Kagan: It's ok for Gov't to ban books - VIDEO [Archive]

David Jamieson

06-30-2010, 08:44 AM

Lot's of books are banned now.

Alabama for instance seems to challenge pretty much every provocative book ever written! lol

here's a short list:

Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The ******* by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

not that they are banned now, just that they have been at one time. America is huge on information control because THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE.

1bad65

06-30-2010, 12:50 PM

dimethylsea

06-30-2010, 01:33 PM

Instead of just saying she was wrong, you used the "but others do it too" argument. I stopped using that by the time I was a teenager.

But that's your ENTIRE DEBATING STRATEGY.

"Oh the Demos do that too".

Understand something.. YOUR GUY LOST.

It is the job of the President to nominate those individuals for appointment to the High Court that he feels will do the best job. He is arguably better acquainted with the LAW than any President in recent memory (Harvard Law Review anyone?).

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the perfect. Absolutely nothing Obama does, short of outright betrayal of his electoral mandate, will satisfy the right. NOTHING.

So he has no choice but to nominate the candidate he thinks he can get confirmed. That's the politics we have and that's what the Constitution says.
In a Presidential election with the largest voter turnout in 40 years Obama took 53% (a majority, not just a plurality) of the popular vote and 68% of the electoral college.

That is a mandate. He is the President, and will likely be the President for another 6 years. Get used to it. He's the man WE chose to govern to the best of his abilities. If he thinks that Kagan is the woman to dance with the Supremes.. then that's that.

GIVE 'EM H3LL BARRY!!!
(and g0d help you if he decides to emulate Truman and not Clinton heading into his second term!)

MasterKiller

06-30-2010, 01:34 PM

You guys have given so many passes ON ISSUES simply because the people on that side of the issue were 'your guys'.

LMFAO at the irony.

David Jamieson

06-30-2010, 01:40 PM

You two guys have just shown why we have alot of the problems we have now.

Instead of just saying she was wrong, you used the "but others do it too" argument. I stopped using that by the time I was a teenager.

Wrong is wrong, and right is right. You guys have given so many passes ON ISSUES simply because the people on that side of the issue were 'your guys'. We have to get above this pettyness to fix problems. People like you guys saying "but others do it too" and giving them a pass on these horrible policies is sad. Look at the policies, not the people or the Party they belong to.

So let me ask, do you agree with Kagan that the Gov't should be able to pass laws banning books? "Yes" or "No" please. I'll give you my answer right now; NO.

Wrong.

I'm pointing out how YOU ALREADY do this.

Nothing in my post about others doing it. Just Americans. Sure there are others who ban books and stem information, but we're only talking about how the USA does this despite claims of freedom of speech, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that other stuff that is essentially a kettle of lies when it comes down to brass tacks right. lol

Lucas

06-30-2010, 02:28 PM

Thats why I'm a criminal!!!!!

1bad65

06-30-2010, 02:36 PM

But that's your ENTIRE DEBATING STRATEGY.

"Oh the Demos do that too".

Bull****. Please cite examples.

I've criticized Bush on spending.

I've criticized Bush on campaign finance reform, and I hailed the SC decision throwing most of it out.

I've criticized Bush (and the Congressional Republicans at the time) for not using their politcal muscle to fix Fannie and Freddie before they collapsed. I did, however, point out that the Democrats were defending Fannie and Freddie.

I criticized Bush on Katrina, saying the Federal Gov't had no responsibility for any of the costs of it.

Can you guys show me where you have criticized Obama? I'm betting not.

It is the job of the President to nominate those individuals for appointment to the High Court that he feels will do the best job. He is arguably better acquainted with the LAW than any President in recent memory (Harvard Law Review anyone?).

Dude, Harriet Miers was at least as qualified as Kagan, and the Democrats (and Republicans) shot her down.

And G.W. Bush was the only US President to have an MBA, but that didn't stop the liberals from blasting his economic policies.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the perfect. Absolutely nothing Obama does, short of outright betrayal of his electoral mandate, will satisfy the right. NOTHING.

Maybe if he did things like nominate someone for the Supreme Court who isn't on record saying it's ok to legislate from the bench, they might cut him some slack.

Hell, she was asked point-blank if the Gov't had the right to dictate our food choices and she refused to answer! I don't give a **** if someone with an (R) or a (D) next to their name did that, it's wrong. Period.

So he has no choice but to nominate the candidate he thinks he can get confirmed. That's the politics we have and that's what the Constitution says.
In a Presidential election with the largest voter turnout in 40 years Obama took 53% (a majority, not just a plurality) of the popular vote and 68% of the electoral college.

That is a mandate. He is the President, and will likely be the President for another 6 years. Get used to it. He's the man WE chose to govern to the best of his abilities. If he thinks that Kagan is the woman to dance with the Supremes.. then that's that.

Get real. You know someone who had at least has some judicial experience would be easier to confirm than this one.

As to a mandate, do you take into account his current ~46% approval rating? ;)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140738/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Rating-46.aspx

GIVE 'EM H3LL BARRY!!!

He's doing that to the economy.

1bad65

06-30-2010, 02:38 PM

LMFAO at the irony.

LMFAO at your inability to read.

I've been critical on multiple issues regarding G.W. Bush.

1bad65

06-30-2010, 02:39 PM

Reality_Check

06-30-2010, 03:11 PM

You two guys have just shown why we have alot of the problems we have now.

Well, they were responding to your question.

Didn't the Nazis ban books too? :eek:

Christians have been banning books for centuries.

Lot's of books are banned now.

Alabama for instance seems to challenge pretty much every provocative book ever written! lol

here's a short list:

Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The ******* by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

not that they are banned now, just that they have been at one time. America is huge on information control because THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE.

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the question.

Reality_Check

06-30-2010, 03:47 PM

The law in question was McCain-Feingold. So, perhaps you should blame Congress for trying to "ban" things since Solicitor General Kagan was defending the law as written.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/29/jeff-sessions/sessions-says-kagan-argued-government-could-ban-po/

The case before the Supreme Court challenged the application of a campaign reform bill known as the McCain-Feingold Act with respect to whether the nonprofit corporation Citizens United could air a video critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In a broader sense, though, the issue was whether the government had the authority to ban corporate or labor union funding of independent political broadcasts advocating for a candidate just prior to an election.

In her oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Kagan argued that pamphlets were "pretty classic electioneering," and therefore fell into the category of corporate-financed election materials that could be limited by the McCain-Feingold Act.

Now, corporations could still form separate political action committees (PACs) to get their message out. But Kagan said she argued in favor of the position taken by Congress that corporations and labor unions had such a "corrupting influence" on elections that they should not be allowed to directly fund political messages for or against a particular candidate very close to an election.

In his concurring opinion, Justice John Roberts wrote that the government's position "asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."

So, right off the bat, we are talking about pamphlets directly funded by corporations or labor unions.

During some close questioning by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, on the Citizens United issue on the second day of the confirmation hearing, Kagan quickly framed the limits of the issue, stating that the statute ''applies only to corporations and unions when they make independent expenditures, not to their PACs ... within a certain period of an election."

She also noted that as solicitor general, she was defending the statute as written by Congress, which "made the determination broadly that corporations and trade unions had this corrupting influence on Congress."

"And the statute as it was written applies to pamphlets as well as to the movie in the case, and we made a vigorous argument that the application of that statute to any kind of classic electioneering materials, not books -- because they aren't typically used to electioneer -- but that the application of the statutes to any kinds of classic electioneering materials was in fact constitutional and that the court should defer to Congress' view of the need for this," Kagan said.

Kagan did argue that pamphlets should be included in the types of communication the government could prohibit. But again, that's in the context of pamphlets paid for directly by corporations or labor unions making independent expenditures (not through their PAC) for a pamphlet advocating for a specific candidate within the last months of an election.

From the actual transcript (which perhaps 1bad65 should read before making inane threads):

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf

JUSTICE BREYER: So here the obvious argument is: Look, they said the compelling interest is that people think that representatives are being bought, okay? That's to put it in a caricature, but you understand what I'm driving at, okay? ... So Congress now says precisely that interest leads us to want to limit the expenditures that corporations can make on electioneering communication in the last 30 days of a primary, over-the-air television, but not on radio, not on books, not on pamphlets, not on anything else. All right?

GENERAL KAGAN: It is still true that BCRA 203, which is the only statute involved in this case, does not apply to books or anything other than broadcast; 441b does, on its face, apply to other media. And we took what the Court -- what the Court's -- the Court's own reaction to some of those other hypotheticals very seriously. We went back, we considered the matter carefully, and the government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books, that there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context.

GENERAL KAGAN: No, no, that's exactly right. The only statute that is involved in this case does not cover books. So 441b which --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Does cover books.

GENERAL KAGAN: -- which does cover books, except that I have just said that there would be a good as-applied challenge and that there has been no administrative practice of ever applying it to the books. And also only applies to express advocacy, right? 203 has -- is -- is -- has a broader category of the functional equivalent of express advocacy, but 441b is only express advocacy, which is a part of the reason why it has never applied to a book. One cannot imagine very many books that would meet the definition of express advocacy as this Court has expressed that.

Note, an as-applied challenge would mean the law would be challenged as unconstitutional. So, that quote would imply that she believes that if the Government were to attempt to ban books under McCain-Feingold, it would be easily challenged as unconstitutional.

SanHeChuan

06-30-2010, 03:48 PM

So let me ask, do you agree with Kagan that the Gov't should be able to pass laws banning books?

First, she is not saying that it's ok to ban books. She is saying, of the law in question, there is no reason to fear that it might be applied to books.

So I can not say that I agree with her, because I don't have that kind of judicial knowledge.

As to whether or not you should ban books? No, unless it’s the :p bible. They could do a rating system like movies and music though.

Reality_Check

06-30-2010, 03:50 PM

And so far not one of you has answered the simple question:

So let me ask, do you agree with Kagan that the Gov't should be able to pass laws banning books?

Remember, "Yes" or "No" answers please. I've already posted my answer. ;)

Ah, but she did not say that. As my previous post makes abundantly clear. She said McCain-Feingold could be use to ban books, but that any such attempt would be unconstitutional.

So, do you agree with John McCain that the Government should be able to pass laws banning books? I mean he did pass such a law after all.

Yao Sing

06-30-2010, 05:00 PM

Reality_Check

06-30-2010, 07:23 PM

Bull****. Please cite examples.

Sure.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1003671&postcount=30

Vioence from the left isn't mentioned much. :rolleyes:

The Weathermen, Saul Alinsky, the SLA, the Black Panthers, etc have openly called for violence, robbed banks, kidnapped and murdered people, and bombed the Pentagon among other things, but the press only seem to focus on the vile 'right wing extremists'. :rolleyes:

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=889880&postcount=2069

But you came up with around 7 or so examples. That's cool. But 1/3 of polled Democrats expressed racist views. Those 7 are a drop in the bucket compared to 1/3.

Clearly they aren't democrats.

That professor who murdered 3 people at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was.

At least Christians aren't threatening to kill two guys who make funny cartoons.

"Not as bad" means one is worse than the other. It doesn't mean one is ok.

