Palin: "Those protestors should thank the veterans that gave them the right to protest".

[Obamarama]

Look...I'm not diminishing the debt we all owe active members of the military and their veteran brothers and sisters. I certainly respect them and am grateful that they have volunteered to serve our nation.

But Palin's statement made at yestrday's rally to people she thought were protesting her (they were actually supporters yelling for her to speak up because they couldn't hear her) is full of SHIT. Veterans don't give us our our right to protest. The CONSTITUTION does.

You may think I'm splitting hairs, but this nonsense of adding the word "veterans" and "military men and women" to everything and anything has got to stop. They are using them as cheap and convenient props while pretending to "support them." That's the most unpatriotic move of all..using the troops and veterans as props. They deserve better than that.

In addition to that, it just underscores how careless and clueless Palin is. She wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit her on her cold, bony, Alaskan ass. If she did understand the Constitution and what rights it gives you and I (to free speech and protest, to assemble and redress our government, etc...) she wouldn't try to pander to the populace by shamelessly using veterans as a cheap and convenient prop because she thinks it sounds good.

What a daft, despicable bitch.

[Johonny]

1. SOS

If you aren't for Rethugs then you don't love America, the troops... The fact she accused her own supporters of this is just funny. She is slime.

[Kookaburra]

2. She's an idiot

It's the same line of reasoning (if infact, she is able to reason, which I doubt more each day) as those doofi out there saying the troops are in Iraq fighting for our freedom. Every time I hear that I want to shake them and tell them to WAKE UP.

[billyoc]

3. Exactly. I don't need an imperial garrison to "give" me any rights. They're mine already.

[Beausoleil]

10. Exactly.

What part of "inalienable rights" do these idiots not get?

[Eric J in MN]

4. If we hadn't won the Vietnam War, then Vietnam would have....

...taken over the US and created a dictatorship here in which no one is allowed to protest.

Wait, we lost the Vietnam War.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. That's revisionist history.

McCain won the war with the help of Chuck Norris.

[WinkyDink]

15. He knows how to win wars, my friend. He knows. And he'll do it.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

19. His speeches remind me of a bad infomercial (not like there's such a thing as a good one). nt

[Kukesa]

35. And did you know that McCain was a POW? n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. No, do tell.

:evilgrin:

[WinkyDink]

13. We departed from yet another Illegal Invasion, never a declared war, but a "Conflict".

[Ilsa]

5. Palin doesn't need to protect polar bears. She needs to protect pander bears.

This is probably more pandering to the military, except she doesn't do that with her state's budget where she cut funding for VA centers in favor of an athletic complex.

This is what my husband would say: "As for the Constitution part of your comment, you don't think she really understands that, do you?"

[sailor65]

6. And who exactly protects your Constitution?

Or do you think it's made of some self-defending paper?

The rights you hold under the Constitution are only as good as those who make sure it stays the law of the land. Without them, it is worthless.

[misternormal]

9. Right on sailor65...

Military Enlistment Oath...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Nuff said... Peace

Edited html

[Lex]

20. Yeah, and where does that say the military "gives" the rights?

It doesn't.

That was the OP's point.

[misternormal]

31. Gotcha...

... In The constitution of the United States, by it's wording, "Grants" us rights... Meaning that we are given those rights simply by being citizens... One needn't do anything at all to have then save be a citizen...

I have no beef about that... I do agree with the OP, that Palin used wrong language in stating that the Military "gave" us those rights... But don't diminish the sacrifice that the military makes every day to protect those rights... Crappy Pay... Crappy Housing, (If you can get it)... Living in "Interesting places"... Been there done that...

If I needed to, I'd do it again...

[Lex]

36. I absolutely agree

that we should honor our vets for their incredible sacrifice and I don't mean at all to diminish their service, but saying they "gave us the right to protest" is a little much. I was agreeing with the OP as well.

[misternormal]

37. Then in essence we agree...

...It's all good... :headbang:

[vi5]

11. Do you mean our elected representatives?

Because I don't see a lot of veterans really doing anything that impacts any of my constituational rights. That's not to diminish what they do which is to protect us from foreign attack and protect us in times of national emergency.

