument? Try again…better yet…don’t bother. ; )
Pages