"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:SeSdnWbDErv3fbnVnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
The ALA is a notorious left-wing origination. They've even gone to bat for
people looking at **** on the Internet at the PUBLIC library. They are as
deranged as the ACLU.
>> 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****.
Groan.. Are you too stupid to see how you are being bull****ed? Read this
paragraph from your own cite again:
"The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom received a total of 546
challenges
last year. A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed
with
a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of
content
or appropriateness. According to Judith F. Krug, director of the Office
for
Intellectual Freedom, the number of challenges reflects only incidents
re****ted, and for each re****ted, four or five remain unre****ted."
That's typical left-wing propaganda. 546 challenges lumped in with
"library
or school." How the hell many people complain to the ALA about a book in
the
damn library as opposed people who complain about a book in a *school*
library, Einstein? They don't break it out for you because common sense
dictates that the vast majority would concern a book in a school of
course.
Then they take it a step further and claim that the REAL number is "four
or
five" times that and you are supposed to just take their word for it.
Utterly ridiculous. Are you not smart enough to see though this fascist
leftist bull****, or are you in on it?
>> Are you nuts? Liberals want to force feed
>
> No.
Yes. That's the whole point of the cite you posted and the ALA. To
demonize
and marginalize people who want to have a say in what books their children
are exposed to in school so they will have complete say in the matter.
Along
with every thing else kids are taught in school. It's fascist and
authoritarian, despite the fact that you are not smart enough to figure it
out.
>>>> 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.
My my what a temper. I think it derives from your inability to comprehend.
Burning a flag is not speech. It's setting a fire. In most cities you have
to get a permit to do that. Is burning a pile of leaves a constitutional
right as long as I throw a flag on top? I guess so according to you. Is
any
act that can be characterized as speech constitutionally protected as
speech? If I want to burn a log in the middle of the street to protest, do
I
get to call it speech because I say it is a protest against cutting trees?
Of course not. Burning a flag is setting a fire. That is a FACT, and you
don't get to make it a constitutional right because it is a flag instead
of
a pile of leaves or anything else. That's ludicrous.
Ordinances against setting a fire in public are PERFECTLY reasonable, and
you shouldn't get to do it because of WHAT you are burning. Bans on doing
so
DO NOT prohibit free speech. It merely requires stupid liberals to
actually
say something via means that do not force other people to listen. No one
has
the right to do that.
>>>> 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.
I never saw the words "heckled" or "spat upon." Post the words here that
you
think mean that.
>>> 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 unless you're a veteran."
What was he referring to the protesters having said? Your cite left that
part out, or didn't you notice? How do you know that one of the protesters
didn't say something offensive about the solders and he reacted. You see,
this kind of propaganda by omission is commonplace on the left. Especially
on the west coast. You're so awash in it day to day that you don't even
have
a concept of reality anymore. You're quite simply, brainwashed, and aren't
smart enough to see through the lies.
>>> 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.
I have no interest in debating someone who feels the need to delete most
of
what I say and then respond to a half-baked representation of it, Rudy.
What
you just did is just exactly like what your fascist liberal comrades do
and
really only buttresses my point. Is that what you want to do?
-Eddie Haskell
|