I need to watch the video. But I'm sure they haven't beheaded anyone, or called for a country's destruction, or worn a sidearm to a UN meeting, or called for the killing of an author, or offered to pay money to suicide bombers, or flown planes into buildings, or gassed their own people. You know, things the 'peaceful' Muslims do.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997578&postcount=2

Is this playing on people's fears any different from how the Democrats have said Republicans wanted to starve children and force senior citizens to have to eat dog food to survive?

Can you guys show me where you have criticized Obama? I'm betting not.

Gee, I started a whole thread.

Dragonzbane76

07-01-2010, 03:59 AM

talking state gov. or federal gov.? because there is a difference.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 07:19 AM

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the question.

Not one of those books he listed is banned. I could get every one of them through Amazon or any bookstore.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 07:22 AM

The law in question was McCain-Feingold. So, perhaps you should blame Congress for trying to "ban" things since Solicitor General Kagan was defending the law as written.[/URL]

You're all over the map now. :rolleyes: :confused:

So when I criticized Bush, you come on and say it was Congess fault? Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law, and I criticized him for it.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 07:23 AM

So, do you agree with John McCain that the Government should be able to pass laws banning books? I mean he did pass such a law after all.

He did?

And how did John McCain pass a law? Who voted for it in Congress? Or are you actually saying McCain passed it all by himself?

1bad65

07-01-2010, 07:28 AM

The Fed Gov is not authorized to be in the banning biz. Maybe they should spend their time doing what they were created to do, like providing for common defense - securing borders - regulate commerce etc. (18 specific areas), instead of playing mommy/daddy to the population and telling us what is and isn't good for us.

Considering all the people on here who want the Gov't to give us all "free" healthcare, control our retirements, ban guns, not secure our bordes, not defend us against terrorism, etc it's scary as hell.

I'm a very strict Consitutionalist. It's really simple, imo. The Consitution is filled with what the Government "shall not" do, but NOT ONCE does it say what The People shall not do. Not once.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 07:31 AM

Sure.

Not one of those examples did I give the Republicans a pass because I said "the Democrats did it too". Not once. Now I pointed out that they did indeed do stuff the Republicans did, this is true. But nowhere did I give the Republicans a pass, which is what I specifically asked for.

Try again.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 07:33 AM

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 08:15 AM

Not one of those books he listed is banned. I could get every one of them through Amazon or any bookstore.

Apparently, your reading skills have seriously atrophied.

Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 08:19 AM

You're all over the map now. :rolleyes: :confused:

So when I criticized Bush, you come on and say it was Congess fault? Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law, and I criticized him for it.

I'm all over the map?:rolleyes:

You are blaming Solicitor General Kagan for doing her job in defending the law as written by Congress.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 08:24 AM

He did?

And how did John McCain pass a law? Who voted for it in Congress? Or are you actually saying McCain passed it all by himself?

Well, I think it's fairly safe to assume that he had some input on the text of the bill, as his name is on it. It's also fairly safe to assume that he voted for it, as his name is on it. So, based on that, it would be safe to infer that he believes in banning books.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 08:29 AM

And I'm still waiting for anyone to answer if they think it's ok for the Government to ban books. :rolleyes:

Of course we all saw RC say 'McCain did it', but he still did not give a "Yes" or "No" answer like I asked for.

Ah, but I was objecting to the whole premise of this thread. You claimed Solicitor General Kagan wants to ban books. I showed that to be untrue. As you would have been able to tell if you had in fact read the transcripts of the Citizen's United case.

So, who is seeking to ban books? Certainly not me.

SanHeChuan

07-01-2010, 08:31 AM

And I'm still waiting for anyone to answer if they think it's ok for the Government to ban books. :rolleyes:

Of course we all saw RC say 'McCain did it', but he still did not give a "Yes" or "No" answer like I asked for.

You must have missed it. And the several posts that pointed out that she was not saying that the government should or could ban books. So really the whole thread is moot.

First, she is not saying that it's ok to ban books. She is saying, of the law in question, there is no reason to fear that it might be applied to books.

So I can not say that I agree with her, because I don't have that kind of judicial knowledge.

As to whether or not you should ban books? No, unless it’s the :p bible. They could do a rating system like movies and music though.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 08:37 AM

1bad65

07-01-2010, 10:23 AM

Apparently, your reading skills have seriously atrophied.

We aren't talking about the past, we are talking about Ms Kagan who is CURRENTLY is up for a seat on our Supreme Court. I'm not concerned with the past bannings, I'm concernied with her thoughts on current and future bans.

FYI, banning books at ANY time is wrong.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 10:27 AM

Well, I think it's fairly safe to assume that he had some input on the text of the bill, as his name is on it. It's also fairly safe to assume that he voted for it, as his name is on it. So, based on that, it would be safe to infer that he believes in banning books.

That's not the issue. I asked if you were for or against the Government banning books. You answered by saying 'McCain did it'. I simply asked how McCain himself banned books. I'd also like to answer the original question, but I'm not holding my breath. :rolleyes:

Also, if McCain is so wrong in banning books via McCain-Feingold, do you dondemn ALL those who voted for it (Like Russ Feingold (D-WI)) or just McCain?

1bad65

07-01-2010, 10:29 AM

You claimed Solicitor General Kagan wants to ban books.

Jesus Christ!!!!

Here we go yet again with this ****. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I did not say that. I said she said it's ok for Government to ban books. Hell, it's in the friggin thread title and you still can't read and/or comprehend what I said.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 10:33 AM

I clearly demonstrated that you do, in fact, use the "but others do it too" argument. So, did your teenage years just end this morning?

You have to show where I gave the Republicans a pass. I never did that.

Here, I'll type slow.

Obama is spending too much money. This is bad. Bush spent too much money. That was bad.

Obama is for campaign finance reform. I'm against that. Bush was for campaign finance reform. I 'm against that.

Clinton raised income taxes. That is wrong. G.H.W. Bush raised income taxes. That is wrong.

Do you now see the consistency here?

1bad65

07-01-2010, 10:35 AM

You guys STILL have not answered the simple question:

Is it ok for the Government to ban books?

dimethylsea

07-01-2010, 10:55 AM

You guys STILL have not answered the simple question:

Is it ok for the Government to ban books?

Does "books" in the sense of this question, include works which quote verbatim, largely in the whole, or wholly, classified documents?

I.e. is Wikileaks a "book" or if it were printed out as a document would it be a "book" for purposes of discussion?

(I personally think the government shouldn't be able to ban any expression of information, up to and including written incitements of violence.. which is, I'll admit, a rather extreme opinion).

I do know however that there will be attempts to suppress free speech. That's why wonderful organizations like Wikileaks exist :D

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 11:22 AM

You have to show where I gave the Republicans a pass. I never did that.

I never said you gave the Republicans a free pass. My posts were quite clear.

You claimed that you do not use the "but others do it too" argument. I quite easily showed that to be a lie.

SanHeChuan

07-01-2010, 11:25 AM

I never said you gave the Republicans a free pass. My posts were quite clear.

You claimed that you do not use the "but others do it too" argument. I quite easily showed that to be a lie.

Well you see, what he said wasn't really what he meant. He'll let you know what he really meant, after you have pinned him down on what he said. And then if you pin him on what he really means, then he'll let you know what he really really meant. :p

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 11:27 AM

Jesus Christ!!!!

Here we go yet again with this ****. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I did not say that. I said she said it's ok for Government to ban books. Hell, it's in the friggin thread title and you still can't read and/or comprehend what I said.

My apologies for mis-characterizing your position. Nevertheless, it does not change that fact that Solicitor General Kagan does not feel that it is okay for the Government to ban books. Read through my posts or, better yet, read through the Supreme Court transcript.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf

That will clearly show that your accusations are unfounded.

JUSTICE BREYER: So here the obvious argument is: Look, they said the compelling interest is that people think that representatives are being bought, okay? That's to put it in a caricature, but you understand what I'm driving at, okay? ... So Congress now says precisely that interest leads us to want to limit the expenditures that corporations can make on electioneering communication in the last 30 days of a primary, over-the-air television, but not on radio, not on books, not on pamphlets, not on anything else. All right?

GENERAL KAGAN: It is still true that BCRA 203, which is the only statute involved in this case, does not apply to books or anything other than broadcast; 441b does, on its face, apply to other media. And we took what the Court -- what the Court's -- the Court's own reaction to some of those other hypotheticals very seriously. We went back, we considered the matter carefully, and the government's view is that although 441b does cover full-length books, that there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context.

GENERAL KAGAN: No, no, that's exactly right. The only statute that is involved in this case does not cover books. So 441b which --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Does cover books.

GENERAL KAGAN: -- which does cover books, except that I have just said that there would be a good as-applied challenge and that there has been no administrative practice of ever applying it to the books. And also only applies to express advocacy, right? 203 has -- is -- is -- has a broader category of the functional equivalent of express advocacy, but 441b is only express advocacy, which is a part of the reason why it has never applied to a book. One cannot imagine very many books that would meet the definition of express advocacy as this Court has expressed that.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 11:28 AM

Also, if McCain is so wrong in banning books via McCain-Feingold, do you dondemn ALL those who voted for it (Like Russ Feingold (D-WI)) or just McCain?

I only mentioned John McCain due to your vehement support for him during the last Presidential campaign.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 11:30 AM

We aren't talking about the past, we are talking about Ms Kagan who is CURRENTLY is up for a seat on our Supreme Court. I'm not concerned with the past bannings, I'm concernied with her thoughts on current and future bans.

FYI, banning books at ANY time is wrong.

I agree. And, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, Solicitor General Kagan is not okay with banning books. I'll say it again: read the transcript.

Drake

07-01-2010, 11:42 AM

Why would someone trying to be confirmed tell Congress she wants to ban books? Even if someone DID< that would be stupid to say during confirmation hearings. That doesn't even pass the sniff test...

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 11:49 AM

Not one of those examples did I give the Republicans a pass because I said "the Democrats did it too". Not once. Now I pointed out that they did indeed do stuff the Republicans did, this is true. But nowhere did I give the Republicans a pass, which is what I specifically asked for.

Try again.

You should read more closely.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997534&postcount=1

For many years now the Republican Party has taken to the tactics of Appeal to emotion, creating a Culture of fear, and Propaganda.

They do this because they believe that Americans are not rational thinking human beings but sheeple not worth reasoning with. Why bother discussing merits of your ideas if you believe as they obviously do that manipulation works better. They act like they are stupid and maybe they are, but they act like we are stupid, and that’s where they lost me. If they think you’re stupid, will they lie to you, or will they show you one hand while hiding the other.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997578&postcount=2

Is this playing on people's fears any different from how the Democrats have said Republicans wanted to starve children and force senior citizens to have to eat dog food to survive?

KC Elbows

07-01-2010, 11:51 AM

Hey, at least she's not sacking Rome!

Drake

07-01-2010, 12:20 PM

1bad65

07-01-2010, 01:31 PM

You claimed that you do not use the "but others do it too" argument. I quite easily showed that to be a lie.

No, I did not. :rolleyes:

I said I do not use that argument to give Republicans a pass.

