There's Nothing To Fear But...Well, Everything
For example, there's personally going under and losing everything, the country going even deeper into debt than it already is, Obamacare ruining our healthcare system, and the fact that your great grandchildren will be owned by the Chinese. Carol E. Lee writes at Politico:
WEST NEWTON, Mass. - President Barack Obama said Americans' "fear and frustration" is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda."Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. "And the country's scared."
Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his "view from the Oval Office." He faulted the economic downturn for Americans' inability to "think clearly" and said the burden is on Democrats "to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling."
My suggestions? Resign from office and take the Republicans with you.
I think a lot of people feel this way, and I think it's part of why you see more and more libertarian-bashing lately. Everywhere I go, there's a piece on what idiots libertarians are. Well, since the Republicans are the party of pretend small government, and the Democrats are the party of spending like a Beverly Hills heiress to an oil fortune, I see a lot to be happy about in regard to a party for actual small government that wants us to live by Elvis' words, "Do what's right for you, as long as it don't hurt no one."
The Goddess Writes: My suggestions? Resign from office and take the Republicans with you.
Which would leave us to the Tea Party. Apparently, you favor the "out of the frying pan and into the fire" approach.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 12:13 AM
One of the funnest things about being libertarian is that it makes it clear, if only to oneself, that one is too old to be intimidated by irony... Want an example? Here: I think a Libertarian Party is a contradiction in terms. Of course there is such a party, but it doesn't enthuse anybody. Liberals and Republicans are nonetheless frightened enough to preemptively ridicule.
As does the Tea Party, a group of citizens with no mutual attraction but their agreement that you shouldn't buy things you can't pay for. That's it! But detractors, terrified, now talk as if the TP wants to dismantle the schools, dilute municipal water with whiskey, enslave the retarded, and replace traffic lights with slot machines.
If you talk a lot about politics, ten people per day will make snorting, dismissive jokes about what it means to be libertarian. These jokes will have NOTHING in common but the snorting sounds.
It's like Sarah Palin. People who are afraid –or, more typically, "afraid"– ought to be. The rest of us will be cool.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 1:10 AM
What Crid said.
Robert at October 19, 2010 4:54 AM
"I think a lot of people feel this way, and I think it's part of why you see more and more libertarian-bashing lately"
No, that's because they tend to run whackos. If they ran good candidates, they'd get votes. And then, maybe, be able to make a difference. You know, the the tea partiers are now.
momof4 at October 19, 2010 5:37 AM
Aside from the fact that the Tea Party forwards certifiable loons, they're just fine. Like one of them so dumb that she seems to think she can lie about her educational credentials and no one's going to check up on it, and call her on it if she's found to be lying.
And another who wouldn't have supported the civil rights. Unsurprising, considering the racist, anti-semite, homophobic drivel that his father published.
And another so incompetent that she actually did herself no favors and ended up harming herself by debating Harry Reid.
And another so positively creepy that he sends out racist and pornographic emails, including bestiality, and decides to "out" his own nephew, who promptly goes into hiding. Apparently, Tyler Clementi's suicide taught us nothing about the dangers of outing people against their will. (Are you listening, Ray Richmond?)
Yeah, aside from the fact that the Tea Party forwards nutjobs to run our country, there's nothing to be afraid of at all.
And Crid, you're cool with Sarah Palin? I wonder if you'll still think so when she has your favorite books thrown into a bonfire.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 5:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/19/theres_nothing.html#comment-1768030">comment from PatrickI think the problem is seeing the Tea Party as monolithic. How can anybody be against responsible spending in government? That's the message I'm all for. There are going to be loons, dimwits and nutjobs in any political movement, and sure, the libertarians have plenty. But, the general principles seem wise to me (although I don't favor cutting back on our military as much as most libertarians seem to -- although I'm not for nation building or being the world's policeman).
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2010 6:08 AM
Amy, I realize that all movements have their nuts in them. What makes me question their wisdom is in forwarding them as candidates. How about the Tea Party find SANE people as their candidates.
How can you not question a Party that backs Carl Paladino? His actions do not merely reflect badly on himself, but on his supporters. Seriously, what are his supporters thinking? "So, he's a dyed in the wool racist who likes bestiality (but is against homosexuality)? So what?"
Patrick at October 19, 2010 6:20 AM
"And Crid, you're cool with Sarah Palin? I wonder if you'll still think so when she has your favorite books thrown into a bonfire."
Dude, the book-burning thing has been so thoroughly debunked that you can't possibly be taken seriously about anything after spouting that. You're right up there with the truthers and the birthers. Enjoy their company, you've earned it.
momof4 at October 19, 2010 6:31 AM
momof4: Dude, the book-burning thing has been so thoroughly debunked
You wish, honeybunch. But after the librarian informed St. Sarah of Wasilla that no books were banned, ever, St. Sarah responded by threatening to fire her.
On the contrary, you have earned your place among the "useful idiots" of the world.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 6:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/19/theres_nothing.html#comment-1768053">comment from PatrickHow can you not question a Party that backs Carl Paladino?
How can I not question a party that backs our currently elected hairdo, Barbara Boxer?
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2010 6:46 AM
I would question that backed Barbara Boxer as well. But she's 1/10th as disturbing as Paladino. Seems like a rather lame comparison to me.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 6:52 AM
Pointing out that the Dems are difficult to respect does not make the Libertarians and tea partiers easier to take seriously. It's like saying, "Yeah, Snickers have a lot of carbs, but so does bread. Yay Snickers!"
MonicaP at October 19, 2010 6:53 AM
> I wonder if you'll still think so
> when she has your favorite books
> thrown into a bonfire.
Riiiiiiiiight. Bonfires. For books. Because she's anti-intellectual, you know....!
I've also heard that after a book-burning, she likes to drive on her snowmobiles with all her friends down to the county pound, where they poke puppies in the eyes. With sticks.
Because she's mean!
"Book burning." From a political figure in the the United States. That's where your head's at; that's the kind of thing you need to believe about your political adversaries. If you can't make yourself that upset about things, you forget to pay attention.
This is why I resolved, in late '08, to send that woman a check for $1200 someday. It's not that I'm so fond of Sarah Palin... But anyone who sends the idiot left into such mouth-foaming lunacy is to be encouraged.
The woman is magic that way... I'll always wish I had her superpowers.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 8:57 AM
For all his issues, Paladino knows money doesn't grow on trees. That puts him ahead of the alternative in my vote.
Yes, he's an unsavory guy. So what? He's not my friend, he'll never be invited to my home, and if he can just stop the worst of what the legislature does, I'll be a happy guy.
