TheAgitator.com
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Future of the Republican Party
Friday, October 31st, 2008This is what anti-intellectualism gets you:
Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by “attacks” from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
So I see one of two options, here. The first is that Palin really is this stupid. The second is that she actually knows how stupid this statement is, but says it anyway because she knows the base will eat it up. Which means she is knowingly perpetuating a gobsmacklingly ignorant interpretation of the First Amendment.
So let’s hear it, Palin defenders. Which of those two options do you find more appealing?
Not really a Palin defender, but I recognize the interpretation of the First Amendment. It is the same one liberals use when they say stupid things and then the public votes with its feet and money to not patronize them any more. You can see it specifically in how Mr. Cooper was handled:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-30-gun-ceo-ousted_N.htm
There are people all over the web today claiming that somehow Mr. Cooper being driven out of his company is a First Amendment issue. It is not.
So charitably, maybe Gov. Palin is just trying to argue in a way that might be understandable to the average liberal :-).
A member of the government is complaining that the press is violating her fourth amendments rights?
Could she it get it more ass-backwards?
Chalk one up for “Is really that stupid”
I doubt her “base” could care less about the fancy wordin’ of some latte-drinking, ACLU-loving Amendment.
It’s the Commandments* they care about.
*(For display purposes only, not for instructional use.)
If they’re impacting her first amendment rights by saying that she shouldn’t do something then she’s impacting their first amendment rights be claiming that they shouldn’t claim that she shouldn’t do something.
Outrageously loose interpretations work both ways.
I vote for another choice: like virtually all politicians, she likes to through mentions of the Constitution into her speech but has never actually read it.
“So I see one of two options, here. The first is that Palin really is this stupid. The second is that she actually knows how stupid this statement is, but says it anyway because she knows the base will eat it up. Which means she is knowingly perpetuating a gobsmacklingly ignorant interpretation of the First Amendment.
So let’s hear it, Palin defenders. Which of those two options do you find more appealing?”
This should be a daily poll question. :-)
The problem is, if you even THINK someone might criticize your speech, that really has a chilling effect. How can you exercise free speech if you have to risk that kind of rejection? For the media to abuse an amendment that is, you know, kinda for their protection, that just really shows the liberal bias in the mainstream media today. I don’t think this is what the Founding Fathers meant to happen, and I don’t think real Americans believe this is what God wants, either. [/Palin]
“Which means she is knowingly perpetuating a gobsmacklingly ignorant interpretation of the First Amendment.”
See, this is the “glass house” stuff that I called you on in a previous comment, Radley.
You write about “1st Amendment” rights or “2nd Amendment” rights, as if the Constitution granted rights to individuals. Then you call bullshit on someone like Palin for doing the essentially the same thing, although she appears to take the next step that ostensibly private organizations (like mainstream media outlets — ROFLMFAO) are beholden to the U.S. Constitution, which given the fascist nature of things these days is not entirely unreasonable if one accepts the validity of government.
Any libertarian worth his salt would respect language and history enough to write about these “important” concepts clearly. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution ostensibly are limits on the power of the U.S. government, not that which grant rights to individuals, in whom rights inhere naturally if one is willing to defend them to the death.
This is not a trivial distinction, as it establishes the concept of limited government as the goal of the framers — logically speaking, why even have a constitution if the powers of the central government are unlimited (which happens to be the case in practice anyway)?
[Of course, one may wonder "why indeed? I would answer that it provides political cover for omnipotent government in service of the State, but then I'm just an anarchist, so wtf do I know...]
As you are a professed libertarian and a writer, Radley, it is my intellectual obligation to demonstrate when you do not write in clear terms using clearly defined language. While reasonable libertarians such as we may disagree on the extent of liberty, there are some core concepts that can’t be diluted.
You write about “1st Amendment” rights or “2nd Amendment” rights, as if the Constitution granted rights to individuals.
Um, where have I written that? Where have I implied that? In fact, I’ve written at length about the history of the Bill of Rights, and how it is not a granting of rights, but merely a list of those rights the Founders thought were most important to securing all others. I’ve written at length about how Madison and others object to the BoR, fearing that it would be interpreted by later generations as an exhaustive list.
So stop lecturing me. Palin made a stupid reference to the First Amendment. I wrote a short comment about how dumb that reference was. It isn’t my “intellectual obligation” to rattle off a four-paragraph history of the true nature of the Bill of Rights every time I refer to one of the first ten amendments.
I am a Palin defender and in her defense, she’s pretty.
I’m going with she really is that stupid. I have seen absolutely zero evidence that the vile liar has a thought in her head. My guess is she believes anything she is told and has never voluntarily read anything. Even though she supposedly reads everything put in front of her, you betcha!
