You’re the one who brought up the Constitution. The comment you quoted says “what America stands for”. America as an ideal means a hell of a lot more to a lot of people than just “the text of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.”
You’re seriously distorting the claim “This is an offense against everything America stands for” if you’re reading it as “This is prohibited by the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.” Good job demolishing that straw man, though.
Of course nothing that she does is any good unless the people are right with God.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:…:rolleyes:
seriously
Godswill Gasline
sigh
Banning books. By a wide, wide mark.
Teaching creationism is just stupid and wrong.
Banning books is a white-hot stab directly at the heart of freedom. There is no more profoundly unAmerican act. It’s irrelevant that she floated the idea and backed off; to even consider it for a moment is, in my mind, an instant disqualification from any sort of public service in this country.
My girlfriend said: You know that that kind of shit happens all the time, right?
I said: Yes. That doesn’t make it right. It just makes it commonly wrong. And every other person who pursued it is just as disqualified by that pursuit.
She “banned” the books? Really? You couldn’t buy them in the store, or off the internet? Did she take them from people’s houses and burn them in the town square? I wrote a book and I bet it’s not in their library, probably because they banned it. Damn them!!
I did, actually. That definitely changes things.
Well, no, she didn’t actually ban anything, because she was unable to implement her policy. But if she had succeeded in removing these books (whichever books they were) from the library, she would indeed have banned them. The fact that they are available in other sources does not alter that fact. If you’re thrown out of your local bar and forbidden from ever returning, the fact that there are other bars you can go to does not mean you haven’t been banned from that one.
If the complaint were that she was trying to block the purchase of certain books, this might be an apt comparison. In this particular case, however, she was trying to remove books from the library that were already there, and she wanted to do so for purely ideological reasons. That’s quite a bit different from not stocking a book because no one’s ever heard of it.
But you knew that.
As a side note: Lamia! Welcome back!
That is I think the most partisan answer in any election thread so far. But, for what it’s worth, in 1996 in a small town in Alaska it’s quite possible you couldn’t buy them off the Internet. It’s almost definite that if it wasn’t a popular title you couldn’t buy one in a store (Anchorage isn’t that big a city). But more to the point, why should you have to if the library has them?
There is simply no excuse for banning books due to language. NONE. The Founders ranged the gamut from hard atheist to devout literalist Christian in views and from near anarchist to conservative monarchists in political views but as near as any absolutely sweeping generalization can be made of them they were all ardent believers in freedom of information.
Jesus that is sick. I know the Republicans chose her to “energize the base” but she is going to alienate moderate and independent voters with that kind of crap. She already removed any doubt in my mind about who I’m voting for.
Palin is definitely the least funny Lily Tomlin character to date.
:rolleyes:
She didn’t destroy his 30 year career in law enforcement. Homeboy retired from the city PD and went to be the police chief in podunk because it was easy and didn’t have a lot of demands, so he could fish, earn a salary and collect his pension. :rolleyes:
He worked for the Wasilla PD for three years.
So this crazy woman gets a little bit of power and starts censoring shit? What the hell would she do as President? And we thought Bush was bad.
Given that description of the police chief’s job, if accurate, wouldn’t a similar description also be true of the mayor of Wasilla (one-half of Palin’s “executive experience”)?
Before which he had more than 20 years with Anchorage. And he seems to be of the opinion he was fired. Largely because of the letter firing him.
Well, you put me in a tought situation here because the answer is yes and no. Yes, she was a little Caesar with her small town Mayoralty, as so many small town mayors are.
No, in that she wasn’t a career mayor who had retired with honors and was drawing a pension regardless of whether or not she had the job of the mayor of the small town.
The point is that the Police chief’s job in Wasilla was a job he took AFTER retirement, so claiming that she ruined his 30 year police career is fatuous.
So it’s alright to fire somebody for a completely ridiculous and personal motive if they have a retirement income?
And there’s no stigma or downside or humiliation to being fired if you’ve already had almost 30 years of experience?
Cool. I’ll remember that.
JUST HOW MANY EXCLUSES WILL PALIN’S SUPPORTERS TIE THEMSELVES INTO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE FLAVOR AIDE FLOWS!?
Every library buying policy boils down to pretty much one key component: If one other library in the country owns the item in question, you’re in the clear.
In the library I work at, there has only been one “official challenge” (meaning a patron filled out the official form stating “I don’t want this item in the library and here’s why”) in the last six years. The book was a picture book titled “King and King”, which is the story of a Queen looking for a Princess for her son to marry. The son isn’t interested in Princesses though and the book ends with him marrying another Prince. Can you guess why the patron wanted the book pulled from the shelves? Needless to say, a library board review found her reasoning pathetic.
As the librarian in charge of DVDs, I was unofficially asked to pull “Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter” from the shelves because “My mother might see the title” (said by a woman in her 40s). Because she did not file an official challenge I waited until she left and put it right back on the shelf. This was nearly two years ago and her mother has still not come in to complain.
So you’re right, you can’t buy every item ever created. But to request something be pulled from the shelf will not get you very far because nothing is inherently objectionable.
So, it’s been censored. Are you OK with that?
Regards,
[del]Little Black Sambo[/del] Shodan
Of all the people on this message board, you are perhaps the last person entitled to argue, “Come on – you know damned well that …”
Your arguments routinely involve self-created definitions and absurd positions which you stubbornly adhere to in the face of mountains of “Come on, you know…” weight.
I don’t believe I can extend to you that sort of concession, no. I DON’T know what books she wanted to ban. Neither do you. I find it telling that the e-mail sent to inquire on that point was returned with a brusque, “It doesn’t matter what books they were…” comment. Yes, it does matter.
Well, then, it is Palin’s responsibility to present that information, because that’s the only argument she has against the conclusion that she’s profoundly anti-American.