MarkD at October 19, 2010 9:10 AM
Crid: But anyone who sends the idiot left into such mouth-foaming lunacy is to be encouraged.
So, because I point out that she asked a librarian how to go about getting books burned (which she doesn't deny doing, although she backpedaled and insisted it was only an effort to get to know the city employees as Mayor of Wasilla), that means I'm reduced to mouth-foaming lunacy?
I must remember that tactic. The next time you point out anything bad about anyone, I'll simply accuse you of being leftist and reduced to mouth-foaming lunacy.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 9:13 AM
Be afraid of book-burners, Patrick! There's information out there that Sarah Palin doesn't want you to have! Sarah Palin knows that if you read, you'll develop insight and understanding, and she doesn't want you to that!
So she tries to burn books! Sometimes she "backpedals".... Because she's a devious politician! But at least we have you around 'to point out something bad', which is that Sarah Palin so wants to burn books.
Patrick, listen... We can't let the Alaskan Book-burners get a toehold in our culture, or the American Dream turns to shit. So do what you need to do. Feel what you need to feel. We're all counting on you.
To protect us.
From the book-burners. Even if they don't "deny" it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 9:23 AM
"So, because I point out that she asked a librarian how to go about getting books burned"
Pure lies. The lady never mentioned burning, but your leftie friends sure said she did. Just like they questioned 9-11. I repeat-enjoy your company, you've earned it.
momof4 at October 19, 2010 9:31 AM
I mean dude, even SNOPES has it listed correctly. Are you dumber than snopes? Are you? Hey-if a nigerian prince invites you to join his investment plan, say no!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
momof4 at October 19, 2010 9:33 AM
Nobody said "banned", OK, M4? We're talking about burning... Burning books!...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 9:37 AM
how much skin do you have in this game, Patrick?
All the interesting commentary aside, the President of the US just smacked every voter in the US, and told them that they are not in their right mind UNLESS they agree with him.
EXCUSE ME? up yours, buddy! That is stunningly arrogant from a guy who IS STUNNINGLY ARROGANT about pretty much everything.
There is this chance, remote I know, that millions of people ACTUALLY know what is going on, and nobody who is so obviously lying can change that.
Patrick, you are calling everyone loony which is how it seems to you, but what does that make the head honcho? IF he isn't loony himself than he is a cynical liar that knows exactly what he is doing.
which is worse?
SwissArmyD at October 19, 2010 9:45 AM
Momof4, good try...well, not really, since it was so dishonest, but I'm in a good mood, so I thought I'd say something conciliatory.
You snopes link only insists that, contrary to rumor, there is no list of books that Sarah Palin tried to have removed from the library.
I never claimed there was an actual list. And even your snopes link points out (correctly) that Palin asked Mary Ellen Emmons, the city librarian three times about removing objectionable books from the library.
Yet, St. Sarah of Wasilla claims that she was only acting in her capacity as Mayor in an effort to get to know her city employees. When you want to get to know someone, do you actually ask them the same question three times? You must. That's the only reason I can think of for someone swallowing this cockamamie excuse for repeatedly pressing a librarian about removing books from the library shelves.
I change my mind about ranking you with "useful idiots." Since you deliberately erected a straw man and presumed to refute me with a link that actually supports what I said, you're a liar.
Shame on you, Momof4. You claim to be a Christian but you were obviously sick the day they taught the ninth commandment, in Sunday School: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16.
SwissArmyD, oh, you wound me to the quick.
When did I say that I supported Obama? I believe I said before that I did not vote for Obama, and will not vote for Obama. And I agree. It's supremely arrogant to insist that no one in their right mind could possibly disagree with you.
If you want to know the truth of it, the last presidential candidate I actually liked was Ralph Nader. At least he has a tried and true record of public service, even to his own detriment. Something no one else in the political arena has been able to say since then.
If you want to my politics, you're free to ask, but please don't assume.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 10:20 AM
Check this out. Christine O'Donnell is unaware of what's in the First Amendment, and seems to sneer when it's revealed that state-sanctioned religion is forbidden.
Ignorant dumbass.
Nothing scary about Tea Partiers at all...nope. Nosiree, Bob. Just as American as apple pie and hamburger, them thar Tea Partiers.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 10:33 AM
And here's the video of the Palin-endorsed airhead actually demonstrating her ignorance of the First Amendment.
Can she make herself look any worse? As if lying about her educational bona fides wasn't bad enough, now she's shown the world that she doesn't know what's in the First Amendment.
Please. Someone try to defend her. I'm dying to have something to laugh at.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 11:00 AM
What troubles me about Patrick is that he seems oblivious to the fact that his posts reflect and MIRROR in an unquestionably empirical,in-your-face fashion that he himself possesses all these nasty, ugly character defects that he so enthusiastically points out in others. (I mean, I am not immune to them either - but Christ, the hypocrisy in your posts - DUDE.)
Reminds me of a conversation that transpired between me and lovelysoul, once. But even she didn't devolve to the point of Patrick's mouth frothing, teeth gnashing, weirdness. Hey Patrick....SARAHHHH PAAALLINNN - Boo!
How very Andrew Sullivan-ish of you, Patrick.
Feebie at October 19, 2010 11:02 AM
hey now, I am a conservative that actually likes andrew sullivan, and patrick is no andrew sullivan
ron at October 19, 2010 11:14 AM
I am not sure why people are so afraid of the tea party movement. I grew up in middle america and all they do is remind me of the "good old days" where common sense ruled daily activity and politics, and before the ACLU started an attack of the american way of life (really, if you don't like the boy scout pledge, get the fuck out of the boys scouts, if you are gay and don't like the military's gay policy, stay the hell out of the military). Jeebus, f'ing common sense scares only people of the edge of our society who obviously probably have a reason to be scared. If this election does not change the status quo, there will be blood.
ron at October 19, 2010 11:18 AM
ron: Jeebus, f'ing common sense scares only people of the edge of our society who obviously probably have a reason to be scared.
You consider staying out of the military if you don't like the military's ban on homosexuals to be common sense?
Okay. That wasn't a defense of Christine O'Donnell, but still worthy of a good laugh. Thanks.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 11:41 AM
Oh, how could I have forgotten Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Rich Iott, for his endearing habit of dressing up as a Nazi!
Patrick at October 19, 2010 11:59 AM
"If this election does not change the status quo, there will be blood."
As Michael Medved is fond of saying, if you can't win an election, how do you expect to win a revolution? The idea of an organized, armed insurrection in the United States is pretty silly.