She’s pandering to her base, so what. Welcome to american politics.
There are some things pretty can’t fix.
You guys talk like the First Amendment still means something.
The First Amendment is dead. When the FCC can fine someone for saying “FUCK!” on TV, then the First Amendment is meaningless. In order for the FCC to have that power, the wording of the Amendment would have to change. You’d have to add the words, “except when someone says FUCK! on TV”. Last time I checked, that exception wasn’t in there.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m a depressing prick. But I’m absolutely right, so it would be pointless to argue with me.
I must have missed the rule where the host’s comments are off-limits to criticism (lectures according to you), though I’m actually flattered that you deign to address my comments, Radley. Bad day when I started commenting here, eh? (BTW, read Agitator for 2 years without posting.)
Thanks for clearing it up that you use shorthand in describing individual rights. It’s also comforting to know that you support the same system that Madison prophesied would be a complete disaster.
Those in the know here get what you mean when you refer to “1st Amendment” rights, but I thought there might be those casual readers who might see that and think that rights actually come from a piece of paper. Common misconception.
Four-paragraph essay on the nature of the BoR? Hardly necessary. “Natural right of self-defense,” or “natural right of expression,” etc., would do the trick nicely instead of Constitutional fetishism.
Dave, you’re right and you’re wrong.
You’re wrong that you’re a depressing prick.
You’re right that the 1st Amendment (really the whole Constitution) is a dead letter.
But you’re a bit off on the reason. It’s not that the 1st Amendment needs to be amended to give the FCC the authority to fine a broadcaster for on-air profanity, it’s that Supreme Court interpretations of the 1st Amendment have given the FCC that authority (although the fine against CBS was recently rescinded, so the example no longer holds, but there are countless other examples).
This is the foundational reason why any “Constitution” is doomed to failure (assuming the goal is to limit government power). Written words MUST be interpreted — there are no normative subjective interpretations. The question then is, “Who does the interpreting.” The answer is “the ruling class.”
John Hasnas wrote a wonderful essay on the subject called “The Myth of the Rule of Law.”
I lean towards stupid. But Palin is shameless, which as Bush has demonstrated is in many ways more advantageous to a politician than smarts. I’m not sure how to talk about the intelligence of somebody who shows so little concern for honesty, since there’s no metric we can rely on (they could just be faking it). It doesn’t really matter whether or not the emperor knows he has no clothes on – his political success is determined by whether he can convince people to let him rule, and clothes are only one possible means to that.
It’s possibly an allusion to the “positive right” to speak, as opposed to a “negative” right protecting you against government against regulation of speech. If the media act as a de-facto censor by intimidating people into silence, then the “positive” right to speak one’s mind is lost. That occurs all the time when people criticize more extreme views, of course. But the distinction here is that Joe the Plumber’s question wasn’t extreme, and he was attacked en masse by government officials poking into his private life in order to leak to the press. Would someone ask Obama a similar question again, knowing what happened to Joe? Likely not.
A nation intimidated into silence, even with “official” freedom of speech, isn’t free in the “positive” sense.
[...] into McCain’s POTUS shoes? Jebus. ——— Update: Radley Balko also has some pithy insights: So I see one of two options, here. The first is that Palin really is this stupid. The second is [...]
So let’s hear it, Palin defenders. Which of those two options do you find more appealing?
Palin was talking, in at least some measure, about the attacks on Joe the Plumber. If the news media were limited to simply publishing their views without any special privileges (legitimate or illegitimate), there would be no basis for complaint. When the news media, however, has an alliance with those in power to attack those who would go against the party line (as happened when some government personnel snooped into Joe the Plumber’s files), that does raise legitimate First-Amendment concerns.
To be sure, one’s interpretation of events will be affected by the extent to which one believes there was a conspiracy to attack Joe the Plumber using unlawful means, or whether the unlawful part was the work of an individual who was not conspiring with anyone else. I tend to believe the former explanation.
Hey Cynical: What the fuck are you talking about?
Neither, really. I’m hardly a Palin defender, but the more likely reality is that Palin knows that this isn’t a First Amendment issue and most of her base doesn’t think it is either. She’s complaining about media bias and miscasting it as a civil liberties issue, but the base is sympathetic to the complaint and doesn’t particularly care that she’s given it the wrong label, deliberately or otherwise.
Given that any of us could likely point to misstatements made by either side about affronts to the “rights” people have, it’s pretty easy to make Obama, McCain, or Biden look as dumb as Palin does here. Anyone who thinks one side is appreciably worse than the other on this probably hasn’t tried very hard to find the other side’s gaffes.
