After Left Complains About "Constitutional Rights," MSNBC Hosts Cut Off Mic of Controversial Pastor
Look, the irrelevant Pastor, Terry Jones (which the only reason I, or anyone else even knows who he is, is because the fervor of the media to flame hysterics and sensationalism-as even the disgraced Dan Rather said recently) is a complete quack. Everybody knows this. But does that give Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough the right to alleviate him from his constitutional rights? Didn't we just have a big brouhaha about the rights of Americans over the Ground Zero mosque? Weren't the side of the building of the mosque up in arms about the "constitutional rights" of the builders?
So why when a controversial pastor in Florida that wanted to wrongly burn copies of the Quran (which, according t0 MSNBC, is ssomehow Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's fault) those same people say he has no right to speak. He shouldn't be given a platform. He's a hate-monger, after all. Well I'll retort that with two simple words: Al Sharpton. This man is one of the biggest race-baiting hate-mongers on the planet, yet he is given platform after platform (his own radio show, rallies, TV appearances etc.) to spew his rhetoric. Should Jones have been listened to? Should he have been taken even remotely serious? No, but does that mean he doesn't have right to speak? A constitutional right? I would say yes he does. Again, this guy should have been a non-issue from the start, but slow news days will put some dumb things on our TV screens.
This may be an extreme analogy, but if even Adolf Hitler was just ignored, would he have had as much power? Would he have been a factor in history? He may have been just a crazy old man complaining about the Jews that no one paid any attention to.
It seems when the left has something to say and agree with, it's a "constitutional right." Anybody else doesn't deserve a nanosecond of time to air their opinions.
And no Mr. Scarborough, the complaints about it aren't from "crazy people," they're from people that happen to disagree with you.
So why when a controversial pastor in Florida that wanted to wrongly burn copies of the Quran (which, according t0 MSNBC, is ssomehow Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's fault) those same people say he has no right to speak. He shouldn't be given a platform. He's a hate-monger, after all. Well I'll retort that with two simple words: Al Sharpton. This man is one of the biggest race-baiting hate-mongers on the planet, yet he is given platform after platform (his own radio show, rallies, TV appearances etc.) to spew his rhetoric. Should Jones have been listened to? Should he have been taken even remotely serious? No, but does that mean he doesn't have right to speak? A constitutional right? I would say yes he does. Again, this guy should have been a non-issue from the start, but slow news days will put some dumb things on our TV screens.
This may be an extreme analogy, but if even Adolf Hitler was just ignored, would he have had as much power? Would he have been a factor in history? He may have been just a crazy old man complaining about the Jews that no one paid any attention to.
It seems when the left has something to say and agree with, it's a "constitutional right." Anybody else doesn't deserve a nanosecond of time to air their opinions.
And no Mr. Scarborough, the complaints about it aren't from "crazy people," they're from people that happen to disagree with you.
posted by Northern Exposer at 00:51
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home