I report, you decide: St. Sarah defends St. Carrie

[Sonsie]

Originally Posted by Toxick

Ok.


I've decided that you are an OCD twerp-stain.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nachomama

NO matter how many threads you make about her, Andy, she still ain't gonna bang ya.

Sarah or Carrie?

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by DipStick

the constitution doesnt literally talk about cars "in verbatim" either, does that mean we can tell black people they arent allowed to drive? or maybe we should say you must have a full time job in order to be allowed to drive?

get off my road retirees

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

"I respect Carrie for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her denyy her protection under the Nation's First Amendment rights. Our constitution protects us all - not just those who agree with the far left." - Gov. Sarah Palin



Here's what the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I report, you decide.

Maybe the young lady needs defending as Axelrod, the new Administration's Darth Vader said :

On Thursday evening’s NPR quiz show “Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me” senior Obama advisor David Axelrod made reference to Miss California Carrie Prejean as a dog. Politico is reporting that when Axelrod was asked on the show if he had helped the Obama’s choose their recently acquired dog Axelrod replied:

“I was only called in for the final three, and one was Miss California.”

American Thinker Blog: Axelrod: Prejean is a dog

Many have criticized Prejean for her views (as is their right), however, this isn't a criticism of her views. Axelrod is practicing Saul Alinsky's Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

[vraiblonde]

Queefer missed the whole meaning of "We report; you decide." Which would be why he prefers media outlets that do his thinking for him.

[SamSpade]

Would her rights have been violated if she was forced to recant her remarks - or if she has required to relinquish her title because her remarks offended people?

Just checking. Wanted to know if that had anything to do with first amendment rights.

Technically, no, because the government isn't violating them.

But it's amazing how often the left cries foul when ANYTHING is opposing their view. All you have to do is pull the Dixie Chicks off the radio, and it's war. All you have to is have radio hosts say things you don't like, and somehow, first amendment is called upon.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

But Carrie Jean expressing her right, and its a witch hunt when others protest her statment.

It became a witch hunt when her medical records were released without her permission and her past was used in an attempt to discredit her.

Neither had anything to do with her stated opinion.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by aps45819

It became a witch hunt when her medical records were released without her permission and her past was used in an attempt to discredit her.

Neither had anything to do with her stated opinion.

Exactly.

Most people believed she had the obligation to put up with disagreement for her position (just like the Dixie's had to accept a loss of record sales, air time, etc., for their spoken opinion), but not the rest of teh liberal attack dog machine.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

But Carrie Jean expressing her right, and its a witch hunt when others protest her statment.

I thought I brought up the fact that as long as the *government* doesn't interfere with someone's right to free speech, the first amendment doesn't apply.

It would be a bit unfair to force her to relinquish her crown on a subject that really has little bearing on a beauty pageant. After all, they're not there for their political views. It's not a first amendment issue, but it is probably contestable in court. To my knowledge, they've never booted a contestant because they didn't give the politically correct answer.

I do think it's a LITTLE hypocritical for the press to heap any abuse on a 21-year-old beauty pageant model for expressing a view identical to that of the White House and the Democratic leaders of Congress.

But privately, I think the whole matter is a little silly. Beauty pageants seem very antiquated nowadays.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Ahh... so the protesting of the protests didnt start until then? :gotcha:

People DID think it was wrong, immediately, that she lost the crown because of her beliefs.

Where do you stand on that? Do you think she should have lost the crown because of her beliefs? Would you feel the same way if she'd lost the crown because she believed something like, oh, say, same-gendered unions SHOULD be legalized?