You guys do it though. Take spending, for example. When I point out that Obama is spending like a drunken sailor, you guys routinely say 'Well Bush spent alot too', and you refuse to condemn Obama's spending. Matter of fact, you guys often try and find ways to justify Obama's spending. Me, I simply condemn both guys for it.

Can you name ONE thing Obama had done/proposed/signed into law, that you disagree with? Besides the war of course, we all know that's all Bush's fault. :rolleyes:

1bad65

07-01-2010, 01:33 PM

(I personally think the government shouldn't be able to ban any expression of information, up to and including written incitements of violence.. which is, I'll admit, a rather extreme opinion).

Thank you for answering the question.

I can take that as a "No", correct?

1bad65

07-01-2010, 01:35 PM

Well you see, what he said wasn't really what he meant. He'll let you know what he really meant, after you have pinned him down on what he said. And then if you pin him on what he really means, then he'll let you know what he really really meant. :p

Dude, just STFU if you cant read.

Here is EXACTLY what I said:

You two guys have just shown why we have alot of the problems we have now.

Instead of just saying she was wrong, you used the "but others do it too" argument. I stopped using that by the time I was a teenager.

Wrong is wrong, and right is right. You guys have given so many passes ON ISSUES simply because the people on that side of the issue were 'your guys'. We have to get above this pettyness to fix problems. People like you guys saying "but others do it too" and giving them a pass on these horrible policies is sad. Look at the policies, not the people or the Party they belong to.

So let me ask, do you agree with Kagan that the Gov't should be able to pass laws banning books? "Yes" or "No" please. I'll give you my answer right now; NO.

Looks like I was pretty clear, and I've not changed my stance/question one bit.

1bad65

07-01-2010, 01:37 PM

I only mentioned John McCain due to your vehement support for him during the last Presidential campaign.

Man, you're really getting bad.

I voted for McCain, yes. But I openly admitted to holding my nose while doing so. That's hardly "vehemient support". :rolleyes:

1bad65

07-01-2010, 01:40 PM

Just watched it. What the hell kind of weird splicing job was this? Looks like it was done by a retarded chimp with Windows Movie Maker.

Get me actual video of this... I saw dates going back over ten years which were mixed into a recent event...or was any of it recent? Or was it a huge mix of random quotes slapped together to sound like something else? Random quotes, static images, and the occassional WMP randomizer effect?

You call this a legitimate reference?

Splicing? :rolleyes:

Not this time. Splicing is when the Democrats took snippets of Newt Gingrich and pieced them together so it appeared he said he wanted "Medicare to wither on the vine", when he said no such thing.

The video clearly stated who was asking every question, and her answers to those questions.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 01:55 PM

No, I did not. :rolleyes:

I said I do not use that argument to give Republicans a pass.

Here is your original post in all of it's glory.

You two guys have just shown why we have alot of the problems we have now.

Instead of just saying she was wrong, you used the "but others do it too" argument. I stopped using that by the time I was a teenager.

Wrong is wrong, and right is right. You guys have given so many passes ON ISSUES simply because the people on that side of the issue were 'your guys'. We have to get above this pettyness to fix problems. People like you guys saying "but others do it too" and giving them a pass on these horrible policies is sad. Look at the policies, not the people or the Party they belong to.

So let me ask, do you agree with Kagan that the Gov't should be able to pass laws banning books? "Yes" or "No" please. I'll give you my answer right now; NO.

Where, in this post, did you say you do not use it to give a free pass to Republicans? Oh, that's right, you didn't say that. Once I demonstrated that you use "but others do it too" repeatedly, you decided to move the goalposts.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 01:58 PM

Man, you're really getting bad.

I voted for McCain, yes. But I openly admitted to holding my nose while doing so. That's hardly "vehemient support". :rolleyes:

Please read through the Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin thread again.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51815

You various defenses/attacks certainly seemed vehement to me.

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 02:00 PM

Splicing? :rolleyes:

Not this time. Splicing is when the Democrats took snippets of Newt Gingrich and pieced them together so it appeared he said he wanted "Medicare to wither on the vine", when he said no such thing.

The video clearly stated who was asking every question, and her answers to those questions.

As I've suggested before, please read through the actual transcript instead of relying on a video that removes huge swaths of the discussion as well as any context.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf

Reality_Check

07-01-2010, 02:04 PM

Looks like I was pretty clear, and I've not changed my stance/question one bit.

As were my posts demonstrating that you do in fact use the "but others do it too" argument. Including one where you clearly give the Republicans a pass. Nowhere, in the thread excerpted below, did you call out the Republicans for using "the tactics of Appeal to emotion, creating a Culture of fear, and Propaganda." You just said the Democrats do it too.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997534&postcount=1

For many years now the Republican Party has taken to the tactics of Appeal to emotion, creating a Culture of fear, and Propaganda.

They do this because they believe that Americans are not rational thinking human beings but sheeple not worth reasoning with. Why bother discussing merits of your ideas if you believe as they obviously do that manipulation works better. They act like they are stupid and maybe they are, but they act like we are stupid, and that’s where they lost me. If they think you’re stupid, will they lie to you, or will they show you one hand while hiding the other.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997578&postcount=2

Is this playing on people's fears any different from how the Democrats have said Republicans wanted to starve children and force senior citizens to have to eat dog food to survive?

So, you have:

1. Lied about not using the "but others do it too" argument since your teenage years, when you clearly have.

2. Lied about not using said argument to give Republicans a pass, as I have shown above.

Drake

07-01-2010, 04:59 PM

1bad65

07-02-2010, 07:10 AM

Where, in this post, did you say you do not use it to give a free pass to Republicans? Oh, that's right, you didn't say that. Once I demonstrated that you use "but others do it too" repeatedly, you decided to move the goalposts.