I'm willing to accept the supposed weirdness of the occasional Tea Party-supported candidate in exchange for some measure of fiscal sanity. For every O'Donnell there are several Joe Millers and Chris Christies. Anyway, the overwhelming majority of candidates supported by the Tea Party are pretty ho-hum, average people who are simply incensed by the "tax and spend our way to prosperity" philosophy that guides the current administration.
It's not like the Democrats and the GOP don't have their share of scandalous weirdos: Barney Frank, Larry Craig, Elliot Spitzer, Bernie Kerik, Rod Blagojevich, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc. And they both have people who have inflated their credentials, or made them up from whole cloth. (Paging Richard Blumenthal, Marine Corps war hero!)
MikeInRealLife at October 19, 2010 12:06 PM
"I never claimed there was an actual list."
Nope. You claimed she wanted to burn books. We're still waiting for any proof whatsoever of your claim. Dude.
momof4 at October 19, 2010 12:08 PM
"I am not sure why people are so afraid of the tea party movement. I grew up in middle america and all they do is remind me of the "good old days" where common sense ruled daily activity and politics."
This.
The Tea Party is made up of mom'n'pop and grandma too. It is very diverse, the leaders are mostly not the polished politician-types. That latter seems to be what bugs Patrick so much - they are actually human, they screw up publicly and don't have a teleprompter to get them back on track. Like, wow, we may get to vote for real people instead of cardboard cutouts.
I already voted absentee - the rule of thumb: no incumbents, no professional politicians. Throw the bastards out!
We should have done it years ago, but everybody kept voting for the "lesser evil", meaning whichever major party wasn't currently in power. Only in the past few years has it become blindingly obvious that the two major parties are two sides of the same clipped coin. It's now almost too late - in fact, it may very well be too late...
bradley13 at October 19, 2010 12:16 PM
Momof4, you're quibbling over a semantic aspect in your efforts to save face, and you're embarrassing yourself. Banning or burning, the point is, she pressed a librarian three times for information as to how to go about getting certain books removed from the shelves.
Whether she wanted them banned or burned, the result's the same. If in your efforts to save face, you and Crid are going to quibble over what she wanted to do with whatever books she got pulled from the shelves, have at it.
You don't press a librarian three times for protocol on getting books pulled from the shelves because you want to get to know her. Next time, Palin should just invite her to coffee.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 12:19 PM
MikeInRealLife: For every O'Donnell there are several Joe Millers and Chris Christies.
You better hope not.
That would be the same Joe Miller who looks on while his hired thugs handcuff a reporter and falsely accuse him of trespassing because Joe Miller doesn't want to answer questions, and the same Chris Christie who misuses deferred prosecution agreements.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 12:30 PM
heh, funnily enough Patrick, I wasn't trying to cut you to the quick, indeed I wasn't talking about you at all. Except to ask how much skin you have in this game. Even better, I actually voted for Nader once precisely because I thought he would tll the truth, but go figure. Your problems with the tea party make little sense to me, but like MikeIRL, I remember LOTS of flubs from prettymuch every politician...
And for the record Patrick?
O'Donnell is a Republican.
The teaparty isn't a political party in the sense of republicrats, but they may be later...
SwissArmyD at October 19, 2010 12:30 PM
bradley13: The Tea Party is made up of mom'n'pop and grandma too.
If your parents and grandmother are idiots or candidates for the insane asylum, yes.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 12:34 PM
So on the one hand, any minor civic matter can be forgivably characterized as "burning books"... Yet our President is concerned because "we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared".
But it's just a ruse... Liberals are obsessed with things that are "scary." It's easier than making a case for how the world should work.
If a lefty's intellectual life is all about condescension, sarcasm and screechy resentments anyway, why not just call it "book burning"? Who's afraid (so to speak) of a little exaggeration?
> If your parents and grandmother are idiots
> or candidates for the insane asylum
Yes, this is the case against the tea party. You'll see in all mainstream media every day of the year: Anyone who doesn't think public finance is a bottomless pool of wealth is "insane".
It's becoming an increasingly tough sell.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 1:23 PM
"Check this out. Christine O'Donnell is unaware of what's in the First Amendment, and seems to sneer when it's revealed that state-sanctioned religion is forbidden. Ignorant dumbass."
Your posts are so embarrassingly transparent. (I think you really hate smart, sexy, conservative women with the fire of a thousand suns. It is the only logical conclusion I can come to after reading your posts).
O'Donnell was right to question Coons interpretation of the First Amendment.
It would appear that Dem (Marxist) Chris Coons who was asking O'Donnell about the First hasn't a very good grasp on the 1st amendment himself (nor do you) since he MISQUOTED the first amendment (actually, butchered it is more like it).
You, like Coons, void of any rational thought process will go for the jugular in an overzealous attempt to defend your ideological-liberal- straw mans at all costs. Only to find out later, once your white-hot-blind-furry subsides, that you have a half masticated crow rolling around in your ignorant trap!
He said: ”Government shall make no establishment of religion.” When really, the First is " ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
But, like, whatever, your ass-hairs are singed or something...because you really dislike women, Patrick, especially conservative women.
Feebie at October 19, 2010 3:18 PM
The more you read about Coons' exchange with O'Donnell, the more I am left wondering who actually won the exchange. It is apparent that it is COONS that doesn't know the frist Ammendment, and that O'Donnell was speaking in a very narrow way about what the Ammendment actually states... See below:
"Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.
“Yes,” Coons responded.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said."
Yeah, when one person in a debate goes running for the Mods, instead of answering a question... it means they can't, and rather than own up to it, it's whining.
SwissArmyD at October 19, 2010 3:40 PM
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof...." [emphasis mine]
Nothing in there about non-federal governments being required to keep church and state separate. That's a later US Supreme Court interpretation.
Conan the Grammarian at October 19, 2010 3:44 PM
"That's a later US Supreme Court interpretation."
Yes. Based off the writings of John Locke and a letter written by Thomas Jefferson...
"wall of separation between church and state,"
Feebie at October 19, 2010 3:50 PM
Conan, your argument does not address the fundamentals: clearly Coons understands that the amendment implies a separation of church and state (an implication that the Supreme Court agrees with, which you admit) and O'Donnell is entirely ignorant of its contents. Coons' view, incidentally, maps quite closely with the further explications given by Madison and Jefferson on the amendment, whereas O'Donnel's are clearly dissonant with the views of the authors.
He paraphrased, true, but he was pretty much on the money. And judging by the reaction of the crowd, they were clearly shocked that O'Donnell didn't know this. And poor O'Donnell, judging by her reaction, assumed that the gathering was laughing with her, not at her. Hopefully, she now knows better.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 4:02 PM
"O'Donnell is entirely ignorant of its contents. Coons' view, incidentally, maps quite closely with the further explications given by Madison and Jefferson on the amendment, whereas O'Donnel's are clearly dissonant with the views of the authors."