But what the military and the veterans do really have very little to do with the constitution or the bill of rights.

Prosecutors and justice departments do more to enforce and/or protect the constitution and our rights than do the military. I'm not saying they're doing a particularly good job of it, but nonthetheless it's something that is much more reliant on them doing their job than it is on the military doing their job.

[Obamarama]

16. Thank you vi5. You articulated my larger point very well.

As I said earlier - and I will say it again - this is not a thread to bash military personnel or veterans. I respect them, and like most other Americans, owe them a debt of gratitude. But you hit the nail on the head with your post.

[misternormal]

17. Give the military a year off and see what happens... n/t

[vi5]

38. I think you're missing the point.....

A lot would go wrong obviously if we gave the military a year off. There would be fighting and chaos and disasters that would go unattended to and that's obviously bad.

But when it comes to the constitution and defending or not defending of it, the military simply acts in response to the elected officials who decide which aspects get defended or which violations of the constituation get ignored.

If someone is prohibiting someone's free speech, the military doesn't get involved as a first line of defense. The legal system does. The courts do. The elected representatives do.

If someone is prohibiting someone's second amendement right's, if the courts and the government aren't prosecuting it, the military doesn't get involved until it is told to.

Yes, they protect us from threat and violence and chaos and disaster. Wonderful, noble things and for THAT they deserve our respect and admiration.

But when it comes to which people, groups, entities, etc. we owe our freedoms, particularly freedom of speech and the right to protest and have our voices heard, the military just does not have that kind of power or authority to act on it on their own.

[Lex]

18. Sorry, but the Constitution "gives" or bestows the rights, the troops may defend

the country and its rights, but the troops do not "give" the rights to anyone. The OP is correct.

[ecstatic]

25. The point remains that Sarah shouldn't use the troops as props

to score cheap political points.

She thought people were protesting her and instead of dealing with the actual subject matter, she switches into a self righteous rant that implied that anyone who protests her is unpatriotic.

She doesn't know shit about what ordinary people are going through, and I'm sure that the people who actually do protest her have friends and family who are in the military and they respect and honor the sacrifices that they make.

She really disgusts me. :puke:

[polmaven]

29. I agree with you

regarding the defense of the Constitution.

Governor Palin, though, said they "gave" us the right to protest. The military does defend those rights. The Constitution "gives" us the rights.

The soldiers of the Revolutionary War are more responsible for endowing the rights. Today's military "protects" our rights. And yes, we owe them a great deal for that protection. A great deal that a McCain/Palin administration would fail to give them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. I love the DU search function.

Not the Google search. The old classic DU search. That's where the needed functionality is at.

[HereSince1628]

7. Yes, THANK those original PROTESTORS TO BRITISH TYRANNY

Somehow we forget that the AMERICAN REVOLUTION was a REVOTE AGAINT AUTHORITY UNDERTAKEN BY PROTESTORS.

[WinkyDink]

12. That's my fave! Because those who say this HATE FREE SPEECH! It's a TOTAL begrudging! What morans!

P.S. Sarah? Try Jefferson.

[Chef]

14. Veteran

As a veteran, I have been perplexed about this concept that I, or anyone else, served to protect our right to vote, protest or anything else. In the global sense, I suppose that being ready to fight for ones country means fighting for those things, no mater how far remove the act of serving has anything to do with those things. I mean, when I was sent to Viet Nam, I was told that I was helping a free people defend their right to self government and that victory in Viet Nam would halt the advance of world communist domination.

I guess that if you didn't go to war to promote your nations agenda, no mater how shaky or wrong headed the reason, no one would be available to defend the country when a real threat came up. In that case we are required to support every war and if we don't we don't support the troops. What a trap. Just think about in how many of our wars were we really in danger of loosing our rights or our way of life? It seems that we will never be able to have a sane conversation about what is in our national interest when we go to war.

[Obamarama]

26. Thanks for your reasoned response. It's good to have an adult "conversation"

I put conversation in quotes because I don't know that online posts can qualify as a conversation, but perhaps dialog would have been a better term?

