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

[1bad65]

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]

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.

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]

You claimed Solicitor General Kagan wants to ban books.

Jesus Christ!!!!

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

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]

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]

You guys STILL have not answered the simple question:

Is it ok for the Government to ban books?

[dimethylsea]

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

[Reality_Check]

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]

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.

[Reality_Check]

Jesus Christ!!!!

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

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_arg...eargued%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]

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]

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]

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]

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/foru...34&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/foru...78&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]

Hey, at least she's not sacking Rome!

[Drake]

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?