100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Book Banning by Palin | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
NickiBeach: VERY well said! Jimmy: You endured the last 8...I'm sure you can endure 8 more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NickiBeach: VERY well said! Jimmy: You endured the last 8...I'm sure you can endure 8 more. While I love what he had to say, I DO take issue with the use of "endured". The Jews endured Hitler. The Russians endured Stalin (and Lenin, and currently Putin...) The Romanians endured Ceauşescu. The Bosnians endured Milosevic. The Cambodians endured Pol Pot. I could go on and on.... but I think you get my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NickiBeach: VERY well said! Jimmy: You endured the last 8...I'm sure you can endure 8 more. While I love what he had to say, I DO take issue with the use of "endured". The Jews endured Hitler. The Russians endured Stalin (and Lenin, and currently Putin...) The Romanians endured Ceauşescu. The Bosnians endured Milosevic. The Cambodians endured Pol Pot. I could go on and on.... but I think you get my point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NickiBeach: VERY well said! Jimmy: You endured the last 8...I'm sure you can endure 8 more. While I love what he had to say, I DO take issue with the use of "endured". The Jews endured Hitler. The Russians endured Stalin (and Lenin, and currently Putin...) The Romanians endured Ceauşescu. The Bosnians endured Milosevic. The Cambodians endured Pol Pot. I could go on and on.... but I think you get my point. Yes, your point is well taken! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Books are not Being "BANNED", you are still allowed to buy them and read them. They just don't want to fund them in the Library because they could be some controversy. It's censorship. Period. And you and I get to make a judgement based on that. You may think it's ok. I say it's very scary. You know, I hear Liberals wanting to "FIX TALK RADIO", that is a form of Censorship. They don't like what they hear on there and they think it needs to be fixed. Liberals Hate Rush and Sean Hannity and they would love for them to be off the Air. But it is funny how they don't want to fix CNN, a channel that should be called ONN, Aka Obama News Network. There are tons of censorship out there, just the way you look at it... What the Liberals(as you call them)want is not Censorship. Its to provide a counterpoint to what Rush and Sean and other Conservative hosts say. The is taken from Wikipedia: Fairness Doctrine: The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949. The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[3] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.(editbyjessed). Thats not Censorship. It just gives more then just one view on a subject(s). Who is Jessed and did her/his talking cat give them this information? Wtheck is wrong with you people..*blank stare* So tell me who is jessed, and exactly who's view is this?? Is it relevant? If it has no factual base it leaves you worse off than when you started now doesn't it? I really am blown away by this. Why is it so hard to swallow something as simple as elementary logic. A typical 5 year old could understand this.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spaceman2008
on
Tue 09/09/08 03:11 AM
|
|
The Books are not Being "BANNED", you are still allowed to buy them and read them. They just don't want to fund them in the Library because they could be some controversy. It's censorship. Period. And you and I get to make a judgement based on that. You may think it's ok. I say it's very scary. You know, I hear Liberals wanting to "FIX TALK RADIO", that is a form of Censorship. They don't like what they hear on there and they think it needs to be fixed. Liberals Hate Rush and Sean Hannity and they would love for them to be off the Air. But it is funny how they don't want to fix CNN, a channel that should be called ONN, Aka Obama News Network. There are tons of censorship out there, just the way you look at it... What the Liberals(as you call them)want is not Censorship. Its to provide a counterpoint to what Rush and Sean and other Conservative hosts say. The is taken from Wikipedia: Fairness Doctrine: The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949. The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[3] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.(editbyjessed). Thats not Censorship. It just gives more then just one view on a subject(s). Who is Jessed and did her/his talking cat give them this information? Wtheck is wrong with you people..*blank stare* So tell me who is jessed, and exactly who's view is this?? Is it relevant? If it has no factual base it leaves you worse off than when you started now doesn't it? I really am blown away by this. Why is it so hard to swallow something as simple as elementary logic. A typical 5 year old could understand this.
 ?
Ummmm.....Nancy Pelosi? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if the librarian would have agreed it would have been done behind closed doors and none the wiser. Palin being smart enough to know how bad it would look in the press backed off. Thank you little librarian lady for defending our freedoms. LOL, this is still going on? Palin asked a hypothetical. She didn't have a list. Voters were concerned about bad language in certain books so she asked the librarian "if the need arose, would you consider banning books?". She never even told her she had to or wanted to. It was a concern of the voters and Palin was doing the right thing in asking. You don't just ignore your voters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: palin mudslinging went TEN pages!!! 
