Palin said today that the military gives us the right to protest. The AP and WaPo changed her quote.

[milkyway]

In Richmond today, Sarah Palin had this to say to supporters yelling "louder," who she mistakenly thought were protesters:

"I would hope at least that those protesters have the courage and the honor of thanking our veterans for giving them the right to protest."

The video was shown on Countdown, and can be found here with the above quote beginning at the 1:10 mark:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27170156



But the AP directly quotes Palin as saying:

"I hope those protesters have the courage and honor to give veterans thanks for their right to protest," she said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93PUPJG0



Juliet Eliperin of The Washington Post also misquotes Palin, using the exact words used by the AP:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/13/palin_stays_on_the_offensive_a.html



There is a substantial difference in Palin's actual quote and as she is quoted by the AP and the Washington Post. Palin said the veterans have given the protesters the right to protest. This would be news to our founding fathers. Maybe in a military dictatorship rights are dispensed by the military, but that's not how we do it here in the United States.

In the "cleaned up" quote, the veterans have not given the protesters the right to protest. Instead, the veterans are the receivers of thanks to be given by the protesters. This language allows for the interpretation that Palin meant the veterans protected the right to protest. There's a big difference between giving rights and protecting them, and both the AP and the WaPo seem to have taken it upon themselves to change Palin's language, and thus the meaning of what she said.

Darn those words and why they're put in a certain order!

[Skittles]

1. funny how she assumes protesters cannot be veterans

very telling

[1Hippiechick]

9. Yeah, it's telling all right - she's the equivalent of a 60's "Chatty Kathy" doll programmed to

repeat the same phrases over and over when her string is pulled. She's a bimbo. Period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPXpc5N6Kg

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC Liberal]

3. Not even the Constitution gives us rights, it only enumerates them

and protects the government from infringing upon the rights we as human beings already have, inherently.

Any rights listed in the Constitution are worded as a limitation on the government:

"Congress shall make no law..."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

[14thColony]

7. Exactly

As Rabrrrrrr pointed out so well on another post on this same subject, the Constitution says what the government CAN'T do with respect to mankind's inalienable and inherent rights, which the Founders viewed as existing a priori and ad infinitum. The Constitution does not grant any rights, man is born with them already.

[Roland99]

4. Damnt that liberal media anyhow!!

[votetastic]

5. great catch... very subtle, but there is a huge difference

[endthewar]

6. I noticed this too

The problem is that it's considered politically incorrect to question anything someone says when they invoke the troops. That's why the media won't call her out on this.

[14thColony]

8. So this is what "in the tank for Obama" looks like, then?

So now we need to believe that the press is liberal and pinko, but utterly incompetent at carrying out their evil plot to install Obama.

Is this the same as me having to believe that Obama is a Muslim fundamentalist terrorist extremist anti-white Christian atheist? My head would hurt too much to ever be a right-winger.

[milkyway]

10. kick.

[Laelth]

11. Big difference.

Why must Republic morons always be given the "benefit of the doubt." Isn't that how we got saddled with Bush?

-Laelth

[Life Long Dem]

12. AP wants you to thank John McSame personally.

:rofl: I love it!

[kenny blankenship]

13. Yes, but it's more complex than that. The military gives you the citizen the "right" to protest.

The military gives you the freedom to protest, but you, you the civilian beneficiaries, must not arrogantly avail yourselves of the "right" to protest because, unless you are actually in the military, you are not worthy of freedom; for you are a worm that isn't even fit to scrub the bottom of military man's boot with your tongue. And of course if you are in the military you do not have the right the right to protest anything at all, unless you just like to spend years looking at the insides of a military prison. There is a time and place for everything except the exercise of your freedoms and liberties.

So to summarize, the military is the sole source of any supposed right to protest and only the military is worthy of such rights, and no one in the military is allowed to exercise those rights since that would be inconsistent with military efficiency and discipline.

It's a little tricky, but I think that covers it.