…but it’s hard sometimes. Like, I could give her the benefit of the doubt and say that her absolutely indefensible tweet from yesterday was written in a fit a pique, a moment of passion. I get passion. But do we need a piqued and passionate person in the White House with their finger on the trigger?
Common sense & decency absent as wacko “church” allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square
Why should I, as a Canadian, better understand the First Amendment of the Constitution, than a prospective presidential nominee? Why should I have to explain the most sacred document to its owners?
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. The First Amendment makes it clear that all public speech, however indefensible, is permitted free from government intervention. That doesn’t mean there are no consequences – an American could be fired or harassed by other private citizens for his or her views – but it means that the government has to shut up and live with it. It’s what makes being American so damn great.
The Westboro Baptist “Church” is revolting, but they have every right to stand on public property and yell about God hating fags, no matter who their nonsense upsets. Even if that means the parents of a dead Marine have to hear it. It sucks, but it is what it is. That’s what the Marine was fighting for.
Why, oh why, do I need to explain this to someone who wants to run the country?
Yep, that was really dumb of her. And I thought she had a good grip on the Constitution.
To understand her, you have to understand that there is more than one way to define ‘conservative.’ A: Conservative- One who believes that a country’s government should be conservative in that it does not impose excessive demands on government and has to defend the indefensible in order to defend what is right when no other defense is possible. B: Conservative- One who believes in the requirement of ‘conservative morality’ ie: the rule of behavior vs. the rule of law. In ‘B’ it is whatever strikes your button. Sarah has lots of buttons.
She was pointing out the hypocrisy of the double standard.
http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2011/03/dc-palin-clarifies-statement-on-supreme.html
I disagree, Falcon. To me it looks like she’s confusing Freedom of Speech with the Establishment Clause, which while both are covered by the First Amendment, are two completely separate subjects. To me, it looks like she’s angry that the family of a dead Marine has to listen to the hate spewed by WBC. Which makes me angry too, but the only one on SCOTUS that was dead wrong was Alito.
RG
The “wbc” is only looking to provoke a fight for which they will sue, and to create controversy hoping to be denied a permit to protest…for which they will sue! Just smile and tell them, “If it is true that God hates fags, and if it is true that God created us in His image, then He must be gay and hate Himself and we must hate Him for creating us and we must hate ourselves for being created in His image.”
Dear Sarah is a wound up woman,easily confused, with her finger always on the trigger! This only gets compounded when she tries to tweet…… gun in one hand, reading her palm notes from the other………how the heck does she do it?”Unflippinbelievable”!
I can’t believe how many people (including you)didn’t understand what she was saying.
Well, she clarified it for you all
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/03/palin-clarifies-statement-on-supreme-court-ruling-i-wasnt-calling-for-any-limit-on-free-speech/
Please update your post with her clarification.. The original is very misleading.
Wow, you must be high if you think that’s an appropriate way to approach a blogger and request them to post something. For the record, I still believe that Sarah screwed the proverbial pooch on this one, or she wouldn’t need to issue 27 different “clarifications”, which only serve to make matters worse. Ergo, my post stands.
RG
I disagree RG. The double standard is the veracity to defend free speech and not freedom OF religion. Of religion is not FROM religion.
Looks like we have a few folks drinking too much tea……or maybe smoking tea leaves? Poor Sarah, always being taken out of context, and picked on! This being the case, why doesn’t she just shut the etbj up, and continue her televised fanily drama killing caribou, bears ….whatever!
Shouldn’t someone who aspires to be a writer understand the concept of sarcasm?
Maybe instead of retracting you could change the post title to “I didn’t understand what she said, didn’t bother to research it, but that makes her the stupid one somehow…”