This coming from a Theater major? Uh-huh.
Feebie at October 19, 2010 4:06 PM
So nobody tried to burn any books, and O'Donnell knows as well as anyone what's in the first amendment?
Well!
Patrick?... Is there something you'd like to say to the group now?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 4:26 PM
And least any spinmeisters on this board insist that O'Donnell was being cagey and knew that Coons had paraphrased the First Amendment, I should also point out that the Tea Partiers' favorite apparently doesn't know what's in two other Amendments.
From the link:
O'Donnell also could not answer basic questions about the constitution.
O'Donnell paused when asked if she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.
"The 17th Amendment I would not repeal," she said, before asking the questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me."
Duhhh...Civil Rights, citizenship, due process, income tax...and who believes she actually knows what's in the 17th Amendment?
I wish I'd have been there. I would have made her look like a total ass by asking her if she would repeal that "horrible 19th Amendment." Not that I think it's horrible -- I fully support it -- but she could have easily been led to believe that it's horrible. I'd love to hear her tell the U.S. that she doesn't think women should vote.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 4:32 PM
Crid: ...and O'Donnell knows as well as anyone what's in the first amendment?
No, she doesn't...
Crid: Patrick?... Is there something you'd like to say to the group now?
Yes. You're a jackass. And dishonest. But we already knew that.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 4:34 PM
Well, mmeeee-yow!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 4:41 PM
Patrick you are a petulant, grandiose, narcissistic child.
But don't take my word for it, let us observe the last paragraph of Patrick's book review for Amy on Amazon.
"Finally, I must admit that the book had an especial thrill for me. I was delighted to see that Amy gave her gracious thanks to so many, such as her "posse of blog commenters," including me. I am pleased to report I am the "Patrick" mentioned in the acknowledgements. "
Two words for you Patrick: Malignant narcissist.
Feebie at October 19, 2010 4:45 PM
Crid: Well, mmeeee-yow!
Ah, Crid, you know I love you.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 4:45 PM
The First Amendment doesn't imply anything.
It specifically states that the Congress is forbidden from establishing a national religion. It makes no reference to the state or local governments...by design.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, most states had "official" churches and would have resisted being told they could not have a "state" religion.
Jefferson's argument that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation between church and state" was from a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist church in 1802.
Jefferson's comment was subsequently cited by Judge Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947) as proof that the Establishment Clause was intended to separate church and state.
However, it was Madison, not Jefferson, who wrote the Bill of Rights.
Only since the mid- to late-20th century. Beginning in 1925, the Supreme Court began applying the In at the state level.
In fact, until the 14th Amendment (1868), the courts held that the Bill of Rights represented restrictions on the federal government only and did not apply to the state governments.
And it was not until 1971 that the Supreme Court established the doctrine of "excessive entanglement" to determine whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause.
If you see (or read the transcript of) the entire exchange, you see that O'Donnell is not "entirely ignorant" of the First Amendment.
Coons is imposing his own interpretation of the Establishment Clause. O'Donnell is trying to mock him for his limited (and decidedly one-sided) understanding of the Establishment Clause, but not connecting with her audience well enough to pull it off.
Conan the Grammarian at October 19, 2010 4:50 PM
I can see Patrick really riles up a lot of you. He points out the lying, hypocrisy and general immorality of the right-wing. He's also extremely educated which would causes some of you HS diploma types some envy.
Crusader at October 19, 2010 4:53 PM
That should have read "applying the Individual Rights enumerated in the Constitution"
Conan the Grammarian at October 19, 2010 4:53 PM
"No, she doesn't..." Patrick.
And your proof of this is what exactly? The average person thinks about freedom of SPEECH in the First Ammendment, as that is the way it is often applied. I would bet that most people can;t name which ammendment established the separation of Church and State, such as it is. No doubt you are going to point out that we would hold politicians to a higher standard on this, as well we may, but do we seriously expect that anyone can recite the 17th Ammendment in a debate?
And? The idea of Separation between Church and State is not as clear as you make it in the First:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
OK, where does it say that the Church is not allowed to influence the State? The Document is ONLY about what the government can do, not about anyone else. And it is far less specific about the Church/State interpaly than most people say. It is later judgements that have given more body to the Separation idea.
So, why is it that you are so very sure that O'Donnell hasn't a clue? And that Coons does?
SwissArmyD at October 19, 2010 5:02 PM
How brilliantly convenient....Crusader (up until now , a non participant in this thread) doesn't have much to say about the blogged subject but curiously, steps in on Patrick's behalf.
Hmmmm.
Feebie at October 19, 2010 5:05 PM
> He points out the lying, hypocrisy and
> general immorality of the right-wing.
He's a screechy little guy. But you're a "Crusader" too, huh? (What first comes to mind is item number #8 on the list linked by this handsome conservative.)
Now, is the heroic nickname thing getting out of hand for blog commenters? We already have a "Lovelysoul", whose spirit nonetheless seems dark and depressive. "Mom of 4" might, in some circles, be considered boastful, but we have to excuse literal truths, right?
So what will it mean when commenters start calling themselves Sugargoo or BallsOfCourage or ThunderPecs or MisterIntegrity? Will we assume these men are special people with special decency, or will we think they're deluded little wispies who need to man up and [A] flirt with the girl at the juice cart or [B] stand up with their boss mocks them or [C] make a fuckin' mortgage payment, like they promised?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 5:38 PM
Define "extremely educated." Does he have enough degrees to be a thermometer?
So, he's an extreme student? Is he the Tony Hawk of matriculation? Is he the Shaun White of college thespians?
Conan the Grammarian at October 19, 2010 5:43 PM
SwissArmyD: So, why is it that you are so very sure that O'Donnell hasn't a clue? And that Coons does?
Uh, that would be because he paraphrased it during his exchange with Christine O'Donnell. And although Conan would like to believe that O'Donnell was merely being coy about it, at no point did she correct his mistake.
That and she also admitted ignorance of two other Amendments that I would consider significant. Like the 14th (citizenship, civil rights) and the 16th (income tax).
Did you bother to read the transcripts or watch the video?
And no one's expecting her to recite the seventeenth Amendment. However, a demonstration that you know what's in it would be nice.
Crusader, I would say the only person that I would truly rile up is Feebie. I haven't said a single word to her in months, but I'm obviously her favorite topic. I stop reading any post once I realize she wrote it, but I don't think she's addressed the topic of this discussion even once.
By the way, regarding the intent or what is implied by the First Amendment, I refer you to this 1777 Draft, written by Thomas Jefferson.
