Eddie Haskell wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:J5ydnYsgVoxUJLnVnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, Rudy Canoza
>>> <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>> Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>>>> Shouting down conservatives on college campuses is commonplace
>>>> No more common than conservatives wanting "dirty" books banned, or
>>>> wanting to lynch flag-burners.
>>> Name the banned books,
>> Not all banned, but challenged at least. All except "Huckleberry Finn"
>> are challenged by low-brow right wingers:
>>
>> The “10 Most Challenged Books of 2006” reflect a range of themes, and
>> consist of the following titles:
>>
>> * “And Tango Makes Three” by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell,
>> for homo***uality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group;
>> * “Gossip Girls” series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homo***uality,
>> ***ual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive
>> language;
>> * “Alice” series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for ***ual content and
>> offensive language;
>> * “The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things” by Carolyn
>> Mackler for ***ual content, anti-family, offensive language, and
>> unsuited to age group;
>> * “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison for ***ual content, offensive
>> language, and unsuited to age group;
>> * “Scary Stories” series by Alvin Schwartz for occult/Satanism,
>> unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity;
>> * “Athletic Shorts” by Chris Crutcher for homo***uality and
>> offensive language;
>> * “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky for
>> homo***uality, ***ually explicit, offensive language, and
>> unsuited to age group;
>> * “Beloved” by Toni Morrison for offensive language, ***ual
content,
>> and unsuited to age group; and
>> * “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier for ***ual content,
>> offensive language, and violence.
>>
>> Off the list this year, but on for several years past, are the “Catcher
in
>> the Rye” by J.D. Salinger, “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck and “The
>> Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain.
>>
>>
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.cfm#mfcb
>
> WTF..? Thanks posting for another left-wing fascist smear cite.
It's nothing of the kind. Add "fascist" to the long list of words you
don't really know, but like to bandy about to sound more edjumacated.
> Those books
> in question are opposed as reading for school children, not the general
> public, and parents absolutely SHOULD be finding out and deciding what
books
> their kids are exposed to.
By all means, find out and decide what books you want your child to
read. But when you try to get the books out of the libraries
altogether, that's...SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH!
You see, stupid, you simply *redefine* your attempts at censor****p as
something else. In effect, you say "Censor****p is what the eeeeeeevil
liberal do; what *we* do is 'responsible parenting'." It's bull****.
> Are you nuts? Liberals want to force feed
No.
>>> and flag-burners lynched.
>> I didn't say any flag-burners have been lynched, stupid.
>>
>>
>> Attempts to outlaw burning the flag as a form of political protest come
>> entirely from the foam-at-the-mouth right wing. Liberal
representatives
>> and senators acquiesce, to their lasting shame, but they are never the
>> authors of these bills; only stupid, knuckle-dragging troglogdyte
>> Republicans.
>
> There is no right to set fires in public.
I already kicked your lying ass over this one, ****. It isn't about
"setting fires", and you goddamned ****ing well know it. Shut the ****
up about "setting fire". It's about suppressing political speech. The
language of the currently proposed constitutional amendment reads:
The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of
the flag of the United States.
Nothing about "setting fires" in there, you gutless squat-to-piss
cocksucker. It's about suppressing free speech, and you sup****t it.
You sup****t the suppression of free speech, when you don't like the
speech. You're ****ing goddamned hypocrite.
>>> Now compare that to the number of conservative speakers completely
>>> disrupted and/or disallowed on campuses by "liberals" chanting "free
>>> speech".
>> Probably about the same.
>>
>> I guess you missed this story in the L.A. Times about anti-war
protesters
>> in a suburb of Los Angeles being heckled and spat upon by
>> foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging troglogdyte conservatives:
>>
>>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-me-outthere2-2008may02,0,5921450.story
>
> Quote were it says that they were heckled and spat upon.
You have to know how to go to the second page of the article, ****wit.
>> They quote a loathsome young foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging
>> conservative punk: "They are inappreciative and unsup****tive and
>> ungrateful," he said. "You have no right to say anything unless you're
a
>> veteran."
>
> What was the context and to what was he referring?
The "context", you ****, is the entire idea of the protesters protesting
the war. The snotnosed little punk doesn't like it at all.
>
>> You have no right to say anything about American involvement in stupid,
>> illegal, based-on-lies quagmire wars unless you're a veteran? Where
does
>> that snot-nosed little cocksucker get ideas like that? He gets them
from
>> old, decrepit foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging conservative ****bags
>> like you.
>
> No, he probably got it from
He got it from exactly where I said: from some old, decrepit
foam-at-the-mouth knuckle-dragging conservative ****bags.
|
