http://www.breitbart.tv/kagans-own-w...ly-enforce-it/
Didn't the Nazis ban books too?
Is very uneasy
http://www.breitbart.tv/kagans-own-w...ly-enforce-it/
Didn't the Nazis ban books too?
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Loud City
Christians have been banning books for centuries.
He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman
Originally Posted by David Jamieson
Itinerant practitioner
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:
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.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
Kung Fu is good for you.
Is very uneasy
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.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
O R’LYEH? IA, R’LYEH!
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!)
"The first stage is to get the Gang( hard, solid power). every movement should be done with full power and in hard way, also need to get the twisting and wrapping power, whole body's tendon and bones need to be stretched to get the Gang( hard) power. "
-Bi Tianzou -
Loud City
LMFAO at the irony.
He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman
Itinerant practitioner
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
Kung Fu is good for you.
Bad the Fukc Ass
Thats why I'm a criminal!!!!!
For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.
Is very uneasy
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.
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.
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.
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/Ob...Rating-46.aspx
He's doing that to the economy.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
LMFAO at your inability to read.
I've been critical on multiple issues regarding G.W. Bush.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
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.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Registered User
Well, they were responding to your question.
Didn't the Nazis ban books too?
If you don't like the answers, don't ask the question.
1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne
Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.
Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.
Registered User
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-me...-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.From the actual transcript (which perhaps 1bad65 should read before making inane threads):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.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...eargued%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.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.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.
1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne
Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.
Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.
Seven Star Prophet
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 let me ask, do you agree with Kagan that the Gov't should be able to pass laws banning 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 thebible. They could do a rating system like movies and music though.
Last edited by SanHeChuan; 06-30-2010 at 03:51 PM.
- 三和拳
"Civilize the mind but make savage the body" Mao Tse Tsung
"You're certainly intelligent enough to know how to be a good person without the lead weights of religious dogma." Serpent
"There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do." MasterKiller
"If there isn't a chance that you're going to lose in a fight, then you're not fighting tough enough competition." ShaolinTiger00
BLOG
MYSPACE
YOUTUBE
Registered User
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.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.
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.
1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).
"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne
Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.
Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote