"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:iKmdnTmu7YjvtLjVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
You cut what I say because you are an anti-free speech liberal.
Thanks for the demonstration.
-Eddie Haskell
|