And, worse than dumb statements that may be foolish or disingenuous, all of these twits sincerely advocate such an expansive view of government authority that their concerns about encroachment on individual rights are pretty much a joke.
I didn’t think the media was supposed to engage in personal attacks on candidates. They are supposed to just report the news. The main stream media has long since gone in the tank for any leftest mofo that comes down the pike. If, as they say when they support the foreigners over their own countrymen, they are just being non-biased then where is that non-bias when we have elections. It goes in the tank and gets flushed into the same sewer they come out of.
Maybe she was using 1st Amendment as a short cut for Free Speech. But isn’t that the same thing?
The press is in the bag for Obama. Period. (I brook no dissent on this).
Many in the press are claiming that the McCain campaign is more negative than the Obama campaign. This can be measured in different ways, but when truthfully pointing out Obama’s associates is labeled negative campaigning, when truthfully re-stating his own words is labeled as negative campaigning, it starts to feel like the press is trying to shut the McCain campaign down. Like they are an angry mob shouting over the McCain campaign’s speeches.
What she was pointing out was that the press is trying to get the McCain campaign to stop talking by labeling their speech as “hate” speech.
Yes, the press is not the government. Yes, the press doesn’t have to respect the 1st Amendment. But when the press tries to shut up a presidential campaign, it makes you wonder where they will side when the Democrats pass the Fairness Doctrine again. (and apply it to the Internet)
Any (L/l)ibertarian that votes for Obama (guaranteeing Democrats in charge of 2.5 branches of the government) deserves what they get. But the rest of us don’t deserve it.
Pissed off moderate libertarian,
Brian
“Hey Cynical: What the fuck are you talking about?”
Hey Greg N., be more fucking specific and I’ll be fucking glad to fucking type a few fucking words of explanation, you fuck.
I mean, if you’re going to use the word fuck, use it liberally. Try it as all the parts of speech — noun, verb, adverb, gerund.
But isn’t that the same thing?
Was rhetorical. The answer is obviously No. But they are interrelated.
If Palin is the future of the Republican Party I forsee a long, long period out of power. In fact it’s quite likely to be Palin’s lifetime.
I suspect that in an ironic twist (given that her first steps with the national media have been pretty shaky) she has a bright future as a conservative media pundit in the Ann Coulter mould. Much as they adore her I suspect that once the dust settles the conservative base know as well as everyone else that she’s not suited to high political office. Giving preprepared polemics on Fox could be the best way to minimise her flaws while taking advantage of her popularity with the party faithful.
I think that Palin means that the future of our country in terms of First Amendment rights–if she has anything to do about it–is that it will have to be scrapped to make sure politicians are able to say whatever they want without fear of “attacks by the mainstream media.”
Radley, be careful what you wish for. If conservative intellectualism sounds anything like Cynical in CA’s smug lectures, I might have to take a pass.
To close with Modest Mouse from “Bankrupt on Selling”:
well, i’ll go to college and i’ll learn some big words
and i’ll talk real loud
goddamn right i’ll be heard
you’ll remember all the guy that said all those big words he must’ve
learned in college
Regarding “written words must be interpreted” post by Cynical, I’d suggest reading Rand’s _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_.
That’s racist!
Just like every single negative word ever spoken about the Obama candidacy or its supporters.
Palin is not stupid. The liberal hate-mongering media is. What I took her to be saying is a simple analogy that if some of the mainstream media will disparage her so vigorously (for speaking negatively of the truth about Obama) to the point where she is muted, then what could happen to the more important freedom of speech in the First Amendment if the main-stream media complicity supports violating it indirectly or otherwise by exercising their own rights to drown her out?
That is, she is saying she is concerned that the response of muting her negative but truthful comments about Obama is a slippery slope to the *possible* erosion of First Amendment rights. This is too subtle for most people who blog here and elsewhere so vitriolically and who are so hate-filled that they can’t see gray, only black and white (an exception here is “Cynical in CA” who is very bright, in my opinion).
You really should read his John Hasnas reference.
To clarify the slippery slope Sarah is concerned about, most of you should take off your rose-colored glasses and read this chilling piece of how Barack Obama has his own form of erosion of freedom of speech — and what scares me and Sarah Palin. Take a look at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/
Where it says:
[**START SNIPPET**]
On August 27, respected radio talker
Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed.
The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”
A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.
In both cases, Obama’s followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.)
When it’s not busy mobilizing the virtual masses to interfere with legitimate political discourse, the Obama campaign is dispatching attorneys to stifle dissent. Last month, the Obama camp asked the Justice Department to go after a political group that created an advertisement highlighting Obama’s longtime friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers [randy: do you feel a chill yet?]. They argued the ad the contents of which are undeniably true violated federal election law. The group behind the spot is fighting back, decrying Obama’s litigious reaction as “threats” and “intimidation.”
