Posted on 03/02/2011 3:00:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
You mean the posts that ignorantly take the highly twisted title at face value? LOL
I ignore stupidity for the most part.
good luck with that..
Her meaning was clear. Liars will twist anything.
“Yes, the decision was correct and CONSTITUTITIONAL”
Yes it was and Sarah Palin should know that. Freedom of speech is many times totally obnoxious. There are other ways to deal with the WEstboro Nutball church. As I said before flat tires in the parking lot comes to mind.
Where did she state otherwise?
You mean the posts that ignorantly take the highly twisted title at face value? LOL
Considering the actual Tweet that she wrote, not your highly cleaned up interpretation of it, I would not call those FReepers "ignorant".
My position stands: Her style of Tweets is extremely low-hanging fruit for any liberal desiring ammunition and her style of Tweets will not get her taken seriously by a majority of voters.
“The problem with Palin’s position is that this issue requires serious discussion and the citing of legal precedent .... not trite comments on Twitter.”
LOL, yeah we need more Constitutional Lawyers like Bill Clinton and Obama.
I’ll take Palin’s common sense over their intellectual sheepskins, any day.
My understanding of the case was that the family was not even aware of the protesters, until they saw it later on TV.
Yes it was and Sarah Palin should know that. Freedom of speech is many times totally obnoxious. There are other ways to deal with the WEstboro Nutball church. As I said before flat tires in the parking lot comes to mind.
You advocate vandalism as a response to obnoxious speech?
In any event, Sarah was probably simply expressing her opinion that the SCOTUS should have ruled differently, more in line with the classic civics case I mentioned earlier, wherein Nazis specifically targeted a synagogue to "march" in front of, and they were not permitted to do so, in spite of their Free Speech rights.
So rather than display ignorance, I believe that Sarah simply believed the decision was wrong, and that the speech in question could have been Constitutionally limited in this case.
In the context of case history on this issue, and since this is an example of specifically singling out certain people for harassment during a solemn, private function, I believe that it's at least arguable that the decision could have been different, and thus I am not swayed by flippant accusations of ignorance on Sarah's part...
I never posted an interpretation of her Tweet which means you not only have pathetic reading comprehension you just make things up. I would not only call them ignorant but stupid as well.
Palin never said that the decision was unconstitutional. You should know that.
Her meaning was clear. Liars will twist anything.
“Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed @ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,”
She put "church" in quotations.
What was the clear meaning?
Is the Westboro Baptist Church a real Church or merely a phony "church" that thereby needs quotation marks to differentiate them from real Churches?
Who decides what is a real Church and what is a phony "church" that needs quotation marks?
You? Me? Sarah Palin? Barack Obama? The U.S. Religious Police Commission?
Are phony "churches" protected under the Freedom of Religion guarantees of the First Amendment?
If other Baptist Churches preach that homosexuality is a sin, can they be decreed by the U.S. Government to be a phony "church" and outside of First Amendment protection?
Her meaning was as clear as mud. It was low-hanging fruit for any liberal looking for ammunition against conservatives.
Make it a private, invitation only funeral. No ticket, no free speech rights.
It's sick.
Worse still are the morons who try to make legal arguments out of an opinion. This country is in serious trouble.
I doubt whether there would be much of an investigation if it was an accident.
“So rather than display ignorance, I believe that Sarah simply believed the decision was wrong, and that the speech in question could have been Constitutionally limited in this case.”
Free speech is free speech. Either you can say what you want or you can’t. You can’t pick and choose what is OK to say. I’m sure Sarah Palin did believe the decision was wrong but it wasn’t wrong. The 1st Ammendment is pretty clear. This was not a 5-4 decision.
“What do you mean it’s not 1st Amendment protected to counter their picketing with a shotgun full of slugs?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.