Comments on: Breaking News: Sarah Palin Effigy Taken Down

By: scarface

scarface — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:37:37 +0000

AnninCA, I can tell you must not be a parent. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw that effigy was Sarah’s little girl. I cannot imagine how she would feel if she saw that. The effigy of BO in U. of Kentucky was equally shameful. I hope BO’s daugthers never hears of it. For those of you who think that freedom of speech in this instance trumps human decency, then you are totally lost. Freedom of speech and expression is one of the greatest rights awarded by the Constitution. But any “adult” knows that it comes with grave responsibility. People like you who condone such irresponsible, selfish acts have no place in society. In this instance, people like you think it is “funny”. For all your rhetoric about supporting a candidate that will bring hope and unity to the world, your actions betray your self-interest in forcing your ideals on others who just do not agree with you.

I have only pity for you AnninCA because I believe in karma. There is consequences for all your actions, and the worst will come when they befall not on you, but those that you love most. You may not like what I am saying, but my conscience is clear because for this election, I did my homework. I was a lifelong democrat who tried for long time to consider a vote for BO. But like many here, I cannot find an excuse to vote for him.

By: trixta

trixta — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:56:09 +0000

Or BO’s evening show could be called the Pod Wing.

By: morty

morty — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:36:02 +0000

Peer pressure. Lots of it. And then turning the tables. Touche!

By: Goblintrain

Goblintrain — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:26:48 +0000

Obama is nothing but Adolf Hitler with a new suit on. I pray every night that people will see the light and vote for McCain.

I’m with you, Sarracuda. While normally one of those people who are overly fond of the bottle, for the last 6 weeks, every time i want to touch the sauce i pray for our Nation instead. Just couldn’t live with the thought of remembering that i past through this election cycle drunk. There is too much at stake here, and too much rejoicing to do when McCain/Palin are elected next week!

By: trixta

trixta — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:09:45 +0000

But GWB initiated this fascist era we’re living in. Bo is the next phase, which is just as (if not more) dangerous.

By: trixta

trixta — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:06:16 +0000

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, . . . .

By: trixta

trixta — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:04:34 +0000

Your “downlow” analysis is spot on.

By: westex

westex — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:45:11 +0000

I think you have to have a job there to live in New Zealand… they don’t look to kindly on welfare. What a place! If you want to eat you have to work..

By: izarradar

izarradar — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:13:37 +0000

Excuse me, but the “Doo Dah” parade does NOT take place in West Hollywood. That parade takes place in Pasadena.

By: JozefAL

JozefAL — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:00:26 +0000

George, the only problem with your “incitement to violence” exception is that it DOES NOT WORK. Go back to WWI and see just how the “freedom of speech vs incitement to violence” argument fails. The Schenck vs US decision in 1919 (while not dealing directly with “incitement to violence”) ruled that freedom of speech can be restricted if it merely presents a “clear and present danger”. Schenck had been a vocal opponent to the draft and had passed out leaflets arguing against the draft and urging men not comply.
The 1969 Brandenburg v Ohio decision ruled that inflammatory speech can be targeted if it is LIKELY to incite imminent lawless action.
Those decisions, when taken in tandem, have caused many problems when the actual hate speechmakers have been taken to court for the actions of their followers. Those who spew venom make the argument that they cannot be held accountable for the deeds of others, even those in their audience. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people have gone to jail for DOING what they’ve heard others saying should be done. (There were a number of cases where leaders of Aryan Nations and other white supremacists groups never faced a jury for their incendiary speeches while their supporters served jail time for taking the very types of actions the leaders had spouted.)
There is nothing that suggests that the Founding Fathers ever intended that outright lies should be protected by the law. Consider the Zenger case, which became the foundation of the very concept of a free press in this country. The man was arrested and jailed on charges of seditious libels against the Governor of New York. A jury found Zenger not guilty largely because Zenger’s lawyer had proved what Zenger had written was based on the facts.
Carol Burnett, in her own famous case, successfully sued the National Enquirer for having published an article which accused Burnett of being drunk and rowdy at a restaurant in 1976. The article was based on an unreliable tipster at the restaurant but was written, and was then approved by the magazine’s gossip column editor.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are invaluable parts of American’s heritage, but that heritage does NOT allow either to be without limits. We permit freedom of religion, but, as adherents of the Native American Church can attest, they don’t have an unrestricted right to partake of peyote or hallucinogenic mushrooms whenever and wherever they choose; similarly, Rastafarians in this country are resticted in their use of marijuana. Practitioners of voodoo and santeria must abide by strict regulations when it comes to animal sacrifice. On the flip side of the coin, churches ARE exempt from abiding by federal equal employment opportunity laws (the Roman Catholic Church can prohibit women from becoming priests–an otherwise flagrant violation of anti-discrimination laws and fair hiring practices). Employers may not require female employees to wear pants or slacks if the women believe such items go against their religious beliefs, but no employer is required to hire a woman whose job would demand pants/slacks, especially for safety purposes (high-rise contruction workers, telephone lineworkers, mining).
Freedom of assembly would suggest that anyone can organize a meeting anywhere and anytime, but in the real world, you need permits to hold a parade. Most localities require a permit if you wish to make a speech in a public place that’s intended to draw a crowd, to say nothing of the fact that even public venues–such as city hall–can impose certain restrictions or impose fees for the facility’s use. These restrictions are perfectly legal and completely within the bounds of the Constitution, provided that the rules are applied evenly and without preference for one point of view over another.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:55:51 +0000