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia has blocked an anti-Obama issue advertisement from airing. Although the Obama campaign isn’t directly involved with, and won’t comment on, the legal battle, the New York Times is delighted. The independent organization “trashes” the Democratic candidate, the paper editorialized, by daring to employ “an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”
Of course, this is precisely what Obama himself promised to do when he told a Planned Parenthood gathering that signing the hard-left Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase almost all restrictions on abortion, would be his very first act as president.
But who cares about the facts? Just shut up! As Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.” The pro-life organization is appealing the decision.
[**END SNIPPET**]
Randy (me) also says this: it’s chilling — that would be like McCain suing Saturday night Live for Tina Faye sounding like Sarah Palin to mimic Sarah with Sarah’s own exact words — I am depressingly sad that most of you don’t get this –and this is exactly what Sarah was saying: and so all you common folks and all you intellectual derelicts such as Salon, etc. afail to address her point by erroneously focusing on her intentions and focusing on speculating she doesn’t even understand the 1st Ammendment — this makes you and those folks, fallacious — and it makes you be the ones who have been successfully mind-controlled by them to be “sheeple” (a NY Times term for sheep-like people who are dumb as sheep). So who is really stupid here? Those who are being brainwashed into agreeing with misinformation presented to them about what Sarah meant with that quote (expressing her 1st Ammendment Right concerns)? Or those who dig deep to understand the nuanced, gray, subtle and chilling truth of her valid and concerned statement?
One more thing: you know Obama’s staff blackballed reporters who would fly on their campaign plane if they were from newspapers who announced on Friday, Oct 31st, 2008, they support McCain (such as the Dallas Morning News). And then there is the neutral female TV reporter from Florida who was banned from being offered interviews ever again when she asked Joseph Biden if this “spread/distrubute the wealth” philosophy, is, like many people on the Republican and Independent side argue, a form of “socialism” (to which Biden chose not to reply and could only say “are you serious” or something like that)?
P.S. Got to go — I am mailing a check for $20 to Barack’s half-brother in Kenya who makes $1/week (or is it month) and Barack hasn’t set him a dime. And I am laughing at how Barack asked all those lower and lower-middle class people contributing to his campiagn to help give Hillary back the $5M she had to spend out of her/Bill’s own coffers which violin-sadly went from a net worth of $50M to $45M. Fortunatelty for you all, the mainstream media does not mention these delectable spread-the-pain “selfish” issues. Instead, they tell **you** are the ones with the virtue of “selfishness”.
And so, who is really stupid? When Obama signed a written pledge to use government-based/tracked funding (like McCain) and then saw all that money flowing in from you all so-called “smart” people, he broke the pledge and when his staff were asked about this, their response was that he never made a promise, he was just proposing “an idea”. An “idea”? Hahahahahahahahah! Remember that when he does not keep any of his promises and makes your life painful — all those promises were just “ideas” he hoped to implement but realized they were not feasible and that inflicting more pain on you is a better “idea” that *is* implementable and feasible.
Yes — take a good hard look in the mirror and say “Sarah is stupid” a few times and you just might see who the stupid one really is.
==============================================
Part 1 of 2 parts:
Palin is not stupid. The liberal hate-mongering media is. What I took her to be saying is a simple analogy that if some of the mainstream media will disparage her so vigorously (for speaking negatively of the truth about Obama) to the point where she is muted, then what could happen to the more important freedom of speech in the First Amendment if the main-stream media complicity supports violating it indirectly or otherwise by exercising their own rights to drown her out?
That is, she is saying she is concerned that the response of muting her negative but truthful comments about Obama is a slippery slope to the *possible* erosion of First Amendment rights. This is too subtle for most people who blog here and elsewhere so vitriolically and who are so hate-filled that they can’t see gray, only black and white.
To clarify the slippery slope Sarah is concerned about, most of you should take off your rose-colored glasses and read this chilling piece of how Barack Obama has his own form of erosion of freedom of speech — and what scares me and Sarah Palin. Take a look at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/
Where it says:
[**START SNIPPET**]
On August 27, respected radio talker
Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed.
The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”
A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.
In both cases, Obama’s followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.)
When it’s not busy mobilizing the virtual masses to interfere with legitimate political discourse, the Obama campaign is dispatching attorneys to stifle dissent. Last month, the Obama camp asked the Justice Department to go after a political group that created an advertisement highlighting Obama’s longtime friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers [randy: do you feel a chill yet?]. They argued the ad the contents of which are undeniably true violated federal election law. The group behind the spot is fighting back, decrying Obama’s litigious reaction as “threats” and “intimidation.”
