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
>>> Really? Then if the Constitution wasn't flawed, why did the Founding Fathers make provisions for amendments?
There is room for change because the document is imperfect and unable to address all circumstances and situations that may arise in the future...not because the document or the founders who wrote it were fundamentally flawed.
>>> Why did we abolish slavery and grant women the right to vote if it wasn't flawed in the first place?
Minds and circumstances changed.
>>> Regarding Georgia and Russia, you say I am wrong. Please back that up because Georgia was aggressive with South Ossetia before Russia went into Georgia. That means they were BOTH wrong.
Nope...Russia had no sovereign right to invade Georgia, and was likely using the dispute between Georgia and Ossetia as an excuse to attack the pro-US democratic government and to gain control of the oil pipeline running through Georgia and it's connections to the Caspian sea, effectively controlling the Caspian states and having Europe by it's oil consuming balls. It also exposes Putin's grander ambitions of a reconstituted Russian empire...all of which escaped Barry's inexperienced notice...but was seen by McCain for exactly what it really was.
(((((Generally speaking, indians weren't slaughtered or blacks enslaved as a means of promoting Christianity or it's value system.)))))
Here is what Obama actually said. It is clear that he is talking about the fact that the document was a product of its time and therefore reflected societal biases of its time, like racism for example.
"I think it’s a remarkable document…
The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments…but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not — first of all they weren’t African-Americans — the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a ‘nagging problem’ in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." http://fairfaxareayrs.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/obama-us-constitution-reflects-the-fundamental-flaw-of-this-country-that-continues-to-this-day/
>>> No, Native Americans had their children ripped from them and were forced into Christian boarding schools, many so called "Christian" arguments were used to condone slavery.
Jesus didn't comment on slavery, so I don't know how Christianity could be used to condone slavery.
>>> Some of our founding fathers were Deists and Free Masons.
Free Mason isn't a religion. And the "deist" thing, while it sounds good in writing, is usually tempered by their actual Christianity.
>>> So much for your Christian Nation theory.
Yeah, it's a wild "theory." LOL!
>>> Christians do NOT own this nation. America belongs to ALL it's people, not just the Christian ones.
Sure, we don't mind y'all livin' here with the 75+% of us who are Christian.
(((((Generally speaking, indians weren't slaughtered or blacks enslaved as a means of promoting Christianity or it's value system.)))))
>>> Huh?
Do I really need to repeat myself? LOL!
>>> Spirituality. It has only been legal for Indians to publicly display their religious practices since the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Therefore, many Indians are very protective of their spiritual practices.
Lie. Indians have been making tourist bucks to eons displaying their "religious practices."
>>> African American Culture Through Oral Tradition
Same thing.
BTW, neither have anything to do with Christianity killing or enslaving them to promote Christianity.
... American slave ... American culture through Christianity and tend to focus on religion as a means of saving slaves from the cruelty they experienced. These spirituals were essentially Christian ...
Um...right...thanks for proving my point...Christians were trying to "save" people who were ALREADY slaves. Read the post next time.
And I don't know what the crusades have to do with colonial America, but even in the 12th century, they weren't being used to promote Christianity. Thanks for playing...NEXT!
The constitution condoned slavery and established that slaves were only 3/5th of a person.
Pages