Last night was church for the faithful. Nothing else.

By: cal

cal — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:48:32 +0000

Hey Dawnelle! We loved having you there. I think Hampy will be opening up the chat tomorrow night (boo!) and definitely on election night.

Hope to see you again.

By: mary

mary — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:26:13 +0000

This camouflaged misogynist has only one message for the women moronic enough to vote for Him:

“Back to the end of the bus, ladies”

He has a real Oedipal problem with women, starting with his mother.

“I have harbored and am harboring a deep strong resentment, hatred, for my mother’s race….” Barry’s mistrust, fear and loathing of Women has had its roots in his own troubled “abandonment”-type relationship with Ann Dunham, a teenager who had the misfortune of becoming pregnant in the wrong era, 4 years before the Pill became known…

But why should the rest of us have to suffer because of the psychologically unresolved problems of an inadequate bi-racial male with woman-hangups! Barry’s sexist arugula-thin resume offers small comfort.

He got a pass cause he’s black and the media were scared to say anything remotely to be construed as “racist”. So, the Obama Fairy Tale went on to gain validity…What a joke at the expense of a far more competent, qualified and test opponent to whome Barry can’t light a small candle! BHO stole the election from his AA mentor Sen. Alice Palmer.
He stole the nomination from Hillary. And now his supporters are hanging Gov. Palin’s crude effigies and are given “green light” by Obama Himself. How?

Watch this juvenile sexist’s youtube mega-hit:

“Obama Gives Hillary the Finger”

“Periodically, Hillary feels down and starts launching attacks to boost her appeal”!

“She’s likeable enough”

Yup! With Barry in Washinton, it’s back to the end of the bus, ladies!…

By: Annie McOakley

Annie McOakley — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:20:12 +0000

The link has a cliff notes version.

In short, Obama had massive campaign debt coming off of his failed bid to challenge Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. Smarting from that loss, Obama needed money, so he turned to Yesse Yehudah. What’s so strange about this is that Yehudah is a Republican — so why would he raise money for Obama? What the article below does not say is that, magically, 10 people who work for Yehudah and have never given money to any elected official before – AND WHO COULD NOT AFFORD TO MAKE $1,000 donations – all made $1,000 donations to Obama simultaneously. As if someone else made the donations for all of them, in their names, with money that came from somewhere else.

The quid pro quo on this is simple: Obama took a $10,000 bribe from Yehudah for using his position in the state senate to throw a $75,000 grant to Yehudah’s nonprofit organization. People here in Chicago say this was obvious politics in Illinois: where Obama agreed to get Yehudah a grant, but Obama’s fee for this transaction was $10,000 to pay off his campaign debt.

That sounds EXACTLY like the Sen. Government I know. A) Take taxpayers hard-earned money. B) Give it to someone working to get some pie. C) Get a kick back – oops, no can’t call it that. Get a campaign contribution to get a bigger office to lather, rinse and repeat. (Of course, there is no quid pro quo either. You’d have to have a signed contract in triplicate to prove that.)

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:12:55 +0000

Agree, Lizzie. It’s deeply offensive.

What has happened to AnninCa, I’m not sure.

She used to be more rational.