Center of Attention
Jun 26th, 2007 | 6 responses
The GTL wonders: “How Can The SAME Supreme Court Rule AGAINST “Bong Hits 4 Jesus†and IN FAVOR OF “Hallucinogins For Jesusâ€?”
Dennis Sanders tells Republicans who are not happy with the influence of the Religious Right on their party, to stop complaining and get organized.
Michael Linn Jones on Cheney the Chameleon.
An interesting post by Carol Gee at The Reaction. Carol wonders: “hat does the investigative reporting of Seymour Hersh, the Washington Post investigative series on Vice President Cheney and the new book “Statecraft,” by Ambassador Dennis Ross have in common?” Wonder what the answer is? Read the post, it’s a good read.
Lastly to read some posts about the recent Supreme Court decision, I suggest these posts at Stubborn Facts.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Center of Attention”
[...] Michael van der Galien of The Moderate Voice for selecting this post to be added to today’s TMV Center Of Attention roundup [...]
None of this matters. Don’t you realize that Paris Hilton has been released from jail, and welcomed by a huge crowd? That’s much more important than anything else here, like the First Amendment and other silliness.
I find it odd that the left in the U.S. is arguing that it is a constitutional right to be able to pay for commercials on television 60 days before an election promoting “Bong Hits for Jesus” and it is constitutional to ban commercials on television60 days before an election saying that voters should not vote a certain candidate.
I fail to see how saying Bong Hits for Jesus is more protected than say “Vote against John McCain because he is an idiot.”
The Left wants no constraints on personal behavior at all, as a rule (the most notorious among them are particularly contemptuous of the concepts of decency and morality). This is totally different from the attempt to restrict legitimate First Amendment rights, particuarly those the Amendment was written to protect, which includes political speech and specifically, criticism of the government. In the name of combatting the power of money (or in the name of a distorted anti-religious misconstruction of the First Amendment), what we see is the Incumbent Protection Act. (And Americans want term limits!)
Assuming that what actually was meant was the word “hallucinogens,” the answer, though not correct, could be protection of the English language from contemporary dumbing-down by idiots. “4″ is not a subsitute for the word “for.”
(substitute)