A blog dedicated to the rational discussion of politics and current events.
You don't really seem to understand free speech. Nor the irony of this image.
Oh, but I do. Freedom of Speech is one thing and one thing only -- freedom from inappropriate government censorship. It is not the right to a reality show on cable, it is not a right to be exempt from criticism, particularly not criticism for factual inaccuracy and bigotry.Palin has been the worst hypocrite, as regards freedom of speech, and the most deserving OF such criticism.But if you think you have a more insightful view, Beardie, by all means, elaborate.
I 100% agree. So again, why do you seem to be missing the irony?Palin says what she says. People agree and criticize her as she sees fit. The Government has censored none of this, and no parties are calling for that.
Did you simply miss that Palin is accusing people who disagree with Robertson of violating his freedom of speech?Here are excerpts from Palin's social media on Dec. 18: "Free speech is an endangered species," "Those 'intolerants' hatin' and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us."And here is Jindal's commnt:"... I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment."Both seem to believe that free speech is somehow different than what is outlined in the 1st amendment, yet believe it is part of the Constitution. In other words, they claim to support it, and don't know diddly about what it really is.It's not only the comments from Governor Bobby Jindal, and popsie Palin, similar nonsense comes from other conservatives, and that failure on their part is precisely what is being lampooned and criticized HERE.But for a further elaboration on what is wrong with both Palin and Robertson, and their gun focus, which ties in, perhaps you should look at the most recent penigma post...
Yep Missed it entirely. It would do you well to add citations, it will add a LOT of gravity to your posts.Believe it or not, I don't much follow the Former Governor, nor her running mate. I don't much care for either of them. I'd like Jindal a whole lot better if you could scrape the bible-thumping off of him as well. No issue with Christians, but as a non-christian, I'd rather not be asked to play their games.Any citation that ANYTHING to do with the Duck Dynasty flap had ANYTHING to do with the First Amendment is showing ignorance on how the Constitution works.We appear to be on the exact same page for this rare moment.Hell that's why I do my blogging from a website I personally own. If I blogged from a free service owned by somebody else they hold the right to always shut you down. And I support that, as its THEIR site.Also why I support your right to moderate comments how you feel fit. (and appreciate that every one of my comments that, while snarky abide by your posted rules, have been published here, as you have no obligation to do that)Such statements above are embarrassing, and you should drop citations, rather than just vague images to really call them out!Thanks for the clarification, and Happy New Year!
"Such statements above are embarrassing, and you should drop citations, rather than just vague images to really call them out!"You mean like you and your gunzloonz moronz buddies and the SKKKrotalMurKKKanPatriotiKKK Front golks do?You have never been too familiar with the facts anyway, so why start now?
"2. Trolls and flamers will be warned; if they continue they will be banned.Discourteous behavior discourages discussion and debate, and is contrary to sharing the widest possible range of view points. "Not my blog (of course) but I don't see your comment as anything but this.
Oh, gosh, I'm sorry, honey! You want chapter and verse from someone who posts an undeniable FACT about Sarah Palin.Sarah Palin is a serial liar, a quitter and a grafter. You're either too stupid to have been able to figure that out over the last 5+ years or you're a liar--you might be both.You and your gunzloonz palz love to accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about (generally because you disagree with the facts in evidence--and have nothing with which to refute them). The simple observable fact, however, is that your first comment (and subsequent comments) on this thread reveal staggering disingenuousness or appalling ignorance.
Oh, and you are right about one thing. It's not your blog, sonny.
Dem,I meant to write this last week. While I think most of what WB has to say is simply thinly-veiled gasoline, he's still right that we try to be better. So,I agree many of the folks on the right simply mouth "Freedom of Speech", glorifying it when it protects their "Godspeak psuedo-religion" but they then turn around and assail it when someone like oh, Tom Daschle (if memory serves) questions the President (Bush) about WMD (something Michelle Bachmann among others did) - calling him a traitor for speaking out against the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Still, we can probably do without the invective. Only a fool doesn't understand that a VAST majority of the motivation of the base on the right is steeped in racial hatred. We don't need call them names to show it, just speak the truth.It is my blog, and I think we can do with a little lower level of name calling - that is unless you back it with objective facts, then it's simply speaking the truth.Facts WB - that's what I expect, from you and from left-leaning commenters. Walk a mile in those shoes before you complain overmuch. I'll enforce my rules of conduct, but I'll expect you to conform if you're going to complain. So, here's a fact to take away, Sarah Palin wanted to have candidate Obama investigated for his ties to Bill Ayers. Where exactly was THAT respecting freedom of speech? Likewise she wanted to tar and feather him for his attendance at the church of Reverend Wright. Did you speak out against the defamation by association (with Ayers) or the attack on Obama for the constitutionally protected speech of another person (Wright)? The irony is that Palin has wilful blinders. The IRONY is that these are cherry-picked complaints (by Palin) - railing to a rabid, liberal HATING base. They (the base) know that Palin attacked Obama over Wright, they know there was no less an assualt on speech - by a reverend attacking the blind materialism so rampant in this country, something FAR more prevelently denounced in the New Testament than are gays - the know it, she knows it too - but they don't care. The IRONY is that, as far as I can tell, you're here saying it's not really an attack on speech, that we're making much ado about nothing, when in fact her attack on Wright WAS - it was done to attack the left, make them look like they're America "haters" when they bring up the Christian ethic of denying greed (material excess) - something done to "gin up" the base, but also something which has a chilling effect on churches speaking out against excess - and she did so in the guise of a candidate for the second highest governmental office in the country - in short she did so AS the government, whereas the condemnation (rightful) of this chucklehead from Duck Dynasty was done by people OTHER than the government and has had very little effect.So, the IRONY is that you're sitting here it doesn't matter (when it does) and asking for facts, when the facts would certainly appear to indict your stance of "this is nothing." This is nothing - but her past actions aren't and the fact that her party faithful think her conduct around Wright was not only acceptable, but desired it, should make you think twice about feeling "It's nothing."