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia has blocked an anti-Obama issue advertisement from airing. Although the Obama campaign isn’t directly involved with, and won’t comment on, the legal battle, the New York Times is delighted. The independent organization “trashes” the Democratic candidate, the paper editorialized, by daring to employ “an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”
Of course, this is precisely what Obama himself promised to do when he told a Planned Parenthood gathering that signing the hard-left Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase almost all restrictions on abortion, would be his very first act as president.
But who cares about the facts? Just shut up! As Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.” The pro-life organization is appealing the decision.
[**END SNIPPET**]
Randy (me) also says this: it’s chilling — that would be like McCain suing Saturday night Live for Tina Faye sounding like Sarah Palin to mimic Sarah with Sarah’s own exact words — I am depressingly sad that most of you don’t get this –and this is exactly what Sarah was saying: and so all you common folks and all you intellectual derelicts such as Salon, etc. afail to address her point by erroneously focusing on her intentions and focusing on speculating she doesn’t even understand the 1st Ammendment — this makes you and those folks, fallacious — and it makes you be the ones who have been successfully mind-controlled by them to be “sheeple” (a NY Times term for sheep-like people who are dumb as sheep). So who is really stupid here? Those who are being brainwashed into agreeing with misinformation presented to them about what Sarah meant with that quote (expressing her 1st Ammendment Right concerns)? Or those who dig deep to understand the nuanced, gray, subtle and chilling truth of her valid and concerned statement?
–continued in part 2–
==============================================
Look in the mirror to see who is stupid
==============================================
Part 2 of 2 parts:
One more thing: you know Obama’s staff blackballed reporters who would fly on their campaign plane if they were from newspapers who announced on Friday, Oct 31st, 2008, they support McCain (such as the Dallas Morning News). And then there is the neutral female TV reporter from Florida who was banned from being offered interviews ever again when she asked Joseph Biden if this “spread/distrubute the wealth” philosophy, is, like many people on the Republican and Independent side argue, a form of “socialism” (to which Biden chose not to reply and could only say “are you serious” or something like that)?
P.S. Got to go — I am mailing a check for $20 to Barack’s half-brother in Kenya who makes $1/week (or is it month) and Barack hasn’t set him a dime. And I am laughing at how Barack asked all those lower and lower-middle class people contributing to his campiagn to help give Hillary back the $5M she had to spend out of her/Bill’s own coffers which violin-sadly went from a net worth of $50M to $45M. Fortunatelty for you all, the mainstream media does not mention these delectable spread-the-pain “selfish” issues. Instead, they tell **you** are the ones with the virtue of “selfishness”.
And so, who is really stupid? When Obama signed a written pledge to use government-based/tracked funding (like McCain) and then saw all that money flowing in from you all so-called “smart” people, he broke the pledge and when his staff were asked about this, their response was that he never made a promise, he was just proposing “an idea”. An “idea”? Hahahahahahahahah! Remember that when he does not keep any of his promises and makes your life painful — all those promises were just “ideas” he hoped to implement but realized they were not feasible and that inflicting more pain on you is a better “idea” that *is* implementable and feasible.
Yes — take a good hard look in the mirror and say “Sarah is stupid” a few times and you just might see who the stupid one really is.
“If conservative intellectualism sounds anything like Cynical in CA’s smug lectures, I might have to take a pass.”
You sound like a worthy opponent, Dan.
When you’re ready, put your money where your mouth is. I’m dying to read your reasoned refutations of my comments instead of the cheap ad hominems you posted so far.
Ooops. Sorry. Did I use too many big words for you, child?
Palin is not stupid. The liberal hate-mongering media is. What I took her to be saying is a simple analogy that if some of the mainstream media will disparage her so vigorously (for speaking negatively of the truth about Obama) to the point where she is muted, then what could happen to the more important freedom of speech in the First Amendment if the main-stream media complicity supports violating it indirectly or otherwise by exercising their own rights to drown her out?
That is, she is saying she is concerned that the response of muting her negative but truthful comments about Obama is a slippery slope to the *possible* erosion of First Amendment rights. This is too subtle for most people who blog here and elsewhere so vitriolically and who are so hate-filled that they can’t see gray, only black and white (an exception here is “Cynical in CA” who is very bright, in my opinion).
You really should read his John Hasnas reference.
To clarify the slippery slope Sarah is concerned about, most of you should take off your rose-colored glasses and read this chilling piece of how Barack Obama has his own form of erosion of freedom of speech — and what scares me and Sarah Palin. Take a look at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/
Where it says:
[**START SNIPPET**]
On August 27, respected radio talker
Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed.