If the Church wishes to influence the State, then I would suggest we remove their tax exemption. Even the threat of such an action would shut them up, tout de suite.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 6:17 PM
As for why I'm convinced she doesn't know what's on the First Amendment, a better question would be, "Why the hell does anyone believe she does?"
Because she claimed she did? And the reason we should believe someone who lied about her educational credentials for twenty years would be...?
One point missing from the muckraker site. She not only had outstanding debt, but she also failed to complete a particular required course, but that didn't stop her from claiming she had a degree from Farleigh Dickson...which she didn't actually have until this last summer.
The other two phony claims are even more delectable. But read it for yourself.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 6:39 PM
"Momof4, you're quibbling over a semantic aspect in your efforts to save face, and you're embarrassing yourself. Banning or burning,"
Gee, patty-cakes gets caught in a blatant lie, and in true Obamanite fashion, decides I'm wrong for it. You, my dearie, are a fucking idiot.
momof4 at October 19, 2010 7:01 PM
Momof4: Gee, patty-cakes gets caught in a blatant lie, and in true Obamanite fashion, decides I'm wrong for it. You, my dearie, are a fucking idiot.
Who are you trying to convince, "dearie"? Obviously, you're not so sure of the purity of St. Sarah of Wasilla, or you wouldn't feel the need to have a screeching hissy-fit about it. (How do you manage to type so well while laying on the floor, kicking and screaming? Impressive talent. Really.)
Or do you really want me to believe that you're okay with banning books as long as they don't get tossed into the fire afterwords?
St. Sarah of Wasilla wanted to ban books, whether she planned on having the ritualistic bonfire or not. And you know it. Tee-hee-hee...
Patrick at October 19, 2010 7:08 PM
Who is this clown from DU who's impersonating Patrick on this thread?
Cousin Dave at October 19, 2010 7:51 PM
I would like everyone to show me where in the constitution 95% of the departments exist.
I'd also like to know where Dredd Scott & Jim Crow figured in having to finally be resolved by congress passing the Civil Rights acts. Which is now fucked the other direction.
Jim P. at October 19, 2010 10:06 PM
Crid:"...wants to dismantle the schools"
Well, I do. I have no love of public education for many number of reasons. All they do anymore is cry for more money and still we get "is are kids learning?". No, they're not. Money isn't helping so it is clearly the system.
Anyway, the next two years are going to be interesting. With the feds and some CA law enforcement types saying they won't abide by CA's new pot law if its passed plus obamacare fights you're gonna have 10th ammendment issues driving wedges between states and fed gov.
Even Limbaugh chastized the GOP today on his radio show, that if they don't listen to the people voting them in, a 3rd party will rise up to counter the dems and repubs.
Sio at October 20, 2010 1:43 AM
Conan: If you see (or read the transcript of) the entire exchange, you see that O'Donnell is not "entirely ignorant" of the First Amendment.
I did read it, and I see no such thing. She asked a middle school civics question about the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment. (The traditional answer being religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition, which is an oversimplification, considering religion actually contains two distinct parts: one prohibiting restrictions on the free exercise of religion and the other prohibiting the establishment of any religion.)
She seemed entirely ignorant of the establishment clause, which Coons gave her nearly word for word.
That's when O'Donnell stupidly asked, "Does the Constitution say that?" Well, yes, it does. That's the short answer.
And let's not forget that she even admits that she's totally unaware of the 14th and 16th Amendments. Gee...I would consider the Amendments that established citizenship which overturned Dred Scott and the income tax to be important for our elected officials to know. Wouldn't you?
Perhaps if she actually attended some of the institutions of higher education that she flat out lied about when she claimed she did attend them, she'd know some of this stuff. Although I still think these are all middle school civics questions.
She's an ass. And the voters of Delaware are keenly aware of this, considering Coons now enjoys a double-digit lead. Stick a fork in her. She's done!
Patrick at October 20, 2010 1:46 AM
Hmm...I was expecting some pompous-sounding opinion piece from Charles Krauthammer, maintaining that Christine O'Donnell demonstrated great knowledge in her debate with Coons and proved herself to be a wise candidate indeed, harumph, harumph.
But apparently, some things even Krauthammer won't touch. I'm surprised and disappointed. After defending St. Sarah of Wasilla when she made an idiot of herself on a simple question regarding the Bush Doctrine, I would have thought he'd be willing to defend even the most asinine of public displays.
Patrick at October 20, 2010 1:57 AM
So, Patrick, apparently your entire rational for despising the Tea Party and the millions of Americans who support it is one candidate in Delaware who's almost certainly going to lose. A candidate who was nominated almost solely to knock out the RINO who had been besmirching the right for years. Oh, and a woman who doesn't even hold office anymore. You hate her too.
And above you made the "argument" that you'd rather have Barbara Boxer than Christine O'Donnell. But Barbara Boxer is a leader among the Democrats. She's been in the Senate since when, 1992? She's one of the superstars among the Democrats. She's not some fringe candidate that got nominated because you were sick and tired of the guy you had, and won't be heard from again once she loses.
Meanwhile, you ignore the admitted Marxist that O'Donnell is running against, the former Klansman who was the longest serving Democrat ever, the 16-year Congressman from Ohio who's a certified loon, and the myriad race-baiters, woman-beaters and proud Socialists the Democrats have been happily electing and re-electing for decades. Oh, and Maxine Waters.
The left is nothing but a bunch of fading radicals and fringe lunatics who had their shot, totally blew it (because your policies suck), and are now reduced to crying about all the scary women coming to clean up your mess.
Tom at October 20, 2010 4:18 AM
Tom: So, Patrick, apparently your entire rational for despising the Tea Party and the millions of Americans who support it is one candidate in Delaware who's almost certainly going to lose.
Obviously, you haven't read my previous posts in the thread where I listed the various denizens that make up the rogue's gallery of Tea Party supported candidates. I don't even consider serial liar and constitutional dimbulb Christine O'Donnell to be the worst one. The most repulsive of all is undoubtedly porn-addicted/zoophile/racist/homophobe Carl Paladino. Racist Rand Paul (yeah, sure he's not racist; it's just an uncanny coincidence that he happened to say he wouldn't have supported the civil rights amendment and his father publishes among the most repulsive racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic articles in his newsletter). St. Sarah of Wasilla, who pressed a librarian three times demanding to know how to get "objectionable" books removed from the library...then claimed she was just acting in her capacity as Mayor to get to know city employees...uh-huh...sure. To say nothing of the fact that she's a dimbulb who doesn't know a thing about the Bush Doctrine. Rich Iott and his charming hobby of dressing up as a Nazi. Sharron Angle, who managed to blow an 11-point lead against Harry Reid in seven months. At this point, I would have thought anyone could have beaten Harry Reid. Too bad he trounced her in debate. Good Lord. What's not to love about Tea Party endorsed candidates? They're as huggable as carebears.
