- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Innaccurate question that is a strawman.
Being behind, IE actually SUPPORTING, the mosque being built is not required to not want the government to infringe upon someones free practices.
A better question would be whether or not the poster agreed with people having the right to bad mouth and protest the mosque and its creator, or if they should be silenced for doing such. As that would correlate to what happened with Laura, as people were bothered by what she did and thus spoke out against it to her detriment.
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.The first amendment is not at issue here. In fact, I can't remember any case off the top of my head where some one had their first amendment rights trampled. Perhaps you can give some examples.
They have every right to build there. I wouldn't want the government to interfere with that right.So, of course, you're completely behind the effort by muslims to build a mosque near ground zero, right? Because, of course, you wouldn't want the government to infringe on the free practice of their beliefs. Right?
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.
I don't think she talks politics. She is a conservative advice person kind of like Ann Landers, Dear Abby, I think, only on radio. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I don't listen to her.You'd think that someone who has a show in which she discusses politics would know something about politics, wouldn't you?
I was under the impression that Dr. Laura was a strong proponent of personal responsibility for one's actions.
Irony.
Media Matters ≠ governmentWhen a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.
When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.
Your attempt to beat her over the head with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility has been noted.
So, her first amendment rights really were infringed? Psht. Don't be silly.
That's not what you said.
Please show where MM has taken Dr. Laura's words out context.When a well funded group MM, whose sole purpose for existing is to silence Conservatives and is succeeding I'd say our rights are in danger. If nothing else they will put everyone in fear of speaking out. You can see how the Dr Laura thing has turned out. A woman says the N word. MM takes it out of context. Sponsors and affiliates are contacted by MM. Dr. Laura decides to call it quits, maybe just because she is tired of it. She has been fighting MM and their affiliates for 10 yrs now over a gay thing. Now the N word. I'd don't blame her for quitting.
There's a big difference between being personally responsible and just laying back and taking a beating for something that has been completely misrepresented.
Your attempt to beat her over the head with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility has been noted.
So, her first amendment rights really were infringed? Psht. Don't be silly.
"Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")," Palin tweeted on Wednesday.
Taking personal responsibility would probably not include a lot of public bitching and whining about how your 1st amendment rights were violated, when they weren't.
For those who don't question Palin's intelligence:
That's your roundabout way of saying that someone you don't like shouldn't be publically defending herself against public defamations. You're simply trying to discredit her defense of herself with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility. :shrug:
i don't feel it was misrepresented. she was talking with a black woman who was upset about racial slurs being used in her own home.....and dr laura proceeded to use that word 11 times in 5 minutes. i heard it, it was uncalled for and just plain nasty. imo, she can certainly do whatever she wants, i'm sure fox news has a place for her.
I highly doubt Palin tweets her own tweets. Also, tweets, informal email, and bulletin postings aren't held to the same rigorous grammatical and syntax standards as other publishings.
Also, how the hell did Sarah Palin become relevant enough to this thread to post about her?
That's your roundabout way of saying that someone you don't like shouldn't be publically defending herself against public defamations. You're simply trying to discredit her defense of herself with an erroneous definition of personal responsibility. :shrug:
I think what she should have said is "I got fired for what I said, but I shouldn't have been fired for saying it" rather than saying she is losing her First Amendment rights. When she said he lost her rights it seems like she was just jumping up and down saying look at me look at me.
I don't care if she defends herself, but I do care that she is errantly using the first amendment to pretend that she's somehow been violated. Do you deny the right of companies to fire people for exercising lack of judgement?
That's not what you said. You made an attack on her sense of personal responsibility.
I was not commenting on her syntax, but upon her claims about the first amendment. And whether Palin actually made the tweet is irrelevant, she is responsible for them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?