I said you guys give passes to Democrats. Then Dime said that was "my entire debating strategy oh, the Demos do that too", so I then asked for you guys to "please cite examples". And no one has shown me doing that.

No goalposts have been moved. You just can't score, so you accuse me of it.

1bad65

07-02-2010, 07:12 AM

You various defenses/attacks certainly seemed vehement to me.

I vehemiently opposed Obama. I did not vehemiently support McCain.

Get it now?

1bad65

07-02-2010, 07:14 AM

2. Lied about not using said argument to give Republicans a pass, as I have shown above.

I fail to see me giving anyone a pass there.

I did say 'others did it too', you are 100% correct. But nowhere did I give a pass to the Republicans.

1bad65

07-02-2010, 07:20 AM

No, really... it was spliced. Didn't you notice?

Ok, fine.

Here is a non-spliced video of her refusing to say the Government does not have the power to tell people what they can and cannot eat. :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=player_embedded

Do you want the Government taking away The People's right to eat as we choose?

SanHeChuan

07-02-2010, 07:21 AM

Reality_Check

07-02-2010, 08:36 AM

I fail to see me giving anyone a pass there.

I did say 'others did it too', you are 100% correct. But nowhere did I give a pass to the Republicans.

Really? SanHeChuan started a thread about how Republicans are using the politics of fear. You said the Democrats do it too.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997534&postcount=1

For many years now the Republican Party has taken to the tactics of Appeal to emotion, creating a Culture of fear, and Propaganda.

They do this because they believe that Americans are not rational thinking human beings but sheeple not worth reasoning with. Why bother discussing merits of your ideas if you believe as they obviously do that manipulation works better. They act like they are stupid and maybe they are, but they act like we are stupid, and that’s where they lost me. If they think you’re stupid, will they lie to you, or will they show you one hand while hiding the other.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997578&postcount=2

Is this playing on people's fears any different from how the Democrats have said Republicans wanted to starve children and force senior citizens to have to eat dog food to survive?

When he followed up with...

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997743&postcount=6

Death panels are Teh Truth?

...as an example of using the politics of fear, you replied:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997751&postcount=7

Those go hand in hand with socialized medicine. If they are not in there now, they will be once this Government program runs over budget. You know what running over budget is, right? It's what EVERY Government program ends up doing.

That is most definitely an example of giving Republicans a pass on using fear tactics.

Face it, you do exactly what you deny doing. That is called lying. You are explicitly saying it's okay for the Republicans to use fear as the Democrats do it too.

Drake

07-02-2010, 08:48 AM

Ok, fine.

Here is a non-spliced video of her refusing to say the Government does not have the power to tell people what they can and cannot eat. :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo&feature=player_embedded

Do you want the Government taking away The People's right to eat as we choose?

I want the one where she says banning books is ok.

And yeah, if I'm the one paying for your diabetic, heart-disease ridden self because you are eating the corporate processed "food", then I'd like to have a say. Otherwise, how about this... you eat whatever the hell you want, and in return, you are denied insurance because you are essentially derailing the entire industry by being part of an unhealthy mass of idiots who expect people to cover down for you, either by burdening the insurance industry with your basic lack of common dietary sense, or burdening the universal health care for the same reasons. Universal or private, it doesn't matter. Fatasses who eat chemical-laden "nom nom"s will kill either system if they are allowed to participate.

Oh, and the lovely side effect is that local farmers suffer because you'd rather have a twinkie than a salad.

Sounds fair. You kill yourself. You pay for it yourself.

But, regardess, like I said... this is a distraction. I want the clip where she says banning books is ok. VERBATIM. Otherwise, your post is misleading and essentially a lie.

1bad65

07-02-2010, 10:02 AM

Show us where anyone did more than just point out that the other side did it to. Show a post where any of us explicitly said that it was ok for the Dems to do something because the republicans had.

If that's what you expect from us to prove you wrong. This is what you need to prove yourself right.

You guys have REPEATEDLY justified Obama's spending while criticizing Bush for his spending. That's hypocracy. And thats what I'm looking for.

Yes.

Are you f'king serious?!?! Show me where in the Constitution it says the Gov't has that power.

So let me get this stright, you say The People have "reproductive rights" (abortion), but we do not have "digestive rights"?

Are you really saying we should have the right to suck a baby out of a womb but not have the right to eat a Big Mac?

1bad65

07-02-2010, 10:05 AM

Really? SanHeChuan started a thread about how Republicans are using the politics of fear. You said the Democrats do it too.

ONCE AGAIN, you are right that I said they both do it. But I notice I did not give the Republicans a pass.

Of course I can't give the Republicans a pass for saying the Democrats want to starve kids and force seniors to eat dog food because the Republicans never even said that.

1bad65

07-02-2010, 10:07 AM

That is most definitely an example of giving Republicans a pass on using fear tactics.

No it is not. Its a FACT that countries with socialized medicine ration care, which is in effect having death panels.

Face it, you do exactly what you deny doing. That is called lying. You are explicitly saying it's okay for the Republicans to use fear as the Democrats do it too.

Again, I never said that.

If the Republicans said that Democrats want old people to die or eat dog food and they want children to starve, I would condemn tham just as I have Democrats who have actually done this.

1bad65

07-02-2010, 10:18 AM

I want the one where she says banning books is ok.

It's in there. Look, the video is different clips of her put together to make a point. You are right. But the video CLEARLY states the questions posed Ms Kagan and her answers to those questions.