The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”
A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.
In both cases, Obama’s followers were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a special dedicated page on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.)
When it’s not busy mobilizing the virtual masses to interfere with legitimate political discourse, the Obama campaign is dispatching attorneys to stifle dissent. Last month, the Obama camp asked the Justice Department to go after a political group that created an advertisement highlighting Obama’s longtime friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers [randy: do you feel a chill yet?]. They argued the ad the contents of which are undeniably true violated federal election law. The group behind the spot is fighting back, decrying Obama’s litigious reaction as “threats” and “intimidation.”
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Virginia has blocked an anti-Obama issue advertisement from airing. Although the Obama campaign isn’t directly involved with, and won’t comment on, the legal battle, the New York Times is delighted. The independent organization “trashes” the Democratic candidate, the paper editorialized, by daring to employ “an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.”
Of course, this is precisely what Obama himself promised to do when he told a Planned Parenthood gathering that signing the hard-left Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase almost all restrictions on abortion, would be his very first act as president.
But who cares about the facts? Just shut up! As Ramesh Ponnuru points out, “There’s a reason the Times doesn’t try to back up its claim that this organization is lying; it can’t. No wonder it would rather the group be silenced.” The pro-life organization is appealing the decision.
[**END SNIPPET**]
Randy (me) also says this: it’s chilling — that would be like McCain suing Saturday night Live for Tina Faye sounding like Sarah Palin to mimic Sarah with Sarah’s own exact words — I am depressingly sad that most of you don’t get this –and this is exactly what Sarah was saying: and so all you common folks and all you intellectual derelicts such as Salon, etc. afail to address her point by erroneously focusing on her intentions and focusing on speculating she doesn’t even understand the 1st Ammendment — this makes you and those folks, fallacious — and it makes you be the ones who have been successfully mind-controlled by them to be “sheeple” (a NY Times term for sheep-like people who are dumb as sheep). So who is really stupid here? Those who are being brainwashed into agreeing with misinformation presented to them about what Sarah meant with that quote (expressing her 1st Ammendment Right concerns)? Or those who dig deep to understand the nuanced, gray, subtle and chilling truth of her valid and concerned statement?
One more thing: you know Obama’s staff blackballed reporters who would fly on their campaign plane if they were from newspapers who announced on Friday, Oct 31st, 2008, they support McCain (such as the Dallas Morning News). And then there is the neutral female TV reporter from Florida who was banned from being offered interviews ever again when she asked Joseph Biden if this “spread/distrubute the wealth” philosophy, is, like many people on the Republican and Independent side argue, a form of “socialism” (to which Biden chose not to reply and could only say “are you serious” or something like that)?
P.S. Got to go — I am mailing a check for $20 to Barack’s half-brother in Kenya who makes $1/week (or is it month) and Barack hasn’t set him a dime. And I am laughing at how Barack asked all those lower and lower-middle class people contributing to his campiagn to help give Hillary back the $5M she had to spend out of her/Bill’s own coffers which violin-sadly went from a net worth of $50M to $45M. Fortunatelty for you all, the mainstream media does not mention these delectable spread-the-pain “selfish” issues. Instead, they tell **you** are the ones with the virtue of “selfishness”.
And so, who is really stupid? When Obama signed a written pledge to use government-based/tracked funding (like McCain) and then saw all that money flowing in from you all so-called “smart” people, he broke the pledge and when his staff were asked about this, their response was that he never made a promise, he was just proposing “an idea”. An “idea”? Hahahahahahahahah! Remember that when he does not keep any of his promises and makes your life painful — all those promises were just “ideas” he hoped to implement but realized they were not feasible and that inflicting more pain on you is a better “idea” that *is* implementable and feasible.
Yes — take a good hard look in the mirror and say “Sarah is stupid” a few times and you just might see who the stupid one really is.
Sorry about the extra post.
I think there is another option in addition to the two in Radley Balko’s false dichotomy. Here it is:
“Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) understands the First Amendment and the threats thereto better than some ‘libertarians’, for example, Radley Balko.”
It is too great a stretch on Governor Palin’s part to say that when the poltical allies of the frontrunning candidate attempt to name-call and shout her into silence, that the election of that candidate may represent a threat to First Amendment values.
If you don’t understand that, Radley, you are totally unfamilar with what happens on university campuses. What used to be name-calling and shouting down has evolved into “speech codes”.
Where will our “free speech zone” be? I would bet on Alaska over my own home state of Massachusetts, site of many universities plus ACLU lawyers.
Oops — I meant “It is NOT too great a stretch . . .”
Well. That was quite the spam post.