At any rate, you bring up an interesting perspective. I understand that ultimately, yes, members of the military take an oath to protect the Constitution. If it came to the point where the Constitution was actually being threatened, I would want the military to protect it.

But what sort of threat has our Constitution experienced in recent history that has threatened to erode its power? The ill-planned and unethical invasion of Iraq? The 1st Gulf War? Grenada?

The largest threat to our Constitution recently has been from George W. Bush. To him, it's just a "God-damned piece of paper." If the military effectively and literally defended the Constitution, Bush would presently be in the brig.

[Supersedeas]

43. well said, I feel the same way

[LynneSin]

21. Guess what Palin we do - by being the party that wants to give veterans what is rightly theirs

Health Care and the entitlements promised to them for serving our country

[no_hypocrisy]

22. Like an android whose circuits are malfunctioning.

Not one for fine detail, is she?

[Viking12]

23. Frankly, we owe a larger debt to Jehovah's Witnesses and anti-war protesters

for our free speech rights. The twentieth-century evolution and expansion of protest rights is the direct result of challenges to authority brought about in Court by people whose rights had been suppressed.

Edited to add: There's a reason why the military authority is blunted in the Constituion; the military instituions were and still are repressive institutions.

[Vanje]

24. Thats not what Huckabee told me.

In his moving convention speech , Huckabee told us that veterans bring children school desks.

[GAtomboy]

27. Pea Brain Palin

Doesn't she realize many protestors ARE veterans. As a veteran I would stand out in the street ALL day and protest her if she came to Georgia...am I to thank myself for that "privilege"?

I'm so sick of her and her stupidity. She makes women look bad!!!

[olegramps]

28. When is Todd signing up for service?

[jberryhill]

30. There have been a few instances

Where the military has been used to enforce orders of the Supreme Court - e.g. the desegregation decisions in Little Rock, Arkansas and in Mississippi.

I can't think of too many civil rights cases that were fought by the armed forces, in contrast to lawyers, but maybe I'm not thinking broadly enough.

[EstimatedProphet]

32. I agree - there's a difference between respect and sucking up

We should respect our troop's service. Repubs want us to suck up to them.

[Supersedeas]

33. Well said - 3 points struck me about her disregard for who the 'shouters' are:

1. Irrespective of the current conflict, the First Amendment persists: for all she knows, when people do protest her policies-- the PROTESTERS might be WWII Soldiers or other veterans who have fought to secure her opportunity to take a place on the podium. So to use the sacrifice of CURRENT soldiers to attempt to silent protesters (especially when she doesn't know WHO they are) is ludicrous.

2. Even with respect to the current conflict, protesters at Palin events might even be current soldiers (or former soldiers who had been deployed to Iraq). Is the demand for respect and silence an obligation of current service personnel/recently deployed protesters to be thankful for their own sacrifice. Wouldn't it be the right to the protest in that case to be twice as loud at Palin events.

3. Following your point, for the non-soldier opposed to the current conflict and who protest at a Palin rally, the right to exercise the First Amendment has no direct connection to Iraq. Iraq never EVER threated First Amendment rights of citizens in the United States. Since when does securing Oil Reserves in the Middle East effect First Amendment rights. The war in Iraq is about OIL plain and simple.

[Obamarama]

39. Good points! Thanks for sharing them.

[verges]

34. Your both right and wrong.

"Veterans don't give us our our right to protest. The CONSTITUTION does."
Active duty military (not veterans) work under an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies without and within. The military gives no rights. They protect them.

Someone, somewhere else in this thread, mentions the word "unalienable." Well, that's actually in the Declaration, not the Constitution. But, I think we can still use it for this discussion. The Declaration says that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." They are not bestowed by either the Declaration or the Constitution. They are given by the Creator. Or, if you are not of that bent-- they just "are". The Declaration and Constitution simply give voice to deeper truisms. That these rights belong to ALL mankind, and cannot be abolished. They can be suppressed, and frequently are. But the spirit of these rights cannot be destroyed by man.

Principles, people like Palin, can sadly never understand.

[ladjf]

40. Constitution scholar she isn't. nt