And yeah, if I'm the one paying for your diabetic, heart-disease ridden self because you are eating the corporate processed "food", then I'd like to have a say. Otherwise, how about this... you eat whatever the hell you want, and in return, you are denied insurance because you are essentially derailing the entire industry by being part of an unhealthy mass of idiots who expect people to cover down for you, either by burdening the insurance industry with your basic lack of common dietary sense, or burdening the universal health care for the same reasons. Universal or private, it doesn't matter. Fatasses who eat chemical-laden "nom nom"s will kill either system if they are allowed to participate.

That sounds ok, actually. The only problem is that people like me say no one should be paying for anyone else's care. So I say let people eat what they want. If they get sick and have either good insurance or enough money to cover the medical effects, fine. But I don't want the Gov't interfering IN ANY WAY. That includes providing insurance. Again, I'm being consistant here, I want NO Gov't interference, I'm not picking and choosing.

Oh, and the lovely side effect is that local farmers suffer because you'd rather have a twinkie than a salad.

And if I eat only healthy food, the guys making the Twinkies suffer.

See how capitalism works! It's amazing, isn't it. ;)

Sounds fair. You kill yourself. You pay for it yourself.

Sounds great. But now we have the Government wanting to take care of us, and now we've opened the door to them monitoring our food. I wanted them the hell out, so I feel I have every right to eat 35 Big Macs a day if I so desire.

It's really simple Drake. Let me ask you, did you ever get mad at your parents over their rules? I did. And it was always the same reply from them, "When you pay your own bills, you make your own rules". That's a great way to look at life. Well now we have millions of people wanting the Gov't to pay our bills, and it's only logical that if they pay our bills they can make the rules. I myself choose to live on my own and pay my own bills. What's wrong with me just wanting to live that way?

SanHeChuan

07-02-2010, 10:34 AM

It's in there. Look, the video is different clips of her put together to make a point. You are right. But the video CLEARLY states the questions posed Ms Kagan and her answers to those questions.

If it's not explicitly quotable then it's not true. That's the argument you're using against us to justify your hypocrisy. Give me one quote where she explicitly says the government can/should ban books.

You guys have REPEATEDLY justified Obama's spending while criticizing Bush for his spending. That's hypocracy. And thats what I'm looking for.

Your looking for but you can’t find one quote where we explicitly said it was ok, because others did it. You said we did that, prove it.

Reality_Check

07-02-2010, 10:45 AM

If the Republicans said that Democrats want old people to die or eat dog food and they want children to starve, I would condemn tham just as I have Democrats who have actually done this.

But only if they say exactly that? But if they do other kinds of fear mongering, it's okay?

Face it, the Republicans use fear mongering. You justified it by saying the Democrats do it too. Which you said you haven't done. Which makes you a liar.

Reality_Check

07-02-2010, 10:47 AM

It's in there. Look, the video is different clips of her put together to make a point. You are right. But the video CLEARLY states the questions posed Ms Kagan and her answers to those questions.

And the transcript has all of that and more. So, please read the transcript and quote the section(s) where she says it's okay to ban books.

Reality_Check

07-02-2010, 10:48 AM

You guys have REPEATEDLY justified Obama's spending while criticizing Bush for his spending. That's hypocracy. And thats what I'm looking for.

And where is your example? Hmm...:rolleyes:

Drake

07-02-2010, 11:21 AM

It's in there. Look, the video is different clips of her put together to make a point. You are right. But the video CLEARLY states the questions posed Ms Kagan and her answers to those questions.

That sounds ok, actually. The only problem is that people like me say no one should be paying for anyone else's care. So I say let people eat what they want. If they get sick and have either good insurance or enough money to cover the medical effects, fine. But I don't want the Gov't interfering IN ANY WAY. That includes providing insurance. Again, I'm being consistant here, I want NO Gov't interference, I'm not picking and choosing.

And if I eat only healthy food, the guys making the Twinkies suffer.

See how capitalism works! It's amazing, isn't it. ;)

Sounds great. But now we have the Government wanting to take care of us, and now we've opened the door to them monitoring our food. I wanted them the hell out, so I feel I have every right to eat 35 Big Macs a day if I so desire.

It's really simple Drake. Let me ask you, did you ever get mad at your parents over their rules? I did. And it was always the same reply from them, "When you pay your own bills, you make your own rules". That's a great way to look at life. Well now we have millions of people wanting the Gov't to pay our bills, and it's only logical that if they pay our bills they can make the rules. I myself choose to live on my own and pay my own bills. What's wrong with me just wanting to live that way?

Using that SAME logic, we should allow the opium trade to continue, so that we don't put them out of work as well.

And FYI... even if you have NO insurance, and even if there was NO universal health care, if your twinkie filled ass has a stroke, heart attack, or any other one of the countless thngs that processed food causes, an ambulance will come and get you, a doctor will see you, and many thousands of dollars will be spent on you, regardless of whether or not you can pay for it. That is the fatal flaw in your logic. You won't just fall down and slowly die as peope watch. There will be hundreds of dollars wasted on an ambulance, thousands wasted in medical care, and a doctor and staff pulled from people who are suffering from legitimate injuries or illnesses that were unpreventable.

How much have your taxes gone up, by the way? I haven't seen a single change in the taxes I pay since President Obama took office. I haven't seen anyone take away all the ammo like predicted. I haven't seen anything unusual in the economy, as it is recovering slowly, as it was predicted long before he took office. Oh yeah... President Obama even told us it would be a slow recovery, and that we must be patient.

On the flip side, I didn't see Fmr Pres. Bush do anything terrible to the economy either.