And I haven't said I hate anyone. I find them positively creepy, but I wouldn't harm any of them.
Tom: Meanwhile, you ignore the admitted Marxist that O'Donnell is running against,
Coons is an admitted former Marxist. If you want to claim he's still a Marxist, you'll have to forward the evidence. You don't have any proof in his confession.
Tom: the former Klansman who was the longest serving Democrat ever,
Byrd makes me hurl. But conservatives allowed Strom Thurmond to remain in office past his 100th birthday. So, don't try to claim that only Dems have racists. You also have that charming former Grand Wizard of the KKK, David "Sheets" Duke.
Patrick at October 20, 2010 5:11 AM
Christine O'Donnell: I'm not a witch. I'm you."
/channeling Judge Judy/ Ms. O'Donnell, on yoah best day, you are not as smawt as me, on my worst day...when I'm sleeping!
Patrick at October 20, 2010 5:36 AM
David Duke is your (one of) big bad Republican racist. A guy who was Democrat first then nothing more the term on the Louisiana legislature and 3 failed run for offices. Most people remember him is he tried to run for nomination of President and the media picked up his crazy life. He never even had a chance, in the end he had less then a percent of the vote. David Duke is the 2nd string bogeyman of the Mass Media who have a slow day whooo looked who showed up in the middle east at antisemitism rally. His last real relevance in modern politics was way back in the 90s.
Come on Patrick there has to be more bigger Republicans bogeymen. It 's like asking for the name of a great actor and you saying Carrot Top.
John Paulson at October 20, 2010 5:37 AM
@Patrick - Obviously, you haven't read my previous posts in the thread where I listed the various denizens that make up the rogue's gallery of Tea Party supported candidates.
Yes, I read your prior rants. And yes, the Tea Party has backed some less-than-ideal candidates. Many of whom are still going to beat their incumbant leftist opponents. I think that says a lot more about the incompetent, corrupt morons you've been voting for than it does about the people we've nominated.
You can call people racists, take statements and actions out of context, and ignore the plank in your own eye all you want - none of that changes the fact that come Nov. 2, the Tea Party will be the most powerful force in American politics. Enjoy it!
Oh, and if Coons gets a pass because he's a "former Marxist," then STFU about O'Donnell being a witch.
Tom at October 20, 2010 5:55 AM
Tom: Many of whom are still going to beat their incumbant leftist opponents.
Oh, yeah? Which ones? Name them.
Tom: I think that says a lot more about the incompetent, corrupt morons you've been voting for than it does about the people we've nominated.
Uh, whom have I been voting for? Who did I vote for in the last presidential election? You know so much about whom I've voted for, let's hear all about it, Miss Cleo.
Tom: none of that changes the fact that come Nov. 2, the Tea Party will be the most powerful force in American politics. Enjoy it!
Really? I get the distinct feeling that November 2 is going to be a very disappointing day for you. Don't worry. I'll send tissues.
Tom: Oh, and if Coons gets a pass because he's a "former Marxist," then STFU about O'Donnell being a witch.
Okay. I won't say a word about Christine Endora...er, I mean, O'Donnell.
She's going to lose anyway. Big time. And she'll deserve it. Lying about her education, stupid enough to believe she could get away with it...and Constitutional dimbulb.
Patrick at October 20, 2010 6:27 AM
"A candidate who was nominated almost solely to knock out the RINO who had been besmirching the right for years. Oh, and a woman who doesn't even hold office anymore. You hate her too."
Patrick hates women. Period. In and out of the bedroom, he simply wishes we'd disappear. Because, I am fairly certain, deep down he wishes he were one, and nothing gets hate going better than jealousy.
momof4 at October 20, 2010 6:59 AM
Momof4: Patrick hates women. Period. In and out of the bedroom, he simply wishes we'd disappear. Because, I am fairly certain, deep down he wishes he were one, and nothing gets hate going better than jealousy.
Thank you for admitting you're out of arguments.
Patrick at October 20, 2010 7:07 AM
> Momof4: Patrick hates women.
A perspective to be considered in the times ahead.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 9:16 AM
Crid: A perspective to be considered in the times ahead.
Oh, please. She sounds like an Obama supporter. Every single time someone disagrees with Obama, "That's racist!"
Patrick at October 20, 2010 9:37 AM
Child.
Feebie at October 20, 2010 10:31 AM
> Oh, please. She sounds like...
Just twelve hours ago I was on the phone with another woman who comments here.... It wasn't M4. But this woman offered precisely the same opinion in as many words... Unbidden. M4 and this woman have presumably not been comparing notes, but that's who she "sounds like".
Sometimes women see things which men aren't looking for. In the future, it will be fun to watch carefully and see if they're right.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 12:20 PM
That's very interesting, Crid. Did you happen to get her political persuasion? That is, if this phantom woman poster who's apparently afraid to share her opinions with me really does exist...
And has no one anything else to say on topic? Or has the inescapable truth of Christine O'Donnell's failure as well as virtually all of the Tea Party backed candidates reduced us to consoling ourselves with personal attacks on those we hate?
Patrick at October 20, 2010 12:44 PM
I thought the "topic" was burning books, but that seemed to drift away. For some reason.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 12:46 PM
Is the topic about book burning now? I was under the impression it was about the lunatics that the Tea Party insists on backing and you seem to think it's about my soi-disant hatred of women.
Book-burning? You haven't addressed this topic yourself in the last several posts. Perhaps you're to blame for the drift from the supposed topic.
Well, Crid, that's already been addressed. I believe I stated that I have no evidence that Sarah Palin truly wanted to hurl books into the ritualistic bonfire, but the fact remains that she did press a librarian three times about how to get "objectionable" books removed from the shelves.
Palin's justification for this was that her inquiries were rhetorical and "about understanding and following administration agendas."
So, Palin needs this explained to her three times? Well, that might lend support to those who insist on characterizing St. Sarah of Wasilla as a dimbulb. How many times does the poor dear need this explained to her? Three, it seems.
But nasty suspicious misogynist that you seem to think I am, I'm not persuaded. I don't believe one inquires about getting "objectionable" books removed from the shelves, least of all several times, unless one wants to do exactly that.
But perhaps banning literature is okay with you, as long as the traditional bonfire doesn't follow.
Burning? No evidence. Banning? Oh, yeah...