Does that mean we have free reign to make a 12 page post about Obama's drug use? I mean it is true so it is not mudslinging right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if the librarian would have agreed it would have been done behind closed doors and none the wiser. Palin being smart enough to know how bad it would look in the press backed off. Thank you little librarian lady for defending our freedoms. LOL, this is still going on? Palin asked a hypothetical. She didn't have a list. Voters were concerned about bad language in certain books so she asked the librarian "if the need arose, would you consider banning books?". She never even told her she had to or wanted to. It was a concern of the voters and Palin was doing the right thing in asking. You don't just ignore your voters. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Tue 09/09/08 11:14 AM
|
 I seen a website that was showing a picture of Palin shooting an assault rifle at a range and the caption said she was shooting at a stack of books. LOL. I can kinda imagine Quickstepper or Marine doing that. Just kidding around you two, no offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: palin mudslinging went TEN pages!!!
Does that mean we have free reign to make a 12 page post about Obama's drug use? I mean it is true so it is not mudslinging right? Feel free. If mingle doesn't care, I certainly don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: palin mudslinging went TEN pages!!!
Does that mean we have free reign to make a 12 page post about Obama's drug use? I mean it is true so it is not mudslinging right? Feel free. If mingle doesn't care, I certainly don't.  Sarah palin used drugs too just like McCains wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think. Im just saying, that perhaps if she was gonna ban twain and king and salinger and such books
she did miss the whole ertoic book section at the library. im just saying |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Books are not Being "BANNED", you are still allowed to buy them and read them. They just don't want to fund them in the Library because they could be some controversy. It's censorship. Period. And you and I get to make a judgement based on that. You may think it's ok. I say it's very scary. You know, I hear Liberals wanting to "FIX TALK RADIO", that is a form of Censorship. They don't like what they hear on there and they think it needs to be fixed. Liberals Hate Rush and Sean Hannity and they would love for them to be off the Air. But it is funny how they don't want to fix CNN, a channel that should be called ONN, Aka Obama News Network. There are tons of censorship out there, just the way you look at it... What the Liberals(as you call them)want is not Censorship. Its to provide a counterpoint to what Rush and Sean and other Conservative hosts say. The is taken from Wikipedia: Fairness Doctrine: The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the U.S. in 1949. The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.[3] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.(editbyjessed). Thats not Censorship. It just gives more then just one view on a subject(s). Who is Jessed and did her/his talking cat give them this information? Wtheck is wrong with you people..*blank stare* So tell me who is jessed, and exactly who's view is this?? Is it relevant? If it has no factual base it leaves you worse off than when you started now doesn't it? I really am blown away by this. Why is it so hard to swallow something as simple as elementary logic. A typical 5 year old could understand this.
This information is very simple to find. Any 5 year could look it up. This all comes from the government web site. Federal Communication Commission. It is relevant. Conservative say that its censorship to reinstate the The Fairness Doctrine. It would proves for another view then what you get from Rush or Hannity. So yes it relevant. Cat is a he. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if the librarian would have agreed it would have been done behind closed doors and none the wiser. Palin being smart enough to know how bad it would look in the press backed off. Thank you little librarian lady for defending our freedoms. LOL, this is still going on? Palin asked a hypothetical. She didn't have a list. Voters were concerned about bad language in certain books so she asked the librarian "if the need arose, would you consider banning books?". She never even told her she had to or wanted to. It was a concern of the voters and Palin was doing the right thing in asking. You don't just ignore your voters. Wow, apparently you have no common sense. I guess I have to spell it out. You don't just ignore you voters when they are asking for something that is not illegal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The latest Sarah Palin controversy is about the church she attends. Ive been reading about and checking it out on tv. It sounds pretty bizarre.Just wanted to tell you folks, in case anybody is interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how the republican version of the act is more benign. Considering that they (republicans) believe they "know" better what all of us need to be doing in our lives this sounds about right as it was originally told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how the republican version of the act is more benign. Considering that they (republicans) believe they "know" better what all of us need to be doing in our lives this sounds about right as it was originally told. you dont like republicans do ya? does this mean you dilike half of America?? think we are all judgmental pigs or something?? little do you know that i could give a crap less about what most people do or dont do for that matter. and would never shove my own ideals down anothres throat. although i have seen liberal who tend to do just that. i wish everybody in the world could get along. although...that will probably never happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how the republican version of the act is more benign. Considering that they (republicans) believe they "know" better what all of us need to be doing in our lives this sounds about right as it was originally told. you dont like republicans do ya? does this mean you dilike half of America?? think we are all judgmental pigs or something?? little do you know that i could give a crap less about what most people do or dont do for that matter. and would never shove my own ideals down anothres throat. although i have seen liberal who tend to do just that. i wish everybody in the world could get along. although...that will probably never happen. Cat, Agree with you that it would be nice if everyone got along. That doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. That would be boring. It would be good if people actually listened to themselves and to each other. As a sign at a repair shop I saw once put it. "Engage brain before putting mouth in gear." Conservative or Liberal...Republican or Democrate...all should follow that advice. Then perhaps the name calling and mudslinging would stop and we could talk as rationale adults. All to often people "pigion hole" others because of one belief or statement. Where is the logic in that...the compassion...the search for true understanding? |
|
|
|
|
