Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sarah on 1st Amendment: So Dumb it Hurts
133
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 4:40pm

>>> The constitution condoned slavery and established that slaves were only 3/5th of a person. I find that deeply flawed. Apparently, you agree with that, if you find the constitution unflawed.

As has already been explained, the application of 3/5 of a person had to do with establishing a more equitable taxation and representation between the north and the south in the central government, it was not a measure of a person's "humanity" or a promotion of slavery. Like the Bible, the Constitution dealt with the world as it was, it was not a revolutionary document intended to rectify the world's woes.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 4:44pm
The difference would be held within the concept of the document. The Constitution, as has been demonstrated for centuries, is not a fundamentally flawed document in concept, but rather one that was not able to encompass all future issues and circumstances...hence it's imperfection. But imbued in the document, and the government, were means to address those issues without affecting the integrity of the original document.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 4:46pm

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!





iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 4:46pm

>>> From what I have seen during this election, I don't think Obama made a gaffe...just stated the truth.

If that is the truth...then either Obama lied when he tried to back-peddle, or he is the elitist, ignorant fop that we believe he is, and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House to govern a people he neither understand nor respects.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 4:53pm

>>> You say this and then you fail to back it up.


And yet I have...extensively. You really should read up before making inane comments...it'll help keep the embarrassment to a minimum.


>>> I remember now why I stopped attempting to discuss things with you.


Because you can't support your spurious arguments and got tired of being trounced? LOL!





Wanted to add - I also have not seen any evidence of Obama's lack of understanding of the Constitution.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:00pm

>>> Does this mean that you AGREE with Palin's assesment of the 1st amendment. That criticism of public officials and candidates is an "attack" on the first amendment ? That free speech only applies to HER, and not to anyone who wishes to criticise or challenge what she says ?

I guess that depends on your perception of "free speech." When the criticism is of such intensity and volatility as to cease being simple criticism and becomes an instrument to quiet, or intimidate, the "free speech" then yes, it could definitely be an attack on the First Amendment.

>>> If criticising Palin is "unconstitutionals" why is criticism of Obama OK ?

There's a difference between criticizing the points Palin has raised, and criticizing Palin for having made them in the first place. I haven't seen the media attack Obama for his plethora of negative comments about McCain or Palin, but they have certainly done the reverse.

>>> Also, how does the view that the first amendment is "threatened" by people actually excercising their right of free speech to criticise Palin, show a deep understanding of the constitution ?

See above.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:04pm
Right, and thus it reflected a flaw (slavery) in the society. Oh, that is what Obama said, so I guess you agree with him after all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:07pm

I guess that depends on your perception of "free speech." When the criticism is of such intensity and volatility as to cease being simple criticism and becomes an instrument to quiet, or intimidate, the "free speech" then yes, it could definitely be an attack on the First Amendment.


You're mistaken here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:10pm

>>> OT, but...WHAT? Please explain.

What would you like clarified?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-02-2008 - 5:11pm
see other posts.

Pages