Did you happen to pick up on this time? It's really a mystery to me why someone needs things repeated on a message board, Crid. Most people can scroll up.
Patrick at October 20, 2010 1:07 PM
What you said was
> when she has your favorite books
> thrown into a bonfire.
So you can understand how we get confused.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 1:20 PM
Crid: So you can understand how we get confused.
Not really. And who is "we"? You're the only one claiming confusion over this. For one thing, I had already addressed this, if you look at one of my replies to Momof4, I'm certain you'll find it.
And for another, I'm not sure why you're so concerned about whether or not the bonfire follows the banning of "objectionable" literature. Is there truly a fundamental difference between banning literature and banning it, then burning it?
Perhaps you're a very sensitive type and would find the finality of hurling books into a bonfire to be particularly devastating to your tender psyche. And hey, that's good on you! Sensitive guys? Hey, I'm all for you! Rock on, dude!
For my own part, once books are banned, it doesn't make much difference what's done with them afterward. Either way, I'm afflicted by a mindset that would deprive me of my choice of reading material. The bonfire amounts to little more than "adding insult to injury."
Patrick at October 20, 2010 1:44 PM
And how many books were actually removed and/or banned from the Wasilla library under the rule of Sarah, the book-burning tyrant of Wasilla and all-around scurge of literacy?
None.
Conan the Grammarian at October 20, 2010 2:08 PM
> I'm not sure why you're so concerned about
> whether or not the bonfire follows the
> banning of "objectionable" literature.
I'm not... I never said anything of the kind. I have zero, zero concern that this woman (woman!) is inclined, or can be motivated, to suppress information in such broad ways. It's preposterous on its face...
But that's exactly where your heads at. You have no casual dislikes. If a matter of public can't twist you into spittle-flying anger, an issue cutting to core of human decency, you just don't seem interested. You either want to be the single savior of humanity's virtue, the sole carrier of the codes, or nothing. War war war!
It's kinda tiresome. And a LOT of lefties are like that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 2:17 PM
Conan: And how many books were actually removed and/or banned from the Wasilla library under the rule of Sarah, the book-burning tyrant of Wasilla and all-around scurge of literacy?
None.
Scourge, not scurge. And book-banners aren't necessary scourges of literacy, since they don't need to be against learning to read; only against reading certain things.
I'm aware that no books were banned. According to a witness, Palin was told, rather forcefully, that the books in the library were based on national selection for libraries of that size and that the librarian said, "I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books."
So, just because no books were banned, that is no convincing argument that Sarah never wanted to do so. Sarah might have realized that attempting to ban books might not be prudent.
You choose to believe that St. Sarah of Wasilla would never ever in a million years do such a heinous thing. Fine. Good for you.
I'm not so convinced. I don't understand why she felt the need to press the issue three times, the first time even before she was sworn in, according to the librarian. Why did she, according to the librarian, describe the hypothetical books as "objectionable"? What happened? Was Willow busted reading Harry Potter?
How many times does she need to hear, "We're not taking books off the shelves, honey? Okay? We clear on this now?"
Patrick at October 20, 2010 2:32 PM
Crid: It's kinda tiresome.
I agree. So, why discuss it? You seem more interested in (what you think are) my motivations than in the topic of discussion.
Would you be happier pursuing a psych degree? At least then you could make your analyses among interested parties, and certainly do a better job.
Patrick at October 20, 2010 2:37 PM
> I agree.
Then why must you spazz?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 2:56 PM
Crid: Then why must you spazz?
Given any thought to pursuing the psych degree?
Patrick at October 20, 2010 3:17 PM
Even I once in a while miss a key and don't catch it. At home Safari helps to keep me honest. At work, IE does not.
So, it's what's in her heart that matters, not what she actually does.
Palin's to be condemned for wanting to ban books, rather than be judged on what she actually did as mayor of Wasilla? I see.
Palin's guilty of thought crimes against humanity. Thank goodness we have people like Patrick to keep us safe from barbarians thinking un-PC thoughts. Why, without his vigilance, I might one day leave my house and suffer the indignity of being offended.
When elected, Sarah Palin was a politician with a increasingly evangelical constituency (that's part of what got her elected).
She inquired about removing certain books from the taxpayer-financed public library. [She didn't ask about setting up a bonfire in the town square and emptying the Wasilla Barnes & Noble or dragging anyone who'd checked out said books to a re-education camp.]
She found out that the fight involved would require more political capital than she was willing to expend at that time (i.e., not all her constituents objected to the library's choice of reading material), so she gave up the idea.
Sounds kind of like Clinton's socialized medicine initiative. It wasn't worth the fight he would have had to wage to get it passed (i.e., not all his constituents were willing to accept his wife's version of universal healthcare), so he wisely gave it up. Seems like a pretty prudent administrator to me.
You attribute to me beliefs and opinions I've never had nor expressed.
For the record, I generally don't agree with fundamentalists, be they evangelical Christians or doctrinaire liberals.
And I object to blanket censorship efforts, whether they take the form of banning books or imposing "fairness" in media.
Yeah, Willow was busted reading Harry Potter a year before JK Rowling had even finished writing the first book.
Accurate timelines do matter in character assassinations, Patrick.
Conan the Grammarian at October 20, 2010 3:51 PM
Conan: Palin's guilty of thought crimes against humanity. Thank goodness we have people like Patrick to keep us safe from barbarians thinking un-PC thoughts. Why, without his vigilance, I might one day leave my house and suffer the indignity of being offended.
I see. So, what one attempts or wants to do doesn't matter to you? Only whether or not they succeed?
I can't really go along with that.
If Sarah Palin wanted to ban books, then decided against it only because she would meet with more opposition than she felt comfortable taking on, I'm not going to vote for her.
I'd prefer to cast my vote for someone who's vehemently opposed to the idea, instead of someone who is prevented from doing so.
It's rather ironic, because to me, it would indicate that she considers herself the public nanny, in charge of what people can and cannot have access to...kind of like what you're accusing me of being.
But no, I'm not going to protect you from St. Sarah of Wasilla. You will have to do that yourself. But, like you, I find blanket censorship repulsive. So, if I wish to expose this distasteful aspect of St. Sarah, I will do so...and you'll just have to deal with it...my freedom of speech, you know.
And regrettably, I even have the right to mock her and ridicule for it...which brings me to...
Conan: Yeah, Willow was busted reading Harry Potter a year before JK Rowling had even finished writing the first book.
It was joke Conan. I don't know that Willow has ever read Harry Potter, or that St. Sarah even finds it objectionable. It was one of the books listed on the snopes article that debunked this charge that St. Sarah had a list of books she wanted banned, so I went with it.
