Eddie Haskell wrote:
> "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.
Only to a stupid low-brow knuckle-dragging troglodyte conservative like
you.
>>> 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?
You're *trying* to bull**** me, *****, but you fail.
>>> Are you nuts? Liberals want to force feed
>> No.
>
> Yes.
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.
>
> My my what a temper. I think it derives from your inability to
comprehend.
I comprehend.
> Burning a flag is not speech.
It's speech. See Texas vs. Johnson, you stupid ****: 491 U.S. 397
(1989).
You really are a stupid ****.
> It's setting a fire.
It's speech, you ****wit. Efforts to outlaw flag "desecration" (what
bull****) have nothing to do with fire.
> In most cities
**** off. We're not talking about fires, and you know it. We're
talking about flag "desecration", by whatever means. Low-brow
knuckle-dragging conservative troglodytes - you - want to outlaw
destruction of the flag, and destruction of the flag as a protest is
speech.
> Ordinances against setting a fire
**** off. We're not talking about fire, and you ****ing well know it.
>>>>> 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."
You're illiterate. The story describes pro-war hecklers, one of whom
spat upon the anti-war protesters.
>>>> 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."
That's what the snotnosed little ****witted troglodyte punk said, and
it's bull****.
>
> What was he referring to the protesters having said?
He was referring to them protesting at all. He's an ignorant,
undeserving **** who ****s on the first amendment, as you do.
>>>> 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
Most of what you say is fluff. I cut the fluff out.
|
