Fox news "fair and balanced" yeah RIGHT

#501
#501
lawgator1 said:
That's ridiculous. If she tried to ban books at a public library because their content offended her religious sensibilities, that's just awful, even if you could go spend the money to get them elsewhere. That's the point of a public library.
Click to expand...

there are plenty of books that are not at public libraries because they offend people.
 
#502
#502
lawgator1 said:
That's ridiculous. If she tried to ban books at a public library because their content offended her religious sensibilities, that's just awful, even if you could go spend the money to get them elsewhere. That's the point of a public library.
Click to expand...

see post #193

she never tried to ban any books, only posed a hypothetical question to the Wasilla librarian after a library patron wanted a single book banned.
 
#504
#504
lawgator1 said:
That's ridiculous. If she tried to ban books at a public library because their content offended her religious sensibilities, that's just awful, even if you could go spend the money to get them elsewhere. That's the point of a public library.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be religious sensibilities? Are some things simply not appropriate for a public library? For example do you believe a kids book advocating for or against homosexuality belongs in a public library. Would you support "The Turner Diaries" being available to people in a library?
 
#505
#505
MG1968 said:
see post #193

she never tried to ban any books, only posed a hypothetical question to the Wasilla librarian after a library patron wanted a single book banned.
Click to expand...


Uh-huh.

Hey, I've got a bridge you might be interested in. It comes with some prime South Florida real estate. A little marshy, but you could do something with it.
 
#507
#507
kptvol said:
Great point. Only atheists should be allowed to hold political office. When Palin advocates the extermination of an entire race, you're US-Iran comparison will hold water.
Click to expand...

No, it's just that religion should never be a part of legislation or governance.
 
#509
#509
lawgator1 said:
The only problem with your test in terms of Palin is that she hasn't been anything at the federal level and so there are no policies of hers to review.
Click to expand...

Okay, what about evaluating her based on what she has done in Alaska?
 
#510
#510
KB5252 said:
When did she ban Harry Potter?
Click to expand...


She didn't get away with it. But at any rate, its just an example of one basing policy on religious sentimentality. I don't see how anyone could claim that Palin would not be a fairly extreme example of that. Heck, its her selling point to the base right now.
 
#511
#511
lawgator1 said:
She didn't get away with it. But at any rate, its just an example of one basing policy on religious sentimentality. I don't see how anyone could claim that Palin would not be a fairly extreme example of that. Heck, its her selling point to the base right now.
Click to expand...


she never tried to get away with it because it never happened.
 
#512
#512
lawgator1 said:
Not because some pinhead has a problem with them because they contain "gasp!," devil-worship in the form of Harry Potter.
Click to expand...

according to the article linked, the librarian said that palin never mentioned any specific books.
 
#513
#513
lawgator1 said:
Uh-huh.

Hey, I've got a bridge you might be interested in. It comes with some prime South Florida real estate. A little marshy, but you could do something with it.
Click to expand...

You are completely willing to believe the absolute worst about Palin but have no problem giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, even when there is compelling evidence to the contrary?
 
#515
#515
lawgator1 said:
She didn't get away with it. But at any rate, its just an example of one basing policy on religious sentimentality. I don't see how anyone could claim that Palin would not be a fairly extreme example of that. Heck, its her selling point to the base right now.
Click to expand...

And this goes to my point in an earlier post (which you ignored by the way) that when we did this exact same thing with Obama (based on his past endeavors, background and associations) we were small minded and bigots because it was impossible to believ he would do anything other than govern from the center............hypocrisy runs deep in you!
 
#516
#516
MG1968 said:
she never tried to get away with it because it never happened.
Click to expand...

droski said:
according to the article linked, the librarian said that palin never mentioned any specific books.
Click to expand...



That depends on how you read her conversations with the city council and whether you accept her campaign's later spin on what "she meant." I wasn't there, but based on her overall presentation have no hesitation in believing that she is small minded enough to have been asking for her own purposes, not the "it was just a hypothetical" line.





KB5252 said:
You are completely willing to believe the absolute worst about Palin but have no problem giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, even when there is compelling evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...


How is this about Obama? I was just saying that Palin is en example of someone who might govern or make policy as informed by her religious beliefs. I don't think that its ALL she would pay attention to, by any means. But say, relative to a McCain or someone like that, she would seem to have her religious beliefs play a larger role than they might.