It was couched as a speculation, by the way. Not a criteria for character assassination. So lighten up.
By the way, St. Sarah asked three times about getting books banned. You know for a fact that all three of those times occurred before the first Harry Potter book was written?
Patrick at October 20, 2010 4:17 PM
"I'm not going to vote for her."
You wouldn't vote for her anyway, don't kid yourself.
"I'd prefer to cast my vote for someone who's vehemently opposed to the idea, instead of someone who is prevented from doing so."
Vehemently? Not just opposed, but VEHEMENTLY opposed. Huh.
And I'd prefer for the brain-dead amongst us (Patrick) that are incapable of anything above 4th grade level of reasoning be prohibited from voting all together. What if the opponent of the book banner, or the alleged book banning contemplator (who inquired about banning gay lifestyle books directed at children in a fundamental Christian community - context, context...) was a flaming lefty Marxist who would thieve everyone blind?
There is something so odious about this way of thinking. So odious because you are taking your personal resentments into a forum which it DOESN'T FUCKING BELONG.
It's like some of the women I know who refuse to vote for a candidate who is not pro-choice, or who is against teachers unions. Or women who vote only for other women, or only if they support gay marriage...or only....
Fuck the fact the rest of us are drowning in taxes and legislative bullshit- the "all about me crowed" will toss the rest of us under the bus and would vote in Lucifer himself, if it provided them with further personal validation and ego strokes because they lack any courage and integrity to find a way to provide these things for themselves.
CHILDISH. You are a Child, Patrick.
Feebie at October 20, 2010 4:48 PM
Only if the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, isn't lying. She told the hometown newspaper, The Frontiersman in December 1996 that Sarah Palin had asked her three times about removing objectionable books from the library.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was first published in England on June 30, 1997. It was retitled and published in the United States in October 1998.
Asking about it isn't attempting it. And, since I cannot read her mind, I will reserve judgement on what she "wanted" to do. She never actually attempted it.
Hell, we don't even know what books she had in mind or what she was thinking when she asked about it.
According to the press release by the McCain campaign, Palin asked the questions in response to a constituent's inquiry about removing a book to which he objected and Palin wanted to know what the process was. Why she felt the need to ask three times is a mystery.
Conan the Grammarian at October 20, 2010 5:04 PM
The (three times harassed!) librarian, Emmons, was an open supporter of Palin's opponent and openly supported him over Palin during the re-election cycle.
Also, the former mayor, Stein, had hired Emmons for the librarian position.
http://www.adn.com/2008/09/04/515512/palin-pressured-wasilla-librarian.html
Feebie at October 20, 2010 7:02 PM
Conan: According to the press release by the McCain campaign, Palin asked the questions in response to a constituent's inquiry about removing a book to which he objected and Palin wanted to know what the process was.
I wouldn't ask about the process at all. I would find the most tactful way I could to explain to the constituent that we do not ban books and that it falls to him to avoid reading books he objects to, or to monitor his child's reading if that's his concern. But it is not for St. Sarah of Wasilla to keep a book from an entire community because one person objects to it, or even if the entire community objects to it. It is the privilege of adults in a free country to insulate themselves and their children from what they object to. If they're advocating censorship, the poor dears need to find another country. The U.S. of A. is not the nation for them.
Adults need to be adults and take responsibility for themselves and their children. The government is not their hired nanny.
And as for St. Sarah, I can indeed object to her banning books. And if enough people object, it might even deter her from attempting to do so. Unfortunately, I cannot excise the part of her brain that made her it was a good idea. Which is one reason, among very many why I would never vote for her and do everything in my power legally to keep her from being elected.
The librarian was spot on in this case, she said that she would resist any attempts to ban books. And unfortunately for St. Sarah of Wasilla, the librarian would likely have the law on her side. Public libraries are a federal government program. St. Sarah, as mayor, has no authority whatsoever to demand that certain books be removed.
Patrick at October 20, 2010 7:10 PM
I don't know why you guys are being so thick-headed about this. Sarah Palin is obviously a bonfire-minded monster. Can't you see it?
Listen, she wants to diminish the human experience at this most base level. Don't you understand? Look at the way she's lived her life! She wants nothing more than to control the flow... Not just the flow of information, but the flows of complete ideas, into young minds. SHE WANTS TO BURN BOOKS, and this is why she must be resisted.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 7:30 PM
> Public libraries are a federal
> government program.
What's the program called? I've heard of the Los Angeles Public Library and the Jacksonville Public Library and the Terre Haute Public Library, but....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 7:31 PM
Crid: I don't know why you guys are being so thick-headed about this. Sarah Palin is obviously a bonfire-minded monster. Can't you see it?
Hush, child. People are entitled to their opinions and can support St. Sarah of Wasilla if they wish. Even if she is a monster. Run along and play. /pat, pat/
Patrick at October 20, 2010 7:36 PM
Bonfires, Patrick! We need your insight to protect the BOOKS!... To protect the books from MONSTERS!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 8:23 PM
I'm trying to fathom how Sharron Angle managed to blow such a significant lead over Harry Reid. I would have thought that Harry Reid would have been toast.
Personally, I think it was her utterly idiotic choice of favorite Supreme Court Justice: Clarence Thomas.
Brilliant, Sharron. With two words, you just alienated the pro-choicers who resent Thomas for being pro-life. And even more damagingly, you just alienated the minorities who see Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom and hypocrite for his anti-Affirmative Action position, despite the fact that Thomas himself, by his own admission, would not have succeeded without it.
If Thomas is against Affirmative Action, but admits he could not have succeeded without it, shouldn't he have resigned?
Maybe Thomas should be more concerned with the harassing phone call his wife made to Anita Hill.
Perhaps the GOP was overconfident in choosing Angle. They figured that Harry Reid was toast anyway, so they could send in anyone and still will. Sadly, they underestimated seasoned politician Harry Reid.
I thought the question about Reid's finances demonstrated rather well what a dimbulb Angle is. Everyone knows where Harry Reid got his money. Why is it such a mystery to Angle?
But let's try to get the children in on this discussion. Crid, what do you think? How did Sharron Angle manage to ruin her impressive lead over Harry Reid...in only seven months?
Patrick at October 21, 2010 1:42 AM
I guess no one's going to refudiate my assessment of St. Sarah of Wasilla.
Patrick at October 21, 2010 6:54 AM
Patrick is a reoccurring legend in his own mind.
Feebie at October 21, 2010 11:10 AM
Cornell law professor says O'Donnell was right.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-if-christine-odonnell-were-right.html
Conan the Grammarian at October 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Leave a comment