Look, Randy, I appreciate the support. But a word of advice — posting 600 inches of text here is a bad move. No one is that interested.
Anyway, after reading all I could manage, I think we actually disagree more than agree — nothing wrong with that.
#38 — false dichotomy (or dilemma)
Of course! Seldom are options limited to two. Perfect, Peter.
As for free speech, well, there is none. All political speech is regulated.
Something is either free or not free. On/Off. 0/1.
It is not too great a stretch on Governor Palin’s part to say that when the poltical allies of the frontrunning candidate attempt to name-call and shout her into silence, that the election of that candidate may represent a threat to First Amendment values.
It’s not only a huge stretch, but it ignores over two hundred years of rough and tumble political discourse. It’s actually hilarious and pathetic for her to suggest that pundits (on the left and right) pointing out all of the stupid and/or dishonest things she’s said, will actually somehow prevent her from speaking her “mind.”
It’s ignorant, it’s weak, and it’s whiny, and it’s sadder still to see people defending it.
(1) You didn’t state why it’s a huge stretch. Therefore that is a fallacious remark.
(2) Two hundred years of political discourse you say. But how often have people had the medium to gain (or drown out) everyone’s ears, such as they do now with their vitriolic and fallacious statements on television, radio, newspapers and the Internet?
The liberals want Palin and McCain to insist they quiet their passionate crowds where a small handful of individuals may ask if Barack is a Muslum or say something else inflammatory but when people blog here or Salon, Huffington Post, etc. allows unabated inflammatory remarks to be made against Palin such as calling her stupid, it’s okay and done so in the nam of freedom of speech and good-old fashioned poltiical discourse.
Finally you said it’s actually “hilarious and pathetic” for her to say that.. this is an ad hominem attack and in debates you would be docked as fallacious. Please be more specific and address point by point the examples I gave of the slippery slope we are on with Barack Obama and his staff and why one shouldn’t be concerned? Otherwise, your rebuttal is shallow in content.
And Cynical: regarding 600 inches, etc. Remember: the “devil is in the details”. Details are part of a debate for the non-simple minded. Just like Barack wants lower-class and lower-middle class to have more opportunity to rise from their pitiful and indigent state (such as buying a car or sending their children to school with his $500 tax credit) — then I want people who don’t like statements that are fallacious and want facts, details to more properly make up their mind or shape their opinions. For those who can’t handle it, does it really matter if it’s 4 inches or 600 inches?
we want the
Mindreaders and Presumptive People: Gee… I wonder how was so “smart” around Sept 3, 2008? Does her applauding the jury for not convicting William Penn for preaching a Quaker sermon and linking it to the eventual First Amendment mean she just signed off on something she was too stupid to understand? or are you all too stupid to give someone you hate any credit for anything?
************************************************
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/proclamations.php?id=1463
Jury Rights Day
WHEREAS, September 5, 2008, will mark the 338th anniversary of the day when the jury refused to convict William Penn of violating England’s Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon to his congregation.
WHEREAS, by refusing to apply what they determined was an unjust law, the Penn jury not only served justice, but provided a basis for the U.S. Constitution’s ***First Amendment rights of freedom of speech****, religion, and peaceable assembly.
WHEREAS, September 5, also marks the anniversary of the day when four of Penn’s jurors began nine weeks of incarceration for finding him not guilty. Their later release and exoneration established forever the English and American legal doctrine that it is the right and responsibility of the trial jury to decide on matters of law and fact.
WHEREAS, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments are included in the Bill of Rights to preserve the right to trial by jury, which in turn conveys upon the jury the responsibility to defend, with its verdict, all other individual rights enumerated or implied by the U.S. Constitution, including its amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ***Sarah Palin***, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim September 5, 2008, as:
Jury Rights Day
in Alaska, in recognition of the integral role the jury, as an institution, plays in our legal system.
Dated: September 3, 2008
To all you Palin people –
I still don’t get what Obama or the Democrats have to do with Palin thinking that the media can somehow threaten First Amendment rights.
Peter K. – “Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) understands the First Amendment and the threats thereto better than some ‘libertarians’, for example, Radley Balko.”
Radley calls himself a libertarian, but he’s so deep in the tank for Obama I think he needs to stop.
Randy,
It’s a stretch because you’re saying criticizing statements is the same as trying to “silence” someone. If no one is threatening Palin, she’s not being “intimidated.”
The fact is that Palin lies and says stupid things (like every other politician). Then when people say, “that wasn’t true,” or “that sure is stupid,” Palin and her supporters whine like children that the big, bad news media is trying to “silence” her. How? Well, by reporting what she says! And then people have the nerve to make fun of her for saying stupid and dishonest things! To describe that as “intimidation” is baseless (not to mention whiny and pouty and intellectually weak).