KB5252 said:
And this goes to my point in an earlier point (which you ignored by the way) that when we did this exact same thing with Obama (based on his past endeavors, background and associations) we were small minded and bigots because it was impossible to believ he would do anything other than govern from the center............hypocrisy runs deep in you!
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you are talking about.
 
#517
#517
lawgator1 said:
That depends on how you read her conversations with the city council and whether you accept her campaign's later spin on what "she meant." I wasn't there, but based on her overall presentation have no hesitation in believing that she is small minded enough to have been asking for her own purposes, not the "it was just a hypothetical" line.








How is this about Obama? I was just saying that Palin is en example of someone who might govern or make policy as informed by her religious beliefs. I don't think that its ALL she would pay attention to, by any means. But say, relative to a McCain or someone like that, she would seem to have her religious beliefs play a larger role than they might.





I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the source of all of your problems.
 
#518
#518
lawgator1 said:
That depends on how you read her conversations with the city council and whether you accept her campaign's later spin on what "she meant." I wasn't there, but based on her overall presentation have no hesitation in believing that she is small minded enough to have been asking for her own purposes, not the "it was just a hypothetical" line.
.
Click to expand...

yes, but that is a far cry from saying she wanted to ban harry potter.
 
#520
#520
lawgator1 said:
That depends on how you read her conversations with the city council and whether you accept her campaign's later spin on what "she meant." I wasn't there, but based on her overall presentation have no hesitation in believing that she is small minded enough to have been asking for her own purposes, not the "it was just a hypothetical" line.








How is this about Obama? I was just saying that Palin is en example of someone who might govern or make policy as informed by her religious beliefs. I don't think that its ALL she would pay attention to, by any means. But say, relative to a McCain or someone like that, she would seem to have her religious beliefs play a larger role than they might.





I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Were you not one of the people that were telling us that there was no reason to believe that Obama would do anything but govern from the center left?
 
#521
#521
droski said:
yes, but that is a far cry from saying she wanted to ban harry potter.
Click to expand...


True. I probably should not have used that as an example in such cavalier fashion since evidently there is someone out there claiming that book in particular.

The principle is what I was referring to, which in this case for me is that she is actively selling herself as a religious conservative who will govern in part based on that. If you ask me, she ought to be honest about that as the campaign ratchets up in a couple of years and just stick to her guns. If she wins on that platform, she wins, if she loses she loses. But at least she's not compromising.
 
#522
#522
lawgator1 said:
True. I probably should not have used that as an example in such cavalier fashion since evidently there is someone out there claiming that book in particular.

The principle is what I was referring to, which in this case for me is that she is actively selling herself as a religious conservative who will govern in part based on that. If you ask me, she ought to be honest about that as the campaign ratchets up in a couple of years and just stick to her guns. If she wins on that platform, she wins, if she loses she loses. But at least she's not compromising.
Click to expand...

so you are saying she should say she wants to ban harry potter even if she actually doesn't?
 
#523
#523
droski said:
so you are saying she should say she wants to ban harry potter even if she actually doesn't?
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying that if based on her religious beliefs she plans to work hard to use federal tools to ban abortion or prevent homosexual marriage or have the government get involved in pulling the plug on someone in a coma, then she ought to say so and ought to say why. Embrace it. I'd still vote aganst her, but if she could make the argument I'd at least respect her. I think that is her biggest problem right now, which is that outside of the Republican base, people by and large think she's a complete idiot.
 
#524
#524
lawgator1 said:
No, I'm saying that if based on her religious beliefs she plans to work hard to use federal tools to ban abortion or prevent homosexual marriage or have the government get involved in pulling the plug on someone in a coma, then she ought to say so and ought to say why. Embrace it. I'd still vote aganst her, but if she could make the argument I'd at least respect her. I think that is her biggest problem right now, which is that outside of the Republican base, people by and large think she's a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

i don't think respect from you is going to make a difference in her poll numbers. and i also don't think there is any chance in hell she is the republican nomine in 2012 so it really doesn't matter.
 
#525
#525
lawgator1 said:
No, I'm saying that if based on her religious beliefs she plans to work hard to use federal tools to ban abortion or prevent homosexual marriage or have the government get involved in pulling the plug on someone in a coma, then she ought to say so and ought to say why. Embrace it. I'd still vote aganst her, but if she could make the argument I'd at least respect her. I think that is her biggest problem right now, which is that outside of the Republican base, people by and large think she's a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

What behavior has she displayed thus far that leads you to believe she would govern as you predict were she elected President (not going to happen)?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top