GUESS WHAT PEOPLE. AMERICANS CAUSED THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN, AND THEY ALSO CAUSED THE HOUSING MARKET CRASH. Stop playing the blame game... it was collective American irresponsibility. Stop blaming Bush and Obama and take responsibility for the corruption in the banking sector and the inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend loans that we couldn't pay.

No books have been banned, no guns have been taken, and taxes have not skyrocketed. And comparably, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are friggin' MILD compared to WWII, Vietnam, or Korea. I believe Bush did what he thought was right, just as I feel Obama is doing what he thinks is right.

Cheney, on the other hand.... that dude worries me. I don't like his smile.

Drake

07-02-2010, 11:23 AM

Oh, and my father threw me out on X-Mas...so let's not use parents as an example, k?

1bad65

07-06-2010, 07:16 AM

Your looking for but you can’t find one quote where we explicitly said it was ok, because others did it. You said we did that, prove it.

So it looks like for the 3,475th time my sources don't count. :rolleyes:

Look, she has ZERO EXPERIENCE as a judge. ZERO. And the hypocracy is rampant by the Democrats on this issue. They rejected Harriet Miers for not having enough experience, but now they are ready to confirm someone with even less experience than Ms Miers. That's hypocracy.

1bad65

07-06-2010, 07:23 AM

But only if they say exactly that? But if they do other kinds of fear mongering, it's okay?

Face it, the Republicans use fear mongering. You justified it by saying the Democrats do it too. Which you said you haven't done. Which makes you a liar.

How can i condemn them for telling the truth? :confused:

There are death panels in countries with socialized medicine. That's not fear-mongering, it's the truth. I don't know about you, but I don't condemn the truth.

Once you show me proof of Republican laws FORCING old people to eat dog food, or proof of children starving in the streets after (and because of) budget cuts, I'll accept you are justified in calling me a hypocrite.

1bad65

07-06-2010, 07:25 AM

And where is your example? Hmm...:rolleyes:

Screw you. You're one of the worst ones.

Ok, lets cut to the chase. In your opinion is Obama's massive spending justified? If not, please tell me what he is spending too much on and what he needs to cut. And I already know you're gonna blame the war, so tell me what else needs to be cut besides that.

This should be good...;)

1bad65

07-06-2010, 07:40 AM

Using that SAME logic, we should allow the opium trade to continue, so that we don't put them out of work as well.

I'm all for the legalization of drugs.

And FYI... even if you have NO insurance, and even if there was NO universal health care, if your twinkie filled ass has a stroke, heart attack, or any other one of the countless thngs that processed food causes, an ambulance will come and get you, a doctor will see you, and many thousands of dollars will be spent on you, regardless of whether or not you can pay for it. That is the fatal flaw in your logic. You won't just fall down and slowly die as peope watch. There will be hundreds of dollars wasted on an ambulance, thousands wasted in medical care, and a doctor and staff pulled from people who are suffering from legitimate injuries or illnesses that were unpreventable.

So spending money on a fat guy is "thousands wasted in medical care"? Are you really saying that? :eek:

Geez, now we know how the coutries with socialized medicine justify rationing it, the Gov't gets to choose who is "wasting" the healthcare dollars and who deserves the treatment. Wow, that sounds alot like Hitler calling people "worthless eaters". :eek:

How much have your taxes gone up, by the way? I haven't seen a single change in the taxes I pay since President Obama took office. I haven't seen anyone take away all the ammo like predicted. I haven't seen anything unusual in the economy, as it is recovering slowly, as it was predicted long before he took office. Oh yeah... President Obama even told us it would be a slow recovery, and that we must be patient.

My taxes are going up Jan 1st, unless he extends the Bush tax cuts. My capital gains taxes go up then too. FYI, the market will be ful of sell-offs in December, so be careful. When Obama targets weath, make sure your money is not collateral damage.

I never predicted he would take ammo.

If you haven't seen anything unusual in the economy, you're either blind or not paying attention. Unemployment is hovering around 10%, a good bit higher than it was under Bush. Interest rates are at all time lows, yet GDP is stagnent. FYI, this is very, very troubling. Couple low interest rates with massive debt, and what do you get? Inflation! And considering raising interest rates is the best way to fix inflation, yet raising them will result in slowing down the economy (see 1982), we better pray he stops spending because inflation could really mess things up right now. Mark my words on this; if inflation hits, we are in big trouble.

Obama's Administration also said if we passed the 'stimulus' umemployment would not break 8%, so I don't take those fools predictions to heart. Hell, even CNN had an article pointing out how this very Administration has by far the least bit of private sector experience of any Administration in the last 60 years. People generally cannot fix something they have no knowledge of.

On the flip side, I didn't see Fmr Pres. Bush do anything terrible to the economy either.

According the liberals here, he caused ALL of this mess. :rolleyes: Points to you for getting this one right though. ;)

GUESS WHAT PEOPLE. AMERICANS CAUSED THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN, AND THEY ALSO CAUSED THE HOUSING MARKET CRASH. Stop playing the blame game... it was collective American irresponsibility. Stop blaming Bush and Obama and take responsibility for the corruption in the banking sector and the inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend loans that we couldn't pay.

Clintons deregulation that allowed the credit-default swaps played a huge part. Had he not deregulated it, the banks could not have offloaded the bad loans to others.

But you are correct that stupid people spending money they did not have caused alot of problems. Yet I don't see us criminalizing stupidity like we are looking at criminalizing bad eating.

No books have been banned, no guns have been taken, and taxes have not skyrocketed. And comparably, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are friggin' MILD compared to WWII, Vietnam, or Korea. I believe Bush did what he thought was right, just as I feel Obama is doing what he thinks is right.

Mostly right, but look for taxes go up.