That the Obama campaign condemns the bigots at her rallies while ignoring the insults coming from liberals is typical political fare. It has no force of law. Anybody “intimidated” by these tactics has no business in the public square. That’s what freedom of speech is all about. People are free to say stupid, hypocritical things, and other people are free to say, “that’s stupid and hypocritical!” No thinking person should be “intimidated” by the free flow of ideas, no matter how insulting those ideas are.
It’s perfectly reasonable for me to describe her arguments as “hilarious and pathetic” and that hardly counts as “ad hominem.” Calling her a deluded, fundamentalist liar would be ad hominem (as well as observably true). Her arguments are hilarious and pathetic because she’s described herself as a “pitbull” and then she whines about people criticizing what she says.
I’m not a liberal. I’m not voting for Obama. I think his campaign’s threats against the TV station that ran the McCain ad are appalling.
But truth is truth and it doesn’t matter which of the two dishonest, oppressive political parties you’re loyal to.
I more or less loathe Palin, but I can kind of see where she’s coming from here. Obviously the media isn’t part of the government, so it’s not really 1A issue, but I’d assume she’s referring to America’s general tradition of respecting and protecting free speech, even when not constitutionally mandated.
That said, I don’t really see how the media accurately reporting on the character of each campaign is an attack on free speech. If McCain wants argue primarily that Obama is a bad guy with bad judgment, that’s fine–but it’s a textbook example of a negative campaign. And while I’m obviously biased in Obama’s favor, I’d say that even in the connotative understanding, ‘negative’ pretty accurately describes a lot of the crap we’re seeing from McCain and his supporters.
What’s amusing about this is that conservatives have spent the last however many months arguing that an Obama presidency is going to result in all manner of censorship and government regulation of speech, media activities, etc. And yet, the implications are rather similar with Palin if she actually believes that the MSM is violating her 1A rights.
In Palin’s defense, the media do portray themselves as the “fourth branch” of government. More seriously, ‘First Amendment’ is often shorthand for a natural right of free speech that’s independent of government and which THE First Amendment is only recognition of.
Randy,
Your arguments are so dumb and illogical it’s breathtaking. Oh wait did I just violate your first amendment rights? Or implicate them in some weird abstract way that requires nuance to understand? (Hint: the answer is no I didn’t).
“Ad Hominem attacks” and sarcasm aside, here’s a few simple facts for you Randy:
Criticism by the media is an exercise of 2 different clauses of the First Amendment and must be allowed. Whether the criticisms are fair, truthful, accurate, biased, deliberately dishonest, or anything else does not take them out of the purview of the First Amendment (though it may allow different redresses in an extremely small portion of extreme circumstances).
Further, and this is the fact that makes your argument incredibly dumb, is that even if the entire mainstream media colluded to NEVER EVER cover anything related to Sarah Palin – act as though she didn’t exist – this would not implicate the 1st Amendment! The 1st Amendment only applies to government agents and actors when they seek to punish, or prevent speech. Any sort of government granted rights or protections that apply to the press (or even specific requests by a political candidate to the press to report certain things or cover things in a certain way) are not enough to make them agents of the government enough to trigger the protections of the BoR. This is incredibly black and white and it is why Palin’s comments are dumb, and your defense of her is pathetic.
You criticize your critics by saying they need to connect the dots better, while at the same time you say that what Palin is complaining about “may lead to a possible erosion” of 1st Amendment rights without explaining how? So let me ask you, how would the media unfairly, biasedly, wrongly covering/criticizing Palin make it more likely or possible in the future that the GOVERNMENT will begin to punish or prevent more types of speech, or do so more harshly, or otherwise create new restrictions? How? I’m honeslty thinking this through and I don’t see any connection whatsoever how one could lead to the other. Help me out!
Also, Palin doesn’t understand the job of the Vice President and can’t name Supreme Court cases, but you want us to believe she has an ultra-nuanced, post-modern comprehension of the First Amendment worthy of a note in a prominent law journal? You’ve got to be kidding.
The truth is she probably has never read the Constitution, and almost surely doesn’t know the jurisprudential history of free speech.
Also Randy,
Palin’s comments about the Quaker sermon and the 1A are dead on because it was the….. wait for it….. wait just a little longer (you know what’s coming)….. GOVERNMENT prosecuting – which is a tpe of punishment – someone for the CONTENT of their speech.
In general, Randy, keep in mind that some comments about the 1A are correct and some are incorrect. Sometimes – believe it or not – the SAME person can make both kinds of comments!
(Greets from Johannesburg)
She’s that fucking stupid.